Talk:Secular Islam Summit

message: Here's some conversation Jeff5102 and I were having. Let's continue it here now if we're to do so.
====Re: Primary sources====
Even though secondary sources would be better, I think you did the right thing in expanding that section so we have an idea what actually went on! Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you! I still got some other ideas for the article, but I'll write them down later on the discussion page.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Re: the edit to Haddad's comments - can you suggest another way of phrasing it? "Extreme in their anti-Islam views" seems like a reasonable paraphrase of "extreme in their views...basically it's everyone known for damning Islam." If we omit the latter part it is unclear and may convey the impression that she believes the speakers to be very Islamist or something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the best thing to do is to expand the quote. I know you like small quotes, but in the way you put it, I think we have no other option. I still think that we should include some context on Hadad's emplyer. It would put the remark somewhat more in context. And for the speakers: the old site presents them here. Maybe it is useful.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm totally find expanding the quote! Do you want to do that or shall I? As for Haddad's employer, I'm not opposed in theory, but there are a couple of issues - 1, the potential of synth (since we need to get it from a source that isn't about the summit, and if we're going to do that, there's a lot of other information we could also pull in about her that doesn't aim to discredit her) and 2, the particular phrasing used gave the impression of Haddad as a representative of an advocacy organization that simply happened to be based at Georgetown, when she's a professor there (and also the author and/or editor of several books on the subject published through academic presses), ie. an expert commentator. Re the list of speakers - I think we used to include it but someone else removed it, and I don't remember what their reason was so I don't want to restore it myself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's relevant; it's a report of an extremely local dispute in which one party to the dispute happened to mention the summit. (Who is Jeff Katz that we care what he had to say?) This is not really coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The hypocrisy isn't convincing either. You are proposing the changes, so it's up to you to convince people. Or shall we, once again, revert to the pre-Roscelese version of the article? That's easier for the rest of us than your interminable POV pushing. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, the insertion of synthesis about Haddad and the removal of the content of her quote are both innovations. The least you could do for these policy violations is gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  C/P from Jeff5102's talk page 

message: Even though secondary sources would be better, I think you did the right thing in expanding that section so we have an idea what actually went on! Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you! I still got some other ideas for the article, but I'll write them down later on the discussion page.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Re: the edit to Haddad's comments - can you suggest another way of phrasing it? "Extreme in their anti-Islam views" seems like a reasonable paraphrase of "extreme in their views...basically it's everyone known for damning Islam." If we omit the latter part it is unclear and may convey the impression that she believes the speakers to be very Islamist or something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the best thing to do is to expand the quote. I know you like small quotes, but in the way you put it, I think we have no other option. I still think that we should include some context on Hadad's emplyer. It would put the remark somewhat more in context. And for the speakers: the old site presents them here. Maybe it is useful.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm totally find expanding the quote! Do you want to do that or shall I? As for Haddad's employer, I'm not opposed in theory, but there are a couple of issues - 1, the potential of synth (since we need to get it from a source that isn't about the summit, and if we're going to do that, there's a lot of other information we could also pull in about her that doesn't aim to discredit her) and 2, the particular phrasing used gave the impression of Haddad as a representative of an advocacy organization that simply happened to be based at Georgetown, when she's a professor there (and also the author and/or editor of several books on the subject published through academic presses), ie. an expert commentator. Re the list of speakers - I think we used to include it but someone else removed it, and I don't remember what their reason was so I don't want to restore it myself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's relevant; it's a report of an extremely local dispute in which one party to the dispute happened to mention the summit. (Who is Jeff Katz that we care what he had to say?) This is not really coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The hypocrisy isn't convincing either. You are proposing the changes, so it's up to you to convince people. Or shall we, once again, revert to the pre-Roscelese version of the article? That's easier for the rest of us than your interminable POV pushing. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, the insertion of synthesis about Haddad and the removal of the content of her quote are both innovations. The least you could do for these policy violations is gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Primary sources

message: The recent edit war appears to be over the mentioning of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding as being the organization in which Georgetown professor Yvonne Haddad is a core faculty member. The URL http://acmcu.georgetown.edu/faculty/ was added to the article as a reference.
I don't see the necessity for this webpage URL in regard to the article. The summit is not mentioned on the webpage, making it irrelevant to the topic.
The edit warring over the connection between Haddad and the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding is less obviously answered: should we tell the reader her affiliation? I have no opinion about that; it could go either way. One view would be that the wikilink to Haddad's bio is ample to establish who she is, while the other view would be that it is a convenience for the reader to state the affiliation directly. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the wikilink to her name and the reference to Georgetown is probably sufficient...besides Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understand is kind of a mouthful. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that the source doesn't identify her as belonging to this organization, but rather to Georgetown. It's verifiable that that's where she teaches, but only from sources that aren't about the summit, making its inclusion synthesis that's fairly obviously intended to undermine her commentary and paint her as a Saudi activist instead of a scholar. We could also include, just as verifiably but likewise only from unrelated sources, that she's written and edited a number of well-received books on Muslims, published with various reputable academic presses, and that she's known as a scholar of the subject. But we should do neither. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding]] 

message: The article states: and Hasan Mahmud (an expert on Islamic law).
This implies that that Hasan Mahmud has formal academic training, and/or position at an academic institute or think tank on Islamic Law. Under closer investigation he has no formal training on this subject or expertise other than self claim and a few books. It is suggested that the wording should be and Hasan Mahmud ("an expert on Islamic law"). in quotes to show that it is a claim and not a stated fact, and makes it consistent with his personal description on his wikipedia page: []  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.135.13 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not personally familiar with his credentials, but you're right that the sources don't back up the scholarly credentials that the phrase implied. Thank you for catching that. The description in the source is "director of Shariah at the Muslim Canadian Congress" - I'd rather use that than quoting a self-promotional phrase. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, putting "expert" in scare quotes is not encyclopedic.  The title Roscelese gives is much better.  — kwami (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  hasan Mahmud as an expert on Islamic Law