Talk:Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah

Dispute over criticism section

Itaqallah has deleted important parts of the criticism section which I have resotred. For example he deleted

The commission drew the scientists to its conferences with first-class plane tickets for them and their wives, rooms at the best hotels, $1,000 honoraria, and banquets with Muslim leaders — such as a palace dinner in Islamabad with Pakistani President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq shortly before he was killed in a plane crash. Ahmed also gave at least one scientist a crystal clock.

on the ground that "the article [the quote comes from] does not infer anything about its significance in influencing anyone."

But following this discription of nice things the scientists got, the article also quotes the scientists saying “It was mutual manipulation,” he says. “We got to go places we wouldn’t otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to what they were publishing.” It does not specifically say we got to go to the best hotels, banquest with muslim leaders where the places they got to go, but I put it to you it certainly infers it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your inference is original research. It is also completely irrelevant, why does paying for their accomodation and meetings suggest impropriety on the part of the commission (and if it doesn't why on earth is it in the criticism section?), or where does the source say that this was part of their attempt in luring scientists? There's a vague quote from one individual who doesn't specify what he meant, and neither does the article link it in any way. The link and implications which the article makes, clearly suggesting that non-Muslim scientists were wooed or bribed by these facilities as part of the commission's "tactics", is entirely of your own doing. The reality is that the article offers no criticism of that. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The inference is obvious to anyone and does not constitute original research. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me. Why don't you explain, in clear terms, precisely where the article criticises the commission for providing what has been quoted. ITAQALLAH 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH I'm sure you are very experienced with the finer points of wikipedia regulations and very determined to minimize and gut articles that put Quranic Miracles and their suporters in an unflattering light, but I don't think you are going to get away with this. The criticism of the article is that a "A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam," of which 800,000 copies have been distributed, quotes scientists as saying something - or states that they believe something - that several scientists deny saying or believing. You could say that is the criticism and the statements saying, "It was mutual manipulation, ... We got to go places we wouldn't otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to what they were publishing," and the list of nice things the scientists recieved from the commission, show how conflict of interest took place, even if they are not specifically criticism. This is a newspaper article not a procecution legal brief.

Do you seriously think you can get away with deleting the quote because it does not speicifially "criticise the commission for providing what has been quoted."????

If you want a revert war so be it.--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to report issues neutrally. If they mention criticism, it must be explicitly verified in reliable source. You seem to be ignoring this, and are "very determined" to insert your own original research. To put it in your own words, '[d]o you seriously like you can get away' with patent original research and source manipulation? I have no problem with criticism being mentioned, but at represent the sources responsibly. The attempt to connect the 'mutual manipulation' with the "hotels etc." description is unfounded, they are not mentioned anywhere near eachother, and the article does not attempt to make any such link there. So please tackle my direct, succinct request to you that I made above, so you can show this isn't your own personal synthesis. "If you want a revert war so be it" - Let's be a little more mature in trying to resolve this dispute, shall we? Thanks. ITAQALLAH 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered your "question". This is not original reaearch or source manipulation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you have provided an answer to my request. I'll clarify exactly why I'm asking this... WP:OR quite clearly says: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." and "However, care should be taken not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." [Emphasis mine]. So I'll put it to you again: Why don't you explain, in clear terms, precisely where the article criticises the commission for providing what has been quoted. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. I've requested Wikipedia:Third opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hey guys, I saw this on WP:3O. I just read your arguments and am now going to read the article and look at the history. I don't know much about this subject, so hopefully I can provide some unbiased assistance. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie-dokie, here's my attempt. First, please do note that I am, again, not an expert on this topic. However, I've read the sources cited, the article, and tried to find some more information regarding this topic. All that being said, I am am amateur and if you do not agree with what I posit, please feel free to request additional assistance, disagree, burn my apartment down, whatever. But hopefully I can provide some insight.

