User talk:NickCT: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive I: Aug, 2009- Jul, 2010

can you review Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:List_of_Colors and see if you still agree to keep? Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV and do not re-add the tag. If you still have concerns, raise them on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Neutrality
		For working hard to keep bias out of the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

So kind Noleander! Thanks v. much. NickCT (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here [1]: a fork of Template:Muslims and controversies footer . Thank you! Mootros (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here a year now. This is wrong. If you hate Apples, you cant link "stupid" on the Apple article, see what I mean.

You can link things in See also only if they are directly related to an article and where you're not pushing a POV. You dont want people to start linking Criticism of Muhammad on every Muhammad related article, right? Its the same thing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt - Two points

I was trying to reflect views held by a number of groups (see [2],[3]).

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is. Can you perhaps enlighten me as to what you consider Islamophobia? Or perhaps your POV is that it doesn't exist? NickCT (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same kinds of WP:OR arguements could be applied to defend the inclusion of a see also of Criticism of Muhammad at Military career of Muhammad, and all other Muhammad related articles (since a number of groups and people are critical of Muhammad). Do you agree we can have them there? And that death threat is not a "contention", its a fact, mentioned in sahih Hadith multiple times, you know that. Its not a matter of Islamophobia not existing, thats not the issue here. The issue is: If you're ok with Islamophobia being linked as a See also at that Council article, then you should also be OK with Muhammad's criticism being linked at all his articles. Agreed? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57 - Sidebar perhaps. Footer no. As long as no footer exists for the other Abrahamic religions I can't help but feel that Islam is being singled out.

I wouldn't really oppose a sidebar, as it would be hard to argue that the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims isn't critical of Islam. However; I might offer one counter point, which is; should we put Criticism of Judiasm on Nazi? NickCT (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about a footer or sidebar. I'm talking about the See also section. Why should we not link Criticism of Muhammad at Military career of Muhammad, in the See also section? Or is that ok? Its KB, looks like. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. When I read "Criticism of" I assumed we were back to discussing the footer issue. I've reread your post. I think we really have to refer to RS on this matter. If you consider say Sherman's March; this is a subject about which there is a lot of contention in RS. Some arguing it was legitimate warfare, some arguing it was the first example of modern war crime. In cases where significant "criticism" of this nature exists in RS, it's probably OK to add "Criticisms of" in "see also".

So, to answer your point; I know little about the Military career of Muhammad, but if there is significant scholarly RS which is critical of his military career, than yes, Criticism of Muhammad would probably appropriate. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your standard is if there is "significant scholarly RS which is critical" of the article topic, then we can link it in the See also section. So where's the "significant scholarly RS" that justifies you linking Islamophobia to Central Committee for Ex-Muslims? On a less-important note I find it funny you have an atheist userbox on your userpage but all of your edits are pro-Islamic / anti Islam-criticism.

To apply your other quote: "In cases where significant "criticism" of this nature exists in RS, it's probably OK to add "Criticisms of" in "see also".", you and I know that there is a tonne of criticism about Muhammad, from scholarly reliable sources (they're all reliable, otherwise that Criticism article cannot include that stuff), so it should be OK for us to link Criticism of Muhammad to all the article topics where he has been criticized. He has been called a warlord and pedophile, womanizer and so on (to sum up the reliable sources). So any article that has to do with these areas should link to the Criticism article, according to your logic here.

The point is, the same (faulty in my opinion and it shows WP:OR/Synthesis) reasoning you're applying to link Islamophobia on that Central Committee for Ex-Muslims can be applied to many other articles. Now to come back to another thing you said previously:

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is.

For you to say that the statement "ex-Muslims are under a death threat" is Islamophobic and hence Islamophobia should be linked there, is WP:OR. You should know that because you've been here a while since 2007. We dont do anything that is OR. We only say what reliable sources say, directly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57 - You've made a number of points. Let me try to address them 1 by 1

1) So where's the "significant scholarly RS" that justifies you linking Islamophobia to Central Committee for Ex-Muslims

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims isn't really a well known organization. I think it probably just barely passes WP:NOTABLE. As a result I don't think the bar is very high on what might qualify as "significant". If I were to want to put Islamophobia in the "see also" section of The US Congress, I would have to provide more "significant" RS.

This is no criteria: "Central Committee for Ex-Muslims" is small so we can list the articles silly/crap over there. What I mean is this. Notability is only important when we're deciding to keep/delete an article. Linking Islamophobia as you did in the way and as you justified yourself is OR, as I explained. You have to 1) provide an RS 2) stay away from OR, no matter how big or small the subject of an article is.

Yes obviously you must avoid WP:OR regardless of the importance of a subject matter. That's not the point. The point is the amount and quality of RS required for lesser subject is lower.

And your job is to prove using multiple reliable sources that Ex-Muslim council is an Islamophobic organization, otherwise what you did was a violation of WP:OR.

