Talk:Ali Sina (activist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should we have support section?

Since nearly half of this article is dedicated to the views of Mr. Sina's opponents, I think to keep the impartiality of Wikipedia, we should also ad a couple of quotes from his supporters. If anyone disagrees, please explain why. Thanks OceanSplash

I maintain that we don't. It is very unencyclopedic to put supporters into an article. All biographical articles like this don't have a section of that sort. The subject of this page is controversial, therefore criticism is a must to show both sides of the story. Besides, the link to his "support" websites are given. I also consider that if we do add supporters, we will then need critics of supporters and then criticism of the critics of the supporters, and so on. So, not necessary. By the way, please stop making other changes along with your addition of the supporters section. Thank you.a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Yuber and Anon. An encyclopaedia is not a book of apologetics. Here we have to be impartial. No, there is no need to have critics of the supporters as you suggest, just as there is no need to have critics of the critics. But as long as we publish the views of the critics we should also publish the views of the supporters. This is only fair. Wouldn’t you question the impartiality of a court if only the prosecutors are allowed to speak and the defendants were shut out? As long as we have the opinions of the critics, we ought to have the opinions of the supporters too. Furthermore, what happened to the death threat? I thought we already agreed on that. Is that something you are uncomfortable with? Would you like to explain why you want that death threat be removed? Let us not allow our faith take control of our fairness. Here we are not trying to promote any religion, just writing an encyclopaedia and we have to be as factual, informative and impartial as possible. OceanSplash

Since "an encyclopedia is not a book of apologetics", I guess we don't need people who are apologetics towards sina's "doctrine" either. No article has anything of the sort you suggest and wikipedia does not function like a courtroom. Therefore we only need Sina's views (which are the SAME as his supporters) and the critic views. Also, I did not remove the "death threat" either, it must have been one of the things that got lost along the reverting. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

forum.bismikaallahuma.org

Have you ever read something like that in a bio intro?!!! There are millions who would agree with the one who posted that but are you going to cite them all? We know the guy has critics but like that at the intro?!!! Even if the one who said that was notable, it would still go somewhere else and not the intro. It's like if you post something similar about a random forum editor at the page of Bin Laden. How many people want to have a pic with him or s**t on his face or slay him as well?! You haven't read Pat Robertson's comments on top of Hugo Chavez's intro! -- Svest 02:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Well, here we are saying Sina is afraid of revealing his identity because he fears his life. Don’t you think it is right here where we should quote those threats? If you think this is not the place, then maybe we should mention it elsewhere and place a link to that place from this statement. And what is wrong in saying many people want Bin Laden dead right after we say he is in hiding? Osama is wanted for killing thousands of people. Sina is wanted for speaking out his mind. OceanSplash

Which threat?!!! Chavez is threatened, Bush is threatened, everybody is threatened! Non notable citations by random people on earth are not to be included in WP. What should be included is that he is using a pseudonyme to avoid persecution. We're not discussing who is to be slayed or not. Who killed or not. Who spoke or not. I say clearly, non-notable citations have a place on my closet. If you find any similar bio on WP as per your version, than no doubt I'd agree with you. Now, no. Sorry. -- Svest 03:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Svest is absolutely right and also you have violated the 3rr oceansplash which means that you can be blocked from editing. Please wait until full discussion is over before reverting again. Lastly, a personal question for you - Are you Ali Sina? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have four Muslims ganging up against me. It is clear that when it comes to use of force I am in disadvantage. Muslim owe their success to use of force. But when I ask for logic I hear little or no response. Can anyone of you Muslims explain why you think the death threats should be removed? Also why the criticism should stay while the support should not? Any logical explantion for that? As far as I understand Wikipedia is not a Muslim site, or am I mistaken? :) I hope other impartial editors will set things streight. OceanSplash

Personal attacks (Muslim owe their success to use of force) would not divert editors from thinking that you just want to include unencyclopaedic content. The logic is simple as explained above. Imagine the following as an intro: (sounds logical, absolutely not)

• Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the 61st and current President of Venezuela]. A member of the governing MVR, Chávez is best known for his leftist and democratic socialist governance, his promotion of Latin American integration together with Third World independence from foreign interference, and his vocal opposition to both neoliberal globalization and American foreign policy. On the day of August 22, 2005 broadcast of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson said of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop." [1].

Do you understand notability? If you read my reason above (What should be included is that he is using a pseudonyme to avoid persecution) you'd have understood why I reverted that. -- Cheers Svest 16:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Logic has been explained over and over but you fail to comprehend. When 4 editors with exponenentially more experience than you are saying that you are wrong to revert before the discussion is over, it shows that it is your ability to understand that is a problem. Look over the messages above and find the responses to your "logic". Also, no one is "using force" and I bet that terminology will be continually used by you because it's probably the only argument you have. :) No, wikipedia is not a Muslim site, but it's also not an advertisement for Sina's site where "secularism" is used as a disguise. Sina supporters aren't going to set things "straight". Now once again I ask - are you Ali Sina? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in most I agree that we should indeed use noteable sources for the information we include, but when we talk about (death) threats, then does the person that makes these threats really have to be notable? I can't see why the threats has to be made by someone that is famous? Maybe it would indeed serve the encyclopedic tone of the article well, if we do not quote directly, however I think the threats that has been made should properly be mentioned somehow, in order to provide some background information regarding why he wish to remain anonymous. -- Karl Meier 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Karl and that's why I made sure to keep and even made it clear in the article that he uses his pseudonyme in order to avoid persecution. Now, imagine someone threatening George W. Bush in a radio statement by an anonymous caller from somewhere in the suburbs of Pyongyang being cited at the intro of Bush!!! This is what I am talking about. If a similar threat is made let's say from a militant or a politician in the same radio station than of course I'd totally agree with the inclusion and surely never in an intro for style guidelines and reasons. I also gave above a very relevant example of Pat Robertson and Chavez and it would be irrelevant to see that in the intro of Chavez of Robertson. How many people listed in WP have received or received death threats?! Thousands! Nothing is mentioned in their intros. Cheers -- Svest 18:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

If we mention he is hiding his identity, we must provide the reason. It does not matter whether it is in the introduction, the body or the ending of the article. The threat need not come from a notable person. You can commit murder even if you are not notable. Anon. I read this page and saw I am not the first person you suspect being Ali Sina. Anyway, the answer is no. OceanSplash

Ocean. The reason is clearly mentioned. The guy uses a pseudo in order to prevent persecusion and it is already mentioned in the intro. I am talking about the citation and not about the reason. Have I asked you if you are Ali Sina? It doesn't matter! -- Svest 07:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)  Me again™

The sentense says: “Sina hides his real identity because he believes that his anti-Islamic statements have endangered his life.” Is he a paranoid or is that fear justified? Unless we do not provide the evidence of the threat, that sounds like Sina is just paranoid. In previous version someone had written: “he alleges” that he has received death threats. There are many death threats published in Sina’s own site with the heading of the emails of the senders. This one however is a direct threat published in an Islamic site. It was AnonymousEditor who asked whether I am Sina. See above. OceanSplash

Since you insist than I have to tell you that a person who advocates nuking cities surely would receive dangerous threats. So if you want to cite the anon threat you surely have to start citing the reasons. You know what I mean? Would you fancy smthg like: “Sina hides his real identity because he believes that his anti-Islamic statements like advocating nuking Muslim cities {reference to the nuking} have endangered his life {reference to the anon}.” I would never recommend such a thing in an intro. Would you? -- Cheers.  Me again™

I would not recommend it either because that is highly personal view. Here you would be justifying the death threats. Are you the apologist of those who issued the death threat? Those who issued the death threats have not stated they want to kill Ali Sina because he advocated nuking Islamic cities (assuming he said such thing). The death threats have been given because he criticizes Islam. You can’t interject your own rationalization for the threats. To write an encyclopaedia you must only state the facts. Facts are: Ali Sina hides his real identity because he fears his life. Is there a ground for that? Yes there is and here is the evidence. This is fact. Did Ali Sina say let us nuke Islamic cities? If so state it. But don’t link it to death threats unless you know for sure that the threats are issued in relation to this statement. You must quote the passage where Sina has stated let us nuke the Islamic cities to back your statement. Can you cite where Ali Sina has said such thing? Is this a fact or an allegation. If it is a fact it is an important point. Please cite the source and provide the link. If it is only an allegation, then you would be justifying a death threat with a slander. Maybe in Islam this is allowed, but not in an encyclopedia. OceanSplash

One question Oceansplash. If a forum somewhere on the internet was to make a death threat against G. Bush would you put it into an encyclopedia article? I am sorry to say that all your comments have the evidence of being Ali Sina and also being the anon user I was having arguments agianst a long time ago. Please answer my question. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush has an army of bodyguards to protect him. Everyone knows that Presidents of the U.S. are at risk of being assassinated. However if there is an attempt to their lives, like in the case of Ronald Reagan, this is always mentioned. Writers generally do not receive death threats for what they write, unless they are writing against Islam, like Salman Rusdie or Taslima Nasrin. Wikipedia does mention the death threat against these writers. In the article about Rushdie also says: “At the University of California at Berkeley, bookstores carrying the book were firebombed. On February 24 in Bombay, 5 people in a protest at the British Embassy died from police gunfire. Several other people died in Egypt and elsewhere. Muslim communities throughout the world held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator.” Are these irrelevant to the story of Rushdie? The death threats against Sina are part of the same pattern of assassinations and hooliganism with which Muslims systematically deal with the critics of Islam. We are witnessing this hooliganism right here in Wikipedia where Muslims have taken their terrorism to the cyberspace. You are free to think I am Ali Sina just as I am free to think you are an Islamic cyber terrorist. What you and I think is of no concern to anyone. For Muslims all those who oppose Islam are different aliases of Ali Sina. I have bad news for you. There are more than one Ali Sinas. Here we are trying to write an encyclopedia and we must write it factually. If those facts hurt the Muslims, so be it. Instead of trying to cover up and silence the critics, Muslims would do better if they stop assassinations, bombings and censoring views that they do not like. OceanSplash

Well ....since Bismikaallahuma is that important that it made Sina hide , I guess everything on that site must be equally important . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the right place to include the anon threat Ocean. -- Svest 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you oceansplash for admitting that you are the user that was pov pushing edits before, now I know what your edits are worth. Also don't get so patriotic; mindless ranting and personal attacks will give people more reasons to assasinate sina. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter Svest where you want to include that threat. It could be in the introduction where it says Sina hides his identity or at the end where criticism of him are mentioned. Where you put it is optional. The site that issues the threat does not have to be important. A death threat is a death threat. You don't have to be an important person to commit murder. The fact is that Mr. Sina is being threatened for expressing his views that are contrary to Islam. There are many more threats in his site with the heading and the emails of the persons who have issued the threat. We don't have to cite all of them. This one comes from a recognized Islamic site.