• First, following a read of this article, I read articles that may be similar in topic, such as Intelligent Design, a featured article here on Wikipedia (specifically relevant is the Criticism section). From there, I was able to find Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, which may be similar to the Commission discussed here. I noted that the Discovery Institute's article has a well-referenced criticism section citing reliable sources. What I would recommend is to peruse those sections and the manner of writing (which I find admirable) and emulate that here.
• Second, while verifying the "Wall Street Journal" article, I ran into a few problems. First, the citation in the notes section says "Wall Street Journal", but when I clicked on it I was led to an internet discussion forum. The discussion board had a link to MSNBC. This link was dead. So, I tried to find the article on my own. Unfortunately, the only copies I was able to find were also on discussion boards or radio talk show archives (Reasons to Believe, Online Discussion Board). Then, I tried to access the WSJ site directly. However, it required me to register with my AMEX card....well, I'm recently unemployed so I declined that :). This means that I am unable to verify that source reliably. If someone has WSJ access, then perhaps s/he could take a look at it? I do note that WP:V tells us to try and utilize sources which are peer-reviewed and have a reputation for rigorous fact checking. My opinion is that "Arabica", the linked source, does not have this reputation.
  • I further note, however, that the article referred to makes a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Zindani (tying him to terrorists), instead of directly refuting his claims. This leads me to believe that the article may be an opinion piece. Again, I do not want to criticize the source heavily, but I feel that it is a worthy point.
• So...my suggestion is that a criticism section may be warranted. However, I recommend following WP:NPOV, which declares that opinions should be sourced to a reliable claimant, in this manner: "Lazulilasher, a long-time New York resident and notable food-critic for "I love to eat magazine", believes that H&H makes the best bagels" Additionally, I recommend this little snippet: Let the facts speak for themselves, which indicates to me that if we can verify the claims, we should resist adding value judgments.
• Finally, as I am unable to verify the WSJ source, my opinion is that it should be removed pending verification.

So, there it is. Again, I will restate that I am merely an amateur new-comer to this sort of thing. Thus, please do not think I have any authority or know what I am talking about. I am only adding my Third Opinion, which may differ significantly from others, be completely wrong, or be irrelevant. If you have any further questions or requests, please do not hesitate to leave a note here (I've watchlisted this page) or on my talk page.

I sincerely hope that this helps smooth over this disagreement. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The WSJ article mentioned, "Strange Bedfellows" is not an opinion piece, its reportage and reportage on an issue with numberous websites but little commentary outside of blogs.

1. Getting the text of "Strange Bedfellows" is a pain unless you can find it on a library database, which is what I did. I can paste the article for editors to look at, though I supposed we should be careful of copyright infringement.
2. Since the article appeared, Mr. Zindani has been declared a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" by the US State Department. The WSJ article appeared shortly after 9/11 attack on the city, in fact the neighborhood, where the WSJ is located which may explain why they thought Zindani's close ties to bin Laden were a relevant to the assessment of his character. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to BoogaLouie: Hmmm...thanks for your reply! Well, that's an interesting piece of information. I am able to verify it here (see page 3) in a Congressional Research Service Report. So, that seems valid to me. Now, how to integrate this in the article? I tend to agree that being listed as a "Global Terrorist" is, perhaps, relevant to the topic of Zindani, and to a lesser extent, to this article. Could we figure the statement of him being designated as a terrorist when we mention him? Does that sounds agreeable? This would "let the facts speak for themselves" and then we could remove much of the criticism section as his designation would lead readers to their own conclusions. How do you guys feel about that idea?

Again, I do still hold that the WSJ source should be removed until it can be verified. I did read the piece on the linked website, however that piece does not mention the WSJ (unless I'm missing something--I tried to perform a search on that site). You're correct to be concerned about copyright vios....hmm...realistically we should always assume good faith, but the source is disputed and I am inclined to be suspicious of it because of the references which I noted above.

Let me know what you guys think. Hopefully we can reach an agreeable compromise. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