2) atheist userbox on your userpage but all of your edits are pro-Islamic / anti Islam-criticism

(chuckle) - Are you implying I'm a secret Muslim? No. I am much very an atheist and happen to believe all religions are equally silly regardless of whether you're worshipping Yaweh, Ala, Jesus, Ganesha etc.... The keyword there though is "equal", and I approach WP with a strong emphasis on WP:RNPOV. I happen to think that WP suffers from a degree of systemic bias against Islam primarily as a result of the fact that there aren't many muslim editors, and there are a lot of editors who probably have latent predijuices against muslims. The "pro-Islamic/anti Islam-criticism" can probably be attributed to a desire to mitigate this systemic bias (be it real or percieved).

If you think they're all silly, you should do some anti-religion editing too. I did see one of them so I'll admit that. Anyway its still puzzling why most of them are pro-Islamic. But again this isnt important as compared to the other issues here. If you have a few good edits that are critical of Islam let me know. I didnt see your whole history in any case so I probably missed them.

I think my statement above about there being "systemic bias against islam" explains why I actively seek to eliminate anti-Islamic POV material from WP.

Really? Have you see this? The problem on WP actually is, systematic bias for Islam. Thats 65,000 edits right there for you and tonnes like that go on every day with no one to watch over them, including one that you made, by linking Islamophobia there. Are you sure now that Wikipedia is anti-Islamic? I think our work should be to clean up the mess that Jagged_85 has created by editing 1000's of page with pro-Islamic bias, while grossly violating rules such as making up references or falsely quoting them and so on. Thats the problem here and there are many editors who continue to show that pro-Islamic bias while violating policies and preventing dissemination of actual information about Islam. This goes on constantly here.

3) I know that there is a tonne of criticism about Muhammad, from scholarly reliable sources

Again, I'm not much of a scholar on Muhammad, so I'll have to believe you. I would mention here though that obviously hundreds of thousands of RS exist that address Muhammad. If you can only present a handful that make the "warlord and pedophile, womanizer" assertions, I'm not sure that really qualifies as "significant". If on the other hand, there are dozens and dozens of RS making any one of those claims, than sure, add it under the "see also" section. I guess the point is, since Muhammad is such a widely known topic, the bar is quite high on level and quality of RS you must present to link under the "see also" section.

You have to believe me? Why dont you read the Criticism of Muhammad article to see how much he's been criticized? Once again its suspicious that you're minimizing the criticism and calling it "insignificant" at the same time you're professing to be an atheist. You did say that all religions including Islam are 'silly' so, I guess its ok.

But ok. I see your point. Yes Muhammad is a huge topic and so we must list only the biggest Reliable Sources there and so on. But again to come back to the topic, for you to say "They're claiming there's a death sentence, and I think thats Islamophobia and I'm going to link it there", is OR. This is the main topic of this whole discussion.

Look dude, a lot of RS exist critizing a lot of religons. Just because your culture happens to be one which critizes Islam, it doesn't mean you should try to write that POV into WP. I'm sure a number of Imams have "talked smack" about Christain's belief in Jesus. I'm not sure that critisism is "significant" in the context of Christainity itself.

Christianity is not the topic here. I dont have any faith system, so the term "my culture criticizes Islam" (seems like an anti-Christian statement) is not true. I don't for one second dont believe that you're an atheist. You've already said you're here to wipe out "anti-Islamic bias" which is strange. There is no such thing as an atheist where all his edits are pro-Islamic and he cant provide a single edit where his edit was critical of Islam. And we dont have to shy away from saying that. We all know we come with our own internal points of view, critical or favourable. What matters is that we follow Wikipedia policies. Thats how the whole Criticism of Muhammad article was made. My point is, we should be honest about our beliefs so they match with what they're editing but I know this isnt a requirement here. I can profess to be a Muslim for that matter but it would be strange if all my edits were anti-Islamic.

4) "ex-Muslims are under a death threat" is Islamophobic and hence Islamophobia should be linked there, is WP:OR. You should know that because you've been here a while since 2007. We dont do anything that is OR. We only say what reliable sources say,

Sure. But let me offer a few counterpoints. A) Like it or not, you can't completely banish an editor's judgement when making an article. WP:OR doesn't suggest an editor can't do things like categorizing based off his/her judgement. A lot of stuff which is obviously true isn't explicitly stated in RS, or isn't easily found in RS. Would you suggest that we should scower every article for "see also" links which RS might not exist for and erase them? Wouldn't you accept that there are probably a few "see also" links which are appropriate & accurate but might not have good RS to back them up? B) As I mentioned above, a couple groups have made the Islamophobia claim, so it's not like I'm pulling this from thin air. C) I'd still like to get your opinion on whether you think it level-headed and neutral to go around saying "European muslims kill people who try to leave their faith"? (note, obviously I realize your opinion constitute WP:OR, but humour me).