Keep it there Ocean. I am not going to waste more time arguing about a simple thing like that. However, I ask you to refrain from your personal attacks. You may think you never use them but check your comments. Your mind is full with prejudices against muslims, even wikipedians, which is not healthy. If someone argues here against your views than you don't have to accuse them of hooliganism; We are witnessing this hooliganism right here in Wikipedia where Muslims have taken their terrorism to the cyberspace. - Cheers -- Svest 11:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)  Me again™

Yes, even with this pathetic essay about "all Muslims running around assasinating, bombing and censoring", you still did not provide any reason for the line being added about the forum. Has sina even looked at or considered this death threat? There are probably millions of threats against him, why is this one important when it is doubtful that sina has even considered it? Death threats are all over the internet but ones that are not influential or even considered by the party being threatened? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there has been made millions of threats against him, but nomatter what I don't think there is any reason not to include an example of, or atleast somehow mention the (death) theaths that has been made against him. It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life, and one reason that he do that is of course because of the threats that has been made against him. That should be mentioned somehow. If you can find what you believe is a more "notable" death threats against him, then feel free to replace it, but for now it's the example that is available to us, and I think that it should stay for now. -- Karl Meier 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

LOl , guys ...when was the last time U people talked logic !!! never I guess...Those threats are made in 2005...right?? so what did we know about him before that . Only Sina & his dum followers ( all 3 of them ) will actually belive this "they will kill me" joke . Anyways , as I said before , bismika is a very important site , we should mention other threads too . Peace . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" - Karl, did you understand what I was saying? If Sina hasn't even read this message on the forum or hasn't even considered it how does it contribute to his "fear"? He never mentioned that this particular threat was why he is hiding! Saying that this threat contributed to him hiding is original research. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he haven't, but what he has indeed mentioned that his fear of violence and the threats against him, is the reason why he wish to remain anonymous. I find it's very reasonable that we mention that threats has indeed been made against him, when we discuss the issue why he wish to remain anonymous, and I also believe that mentioning one of these specific threats is not a bad idea eighter. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding original research, what we actually say is that : "He has received some threats and..." We don't say that this specific threat was what made him want to hide his identity. It's just an example on one of the threats made against him, and these are highly relevant to the subject of why he wish to hide his identity. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sina's fear for his life is not unfounded. He has genuine reasons to stay safe from muslims. Apart from having recieved hundreds of thousands of 'death threat' emails, Sina is wise to take notice of real life danger critics of Islam face- including Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasrin, Parvin Durabi and Irshad Manji, to name a few. (unrelated comment that was left unsigned)

Then as a compromise, since that particular thread was a feature of a forum on a website critical of Sina, this should be added to the section where this critial website is described. That is a last solution in this case. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, why do you think we should do that? The question regarding Sinas wish to remain anonymous is currently being discussed in the lead section, and it seems natural to have the informations regarding the threats that has been made against him there. To move them down to the section where the views on that site is being discussed, seems to me like moving them out of context. -- Karl Meier 23:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe a compromise could be to mention that he has indeed been threated on islamic forums and in e-mails he has recieved it this part of the article, and then move these more specific comments down to where that specific website is being discussed? -- Karl Meier 23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no big problem with the version that I last made a minor edit to. Karl, refrain from using sockpuppets (if it is you). Thanks,a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, I guess we got a compromise then! I reworded it a bit to make it more readable, but I don't know if I was very succesful. I'll take a look at it again tomorrow, if nobody has changed it before then, but in any case I'll make sure not to make any changes to the basic message of what we got there now. Regarding your last question, I don't use sockpuppets. One account is enough work for me. -- Karl Meier 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good to see satisfaction. I will ensure these sockpuppets are investigated, but that will result in multiple bans of all accounts of the user, so whoever it is better stop now. The sockpuppet check process is very accurate. Thanks. See you later Karl. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Now we got a problem again. Criticism should be in the criticism section. The sentence and to serve his agenda of insulting Islam and Muslims is unacceptable, because it got nothing with him being anonymous and it doesn't belong there. There is no need for although it is not known whether he has considered these eighter. Let's leave the comments out of this and stick to the facts so that we can finally get a stable version of this. -- Karl Meier 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No because it is not known whether he has even read the threats, and also the "agenda" material is a toned down version of what the link beside it says. If I tone it down anymore it will sound like it's his supporters talking. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter if he read these threats or not? They are just examples of the treats that has been made against him. Also what we say is only Some threats has been made against him on internet forums... We didn't say that he read them or that they had a specific influence on him. Regarding the criticism that has been raised on the link, that should be added in the "criticism" section, if anywhere. Just like the details regarding his views and believes should be added to that section. -- Karl Meier 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

People are threatened all the time Karl. If the first line of that paragraph is that he feels threatened because of "death threats" against him then it should be mentioned next whether it is confirmed that those are the threats he referred to. Everything, both what he thinks followed by criticism, should go side by side if that is going to be mentioned in the early paragraphs of the article. His views are mentioned in a separate section and they are followed by criticism next. That is neutrality. Must be said. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear AnonymousEditor, yes there are many death threats against Sina. This is no different. We just have to provide an example and this happens to be written in a relatively known Islamic forum by a senoir member. Has Sina considered this particular threat? It does not matter. He surely must have considered the threats in general for hiding his identity. The fact is that he hides his identity. Is there any reason for that or is he a paranoid? Is it just because he does not want to be exposed being found a Jew posing as an ex-Muslim or is there any legitimate reason for that? It is important to quote at least one such threat to show his fears are not unfounded. It is up to you to tell us why this threat does not meet the criterion of Wikipedia. If this threat does not belong to this section where we talk about him and whatever we know of his bio, where we should talk about it? Does it belong to his Views and Beliefs? Does it belong to Criticisms against him? This is not criticism. This is providing justification for him hiding his identity. Also I see no reason saying “Ali Sina is the pseudonym of a self-described Iranian Canadian Secular-Humanist ex-Muslim” He is an Iranian Canadian and he is a secular humanist. Even if he is not this not important. The only part that some Muslims are not sure about is his claim that he is an ex-Muslim. That is already covered in the next paragraph, where it says “His critics have on the other hand argued that he is hiding his identity, in order to make a false claim about being an apostate of Islam”. He is not claiming to be a prophet of God. In that case “self proclaimed” would have been needed. Once you alledge that he could be a fraudulent apostate, it becomes even more compelling to provide at lease one threat. We must not decide for others whether he is a fraud or a really is afraid for his life. It must be the readers to make that decision. By casting doubt on his credibility, it is incumbant that we also give one example of the threats. OceanSplash

My comments on the above talk and this dif. Firstly it is clear to me that without corroborating secondary neutral sources we must say that Ali Sina is "a self-described" XXXXX. Using a pseudonym only in an online scenario, even if your site has made you notable, does not make your site's data verifiable.

Secondly, in the debate about the forum thread. One who threatens does not have to be notable but the threat itself does. In this case the threat causes notability. I don't think Anon / Svest are correct in saying that it has to be notable like threat against Bush notable because, Sina is not notable and it might hit one paper or two if he was killed. However, I really do question how you can say a forum post is a notable threat. A threat from some semi-prominent Muslim site would probably be fine for me... but a forum ... and claiming that the title "Senior member" means something... well, I really don't think that means anything. It should not be used as an attempt to portray the average Muslim as such, and sadly, from OceanSplash's comments I can't be too sure. Also, if that quote does stay you have to quote it. That means doing "I would LOVE TO TORTURE ALI SINA TO DEATH." since it is in caps on the forum.

In regards to, "It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" -Karl, I don't think we can assume that. We can't deny it either. However, that is his claim... I think it would also be a propaganda tool. You cant' reveal your true identity because you're afraid. It allows for two things -- the ability to demonize your oponents and justifies hiding your identity. In light of the fact that we know nothing about the guy outside of his network of sites. It's clear that we have no more evidence for one than the other and each are justifiable... so, we can't really say that as a fact, it's merely a claim. gren グレン 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gren,

I think I already answered your questions. “Self described” in what respect? Could it be that he is not an Iranian Canadian or a Secular Humanist? If he is not Iranian Canadian, does it change anything? Isn’t it clear that he is a secular humanist from his writings? These are not outlandish claims and they are insubstantial to who Sina is. The only claim that is controversial and some Muslims have argued could be false is his claim of being an ex-Muslim. This point is already covered. So what is the purpose of saying “self described”? The word “self described” is completely redundant in this case and serves for no other purpose than being derogatory. Can I say you are a self-described man? To what end? Wouldn’t that be an insult? You are either a man or a woman. Does it have any bearing on what you say? We already said that some Muslims suspect he is not an ex-Muslim in clear language therefore this pejorative atribute of “self described” is superfluous.

As for the threat; was Mohammed Bouyeri a notable person? Despite is un-notability he killed Theo Van Gogh. Ali Sina claims to hide his identity because he receives many death threats. Is he lying? Muslims say the real reason is that he is a fraud. If we do not quote at least one threat to back Sina’s claim we are actually giving weight to Muslims’ allegation. Can you prove that Sina is not an ex-Muslim? It is just an allegation. It could be only a slander. We let this stand despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it and you say we should not publish the evidence that Sina is being threatened? Allegations, and suspicions that could be slanderous should be posted but facts should not be? This does not sound logical.

You wrote: “In regards to, "It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" -Karl, I don't think we can assume that.”

We are not assuming that. There are only two reasons why he wants to hide his identity. He is either afraid of ending up dead like Theo Van Gogh or he is a fraud. We covered both these opinions. So what is the problem?

You wrote: “I think it would also be a propaganda tool.”

One would suspect it is a propaganda tool if no evidence of the threat is given. But since there are many threats we must quote at least one of them if we want to be fair and not deliberately portray him as a charlatan. You may love to raise that suspicion, do that is an Islamic site but in Wikipedia we must be impartial and state the facts. If someone comes to believe Sina is falsely claiming to have been threatened that would be because we failed to give the whole truth. We have withheld some evidence dishonestly to portray him as a cunning liar. That is the job of the Islamic sites not Wikipedia. We must not hide the facts in order to intentionally encourage doubt.