These aren't the areas of dispute which precluded the request for WP:3O. The dispute can be seen in the above section, and it pertains to a specific passage that has been quoted in the article - that is the central issue I'd like your feedback on Lazulilasher :-) ITAQALLAH 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I apologize, my reply was convoluted. I'm a rambler. Let me clarify. I suggest that the quote in question be removed--pending verification and, additionally, while the article in question does have a negative tone, it does not seem to assert any outright impropriety (I may be incorrect, if so, please help me by demonstrating where). In its place, I suggest that the fact that he is designated as a "Global Terrorist" by USTD be mentioned with his name. What do you guys think? Lazulilasher (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate in Zindani's biography. It doesn't really pertain to the commission or its activities, as far as I can tell. ITAQALLAH 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Reply to Itaqallah: I think, for NPOV of the organization, the history of its founders and current leader should have a mention -- i.e. Dr. Abdullah al-Muslih is also quoted here re: suicide bombings. It is common to briefly discuss the key figures in an organization. Removing the quote/criticism and replacing with a small mention of the key members' activities seems like a reasonable compromise to me. In other words, we could edit out the contentious claim and add what I've suggested. I feel this balances the argument. Alternatively, if BoogaLouie finds it agreeable, we could keep that information in the members' articles, as Iqtallah suggests. What do you think, Iqtallah and BoogaLouie? Lazulilasher (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your involvement here Lazulilasher, but I think we are getting a little off subject. The revelance of Zindani being designated as a "Global Terrorist" IMHO is not that it should be mentioned in the commission article, but that WSJ was not betraying biased in mentioning his conenctions to bin Laden.

As for verification of the WSJ article will my pasting it on this page do? I hope the article will not be judged unverifiable because it is not available for free on the internet. This would raise the bar of verifiablity very high indeed and illeminate the use of most books as sitations for wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...ok, let's forget the idea of adding the terrorism issue, as it seems you both don't want that. I think the issue about the WSJ was that it did not specifically criticize the actions of the committee--i.e. that it does not implicitly state that the clock, $1,000, etc were significant in influencing anyone. Is that correct? Lazulilasher (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Could the quote be removed and an external link be given to it? Does that sound appropriate? Because I have to concede that Itaqallah's comments seem reasonable: the article doesn't seem to assert criticism specifically. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean providing an external link to the WSJ article? (I'm sure this article does that already?) In any case, you could probably make the suggested change to the article and see how it floats.

Yes, my argument is that this quote has been taken out of context, the article does not use this passage to suggest impropriety on the part of the Commission, so it would be inappropriate for us to do so. ITAQALLAH 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is what Iqtallah wants. My fear is that an important issue will be removed from the article (what the actual conflict of interest was with scientists) not because it is some subtle manipulative systhesis of sources or original research, but because the article's author thought it was so obvious any fool would understand it and there was no need to spell out "THE GIFTS GIVEN TO THE SCIENTISTS INTRODUCES THE POSSIBLITY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST".

As an alternative, since you both agree the quote is not specifically a criticism could the section title be changed from Criticism to Issues or Questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not presume we know the author's intentions and psychological processes. If he wanted to attack this point, he would have done so. If it's truly important, as you believe it is, then surely the author would have explained clearly instead of passing over it without comment.

A title like "Issues" or "Questions" is rather vague, and likely a euphemism for "criticism." If this title is being suggested to as to broaden the scope so that we can include more content that 'implies' negative things about the Commission (such as a so-called conflict of interest) rather than declares them, then I disagree with such a change. Unless any real significance of this quote is proven, I think it should be removed. ITAQALLAH 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is "presuming we know the author's intentions and psychological processes" there's no point in further discussion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what you're doing by alleging that the author thought this point too obvious to mention. ITAQALLAH 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Issues" or "Questions" is "rather vague"? "Issues" or "Questions" broadens the topic to answer your objection that the quote can't be used because "criticism" must include statements specificially criticizing the commission, the subject of the article.

Let me spell this out: what we have is a list of goodies made available to scientists

The commission drew the scientists to its conferences with first-class plane tickets for them and their wives, rooms at the best hotels, $1,000 honoraria, and banquets with Muslim leaders — such as a palace dinner in Islamabad with Pakistani President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq shortly before he was killed in a plane crash. Ahmed also gave at least one scientist a crystal clock.

followed five paragraphs down by embryologist Gerald Goeringer saying “It was mutual manipulation, .... We got to go places we wouldn’t otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to what they were publishing.”

