Talk:Islam: What the West Needs to Know

message: Why is the word "claims" not used in Wikipedia?  Where does it say that?  I'm just curious because I never heard anyone claim that claim cannot be used before. Nortonew 00:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for acceptable and unacceptable uses.--Pecher 08:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per that reference, I'm reverting to my version that uses "claims". It is an entirely appropriate word where someone makes highly controversial assertions. --Lee Hunter 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only your POV that the assertions are "controversial." The Wikipedia policy states that we should not imply doubt or smear a viewpoint.--Pecher 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly my POV. Read the Taqiyya and Jihad articles and you'll see that they are taking highly contentious positions. --Lee Hunter 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's original research. Anyway, we are supposed not to smear an opinion.--Pecher 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research? I'm afraid I don't understand. The Jihad WP article, in particular, has been exhaustively discussed, annotated and sourced. The link you yourself provided gives an example of acceptable use ("George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks") which is similar to what is in this article. --Lee Hunter 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the jihad article have to do with this one? If you want to use it as source, then please recall that other Wikipedia articles should not be sources. The George Bush example is about a statement by a public person; here we quote opinions of experts on a certain issue.--Pecher 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, using the term "experts" for the people in the film may be inappropriate. I looked at the Wikipages on them and none of them had a PhD in Islamic studies, history of the Middle East, or anything else as far as I could tell.  One of them had a masters degree, but considering that there are plenty of PhDs in the world, it seems as if a mere masters would make him a rather poor "expert".  It looked like most of them could be better described as "activists" than "experts".Nortonew 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Re. the Jihad article, I was drawing your attention to the fact that the opinions expressed in the film (or at least as they are described in this article) are not necessarily shared by mainstream writers, therefore using the word "claims" is certainly appropriate. --Lee Hunter 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "claim" certainly isn't appropriate, especially its irritating repetition, as if there were no other synonyms in English. You seem to be trying to make two contradictory arguments at the same time. First, you say that the usage of the word claim need not imply doubt, citing an example of George Bush's statement. And then you say that the commentators' viewpoints are out of mainstream, so it's appropriate to use the word "claim" because it implies doubt. So, may I draw your attention once again to the fatc that Wikipedia policy does not allow to smear a viewpoint by using words that imply doubt, including the word "claim".--Pecher 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "claims" 

message: Do you really believe that the tagline is part of the title? I'm certianly not going to get in an edit war over such a trivial matter, but this seems like a pretty obvious call to me. Kaldari 07:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagline 

message: I'm reading a review now by Andrew McCarthy on NRO which indicates that Spencer makes pretty much the same points in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades). 
Perhaps we should move the "points" section in the West Needs to Know into the "views" section of Robert Spencer. We could then merge the West into the author article or even reduce it to a redirect.
The main thing about Spencer, his documentary and his book is that he blames Islam itself (i.e., the religion, its scriptures, etc.) for the violence of latter-day terrorists. Now he may be wrong or me may be right, but those are his views. --Uncle Ed 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is not Robert Spencer documentary.  It is Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly 's documentary. Thus your points are not applicable. And I fixed your link, its a superb book , have you read it?--CltFn 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book making same points

message: This web page  looks very similar to our Wikipedia article. 
*Are we doing a copy vio?
*Should we summarize Spencer's views? --Uncle Ed 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie is in six parts, that's why there is six points. Other than that, the actual content seems different enough. --Lee Hunter 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...different enough to still remain acceptable as a promotional blurb.--Kitrus 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Six points from web site

message: Could someone please revert Mr. Anonymous.  I'm already at my three-revert limit for the day.  CJCurrie 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: I think the term Dar-el-Harb is correctly translated as house of war. It's opposit is imo Dar-el-Salam, which means house of peace.
203.82.60.209 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Translation 

message: i see both a problem with the links/reviews being inserted and also a problem with those links/reviews being removed... i think we should try to sort the review box in a more arranged manner as done with other films that have mixed statements about them... i also feel that we should try to establish the notability of reviews done by movie selling websites and the person making the review... for example this disputed review seems like a serious publication hosted by a registerd incorperation. the reviewer has a response email and a fairly impressive biography regardless of the ridiculous photograph... seems like a legit review.. i'm not saying it should be at the top of the reviews, but i don't see why it should be automatically deleted. Jaakobou 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the Daily Herald review wasn't just reviewing the title of the film.  The anon's decision to remove it smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  CJCurrie 02:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All i see there is "This movie doesn't want viewers to be educated. Just scared enough to act on intolerance." I'm afraid i can't find the link to this ref to check what else is written there that might be worth registering. Jaakobou 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line you've quoted is significant to the writer's opinions, and should be retained.  (And do you honestly think that we should avoid the inclusion of strongly worded negative reviews on the project?)  CJCurrie 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No section of any Wikipedia article should consist of an unannotated list of lengthy quotations, so I don't think it's viable to have the Reviews section remain in that format, regardless of what order the quotations are in. We need to move to a summary of what the reviews said, with citations and appropriate, short quotations. By all means, edit what I put to ensure NPOV, but I don't see what you describe as "the "almost fully agreed" upon version" as being anything like what a Wikipedia article should be. Bondegezou 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current problem/warring about links/reviews 