As for demonizing the opponents, are you implying that no Muslim ever commits assassinations? This happens every day. Thousands of incidences of terrorisms and assassinations have happened only in these few short years of this century. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists but some Muslims do kill people. It is not that nobody knows this. What about the news of terrorisms? Should the newspapers stop reporting them because they demonize the Muslims? I do not understand what are you trying to protect? The Islamic jihadis have already demonized Muslims. This threat is only a drop in the ocean of the crimes some Muslims have committed against humanity. If you are concerned about what the terrorists do. If you are concerned about demonization of Islam, you better talk to your jihadi brothers and convince them to stop. Suppose you cover up this death threat, what are you going to do with all these news about Islamic terrorisms? This is nothing in comparison. It is just a threat that may never materialize. Nonetheless it is enough reason for Mr. Sina to go in hiding and that is an important part of his biography.

We already said that we don’t know anything about the guy. But we know that he claims to hides his identity because he is afraid of being assassinated. True or false this is what he claims. We also know that there are some death threats that corroborate his claim. So we must publish them, unless we want to deliberately portray him as a liar. Is this what you want to do? Is it your intention to character assassinate the guy by withholding key information? Muslims say he is an impostor. They do not have any evidence for this allegation but still we quote them. If Muslims bring evidence that prove he is indeed an impostor, would you not want to post that evidence in Wikipedia to back up that allegation? Would I be justified to oppose the publication of such evidence just because this demonizes Ali Sina? OceanSplash

OceanSplash, firstly please sign your posts, it makes them easier to read. The issue here is that we are purporting to be an encyclopedia, that is, a reliable source of information. When we are taking our information from one site it does not do that. The issue with users is assume good faith. You have no reason to believe that I am not male but that does not mean my word is a good enough source to use in an encyclopedia to say I am a man. Therefore, it is not the fact that it matters so much as is it true — and honestly we don't know from the sources given. As for his secular-humanism I don't think self-proclaimed is wrong or necessarily pejorative since do most notable secular humanists see him as one? However, that is a much more minor issue and since it is in the realm of ideology it is much more acceptable to take his word for it.

Mohammed Bouyeri's action made him notable, and that is why he has an article. That forum user has gained no notoreity because of this and in fact he was one of many forum-type death threats against Ali Sina. However, you then twist my words. I said that in light of there really being no verifiable second hand information about the man we cannot tell if his reason is to defame Muslims or because he is afraid. I never suggested posting one and not the other. I suggest that trying to make this sound conclusive is assuming something that we do not know. It is not that he is a fraud, it is that he has a reason to hide his identity and "being afraid of showing it" is a good excuse. My point is that I have been threatened on forums. It means very little. The issue is that we don't have facts. The only thing we have is what he says, these do not represent facts but a one sided history. I have no real urge to demonize him and I have not stated anything that would. I have stated that we cannot portray something as fact when we do not have reliable sources.

This article is about Ali Sina, not a forum to agree or disagree with him. I would not be stupid enough to claim that the news portraying terrorism is demonizing Muslims but Ali Sina trying to say that terrorism is very Islamically founded is trying to do just that and we are here neither to agree or disagree with him. If you could find a notable Muslim source talking about killing him that would be one thing but you have found a user on a webforum. Find me a quote on Sunni-Path or something similar about it and you'll surely have a right to link it, but you have given nothing like that. If I tried linking an forum MWU! member talking about how Ali Sina should not be harmed that is not notable and you would (rightfully) cry foul. The issue in that instance is notability, and none of this should be attempting to have a normative impact on wikipedia's portrayal of Islam as a whole.

I am not trying to portray him as a liar, it is, and should be, standard practice to not just trust what someone says about themselves. I do not visit http://www.isna.ir/ for objective news on Iran, if we did we would have a very different picture than reality. Ali Sina may be lying, he may not be... I really don't give a damn. In fact just read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources, it says, "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website".

Please refrain from the tone you use. Saying that any user should talk to their Jihadi brothers to stop terrorism is completely inappropriate. gren グレン 07:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oceanview - please refrain from making personal attacks or lobbing insults at other contributors. →Raul654 07:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gren,

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you say we should not just trust what someone says about himself implying that Sina could be lying about the death threats. On the other hand you don’t want the threats to be published claiming they are not issued by a notable person. Doesn’t this mean you intentionally want to cover up the threat to make Sina look like a liar? If that suspicion can arise, it is more that necessary to give at least one example of the threats that Sina claims to have received.

The use of “self described” for mundane things such as nationality or beliefs are inappropriate and derogatory. If you claim to be a Muslim then you are a Muslim. Not all Muslims agree with each other. In fact some Muslims call other Muslims heretics and kill them. These Muslims who do not regard each other as real Muslims may use the term “self described Muslim” or “so called Muslim” when they talk about each other. This is intentionally done to insult. Ali Sina claims to be secular humanist. There is no indication that he practices any religion or preaches one. He also adheres to humanistic precepts. That is he puts humans and their values above religions. Not all humanists thing alike. Communism is also a humanistic doctrine but most humanists do not agree with communists and vice versa. The fact that some humanists may not agree with Ali Sina is irrelevant. In Islam all those who claim to be Muslims are Muslims despite the fact that other Muslims call them heretics. Ali Sina claims to be a humanist so he is. The adjective “self described” in this case is only used pejoratively. The only genuine doubt is about his claim to be an apostate and that is covered.

Asking you to convince your jihadi brothers to stop is not an insult. Aren’t all Muslims brothers? Aren’t the jihadis Muslims? So they are your Muslim brothers. You don’t agree with what they do and they don’t agree with you. But that is beside the point. Both of you call yourselves Muslims and the world accepts you as such. When these jihadis commit terrorism, they tarnish the image of Islam, just as when Doctormaybe issues death threats he tarnishes the image of Islam. No one says all Muslims are jihadis and no one says all Muslims are assassins. Nonetheless some Muslims are jihadis and some are assassins. None of these people are notable, but they inflict harm. The threat of Doctormaybe is insignificant in comparison to what the jihadis do. The sin of the Jihadis is like a mountain while that of Doctormaybe is like a grain of sand in comparison. It surprises me that you are embarrassed of what Doctormaybe says and want to hide it lest Muslims are dehumanized but are not embarrassed of what the jihadis do. If you are truly embarrassed of what these people do, shouldn’t you convince the jihadis to stop first? By not allowing the publication of this threat you are actually becoming part of the cover up system of lies. I don’t think you do that intentionally but that is exactly what you do.

Finally, if the FBI receives a threat of terrorism, the whole country gets mobilized and they talk about it in the news. They don’t dismiss the threat just because the caller was anonymous and not notable. A threat is a threat and generally it comes from anonymous people. The threats that Dr. Sina receives does not concern anyone. But they concern him and this is the reason he hides his identity. This information is important when we talk about him. Cheers OceanSplash

The issue of being a secular humanist is an issue now, I said some could agree that he is not but clearly said that is neither here nor there. Ali Sina's claims about being a Muslims talk about his realization of how horrible Islamic society is. You know damned well that it would matter if someone found out his identity and that he was a practicing envangelical Christian his whole life that it would make a difference. No that's not me trying to make him look like a liar, he probably is an ex-Muslim, I', sure there are plenty angry ex-Muslims. However once again the issue is verifiability. It's not the claim to be a Muslim ideology, it's the baggage that he puts with it. He has created an image of himself that we cannot verify. It's just a fact and writing this neutrally means that we cannot imply that he is correct or that he is incorrect. It is inconclusive.

It was used in a pejorative manner, whether you deny it or not is unimportant. Not to mention that I am not a Muslim so why would you possibly attempt to portray me as one? At least calling me an idiot would be a value judgment instead of something that is plain wrong. I'm embarassed of what Doctormaybe has to say and what you have to say as well, really, neither are encyclopedic and that's the issue here. I don't make any efforts to shut down FFI, in fact my view is incredibly pro free speech (along the lines of thinking NAMBLA has a right to publish what they do). Ali Sina should be able to go into Washington and burn as many Qur'ans as he wants. However, if he went to Britannica to talk about his article they should laugh in his face if he tried using any of the sources we use. The information is important that he claims it. I have written too much already. gren グレン 12:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's not turn this into a debate forum. Our personal opinions regarding if he's a great guy or - like Gren seems to think - is a very very bad man, like the pedophiles at NAMBLA should be of no interest to anyone here. Fact is that we already mention that he remain anonymous, and there doesn't seems to be much reason to repeat that fact all over the place. That some of his critics have said that they don't believe that he's an ex-Muslim, is also mentioned. -- Karl Meier 13:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl sums it up. Once we say he hides his identity and little is known about him publicly, anyone can understand everything he says about himself has not been verified by any other independent source. Any more elaboration on this point is just redundancy. It is up to the reader to accept his claims about himself or reject them. OceanSplash

Karl, my NAMBLA comparison was my aside about my views on free speech, not a comparison to Ali Sina. It would be completely misreading everything I have said to believe that I think he is a bad man. All I have said is that encyclopedic standards mandate that if we don't have reliable sources about him we cannot portray non-reliable sources as reliable. I am not advocating redundancy, the article as it is is badly written. I did not say to repeat the fact, I am just saying that his site about himself is not a reliable source. You may not agree with me but please at least understand my point because... what you said is not what I was saying. gren グレン 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Dear SlimVirgin What is the purpose of blocking? This subject is exhaustively discussed and both sides have expressed their views. There is nothing else to add and I think the point is clear. OceanSplash

Hi Ocean, I protected because there seemed to be a lot of reverting, and possible sockpuppetry. Perhaps you could try to hammer out your differences here on talk first. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin:

This subject is didcussed exhaustivley. There is nothing else to add. Please read the discussions. Both sides are only repeating themselves. I have made a request to unprotect the page and explained the reasons here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ali_Sina

Regards (OceanSplash 19 Oct. 2005)

Hi again, Ocean, perhaps it would help if you could read our editorial policies. It'll take a bit of time but you might find it'll help to make your edits stick. Basically, they say we can only publish material that has already been published by reliable sources. Exceptions are made in the case of biographies like this, where if the subject is talking about himself on his own website, we may use that, but we use it with caution. Third-party sources are usually preferred. We can get into the specifics if you have queries after reading the policies. They are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and a related guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That should keep you busy for a bit. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This sentence from Wikipedia:Verifiability goes to the heart of our policies: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (my emphasis) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

I am familiar with these pages and rules of editing. Those were the first articles I read even before doing my first editing. They are great and I agree with everything they say. I don’t think our discussion is about any of these subjects. We are not certainly trying to write an original research, all the points mentioned in this article reflect both the views of the person we are discussing and his critics, all statements are linked to external sources. All the sources are verifiable. The ones about Mr. Sina are linked to his own site and therefore have his own seal of approval. Therefore when we say he said this or that we are not giving our opinion. I am not sure whether you had the time to read the article. But I believe it meets all the three criteria highlighted by Wikipedia. If you read and think it does not, I would love to hear from you. I am sure we can improve the article and fix the shortcomings.

The present impasse is about the inclusion of a certain threat. We discussed the cons and pros of this inclusion to exhaustion. I don’t know what else the Muslims or we can say that is not already said. If you can tell us your opinion that would be helpful. But protecting the biased version of the Muslims and the telling us sort out among yourselves is not helpful.

I would like you to read the discussion we had on this subject and tell us exactly why you think this threat should or should not be included. As far as the discussion is concerned I think both sides have said whatever had to be said and we have responded to each and every concern of the Muslims. Would you like to step in and read these debates and make a final decision and explain it why you made that decision?

I am afraid there is a lot of bullishness going on by certain group in Wikipedia. This should not be allowed to continue. Our Muslim editors are adamant to impose their version of fact but often fail to explain why. In this case, if you agree with their view, would you care to give some logical arguments why the threat should not be published? Please see our responses so you know the subjects that have already been raised and answered.

The threat comes from a fairly reputable Islamic site and the member is a senior member of the forum of that site, meaning he is active and has posted hundreds of messages there. Other Muslims in that site applauded his intentions. How much verifiable a threat should be to be taken seriously? Often it takes one anonymous call to make a whole country mobilized and get ready. Does an assassin need to be a notable to commit assassination? If the Muslim editors in this site dissociate themselves from such goons, why they try to cover up their crimes? Why they are not the first to denounce them?

In this article Muslims said that Mr. Sina hides his identity because he is fraud and not an ex-Muslim. Don’t you think the publication of verifiable threat such as this would at lease show his concerns for his life are genuine? He still could be fraud, nonetheless, we have some evidence to show that it is possible that he is sincere when he says he is afraid of being killed by Muslim jihadis. This is like writing: “the Critics of VirginSlim think she is dishonest” and deliberately withhold the piece of evidence that shows you are not dishonest. Would that be fair?

The only logical conclusion here is dear SlimVirgin that Muslims are hostile to Ali Sina and are doing everything possible to vilify him. Is that the standard that Wikipedia wants to set? (OceanSplash 00:46 Oct. 20, 2005)

Ok, I've had a look at the two versions. Here's my opinion:

1) Ocean's first sentence: "Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an Iranian Canadian Secular-Humanist ex-Muslim, who founded Faith Freedom International, a site advocated by him and his supporters as a tool to secularize Islamic countries and and inform the non-Muslims of the threat of Islam."

(a) We don't know that Ali Sina is an Iranian Canadian etc. He says he is. If there's a third-party source for this, we should use it, so it would become Ali Sina is x, according to the New York Times (link to source). If he's the only source, I would write:

"Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International, a site set up to help Muslims leave Islam. According to the website, Sina is himself a former Muslim, now a secular humanist, of Iranian-Canadian nationality."

That avoids the "self-described" that Ocean doesn't like.

(b) We can't say: "inform the non-Muslims of the threat of Islam," because the word "inform" suggests the material he transmits is accurate, and "threat" suggests there is, in fact, a threat.

2) Second paragraph about the death threats: I wouldn't write either version, because we have no idea who wrote what. If you can find a third-party source (e.g. a newspaper article) that refers to the death threats, stick closely to what they say and link to them. If there is no third-party source, I would simply say:

"Nothing is known about Sina's identity. He uses a pseudonym because, he says, he has received death threats on his website and by e-mail, as a result of his outspoken criticism of Islam."

If there are critics other than people who appear on his website who say he's hiding his ID in order to make false claims (e.g. in a newspaper article), then include a sentence about that, but if the only people who say this are anons on his website, then I wouldn't. We can use what Ali Sina says on his personal website, because the article is about him, but we probably shouldn't use what anyone else says on it, because we have no way of knowing who they are.

3) This sentence: "However, simply considering the huge number of Muslims and the impossibility to communicate with them, eradicating Islam as Sina states seems unrealistic" is original research.

4) The websites critical of ... I couldn't get into faithfreedom.com, or bismikaallahuma.org, but the latter is described as a discussion on a forum. We can't use online discussions as sources, because we don't know who's writing the posts. The same goes for the links in the criticism section: no blogs, forums, etc. This [2] is listed in the critical websites section as an article, but it seems to be a summary of a discussion on Yahoo clubs, so that shouldn't be used. Same with this [3] which is someone's blog. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Hope this helps a little. Let me know when I can unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin: Your suggestions are okay with me. OceanSplash (03:31 22 Oct. 2005)

Great job guys. We came to a consensus. This long page deserves archiving now! -- Svest 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

FFI

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12838 Here we go again :) gren グレン 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why forums are considered notable resources of information for some! Thanks Gren. Svest 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, Anon, CltFn

Hey, I thought at some point there had been an, albeit tenuous, agreement. However, it seems that there is a storm brewing, or, it has been brewed. Something along those lines. Please talk this over. CltFn, understand that it might be somewhat frustrating for the others to continuously have people come here and demand changes and you have not discussed this on the talk page (if you are just a new name for an old user this may make more sense). Please talk it out, and right now I am going to try to hack something of a compromise together. Please comment and please talk. gren グレン 06:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Farhanser, I think I have addressed one of your issues by adding the fact tag... if that is true someone should be able to cite something backing it up, if not... well... then not and it should be removed after it is given sufficient time. As for your addition of "used by a self proclaimed" that is addressed in full later and becomes redundant anyways after addressing the pseudonym issue which I did add back to the first sentence (because I do feel it's just necessary since people should know it's not his real name). Adding what you did just seems to be driving home the point of his illigitimacy and takes away from the essence of the opening. It's a short / sweet description of what this article is. This article is about the person / concept / whatever you will, Ali Sina. He is not a self-proclaimed writer, no more than I'm a self-proclaimed male... it's just language you wouldn't ever use. Now, it is important that we acknowledge (as the article does) that the sources here come from one source, him, and that is addressed, but there is no need to address tha in the first sentence. There are many other subjects where we have one sided sources only and we don't do that. My hope is that this can be agreed upon (what we have now) so that there wont' really be a need for too much more back and forth. gren グレン 07:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll come back to this discussion in January ( If conditions persist ) . I think self proclaimed is extremely important . In your version

Ali Sina is the pseudonym of a Canadian writer of Iranian descent and a former Muslim.

it seems like everybody agrees upon his being Canadian , Iranian & former muslim , clearly a very non neutral intro . No matter whatever we say in the article , in the intro we cant state his claims as facts . Claims arnt facts unless proved by neutral authorities . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How about the suggestion I made above? "Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International, a site set up to help Muslims leave Islam. According to the website, Sina is himself a former Muslim, now a secular humanist, of Iranian-Canadian nationality." It's factual, it doesn't state claims as facts, and it also doesn't denigrate the claims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species." -- I see your point Farhanser but I don't really think it's stating it as fact so much, it's state it as the best we know from the sources we have. I'm fine with Slim's version as well, I was just trying to broker a deal. gren グレン 20:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please work this out here. I suppose I am somewhat involved in this so for to err on the caution I will ask another admin do it (although, I'm just trying to get a compromise out of you)... but, if this continues this page will need to be protected so that your only option will be the talk page. I think both SlimVirgin and I have proposed reasonable arrangements (and SlimVirgin's seems to make a lot of sense) so please, think about it all and talk. gren グレン 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your version Gren , its those other 2 editors who keep behaving in their usual way. No need to explain that really , cause you know what I mean.--CltFn 02:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You just reverted to your own version not Gren's. Please stop going to these type of articles and presenting unknown information as fact. It is not known whether he is a "former Muslim". The version that I left of says everything without keeping the controversial "self-proclaimed". Stop reverting on every article you edit. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine I am happy with Gren's version and it was Karl who changed it before. I will fix the grammar and links later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, after what SlimVirgin said I think she has a good point, however if you (Anon, Karl, CltFn, Farhanser) can agree then I'm fine with the outcome. I just want you to talk about it. I think it's clear that you can't gloss over the fact that he is the only source about himself, but it's also apparent that it can't be an attack against him. If my version works then that's good too, but it's not like it's my master piece, I just tried to write something in between the two parties hoping it'd help lead to an agreement. In any case just talk it out and maybe even write out the contentious areas on this talk page so that there won't be any surprises / misunderstandings when the protection is lifted. gren グレン 06:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is a grammatical mess. The first two paragraphs are full of redundancies and little useful information. I would use SlimVirgin’s suggestion for the first paragraph:

“Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International, a site set up to help Muslims leave Islam. According to the website, Sina is himself a former Muslim, now a secular humanist of Iranian-Canadian nationality."

And for the second paragraph I suggest the following:

The name Ali Sina may be a pseudonym. (This is fact! Nowhere has he said Ali Sina is not his real name. If he has, I never saw it. Has anyone? I read somewhere he wrote that his mother named him Ali because of some Shiite credence) Sina says because of the death threats he does not wish to be filmed. Some of his opponents claim he hides his real identity because he is not an ex-Muslim. OceanSplash 11 Dec.2005 08:57

complain against AnonymousEditor

Hello everyone. I want to complain against AnonymousEditor. Please advise what I should do. This man is impossible to work with. From the day one he has been reverting everything I post in wikipedia in mattters of minutes. In this last case I just posted an opinion about Sina made by a Persian political activist. He removed it. But the derogatory and insulting comments about Sina made by Muslims are most welcomed. Can anyone who has more understanding how the Wikipedia is administered tell me how to deal with this matter and end this bullishness? Thanks OceanSplash 11 Dec. 2005 19:00

Okay first of all we agreed on a consensus version while you were gone. Just because you weren't there does not mean you can start adding pov material into this to create another revert war. Please discuss your edits and we will see if people agree whether that should be added. That way you will make more progress. I would not just revert you but other people who make major changes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I already wrote my comment about the article in the above section without making any changes. What I added to the article is a new input. This article contains plenty of insulting and disparaging remarks about Ali Sina made by Muslims who called him “Islamophobe”, “a rabid anti-Islamic zealot”, "mischievous liar", a man running a “well organized campaign of hate and deceit”, who is “re-hashing polemic orientalist material”. All this is okay because they vilify Sina. But no one is allowed to posts a single comment made by someone who is on his side. Is this article created to bash the man or tell both sides of the story without taking side? With this much disparaging comments about Sina, where is the positive comment about him? Now I am going to put back the comment and please do not remove it until others have their say too. We already know where you stand and how much you hate Sina. Let others speak too please. OceanSplash 11 Dec. 2005 19:51

Look all sides are currently given and if you can't accept that all I can tell you is that this is not a sina fan site and that even after so much discussion and warnings that you have had you still not learned how wikipedia works. Violating the consensus version can lead to a revert war. This is not about how you or I think about Sina but what has been said about him, which is quite clearly stated. Wait for consensus on your version. Once it has been reached, you can add this info. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The views of all sides are not given. Show me one single comment on Ali Sina made by one of his fans. All we have are views of his enemies. This is neither a fan club for Sina nor should it be a bashing club against him. You are the only one who is in violation of the rules of Wikepedia AnonymousEditor and I am willing to take this case to the attention of the administration. I have had enough of bullishness and abuse. You have proven to be a cyber militant with a agenda and no commitment to impartiality. OceanSplash 11 Dec. 2005 20:04

And you are calling me a "cyber militant" when you are clearly violating the consensus by adding pov by calling him " one of the greatest Minds of the Iranian community in the world". Can you wait until consensus is reached on your version to avoid starting a revert war? These are the exact reasons you were blocked before. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

AnonymousEditor: It is you who is always behind all the revert wars. We read all about you and the troubles you cause in Wikipedia when you were nominated to by your pal SlimVirgin to become an administrator. It is not good to be militant on your views. You must allow others the same rights that you allow yourself. The comment in favor of Ali Sina is made by a third party, an Iranian Political activist who is a respected scholar. This is not MY PoV. Ali Sina has denied being a great mind [4] Nonetheless this is what others have said about him and since we allowed all these disparaging comments made by his enemies, we must also allow the views of his fans.

In Wikipedia you seem to think you are the one who sets the rules. When you were nominated to become an administrator, you removed my comments when I answered someone who made a positive comment about you. Your reason? You said “it is not allowed to give negative comments in the section where positive comments are given”. Who set that rule? Show me this in Wikipedia. You set it. You make the rules as they suit you. In the same page you kept responding to people who made negative comments about you. Why your positive comment about yourself in a section where negative comments were given was allowed? AnonymousEditor. You must learn to respect people and not try to impose your views by starting revert wars all the time. I was glad to see that I am not the only one who has become the victim of your abuses and there were others who had the same complaint. OceanSplash 11 Dec. 2005 20:44

You say “Can you wait until consensus is reached on your version to avoid starting a revert war?” Who set this rule? Why should my comments be removed until everyone reaches an agreement and not the other way round? You keep setting the rules. Why can't YOU wait until people have the chance at least to read my contribution and then decide? Show mw who gave you this authorization to remove peoples' comments as soon as they post them, start a revert war and then accuse them of what you are most guilty.

Those who have made any major contribution had been reverted because there was an agreement over the consensus version. If you notice, reaching consensus by discussion will allow everyone to agree with your edit. If I hadn't reverted than another war would start regarding that if you (oceansplash) had the chance to change this, why shouldn't others? You knew the info is controversial and you still added it without discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay Oceansplash, if I move away and let you add the information allowing other editors to comment, then will you be happy? So here you go, you are free to edit. So go ahead and add your paragraph again and I won't revert that paragraph, but editors are allowed to change it around. In future cases please discuss your edits before violating consensus. I just hope that something close to the consensus version can be maintained. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not change anything that was decided already. In fact I posted my comments here without making any changes in the article. What I added is a new input. Tell me AnonymousEditor since when adding to Wikiepedia pages is disallowed.

You wrote: “If I hadn't reverted than another war would start regarding that if you (oceansplash) had the chance to change this, why shouldn't others?” This makes no sense at all. It is yet another indication that you like to set the rules. Show me where it is written new inputs are not allowed.

You wrote: “Your knew info is controversial and you still added it without discussion.” Are the derogatory comments made by Sina’s enemies factual and not controversial? You have failed to tell us why positive comments about this person are controversial and insulting him are not. Will you answer this question without sidetracking ang speaking in generalities? I am asking you a simple question. Why insulting Sina is okay but praising him is not. I want to know your answer to this question please.

You wrote: “Okay Oceansplash, if I move away and let you add the information allowing other editors to comment, then will you be happy?” Yes. That is exactly what you should do. It is irksome to have your contributions constantly reverted with no clear explanation or consensus. If these comments made by an Iranian scholar are not good, I want to know why. Why calling Sina a mischivious liar is okay, but calling him a great scholar is not. I am want to hear some good explanations. OceanSplash 11 Dec. 2005 21:27

Ocean! I understand your frustration but you've never understood the rules about notability in Wikipedia. And nobody is in a mood to start another week trying hard to explain to you what does that mean. A blog is a gathering of personal views about a subject, most of times by non notable people. I am so sorry, but Ahreeman X's view in that blog is not notable to be featured in WP. Who is Ahreeman X? So please, let's not consume energies on a simple thing like that. Cheers -- Svest 21:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I perfectly understand the rule about notability. Tell me which one of those Muslims who called Sina “Islamophobe”, “a rabid anti-Islamic zealot”, "mischievous liar", a man running a “well organized campaign of hate and deceit”, who is “re-hashing polemic orientalist material” are notable. Why you love these quotes and pooh-pooh quotes made in favor of Sina? Do you have any proof that those who made the above disparaging comments are more notable than Ahreeman X? We can’t let the antipathy of some individuals dictate how Wikipedia should be written. Rules must be impartial. At this moment all comments about Sina are invective from not notable individuals yet not a single favorable comment is allowed here. This entire article is nothing but vilification of Mr. Sina. Even the language is derogatory. “self proclaimed Canadian writer of Iranian descent.” What that is supposed to mean? If I write an article about you saying: “Fayssal is the pseudonym of a self proclaimed man”, don’t you find that insulting? Some nutcases say Sina hides his identity because he is not an ex-Muslim. This nonsense is repeated two times and the information about the threats that justifies him not willing to show his face in public is systematically removed. Why? Doesn’t this show extreme bias? Doesn’t this belie a religious militancy in some individuals posting in Wikipedia? What is at stake here is the impartiality of Wikipedia and the intellectual honesty of its contributors. It is biased and intellectually dishonest to allow all criticisms and insults about one person and disallow favorable comments about him. If an Islamic site were to write an article about Mr. Sina, would it be any different from the way he is portrayed here. “Islamophobe”, “a rabid anti-Islamic zealot”, mischievous liar, a man running a “well organized campaign of hate and deceit”, who is “re-hashing polemic orientalist material” Is this impartial? Where are favorable comments to balance the scale? OceanSplash 11 Dec. 2005 23:41

Do you have any proof that those who made the above disparaging comments are more notable than Ahreeman X? -- Yes. Unless you don't know about Yamin Zakaria. He's not a blogger but a thinker. He's directly involved with the issue as he debates Ali so often faithfreedom.org. He contributes to Mediamonitors.net. He contributes to World-crisis.com, he is on the news as well Aljazeerah.info and his email is yaminz@yahoo.co.uk if you want to be in touch with him. Not finally but just to mark a stop to this comment, he is a member with globalresearch.ca. I hope you understand now the difference between Ahreeman X and Amin Zakaria. Cheers -- Svest 00:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

There are six disparaging remarks about Sina in this article. Only the identity of Zakaria is known. The rest of the comments are made by anonymous people. The debate between Zakaria and Sina is linked to so anyone can read and make his mind, as far as the scholarship of Zakaria is concerned. As for Al-Jazira.info, it is not the famous http://english.aljazeera.net Zakaria's identity is known but he is not an important or notable person. We both know the real intent is to vilify Sina and all these are excuses. It is a joke to call this encyclopedia when clearly the intent is vilification. Only a fool would not see this article is written by people who had an ax to grind against its subject. OceanSplash 12 Dec. 2005 01:12

Ocean, as I said before, I understand your frustration. However, I don't understand your attitude (keeping on turning around the same point). If you think Zakaria is not notable than fair enough! In other words, let's stop this discussion. Otherwise, please bring us notable stuff! Cheers -- Svest 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

No Svend, I am afraid you do not understand my point at all. We both know “notability is just an excuse. Even if we assume Zakaria is notable, which is not true, what about the other five insulting comments? Why they are allowed without you ever questioning the notability of their authors? But yes you questioned the notability of them when they issued death threats. This was not a good point to advertise, so then the notability was raised. I keep asking you why all these insulting remarks about Sina are allowed and not even one, NOT ONE, word of praise is allowed. The notability in this case is not important at all. The point is that Sina also has fans who think of him highly. The notability of his fans is no more important than the notability of his foes. If you read any journalistic report about any person, where the reporter quotes the views of the neighbours, co-workers or relatives of that person, the notability of these people is never the point of interest and their views about this person are not thrown out because they are not notable. It is not important at all for you to be important to have opinions about a certain person. Your opinion, whether right or wrong, counts as one person’s opinion. I am afraid you are very much confused as to when and where notability comes into equation. (Or maybe you are not confused but find it expedient to play this game) If you are discussing a scientific, political of something that requires expertise, you must quote the views of notable people. But you don’t have to be notable to be an enemy of someone or his fan. Here we quoted six persons whose views about Sina are disparaging and they expressed their disdain of him eloquently. None of them is notable and five of them are just cyber-names. Why those are allowed and this one positive comment is not? Will you please answer my question without evasion? Why it is okay to quote a non notable person when he says Sina is Islamophobe or a mischievous liar and it is not allowed to quote someone saying he is a respected thinker? Give me one reason that those who have made these disparaging and hateful remarks are more notable than the person saying good things about him. OceanSplash 12 Dec. 2005 02:27

Why not just remove the non-notable sources than?  ^{Wiki me up™}

There are two problems about removing all non-notable sources. First all the criticisms of Sina come from non notable sources. Zakaria is not notable even though his articles appear in second rate Islamic extremist sites; he is not a notable person. After his debate with Sina several Muslims wrote in the forum of FFI saying this person is not notable and therefore Sina should not celebrate his victory for beating a second rate Muslim writer. So, even some Muslims don’t agree that he is notable. The question of notability is very subjective. Some Muslims claim that Ali Sina is not notable and therefore Wikipedia should not dedicate any page to him. The bottom line is that any person you like is notable and anyone you don’t is not notable. The second problem is that if we remove all not notable comments it means all the criticisms about Sina should be removed. But you have to have criticisms as well. This article however is unbalanced because it contains only criticisms and vitriol against its subject and no comments in his favour has been allowed by Muslim editors. In its present format the article is just a Sina bashing article and not a scholarly and impartial article. Starting from the first sentence it is clear it is written by hostile people. This is not the way to write encyclopaedia. Muslims must come to term with the fact that those who disagree with their faith have the right to express themselves and the only way to deal with them is not to either kill them or vilify them. Look at the last comment in this thread made by Ibn Abu Talib. He writes: “There's no point in debating Sina. He should be killed.” This is the Muslim approach to those who criticise Islam. OceanSplash 12 Dec. 2005 08:40