if you don't think a reader is going to find that an "issue," and if you don't think the author didn't think it was an issue because there isn't a pedantic explanation of how this might have constituted conflict of interest, ... I don't know what to say. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are inventing your own context for that quote. Yes, the one scientist's speculation about "mutual manipulation" is a full five paragraphs below this quote, in a totally different section. You are trying to link them together to suggest impropriety. Not even the article does this. Clear cut original research. ITAQALLAH 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Reply I do think the quote should be removed. I think it would be more appropriate if we create an external links section and link to the piece. Further, the article should be linked directly--as there is no assertion in the link provided that it is from the WSJ. This way the important issue of criticism would still be available to interested readers, although we would not be required to interpret the article ourselves. Does this seem fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazulilasher (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reply to my suggestion? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, Lazulilasher. ITAQALLAH 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this, we create an External links section which has this entry: Suggested criticism of the Commission and remove the criticism section? Do you think that would work Booga? This would give our readers the ability to read the article in full if they desired. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I'd prefer ITAQALLAH's version. Do either of you have a reply to my suggestion? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Booga, if you prefer Itaqallah's version, then it would appear that we have reached consensus to remove the quote. If that is the case, I think we can consider this issue resolved. Do either of you object to that? As it now appears that we all agree to remove the quote. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we have not. I prefer Itaqallah's version to yours, but I don't agree with Itaqallah version for the reasons stated in my reply above - speaking of which do you have any reply to it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, I misunderstood your comment. I'm a little confused. Regarding the quote, can we agree to remove it and provide an external link? I feel this is fair because it would allow interested readers to read your article. On the other hand, it would prevent us from interpreting the information. The piece here would then address your fears, Booga, by providing access to those who are interested. Wikipedia readers could then make their own interpration. Regarding the renaming of the section, I concur that using a term like "Issues" is a euphemism for criticism. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not agree to remove the quote from the article. That would remove an important explanation of what was meant by the comment: “It was mutual manipulation, .... We got to go places we wouldn’t otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to what they were publishing.” Good luck job hunting. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an explanation of the "mutual manipulation" claim, it's mentioned completely separate from the quote you are trying to use. The way you are suggesting the disputed quote be used is inappropriate. ITAQALLAH 11:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Citecheck

what are the "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

cite 1 and 2 are both primary sources. Cite 3 and 4, 7, and 8 are unreliable sources. The only cite that is both verifiable and reliable in the article is cite 6. Yahel Guhan 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously have a problem with using the website of the commission as a source for what the "commission describes its mission as"? or when someone became its head?

Do you seriously consider Pervez Hoodbhoy an unreliable source?

And what is the problem with using islamonline as source for how many International Conferences the commission has organized? This is bordering on the absurb.--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing name of criticism section

Editor ITAQALLAH has complained that the quote from the WSJ story on the commission should be deleted because it does not specifically criticize the commission. And in fact the article could be construed as a criticism of the Western scientists rather as much as the commission or maybe both. Consequently I am changing the section name to the more general "Controversy". --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think both myself and Lazulilasher said that would be inappropriate, and an attempt to keep in passage which is rather irrelevant. We both also agree that the passage itself should be removed. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You may also note that changing the title to controversy has no bearing on the fact that the quote isn't relevant - it is you who is suggesting the criticism/controversial significance of the quote, not the article. ITAQALLAH 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote is highly relevent and there is nothing inappropriate about calling a controversy a controversy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Reflection?

Hey all. Apologies for being absent the past few days. However, I've been reflecting on this issue here. One thing I've noticed is that the article appears to be, well, honestly a bit sparse and negatively focused. For instance, if we're going to have a "Criticism" section, perhaps there should be a sort of advocacy section? Or a section describing the organization's findings? As it stands, I must state that the article, as a whole, focuses too largely on criticism (half of the article regards "criticism")...what do you guys think? Also, as regards the WSJ quote in question: I do not think we should provide the quote, or attempt to explain it. Again, I feel an external link would be sufficient. Let me know. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree... I do get the impression that the focus is largely negative. ITAQALLAH 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is it written that any organization, person or other subject of a wikipedia article will have an equilibrium of postitive and negative? Lots of organizations, people or other things generate more criticism than complements. In any case anyone is free to find whatever praise there may be for the commission. I have found very little written about the commission besides stories on its conferences and in Western sources that WSJ may be one of the only articles. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, why are you doing this? Take my advice and call it quits, or you'll regret it.206.126.82.250 (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the Cafearabica-link; instead I placed a link to the same article at the wesite of the California State University; that makes the source more reliable.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have added the recent information of Prof Kroener, as it further explains the situation of the involved scholars. WilliamBillyB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC).