Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Partisan and extremist websites

Introduction

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites:

“

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals, and their activities, and even then should be used with caution.

”

This sub-page of the MOS is aimed at identifying those sites. Here is the procedure.

Add a specific web-site, with url, to the "Nominations" section. Sign your name under the site if you agree that it should be evaluated.
If "enough" (not defined) people agree on the nomination, it will be moved to the "Discussions" section.
If and when consensus is added, the article will be moved to the "Consensus list".

Nominations that are not regarding a specific web-site will be removed.

Consensus list

Discussions

http://www.answering-Islam.org

Alright, considering that there are no established protocol, ill be bold and move this up to the discussion section.

Here are my arguments, the site is:

mostly anonymous
not peer viewed
not scholarly
of course, a partisan and extremist websites

--Striver 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also add some from WP:WEB, which are also valid for site notability:

The content itself has been NOT the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

--- ALM 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, im not sure if web is applicable. Does a site need to be notable to be quoted from? I doubt it... this needs input from multiple editors. --Striver 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site is partisan but not extremist. It is certainly not scholarly and written by unrecognized amateurs, and for that reason should be used very sparingly as a source. - Merzbow 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremist is something very strong. Trying to get Muslims to leave Islam does not fall under that category. Arrow740 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your view, is http://www.answering-christianity.com a extremist site? --Striver 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with their arguments against Christianity, either personally or as a wikipedia editor, though they seem to rely primarily on the Old Testament, which I think is only effective with certain strains of Christianity. The denial of 9/11, however, puts them in a different category from Answering-Islam.org. I suppose that makes them extremist. Arrow740 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would make an Islam-critical site "extremist" in your view? Care to give a direct example? --Striver 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying all anti-Islam polemic sites are not extremist. I'm sure you can find an example of one that is extremist, and when you do I'll agree with you. Arrow740 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out your definition of it. It will be hard to reach a consensus if we do not understand eachother. So, how do you define a "extremist" anti-Islamic site?`--Striver 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a list of criteria. Websites can be evaluated on a case by case basis, like you're trying to do with this page. Arrow740 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Very scholary website see http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/index.html --Java7837 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very 'scholarly' website? Are you sure?

http://www.faithfreedom.org

Here are my arguments, the site is:

mostly anonymous
not peer viewed
not scholarly
of course, a partisan and extremist websites

--Striver 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. - Merzbow 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "of course" indicates the difficulty you would have if you tried to show it to be extremist. Arrow740 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about it lies? It tries to bolster itself with sensationalist claims? It refuses to be resemble the neutrality that is common for non-Muslim scholars?--Striver 06:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it tiresome to instruct you and your ilk in the wonderful English language. Look up the word extremist. Arrow740 11:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another person arguing that this is an extremist site. I second all those arguments. --Striver 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting the FFI site. Sina was presenting a few Sura, swapped the wording for Muslim with non-Muslim and said to ask if these were examples of the "evilness of Islam". As with the early books of the Bible (the gory 1/2), the Quran is equally full of, in todays terms, what are unacceptable methods of rule and governance. But then the providence of the Quran is that it is derivative of earlier Jewish/Christian tracts. It is unfortunate that Sina uses the comparison to Hitler and Nazism as a pejorative as it detracts from his claims. Moving on to your claims,

The claim of anonymous if wrong. As before it is pseudonymous. There is a difference.
The claim for peer review is misleading, there is no peer review process for polemic except that others attempt "rebuttals". That many sites do so publish rebuttals of FFI texts indicates a form of peer review,
The claim for scholarly stands more or less but unless a peer review process for Islamic apologetics can be shown (and I don't mean trial law !) then lacking a nature of scholarly work is not a negative point. Not all content on a web site need be scholarly.
The final claim of "course, a partisan and extremist websites" is illogical and stated without evidence as it is this discussion itself in which this fact is being decided. You state it as a claim prior to discussion and so it is not evidence.

So basically the only claim is the claim for scholarly work, and as mentioned regarding the peer review process is missing for Islamic apologetics. When this is in place then this is admissible. To present FFI as partisan and extremist is thus premature at this time. Ttiotsw 08:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good site cites its sources directly from online translations of the hadith and the quran merely puts this material together to prove a point also Aminz is wrong its views are that of modern historian community--Java7837 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is extremist because its views are far from that of modern historians; too far. --Aminz 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://jihadwatch.org/ or jihadwatch.com or dhimmiwatch.org

Here are my arguments, the site is:

mostly anonymous
not peer viewed
not scholarly
of course, a partisan and extremist websites

--Striver 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's extremist. Partisan, certainly. Spencer is no Ali Sina. - Merzbow 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spenser books are different thing and his websites are different. Both should not be mixed together. We cannot use the blog from his website or just his website as citation. Using books is something else and another separate debate. --- ALM 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, Prof. Carl Ernst states that Spencer's interpretations of Islam are deeply flawed, that his books are not scholarly since they are not published by university-presses which practice blind peer-review. I think that makes Spencer disqualified as a source for Wikipedia. --Aminz 06:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University presses rarely publish controversial criticism of anything, and professors rarely engage in it, because partisanship really isn't their job. Professors like Lewis and writers like Spencer serve two different tasks, and can be used in two different areas. Certainly I don't think Spencer is appropriate for non-criticism articles, but he's a very articulate and notable source for criticism. - Merzbow 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, he is a critic and of course a notable one and I personally too have no objection of using him in Criticism articles. But I don't think university professor never criticize. Anyways, I think we are on the same page. --Aminz 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]