Anonymouseditor, The master of reverts: Show me the consensus. I did not see any consensus. Where is that consensus? All I see is a revert war spearheaded by you and other Muslims and then a protection ban and then silence. So where is that consensus you are talking about? It is not consensus when you get what you want and bully others into retreat. This article is an insult to Wikipedia. Only a fool cannot recognize it is written by people with an axe to grind against its subject. I added the sentence and leave the rest to be edited later. But it MUST be edited. The way it is now is not acceptable, because it is insulting to the subject. We just can’t let people with hateful agenda take control of Wikipedia vilifying those who criticize their religion. If we let Muslims do this then we must also allow the Creativity Movement, KKK, Aryan Nation or any other group the same right. This is not how civilized world is run. Bullishness is not the answer. Just because you don’t like a person, you can’t gang up together to vilify him and start a revert war to impose your will. Wikepedia is not for character assassination but for giving factual information. You said you are going to step back, but you could not resist the temptation. Too much religiosity made you come back. Didn't it? If this is not militancy then what it is? Are you waging a religious war (jihad) here? OceanSplash 12 Dec. 2005 20:11

Look Ocean! Wikipedians who are editing here and in other articles are not called jihadis, islamists and all the rant you are telling us here. Nobody ever talked to you personally, nobody ever told you that you are an x or an y. If that happens than I'll defend you but I can't defend you when you are the one calling fellow wikipedians this and that. So please stick to the subject and avoid personal judgements.

If you think that this article is biased than ask for a comment. This is what wikipedians do in case of an edit war. My reason for not accepting your addition is simply notability. So please, let's save us some time wasting and ask for a comment so an admin can solve the issue. Cheers -- Svest 20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Fayssal, I would be a fool to expect YOU defending me. Please do not insult my intelligence. But I ask you to respct my right to freedom of speech and do not censor everything I write just because it is not in accordance to your religious belief. Your attitude towards me has been hostile from the day one and the reason is not because I am in any breach of the rules but because you can’t tolerate any negative comments about Islam and can't tolerate apostate of your religion. This is very clear Mr. Fayssal. Let us call a spade a spade. Your excuses for reverting everything I write are not valid. I have refuted your claims about anonymity. If notability was the real issue, you would have removed all the disparaging comments made in this article against Sina. None of the people who insulted Sina in this article are notable and five of them are anonymous. So this is an excuse. I want truthful reasons. You are not coming forward with your real reason. I speculate that you are motivated by your religious belief. Let us put this political correctness aside Mr. Fayssal. Why are you so hostile to Ali Sina that you can’t see a single comment in his favour when half a dozen insults made by Muslims against him do not bother you? Tell us Mr. Fayssal: Aren’t you a Muslim? Doesn’t Islam teach that apostates should be put to death? So how can we expect impartiality from you or any other Muslim for that matter? Are you trying to tell us Islam has nothing to do with the way you behave? Is it politically incorrect to put the two together? One plus One makes Two even if it is politically incorrect to say so and it may offend some people. OceanSplash 12 Dec. 2005 20:11

Ocean, I've never been to a mosque, a church or a synagogue. I've never prayed and I've never recited any religious book. Believe it or not. Eventhough, assuming that I have, that would not make your case here as valid. Apart from that, those things are personal. So next time, you'll assume anything mixing it with hate speech, I'll be refering this case to an arbitration, which would be the first one since I started here. I've never been blocked, never went to a RfC, never to an arbitration because I abide by the rules and indeed I respect all wikipedians as much as they respect me.

If you believe Muslims, Martians or anybody else are killers than you are free but please don't do that at every single comment (including edit summaries). I don't care if you support Ali Sina or not, I don't care if you are a religious person, an atheist, a martian or anything that would come to mind. So stop these assumptions and personal attacks. Stick to the subject and bring us notable stuff according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have already told you to remove anything that you think is not notable from this article. I am not going to remove quotes by Zakaria as long as I believe he is not less notable than Ali. They are both on the same boat. They both know how to master hate speech and accuse the other for doing that. Inserting a reference to Mr Ahmeedan X or Y is not acceptable because it is not notable; I can be Ahmeedan X, you can be Ahmeedan Y. Cheers -- Svest 22:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Forum discussion as a valid source

Is forum discussion valid source to prove a point ? if that is so, any one can prove any point. Proof for Ali sina is considered as greatest Iranians mind is taken from a forum posting. Soft coder 06:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This opinion is not stated as “proof” nor as the view of Wikipedia. It is stated in support of the claim that he is a controversial personality and opinions about him range from one extreme (calling him one of the great minds) to another (Islamophobe and a deceitful liar). We post both opinions and do not take side. We simply report what others say. It does not matter if these others are notable personalities. This is a sample of what the proverbial man on the street says about him. Obviously Ali Sina himself has said it is preposterous to call him one of the greatest minds. Here is what he wrote: That is preposterous. Iran has given birth to so many great intellectuals. I can’t even compare myself to them. OceanSplash 07:06 13 December 2005

I think direct link to forum threads are not appropriate because it can be easily be mocked up. Same person can create any number of id in a forum and do many postings, to look like a valid discussion. Your edits are reverted not because you are trying to "balance" the article but you are making points based on forum discussions. Soft coder 05:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was already a discussion of this issue when I removed the comment. Sorry about that. Babajobu 07:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just had time to read above discussion on Page protection. I am sorry I did'nt read it before starting the topic. You (OceanSplash) agreed to SlimVirgin that it is against Wikipedia policy to link to forum, blogs etc. Why are you again insisting on putting the links back ? I think links to forums, blogs etc should be removed from this article. Soft coder 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

One can guess why. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No need for protection as there is consensus on Gren's version.--CltFn 13:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been no substantive discussion on this in six days. Sorry to be so long getting around to this. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop

Does anyone else find this a little tedious? Ali Sina is a pseudonym so keep it that way. There was an, albeit tenuous, agreement so... let's get an agreement. Non-notable people from forums are not sources. We don't link to Amazon or any commercial book store... we have ISBN formats. There are some things that you can argue over... like... is he supposedly an ex Muslim or an ex Muslim? I don't care what the outcome of that is... so argue over those issues. Stop insulting each other. Now. There is no unfettered freedom of speech here. You cannot be disruptive. Help out with writing articles and don't create problems. That goes for all users. Motivation doesn't matter. Content does so talk about that. So... let's argue over content or even better bring this to the level of conversation. gren グレン 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect gren, you are a Muslim/Muslim sympathizer and as such you can’t be an impartial moderator in matters that concern Islam. This would be conflict of interest. It is even unethical of you to act as a moderator in a matter that is so close to your heart, just as it was unethical of SlimVirgin to mediate between AnonymousEditor and me a couple of months ago. The result is forgone. All what you wrote amount to endorsing the Muslims. What will you do next? Ban me? By doing so you will confirm the fact that Muslims kill their opponents and where that is not possible censor them. I advise you to step aside and let a non-Muslim act as moderatorOceanSplash 13 Dec. 2005

I am an editor and whatever my beliefs may be do not concern you. If you would like to discuss my beliefs on my talk page that is fine; it might even be enjoyable. Do not do that here. You will demonstrate civility. gren グレン 01:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding us Gren? This is utmost dishonesty to pretend to be an “impartial” mediator when you have vested interest in one party’s position. Our disagreement here is about Islam and you are a Muslim. So you want us to believe your faith has nothing to do with it? You are quite funny Mr. (or. Ms.)

Who are you trying to fool, my dear? This is like having a Judge with Nazi conviction sitting on trial over a dispute about Nazism. You rehashed everything other Muslims said. Your verdict in this matter is all forgone. Do not insult our intelligence please. You are not qualified to act as mediator here and yes your religious persuasion has everything to do with it. This is called conflict of interest. If you continue in this self appointed position, you are not even fit to be an editor of Wikipedia. We can’t have people this biased who do not have the integrity to know when they should say we are not qualified to be mediators because we can’t be impartial, to even write here let alone be administrators and mediators. OceanSplash 14 Dec. 2005 01:42

pseudonyms are ment for real people

What this article is doing on wikipedia I'll never figure it out. Someone publishes a website filled with hate and generilzation that are ment to encompass 1.3 billion people and abuses histroy to fullfil his agenda. That's not news, that happens everyday. At any rate, after I reviewed the website in question I came away with the feeling that this is not a guy, rather than a group of people. The diffrence in the syle of his writing, the formulaic answers as if typed from a previous template, and "his" refusal to debate muslims over the net orally. My point in saying all this is simple. Mark Twain is the pen-name/pseudonym of Sammuel Clemns, a real person, how do know for sure that this guy is who he says he is. Clearly he has many followers, or at least it seems that way no way to find out since no one knows who "he" is. That website, and any others dedicated to it such as this one, are nothing more than propganda pieces of hate.--م 11:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam

There are dozens of links to faithfreedom dot org in this article. Although many of them are establishing the bigotry that the subject spouts, they are also a very efficient form of search engine optimisation. Is it necessary to link each page, given that the community has established that these statements are made by the subject? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Why not move this page to Faithfreedom.org (website) ? --Kefalonia 14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - then we can delete it per WP:WEB :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NOT! --CltFn 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent interview where Ali Sina summarizes his view. It is here in full.

