Talk:Ali Sina

Untitled

As the admin deleting the article suggested, I have now re-create it as a stub, only using sources outside his own website. -- Karl Meier 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Books

Truthspreader: What do you believe the problem with Prometheus Books is? -- Karl Meier 11:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Books is not a scholarly press. Do you read somewhere that it is? TruthSpreader^Talk 11:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question: Why do you believe that it is a problem that the book was published by Prometheus Books? Do you believe that we can't we use other books such as Paul Edwards book about Heidegger (Heidegger’s Confusions) because it was published by Prometheus Books? -- Karl Meier 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At the least, I would recommend you to read WP:RS and WP:V. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know these policies very well. Now why don't you answer my very simple question: Can we use Paul Edwards book "Heidegger’s Confusions" as a reference on Wikipedia, or is it unacceptable because it has been published by Prometheus Books? -- Karl Meier 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Principally speaking no! But you can use that source for the author himself. As I found a scholarly journal article written on his book:[1]. Although, this publication doesn't make this book scholarly but eligible to be presented as a reference for the author himself. In Sina's case, we don't have any scholarly journal that would refer to his work. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am getting the impression, that you don't know what you are talking about. -- Karl Meier 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Which point you didn't understand? TruthSpreader^Talk 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the problem. -- Karl Meier 12:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mate! I can't make you understand unless you tell me where you are having difficulty. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's simple - your statement that someone can't use Prometheus Books as a reference because it isn't a "scholarly press" is patently nonsensical (this is not NPA) given that they have over 2500 books since it has started and include many well known names in the world of both science and religion. If that is the criteria you want to set for any book reference then I would suspect that my editing of islamic article would be very interesting...but that would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Your problem is that Prometheus Books is "challenging the reigning ‘sacred cows’" ( http://www.iheu.org/node/976 ) of which Islam is one such example. Ttiotsw 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The AFD closing Admin's premature page delete

The results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (2nd nomination) show that the outcome was a keep per the vote count as no consensus was achieved.

• Keep 18
• Delete 17
• Neutral 1 .

The closing administrator Mackensen has been asked to reverse the delete since the results are contrary to group consenus and I have suggested to him that he deleted the page prematurely. Clearly the vote at the very least demonstrates that there was no consensus reached thus its a keep. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion which states:

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to KEEP.

Whether the closing admin will acknowledge what the vote count makes glaringly obvious; that is that there was no consensus achieved on the AFD remains to be seen, but we will see how things play out. --CltFn 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy also says: "Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." TruthSpreader^Talk 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the vote count and tell me that consensus was achieved.--CltFn 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not democracy. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The supermajority obviously wasn't used to delete the article as it shows a keep or hung vote but the tally of votes would indicate no clear consensus. Thus the article should stay. Ttiotsw 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It was an outrageous decision, and it's now being used by editors such as BhaiSaab to delete and vandalize large amounts of valid information that he disagree with, on a large number of articles. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not an Islamic shar'ia state either and important critical opinions about Islam is allowed. -- Karl Meier 13:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I 101% agree with you. The only concern is that WP:RS and WP:V are also corner stone policies for wikipedia and can't be neglected. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This case is very interesting , Karl, if anything there is a lot to learn from it and of course we will see how this plays out.--CltFn 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of objection people are having on Ali Sina's article. It seems that wikipedia admins are going to behave like 18th century "lords" where they need "evidence" for everything (with mathematical problems in counting). Its 21st century and a new kind of human life (virtual) started after internet revolution. In this virtual world, if anybody wants physical evidence for everything then almost 50% of internet activities will have to be stopped. If this person is not willing to come out in open to face death threats from his opponents of ideology, its ok with 99% internet users. That person is giving his thoughts and isn't participating in any kind of beauty pageant where show of face is must. So i strongly suggest to keep this article for sake of freedom we enjoying over internet. Pas1975 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been an article published about Ali Sina on WorldNetDaily. It can be found here: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 In the debate a few days ago, Azrak characterized WorldNetDaily as a conservative blog. It is not a mere blog. WorldNetDaily is the largest and most popular independent online news website. It is headed by Joseph Farah, an editor in chief with more than 30 years in the newspaper business, including being an editor of large newspapers. WorldNetDaily has investigative reporters providing stories from many parts of the world. To call it a blog is a serious mischaracterization of the nature of WorldNetDaily. If the main issue is whether or not Wikipedia can ascertain whether Ali Sina is a real person or not, then I suggest that Wikipedia contact Mr. Farah. His email address is given at the bottom of every article and editorial he has published at WorldNetDaily.com so contacting him should not be a problem. 72.136.43.94 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Admins decision to delete is perfect. He is non entity. doesnot exist. In the email reply to me even Mr. Farah says that He did not meet him but only through email they communicated, so it must be a group working behind with anti islam bias. Mak82hyd 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is correct, though can you substantiate the group working behind with anti islam bias bit ? Do you have evidence of this being a group or of any anti-Islamic bias ? As far as I could see with Ali Sina's writing it had a similar style indicating just one person. The anti-Islamic stuff isn't clear as he seemed to want to reform Islam (as say Christianity has a few hundred years ago) Ttiotsw 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Muslim Admin banned him. I think that sound like objective. There are a lot of famous internet users who have never shown their face that have an article. He has a lot of influence and pretty charismatic there is 0 reason to remove him this is upsetting 88.162.237.17 06:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali Sina ?

We have it that ...."Ali Sina may refer to: Abu Ali Sina, widely known as Avicenna, ..."... but in the Avicenna article we use "Ibn Sina". We need an expert/reference on this to say if "Ali Sina" would ever be used for Avicenna Ttiotsw 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

i figure, based on a google search, that "Abu ali sina" is for the avicenna, and "ali sina" is for the founder of faith freedom. Jaakobou 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

He is referred as "Abu Ali Sina" by many books. Ibn Shah 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore "Ali Sina" is never used without the "Abu" in anglicanized forms of his name ? It basically messes up the searching so it kind of misrepresents the subject title in Google etc. Ttiotsw 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Avicenna should not be linked from here? From what I can see, it is standard procedure to link to people with their full names from disambiguation pages that only have part of their names. Ibn Shah 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah, show me some good RS which mean "Abu Ali Sina" when they said "Ali Sina". John is not a disambig page for John Brown, for example. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any source that meant that and I'm not going to waste time finding one. George is a disambiguation page for all sorts of George's. Ibn Shah 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Ibn Shah was blocked as a sock puppet of His excellency. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request

There is a muddled enough history here that I don't feel comfortable with a speedy delete at this time. It appears the article was deleted then restored during a deletion review; deletion was endorsed but for some reason a protected redirect was left here. Subsequent editing ensued after unprotection. For the time being I returned this to a redirect because frankly I find it a bit implausible that this would be a search term for Abu Ali Sina and there is no evidence the original occupant of this namespace is notable, hence a redirect. I'd suggest contacting the admin who originally restored this and redirected it if you disagree.--Isotope23 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just add at least two (preferably more) notable references, and you should be OK provided the article is decently laid-out otherwise.--Mike18xx 08:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a redirect now. It should stay that way for the moment. This problem started when a sockpuppet asked for the redirect to be unprotected a few days after they joined Wikipedia so they could create a disambiguation page. The editor then loaded the page with this other so-called Ali Sina which we subsequently worked out never really goes by that name. Thus the original redirect should stay as a google of that name picks up quite well that it is related to Faith Freedom International (which is notable on the balance of references). Ttiotsw 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Science

Ibn aina 27.60.103.36 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)