Talk:IslamOnline

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 December 11. The result of the discussion was keep.

Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Mid‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Qatar Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

AFD

The result of the AFD was keep. However, the article does not read like an encyclopedia article, and will need some rewriting in order to gain an encyclopedic tone (refrain from using "us" and "our", for instance). Feel free to remove {{unencyclopedic tone}} when the problem is fixed. --Core desat 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Multiple citations of the same Alexea article and to the subject's own website are being used to inflate the apparent notability of the subject ... I tried to use proper {{cite web}} tags and deleted the copyrighted material, but someone reverted the edits ... this article is a [[WP:COPYVIO}copyrigt violation]] with most of the material copied from http://www.islamonline.net/English/AboutUs.shtml so I'm notifying the administrators by adding a {{db-copyvio}} tag on it ... there are no WP:RS citations of notability, and they have also removed the {{unencyclopedic tone}} tag even though nothing has been done to improve the article since the AfD was closed. --72.75.72.174 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on afd and got the consensus of keep. so please dont use afd or speedy deletions tags. try to improve the article if u think its copyvio, dont just blindly remove it change the tone and write it in a sensible manner.regards. Mak82hyd 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after checking, it is indeed a copyright violation, as almost all of the text is lifted directly off the website (I just didn't catch it earlier). I listed it on WP:CP as such. It might be a good idea to work on a non-copyvio rewrite on a subpage of this page, and have it moved to the article space when it's finished. --Core desat 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations

Why do you insist on making mutiple distinct external links to the subject's own website look like different citations? Do you have something against using {{cite web}} tags? And the repeated links to Alexa violate WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided because they're just Links to search engine results pages. —72.75.72.174 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to remove copy vio

I have worked on the article in temp and removed copyvio stuff and changed it as an article. please check it and remove copyvio stuff. Mak82hyd 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still need a little work, because it still has text directly from the website. A better idea would be just to summarize what the website is about. Also, the Alexa stuff really isn't needed (they could potentially hurt the article, as it would indicate to some people that the article is trying too hard to assert notability). --Core desat 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to put alexa stuff coz it was in AFD for notability. put the article back and put a cleanup tag and ill do it soon. Mak82hyd 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know for future references, Alexa ratings do not prove WP:WEB.--Sefringle 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted cleanup

I posted a stripped-down version (from a reverted edit) at Talk:Islamonline.net/Temp#Alternative proposal ... the References section includes the notes from the first proposal, so only 8-11 would appear in this version. Note that I have changed the external reference of "article discussing IslamOnline.net and Yusuf al-Qardawi at length" to a {{cite web}} reference for one of the assertions in the article, and even found a WikiBio for the author ... now there is only one Alexa ref instead of three (multiple references to the same source does not increase notability; a single link is sufficient, if properly placed), and only two ref's to the subject's own website instead of four, although it still looks like they're blowing their own horn. —Dennette 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the second templete resolves the WP:CP problems and is acceptable. It is also more encyclopediac. However, some of the information stated in the first version is appropiate, just needs to be stated slightly better.--Sefringle 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a third proposal: Talk:Islamonline.net/Temp#Third proposal. It combines some of the information from proposal 1 and two. I think it is better than the first proposals, but i am not sure if it resolves teh WP:CP problem.--Sefringle 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments (more later) ... Reference #14 should be the same as #8 (their About Us page) ... I think that having a "Traffic rankings" section is a Bad Idea, as it opens the door to a VERY slippery slope of granting "notability" to "popularity" ... in other words, it's OK to say it, but not to call attention to it ... and the "Goals" section brings Too Much from the webpage, considering almost a full paragraph is quoted earlier ... I think that three paragraphs with no section headings is a sufficient STUB article until they get some WP:RS coverage. --Dennette 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple changes, like removing the "traffic rankings" per your suggestion, but I kept the goals section, because it is relevant. What we should do is paraphrase it in a way that is not a copyvio. Clearly, more coverage from other websites needs to be clarified in the article before it meets wikipedia standards.--Sefringle 07:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx! ... to avoid confusion in the references while reading the different versions, I have eliminated the duplications in favor of using already defined "name=" tags ... when the final verion is agreed upon, the original {{cite web}} tags can be recreated in the appropriate places. (Now, is the original author ever going to come back and address this agin?) --Dennette 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution seems to be the second proposal, with the third proposal's first paragraph. The references would need work, but that can be cleaned up later. --Core desat 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Who is this guy? The Guardian article by Whitaker (the only reliable source citation for the subject article, BTW) says of him, "He also supervises IslamOnline.net, one of the largest Muslim websites." ... but he's not mentioned in the Islamonline.net article, nor does his article mention Islamonline.net ... what's up with that?? --Dennette 23:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad ... I must have either vapor-locked or mistyped the website name in the search window when I looked on his page (blame it on my clipboard) ... but there still aren't any Wikilinks from his article back to this one ... just an external link to the website. --Dennette 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremism in the Arabic section

While praising it for having "credibility and distinction" and mentioning that it's one of the two most popular Islam-related websites on the internet can we also mention that it supports killing civilians? Here: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-Arabic-Ask_Scholar/FatwaA/FatwaA&cid=1122528609048

and probably in other places. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderates forced out

http://wire.antiwar.com/2010/03/25/moderates-forced-out-of-top-islam-web-site-2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.117.126 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page feel's biased. Anon

Clean up

I attempted to clean up the article of somewhat rogue statements that seemingly had no point in being there as well as some editing for better readability. Additionally, the article seems to focus to mutch on Alexa rankings and not so much on what is actually on the website.