---

2005/08/25

Mr. Abul Taher, a reporter of Sunday Times U.K. wrote asking for an interview by phone. Since this was not radio I suggested we conduct this interview via email. He wrote another email and asked me a few questions. I was not sure whether these questions were part of the interview but treated them as such and responded accordingly. In a third email he said that he could publish the interview provided I give him my phone number and my photo. Of course I can't meet those conditions and therefore I believe he is not going to publish the interview. However, since I already spent some time writing it, I decided to publish it myself. Here is our correspondence. I still hope Mr. Taher would publish it. Ali Sina

Abul Taher Reporter Sunday Times E-mail: abul.taher@sunday-times.co.uk Hi Ali, My name is Abul Taher and I am a journalist at the Sunday Times newspaper. I read with interest your claim that you may be sued because of the content of your website. First of all, I would like to know how far that has gone ahead, and secondly who is bringing this charge. Also, I would like to know if you are actually Muslim or were one at any time. I think it might make a good story if you are a Muslim who is being persecuted by fellow Muslims. Please let me know how I can get in touch with you on the phone, etc. Best regards, Abul Taher

Dear Abul Taher

Thank you for your enquiry. Let me assure you no one is going to sue me. If Muslims had any way to sue me they would have done it by now. This was just a bluff. I published it to dare this person to make good her threat and never heard back from her. Muslims don’t want to sue me. They know this will backfire and it could be devastating for Islam. Just as this threat picked your interest, others will find it interesting too and when the mainstream media start reporting the lawsuit, it will be the end of Islam. I will take advantage of the situation and will put Islam on trial. Muslims can’t sue me for racism. I am Iranian. They can’t sue me for inciting religious hate. I have always made it clear that this is not about people and even have defended Arabs publicly and privately. It is about Islam, the ideology. I look forward for the opportunity to prove Islam is evil and dangerous in a court of law. The worst that can happen to me is that the court would order me not to tell the truth about Islam because Muslims will be offended. This is no victory for Islam. The truth is out anyway. The genie is out of the bottle. But the chances are that the court agree with me and recognize Islam is dangerous. That would literally change the course of history. Now, do you see why these threats of lawsuits are nothing but bluffs?

Yes I was born to Muslim parents. My mother, like any good Muslim, wished to have a boy. A Shiite superstition said that if she murmurs some verses in Arabic from Sura Yusuf, for forty days and blows at an apple without letting the apple touch the ground (it should be hanged from the ceiling) then eat that apple, the child in her womb will become a boy with the charm and wisdom of Joseph. This prayer was guaranteed to work 50% of the times and if answered the child should be called Ali or Muhammad or a combination of these names. My mother must have overdone a bit the ritual, because not only I was born a boy, my charm and wisdom exceeded everyone's expectation. Mashaallah! On the downside I was named after the short stocky butcher of Medina. Anyway I kept this name to show the world that not all those who have "Islamic names" are terrorists. Don't judge a book by its cover and don't judge a person by his name. Many Alis, Muhammads, Attas and Abuls are enlightened people and despite their name it is possible that they are not Muslims at all.

If you want to write a story about me or our movement, I would be glad to answer your questions. However I sound much more intelligent in writing than in live interviews. ;) So if you don’t mind, we can have this interview via email.

I remain sincerely yours

Ali Sina

Abul Taher: Are a lot of the people that write for you actually Muslims, or militant Christians or Jews masquerading behind Muslim names? Ali Sina:

Actually Muslims don't write for Faith Freedom International . Most of the writes of FFI are ex-Muslims. I don't have any reason to believe they are Jews masquerading as Muslims. Many Muslims have said the same thing about me. I tell them, suppose that is the case. Can you prove me wrong? Would our arguments become automatically invalid if we are Jews and Christians masquerading as Muslims? I also publish articles about Islam written by Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. Muslims are waging Jihad against all mankind and hence all mankind should unite to expel this common threat.

Abul Taher: You did not explain why you became an apostate, and your criticism of Islam as a religion. Ali Sina:

I wrote two testimonies about my apostasy, explaining how and why and the tremendous ordeal that I went through before becoming enlightened and accepting the fact that Muhammad was no prophet of God but a charlatan cult leader no different from Jim Jones, David Koresh or Shoko Asahara. You can find my testimonies here: [5]

In nutshell, one day I decided to read the Arabic Quran from cover to cover using an English translation as dictionary. It was then that the stupidity of this book became manifest to me and I realized we are dealing with a dangerous and evil cult. This was, about 11 years ago and I started my online campaign of helping Muslims see the truth and leave Islam about seven years ago.

Abul Taher: Would the same criticisms not be valid for other religions as well? Are there no falsities in the Bible, etc? Ali Sina:

Yes of course. All religions are based on faith and faith means acceptance of postulates without evidence. All faiths are irrational. If they were rational and you could prove them, they would be called facts not faiths. There can be no harmony between faith and reason. This is just a false belief. So why single out Islam? It is because Islam is evil. It preaches hate, violence and terror. Jesus says love thy neighbor. Let us say Jesus was a liar. So what? What is so bad about loving our neighbors, forgiving others' sins or turning the other cheek instead of tit for tat and retaliation? Turning the other cheek may not be practical and I do not subscribe to it, but it is not evil. It is not FAITH that I am fighting against. It is HATE that I am fighting against. Islam is a cult of hate created by a psychopath and that is why it is dangerous.

Muhammad was a pathological narcissist and now a billion people who follow him evince signs of narcissistic personality disorder. This is the danger. It is the narcissism of a billion Muslims that makes their lives a living hell and the world an unsafe place not the lies that they believe.

As narcissists, Muslims are paranoid, have victim mentality, feel humiliated, have explosive personality, are vengeful, lack empathy, are oblivious of the pain that they cause to others, lack conscience, consider themselves superior to others, demand preferential treatments while deny the basic human rights to others, are scornful and abusive of others but expect respect and undeserving recognition, lack self- esteem but are most concerned about their image. It is not that they love themselves, in fact they don't, they are ashamed of themselves but they are in love with their own reflections. What matters to them most is not how they are and how they feel inside but how others see them. The image is more important than true self. Their world is in shambles but they are most concerned to protect the image of Islam. It's all about keeping the appearances.

A few years ago, when criticism of Islam was still a novelty and Muslims had the Internet all to themselves, a Muslim wrote to me and complained that I should not have revealed the fact that Muhammad had slept with a 9-year-old child and ended his email saying ruefully, "the damage is already done". What surprised me was that this Muslim was not bothered by the fact that Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old child but was disturbed that this news had leaked out to the Internet. For narcissists truth is irrelevant, it is the image that must be preserved.

When their faith is defied and the stupidity of their belief becomes manifest; Muslims display supercilious imperturbability and nonchalantly claim, “their faith is strengthened”. Although deeply hurt, they remain unimpressed and cold. This is a typical narcissistic response. Narcissists try to hide their vulnerability and their anger by feigning insouciance, aloofness and remain disimpassioned when criticized and humiliated and when an outburst of violence is not an option. I have received countless emails from Muslims who "thanked me for making their faith in Islam grow".

Muslims do not value personal integrity and do not respect the rights of other people. None of the so-called Islamic human rights organizations are concerned about the abysmal rights of non-Muslims in Islamic countries and not even about the human rights abuses of nominal Muslims in Islamic countries. They pup up only in non-Muslim democracies and their sole mission is to wreak havoc when someone criticizes Islam, demand apologies and resignations and make sure that Muslims are treated preferentially.

Muslims have grandiose sense of self-importance and expect to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. They are envious of others and believe that others are envious of them. They are arrogant and show haughty behaviors and attitudes. They suffer from chronic lack of confidence and are fundamentally dissatisfied, but mask this with violence and a ruthless exploitative personality, victimizing often those who are most vulnerable and can't retaliate. These were traditionally their wives and children, but now with terrorism, they can victimize everyone and enjoy the sensation of power that this gives them. They seek respect and importance by instilling fear. Their brazen and reckless behavior covers up for a depressive, anxious interior. Their souls are barren landscapes of misery and fears. You may find individual Muslims who do not fall into this mold. But we are talking about general traits and not exceptions.

Muslims are walking scar tissues. They collectively suffer from narcissistic personality disorder because they have entered in Muhammad's psychotic bubble universe, think like him and behave like him. The more they emulate their role model and are influenced by his psychotic mind, the more pathological they become. Living with one narcissist is like living in hell. Imagine having to share this planet with a billion of them. However, since the narcissistic personality disorder of Muslims is a reflection of Muhammad's psychosis, once they leave Islam and are no more influenced by its nefarious effect, they can recover, albeit it requires effort and self-awareness. Likewise, those who convert to Islam, and to the extent that they follow Muhammad, acquire his disorder, become narcissists and even dangerous.

The transformation is gradual and incremental and often unnoticeable to the victims but it starts with their first flirt with Islam. They subconsciously and mechanically side with the Islamic cause and in one way or another become sympathetic to the Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, etc. They rationalize and even condone the butcheries of Muslim terrorists. They take the side of the Muslims blindly and without investigating the facts wherever there is a conflict between Muslims and others. They deceive themselves by deliberately ignoring the disturbing facts about Muhammad's immoral and indecent life and instead strive to look in that elusive "big picture" that exists in nowhere but their fantasies to justify all his evil acts. They think the critics of Islam make too much ado about Muhammad's lust for little girls and his sexual immorality, rapes, theft, assassination, and even genocide. They justify his killings, first because they are lied to and genuinely believe that he fought in self defense, but eventually, as the truth becomes clear to them their conscience is so numbed that they approve his crimes, convincing themselves that his victims deserved their cruel fate because they opposed Allah and his messenger. The dehumanization is gradual and incremental, to the extent that the converts become entirely narcissists, bereft of any decency, conscience or humanity, capable to betray their own country and even kill their own parents. Yes, even their own parents. I received an email from an American mom who confided that her son converted to Islam and one day told her that he would not hesitate to kill her if America becomes part of the Islamic Khilafat and the order comes to kill the infidels. No surprise here. In the time of Muhammad, the young son of Abdullah ibn Obay, the disaffected leader of Medina, approached Muhammad and told him that if it is the prophet's wish to assassinate his father, he should be given the honor of fulfilling his wish.

Abul Taher: Just recently the evangelist Pat Robertson went on TV to say that he endorses the assassination of the President of Venezuela. Some Christians also assassinated health workers in abortion clinics. Terrorism is common to all religions. Why you single out only Islam? Ali Sina:

Yes there are nutcases in all religions. Voltaire said, those who make you believe in absurdities make you commit atrocities. The greater is your acceptance of irrational beliefs the bigger is the chance of you behaving insanely. However we are not talking about the conduct of the believers but the teachings of the founders. The core of Christianity is not violent. It is love and forgiveness. This does not mean that Christians have always lived up to that standard. People have done horrendous things in the name of all religions. But when you look at Islam you see that violence and terrorism is part of the teaching. Muhammad himself was a ruthless terrorist. He set the example. The life of Jesus, (which I believe is all mythical) is full of saintly examples. Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, is the paragon of goodness. Muhammad, as portrayed by the early Muslims, was truly a demonic personage. There is no comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. It is like comparing apple and dog poop. If you believe in the lies of Christianity and follow it, you can become a holy person. If you believe in the lies of Islam and follow it, you'll become a terrorist, a monster.