message: ====the source - dvd movie Central====
Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a quiet, unassuming affront to all the values the West holds   most dear, and suggests that those values may prevent us from recognizing what we face until it’s too late. Whatever the future holds, we can no longer say we were never warned. DVD Movie Central http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/islam.htm
====the debate - dvd movie Central====
leave your comments here:
* this page here, doesn't make me overly comfortable about using this review. considering there's no bio on the person, and i have no information on the company, i'd rather we not use it. unless we make a "independent reviews" section or some other type of subsection compromize... and i suggest this only because this film has been banned on mainstream, best i'm aware of it. Jaakobou 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD Movie Central

message: leave your comments here:
* this page here, doesn't make me overly comfortable about using this review. considering there's no bio on the person, and i have no information on the company, i'd rather we not use it. unless we make a "independent reviews" section or some other type of subsection compromize... and i suggest this only because this film has been banned on mainstream, best i'm aware of it. Jaakobou 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the debate - dvd movie Central

message: ====the source - dvd talk====
I found Islam: What the West Needs to Know to be very informative. It doesn't try to over-dramatize or sensationalize its material; it doesn't need to in the least. I had always held to the idea that Islam is peaceful and that terrorist Muslims were fanatics, not representative of their faith. Certainly that's a much happier idea than the idea that a major religion in the world is fundamentally violent. But I'm not one to shy away from re-evaluating my ideas... especially when I recognize that my previous opinion wasn't based on any facts. While I'm still interested in reading more about Islam from other sources, I found this documentary to go a long way in challenging my preconceived ideas, by presenting material directly from the Koran and experts on Islam. Highly recommended. DVD Talk http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review.php?ID=28654
====the debate - dvd talk====
leave your comments here:
* source seems fine to me, reviewer has a bio page, and seems like a proper reviewer - in general my eyes are a tad tired, so i haven't read the review (again) to remember what it actually said, so if there's anything special that should be noted on why it should be left out. i'm all ears. anyway, my "vote" is to keep it in once we get consensus. Jaakobou 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, (i) the film is not "banned in mainstream" (whatever that means ...), (ii) "is featured on 2 Oregon Radio stations" and "operates own podcast" does not equal "notable", (iii) being an English Lit professor does not make one's opinions inherently important.  I still can't see why we're even considering returning this.  CJCurrie 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, explain to me why the other reviews are more notable than the "most widely read DVD publication of its kind". Jaakobou 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CJCurrie, in case it was not clear, i'm still waiting for your reply here. Jaakobou 10:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The most widely read DVD publication of its kind" is a vacuous, meaningless slogan.  CJCurrie 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you really avoided talking about the other reviews. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the other reviews currently listed in the article are from credible publications (unless "Knight at the Movies" has been returned ...).  CJCurrie 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD Talk

message: leave your comments here:
* source seems fine to me, reviewer has a bio page, and seems like a proper reviewer - in general my eyes are a tad tired, so i haven't read the review (again) to remember what it actually said, so if there's anything special that should be noted on why it should be left out. i'm all ears. anyway, my "vote" is to keep it in once we get consensus. Jaakobou 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, (i) the film is not "banned in mainstream" (whatever that means ...), (ii) "is featured on 2 Oregon Radio stations" and "operates own podcast" does not equal "notable", (iii) being an English Lit professor does not make one's opinions inherently important.  I still can't see why we're even considering returning this.  CJCurrie 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, explain to me why the other reviews are more notable than the "most widely read DVD publication of its kind". Jaakobou 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CJCurrie, in case it was not clear, i'm still waiting for your reply here. Jaakobou 10:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The most widely read DVD publication of its kind" is a vacuous, meaningless slogan.  CJCurrie 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you really avoided talking about the other reviews. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the other reviews currently listed in the article are from credible publications (unless "Knight at the Movies" has been returned ...).  CJCurrie 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the debate - dvd talk

message: i am a bit concerned with the lack of respect i am receiving, from both non anon. editors, as a fellow editor by what could be regarded as a POV attempt to push reviews that are against the film to lead the article. to make my statment clear i'm noting the current intro to the reviews section:
:"Many reviews criticised the film as being inaccurate, simplistic and biased against Islam. It has also been critiqued as being boring."
this type of editing is very much a non neutral way of starting off a review of any film regardless of how terrible it may be... please, help make this article encyclopedic and work for consensus rather than tag-revert to the way you prefer it to be and please help make the work on this article less confrontational so that we can get it over with and move on to other projects. Jaakobou 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  force editing 