Alright, then. Is it OK for me to say this: "Quran contains violent verses (9:5, 9:29 etc) and so I should link Violence or Destructive cult there". I'm exercising my judgement here too, right? "A lot of stuff which is obviously true isn't explicity stated in RS, or isn't easily found in RS." <---- Dito. So lets link Violence at the Quran article.

Those couple of groups who made that claim of Islamophobia: What was the exact claim made? Who are these groups? Are they reliable sources? I can find 100 more groups that claim that Quran is full of violence. Do you get my point now.

"European muslims kill people who try to leave their faith" This is false. This is not what the article said. It said "Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam, Jami said.". I'll let you see what the differences are in those statements. But even if thats what the article, the OR issue still exists. For us to decide that someone saying "Euopean muslims kill anyone who leaves Islam" is Islamophobic and hence we should link Islamophobia there, is WP:OR.

Again, the Quran is a fairly significant subject. The quality and quantity of RS you'd have to provide to suggest that the Quaran is intrisically violent, is far greater than that I have to provide to suggest the Central_Committee_for_Ex-Muslims is Islamophobic. I think you understand that the Central_Committee_for_Ex-Muslims is trying to make the point that European muslims seeking to leave thier faith should fear reprisal. I don't why you won't accept this point.

Who are these groups? Are they reliable sources? - I provided links. Look for yourself.

Ok. [4]. Who is Islamophobia Watch? Are they a reliable source? Maybe you contribute to the site, I'm not sure. The article says "As we've already pointed out, the Council of Ex-Muslims is a complete fraud." - are these the extremists you're saying are reliable sources? "so-called ex-Muslims", that site says. Only a Muslim says an ex-Muslim is a "so called" ex-Muslim. They use Western names to gain credibility. The author is definitely a Muslim, I will assure you of that. But the point of this again is: How are these sources reliable? The 2nd link you gave [5] (notice how I'm formatting the links. The way you did broke the thing and I fixed it): I did not see anyone here saying the Ex-Muslim group is Islamophobic. Did I miss anything?

I forgot to respond to this:

I think you understand that the Central_Committee_for_Ex-Muslims is trying to make the point that European muslims seeking to leave thier faith should fear reprisal. I don't why you won't accept this point.

I'm sure you've seen Apostasy in Islam. Yes, ex-Muslims live under a death threat. Multiple Sahih hadiths (you know very well what they are) and Imams and scholars have all supported the death sentence for ex-Muslims. This is exactly what Ehsan Jami said at Central Committee for Ex-Muslims: "Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam". But again for you to link Islamphobia there because you think this statement is Islamophobia is OR. Once again, thats the reason for this discussion. Please provide multiple reliable sources that label the Council of Ex-Muslims as Islamophobic, or you should admit that your edit was OR and equivalent to me linking Violence at Quran. Also there is no such thing as "Quran requires more reliable sources for Violence being linked there". All articles require reliable sources equally, period.

5) Thanks for the debate. While I think your reasoning is flawed and probably slightly predijuiced by religous sentiment, you points are at least cogent and your debate is dialectic (something that WP often so sorely lacks). NickCT (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, thanks for calling my reasoning flawed. Allow me to say that actually its your reasoning that is flawed. Seeing that you like (dialectic) debate, hopefully you're fine with me being straight up with you. The problem again is your quote:

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is.

So once again, for you to say that the above is an Islamophobic statement and then link it in the See also, is: 1) WP:OR 2) like me linking Violence in the Quran article because "If Quran 9:5 and 9:29 arent promoting violence towards non-Muslims, I dont know what is". Tell me why I would be wrong to link Violence at the Quran article.

1) WP:OR - I provided sources

2) Obviously you're cherry picking verses from the Quaran to make it fit your preconcieved notions. But if you were able to find a good quantity of high quality RS that make the same point, sure, like Violence to the article.

The sources are unreliable. The 2nd source doesnt say anything. Please explain why the sources are reliable and relevant.

Likewise, you're cherry picking statements from unreliable organizations to further your own point of view that supports that Islamophobia should be linked from that Ex-Muslims page.

Of course there are reliable sources that connect Quran to violence. They're all listed at the Criticism of the Qur'an. One should be forthright about the faith they believe in and their edits would tell that in case they dont want to.

I replied under your points if thats ok. This isnt a small problem. Your approach is problematic for all the edits you've done and are doing for Islam related articles. You have a severe anti Criticism-of-Islam attitude and thats ok, but you're injecting OR into articles, and thats not ok. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to think of it as a severe WP:RNPOV attitude. And again, WP:OR means you are generating an idea or fact independently. That's not the case. NickCT (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, WP:OR means you are generating an idea or fact independently. - you got that right. Now you have to prove that the way you linked Islamophobia was not OR (that is the primacy focus of this discussion). Look at your original statement: "The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is." -- how is this not OR? As mentioned above, please prove this statement is not OR, but supported by multiple reliable sources. And then maybe we would have a case for that link. I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. As I said, what you did is like me linking Violence in the Quran article. I encourage you to read this part of the policy you linked: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs.". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]