message: The intro is poor and adding the opinion of movie critics, as if they are scholars is misleading.  the intro should be clean and factual. needs improvement.  Additionally, the word "nature" after Islam adds nothing to the sentence,  " Islam's nature using passages from the religious texts."  and the mention of "using passages from religious texts" is superfluous because it is stated in the Synopsis, where it belongs.  As written, the intro gives the appearance of adding a sentence to set up a rebuttal.  Any rebuttal to the content should be in its own section, a Response section, as one would fine in other articles. The Fahrenheit 911 entry is a good example because its intro, properly.  does not contain any negative critcism of the controversial film   Whosewho 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro to article  

message: i suggest making this article much cleaner and less opinionated by formating the article like other documentary film entries.
this can be done by having a straight description of the project and adding a "Response" section to the article.  i.e. like Greenwald's Iraq for sale. 
Also the film has a new cover art that needs to be added and a new dvd distributor. Whosewho 05:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The model used for other documentary films seems very useful. I also remain keen to see this article move away from being a quotefarm. I fail to see any explanation for Jaakobou's continued reversion of the article's Review section back to an unannotated list of lengthy quotations. Jaakobou, would you be so kind as to put forth your reasoning, taking into account standard Wikipedia guidelines? Bondegezou 12:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response section 

message: considering no effort for consensus was being made and editors use such logic as "you can't be serious" and "I stand by my previous decision.", i am forced to revert, what could be considered as WP:OWN/POV pushing. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't understand edits which ignore both the concern raised on the talk page and also revert back improvements to the article intro (and delete added images). JaakobouChalk Talk 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "i stand by my decision." 

message: I am glad we include their review in this article. It is really important to know what the local papers in Duluth, Minnesota are saying about this film. Especially when most biased liberal encyclopedias would be telling you what the Chicago Tribune or some other discredited rag has to say. No, I am glad that we stick with good patriotic 'murrikan fair and balanced news. <eleland/talkedits> 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gwinnett Daily Post 

message: This review is cited as [6]:
Others considered the film to be important[6][7]
I would like a quote from the source to verify that is taken in context and reflective of the review, but it has gone offline and I can find no caches or reprints. If somebody has a copy, please send it to me. <eleland/talkedits> 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing the archived version of that dead link, Jaakobou. However, the story does not say that the film is important. It says (well, implies) that the film raises important questions. Not the same thing. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i didn't write that version. anyways, fixed now. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think other editors should be aware that in the midst of the latest series of edits Jaakobou has made to this page, inserting highly POV phrasing, he has requested page protection for this article. This seems to me an abuse of the page protection process, since it means that barring any edits from other editors, his version of the page will be the one to be protected if the request is accepted. Tiamut 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thankfully, the request has been declined . I would note however, that is disturbing to see an editor make a series of edits that others have repeatedly disapproved of, and that in anticipation of having those edits once again removed, resort to pre-emptively calling in the cavalry, so to speak. I hope that this kind of misunderstanding and/or manipulation of Wiki safeguards will be avoided in the future. Tiamut 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadlink http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/15746693.htm 

message: is there any reason to suspect these tv interviews to be non reliable? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was BlessSins at work as usual, removing valid content due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This says there's no ban on linking videos. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically I can link any video I like - no matter how unreliable - to this article?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The TV interviews might be copyrighted. If thats true, we might have to keep the links off, although they're real good links. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eleland just said that yesterday. Ofcourse, he/she was ignored, and reverted.Bless sins (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright situation here is 'fair use' of a film related interview -- placed as an external video link. please go over WP:YOUTUBE. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use does not encompass such uses, Jaakobou. We may use small portions of the film for commentary on the film. We may not use copyrighted material about the film for commentary on the film (unless that material was itself somehow highly significant to understanding the film). <eleland/talkedits> 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: i'm actually addressing this question to CJCurrie, and it also includes all the other adjustments of the 'minor' revert. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: don't you think this is an example of fair use? JaakobouChalk Talk 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphatically not. It's a facilitation of a copyright infringement on another website - such links present legal risks for Wikipedia and can't be included. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tv interviews 

message: Both references are dead for the quote.  I couldn't find another source verifying such claim.  Shall I delete? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boring quote dead source 

message: Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims
After viewing the film I can't honestly say there is anything truly discriminate other than the fact that it criticizes Islam. And right below the Islamophobia link sits Criticisms of Islam, a far cry from such a pejorative link. According to this article, its source material is cited directly from the Quran and Islamic scripture. While there might be disagreements with the way they interpreted these verses/ideas/etc..., it was hardly Islamophobic.  If this is the standard for Islamophobia, then there are plenty of more articles where we can insert this link.   Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning behind Islamophobia external link 

message: Hi I find the following to be useful information about Muslim scholars on  extremism and terrorism in general. PLease consider adding the section with follwoing links:
Islamic scholars on Extremism and Terrorism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrryds (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You've already been given a final warning to stop spamming. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links