Abul Taher: You not only became an apostate but seem to have a mission to disprove Islam, can you explain why? Is it from a bitter experience, etc? Ali Sina:

No, fortunately I did not experience any bitterness in my personal life. However, I saw many lives shattered by Islam. I witnessed the Islamic Revolution in Iran and saw how in the name of God the most heinous barbarities were committed. Young girls were raped before execution, dissidents were tortured, thousands and thousands of innocent people were just killed with no compunction accused of defying Allah and his representatives on Earth. At the time I dismissed all those savageries as “un-Islamic”. Later, when my knowledge of Islam increased, I realized what the Mullahs in Iran did was very Islamic. These thugs were following the examples of their prophet and doing his biddings.

Why I have dedicated my life to disprove Islam and eradicate it? It is because now I know Muslims are victims of a huge lie. This lie is the cause of terrorism, upheavals, barbarity, much bloodshed, dictatorship, misogyny, discrimination, human rights violations, poverty, backwardness and misery of a billion people and fear and terror for the rest. How many more reasons you need? Once you come to this realization, it is impossible for you to sit quiet. You want to shout to the world and let everyone see the truth. The world is heading towards disaster. The apocalyptic end of the world is near.

If we don’t do something, we will be destroyed. Billions of lives could perish and certainly all Muslims will be annihilated. This is going to happen. I can see this happening with the same clarity that an insightful economist can see the coming of the market crash. But we can stop this from happening. How? By telling the truth! By reaching to Muslims and telling them Islam is false and Muhammad was a liar and a very evil man. Islam is not a religion. It is insanity. It is a dangerous cult. Leave it.

Once Muslims start leaving their cult in huge numbers terrorism will end. Terrorists take their moral support and confirmation from the masses of Muslims. Unlike common criminals terrorists do not kill for financial gain. They kill and die for their faith, out of hate, and the promise of an afterlife reward. If we make it clear that this faith is false, that whatever Muhammad said about paradise and hell were lies, that he shamelessly concocted these lies to scare people into accepting him as a prophet, wage war for him, sacrifice their lives for him and make him the potentate of the land, that he personally benefited from those lies, the young gullible potential suicide bomber will think twice before blowing up his own body in the bogus hope of going to paradise and having orgies with celestial whores.

How can this be done? It is by convincing Muslims that Islam is false, or even casting doubt on their faith. I am offering $50,000 dollars to anyone who can prove Muhammad was a messenger of God. Let me better it. You don't have to prove that he was a prophet to get this money. I even give it to anyone who can prove that Muhammad was not a criminal. I have proven that Muhammad was a thief, an assassin, a lecher, a plunderer, a pedophile, a rapist, a treacherous liar who broke his treaties and committed other crimes. Far from being a saintly prophet, he was a monster. These are not light charges. Prove me wrong and I will remove my site. I will announce publicly that I was wrong and I will give you $50,000 dollars as reward. This is my challenge. There are over a billion Muslims and not a single one of them has been able to take this challenge and win. What this tells you?

Now you see why I do this. It is because the future of mankind is at stake. It is because on the success and failure of this cause depend the lives of millions or even billions of people. Can you find any cause more important than saving mankind from another world war? We are talking about a nuclear war. We are talking about cities going up in flames and hot mushrooms from hell rising over them.

Why? Why this should happen?

It is because of one mans’ insanity and the sheer stupidity of a billion gullible idiots who follow this psychopath brainlessly and unquestioningly. A great portion of mankind is about to perish for a lie. Isn’t this nuts?

And you ask me why I do this? It is I who should ask you, why you don't do this? We are a few people who do this. Why don't you join us?

Telling the truth is such a simple act, yet it has such a great effect. Mankind is victim of a lie and only truth can save us. Why not tell the truth? As individuals we can’t do much but what we can do is tell the truth and truth will change everything. It will save our lives and our world. I am telling the truth and I urge everyone to tell the truth. This is a simple act with great upshot. Once falsehood is replaced by the truth, the wars will end, the hatreds will vanish, and the divisive “us vs. them” mentality that the narcissist Muhammad has instilled in his foolhardy followers will give way to: all mankind are members of one family and we are all brothers and sisters to each other. A new day of peace and happiness of humankind will dawn; peace and joy will replace wars and hatreds.

In this terror story, Muslims are the bad guys. They are the villains. They are following an evil man and therefore do evil. Every man, woman and child who follows Muhammad, without questioning his faith and without investigating the truth is part of this evil army and is guilty. Ignorance is not an excuse. When the Nazis ruled, not all the Germans were involved in ethnic cleansing, gassing and cremating innocent people, but they were guilty because they supported a regime that did all those things. Whether ignorant of what their government was doing or not, they contributed to it. The same can be said about Muslims. Not all the Muslims are engaged in acts of terrorism, but they are all guilty for being part of Islam which is the same organization the terrorists belong to.

Muhammad laid siege on the quarter of the Bani Quraiza. His brain dead followers surrounded the fortress and cut the water to its inhabitants. Prior to Muhammad coming to their town, these people were friends and allies. The Jews stayed inside their fortress for 25 days. Eventually hunger and thirst and the cries of their children forced them to surrender and submit to the tyrant’s judgment. He ordered all the men including boys who had grown pubic hair to be beheaded and dumped their bodies in ditches. He then took the women and children as slaves and sex slaves, gave the young and pretty ones to his cronies, kept Rayhanah for himself and sold the rest to equip his army. He took possession of their entire wealth and gave some to those whom he chose to favor. His explanation was that no war was fought and therefore his foolish followers who assisted him in the siege did not have to be rewarded. Can we say the stupid followers of Muhammad were innocent? Would the Jews have surrendered if they were not besieged by the masses of brainless Muslims rallying around Muhammad brandishing their scimitars and casting fear into their hearts? Yes the Medinans did not kill the Jews, but it was thanks to their support of Muhammad that the Jews capitulated and were executed in cold blood.

Today not all the Muslims are terrorists. But would the terrorists continue with their dastardly acts if there were no Muslims cheering for them and finding justification for their terror? No. my dear Mr. Taher, Muslims can’t wash their hands and say it is not our fault. Every Muslim has blood on his or her hand. Every Muslim is indirectly supporting and validating the terrorists by simply being part of the Islamic terror network. Every Muslim is evil because he has embraced an evil cause and worships a terrorist. More guilty are those idiots who convert to Islam and those "useful idiots" who defend this cult and try to appease Muslims even though they are not Muslims themselves.

Talking about the false prophets, Jesus said, you will recognize them by their fruits. I tasted the fruits of Muhammad and found them bitter and poisonous. I read his biography and his words and determined he was not a prophet but a mentally deranged psychopath no different from Hitler. All Islamic countries are wastelands of miseries. How many more proofs you need? I invite all Muslims to do what I did. Don't rely on what you are told. Investigate the truth on your own. Read the Quran; read the Sira and Hadith and use your brain. That is easier said than done. How can brainwash people use their brain? Have conscience and evaluate Muhammad according to the Golden Rule. That too is a cliché, narcissists have no conscience. As a Muslim you are hopeless! Ask yourself, is it right to be treated the way Muhammad treated the unbelievers of his time? How would you feel if a group of barbarians raid your home with no warning, kill you, rape your wife, take your children as slaves and then ask them to worship their savage leader. Would you say such savages are from God? And yet that is exactly what you are doing, whether you are Arab, Persian, Egyptian, Turk or Pakistani, your ancestors were forced to accept Islam after their parents were butchered at the orders of Muhammad, and now you worship that savage man and have become an instrument of his madness doing the same to others. How much stupidity is enough? If you don't like to be treated that way, then know that what Muhammad did was evil. Be smart. Dare to doubt! You won't go to paradise for being stupid. I know it is difficult for you to think, I know you are incapable of rational thought, I know you are a brain-dead zombie, but try it. Damn it, try it! It was hard for me too, but I did it. I did it because I had conscience. You can do it too. Just have some conscience.

Muslims must leave Islam. The alternative is war and destruction of mankind. If your terrorist brothers start the nuclear war, you will die, all of you will die and will go to hell for being stupid and for being the follower of a psychopath devil. This insanity must end. Have mercy on yourself and your children. Come to your senses and stop this madness. You are at the brink of destroying the world. Why? all for a lie! A lie that your learned scholars are stuck like donkey in mud unable to prove. This is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Abul Taher: Got yr message. I am finding it difficult to get the interest of our newsdesk on this story at this stage. But will try. You must tell me which part of Iran you are from, and how you ended up in the States. I am interested in your life story. Also, your age and family background would be good. What do you do for a living? Are you an atheist at the moment, or have you converted to another faith?

Dear Abul,

These are personal information and I see no relevance for them. I am entitled to life. There are a lot of people who love to cut my throat so they can have unlimited sex in paradise. Here are a couple of those stupid paradise seekers.[6][7]

I can tell you however, that I am a secular humanist and do not believe in any religion. I believe in the Golden Rule and I think that suffices as the inner compass for enlightened humans. Nonetheless I am not against religion. Religion is described as a crutch. I say, let those who need the crutch, have it. Why should I take it away from them? Of course some religions are more detrimental than others, but as long as they do not teach their followers to kill people so they can go to paradise, I don’t give a damn about them.

As for God, I do not believe in a seeing, thinking deity that interferes in human affairs, answers prayers and sends messengers. I find the whole notion silly and absurd. Nonetheless I believe in a Single Principle underlying the world of being. This principle is not a being; it is a non being which is the mother of all beings. You can say I believe in the same God that Spinoza, Einstein and Confucius believed. There is a law that governs this universe but there is no such thing as a lawmaker. Philosophically my thinking is akin to Daoism and even Buddhism. However, I am a prophet unto my own and follow no one but my own inner compass.

Abul Taher: In yr writing, I sense a hatred of Islam that some would say is deeply racist, and has its basis in some paranoia that Islam is going to take over. It's like the classic fear of foreigners taking over - why?

You are absolutely right. I despise Islam for the same reason I despise Nazism, fascism, racism, bigotry, misogyny, dictatorship, discrimination, tyranny and other social ills. It is not wrong or racist to hate something abhorrent. In fact it is wrong to tolerate it. I consider Islam the most dangerous threat to peace. I foresee that if Muslims do not come to their senses and leave this insanity the apocalypses will unfold and billions of people will perish. How can you not hate such insanity? Of course my hatred of Islam is justifiable and very rational. You can’t call it Islamophobia or paranoia because I know Islam and I invite any Muslim to refute what I say. Phobia and paranoia are based on ignorance and unreasonable fear. What part of what I say is unreasonable? When Nazism was on the rise, many wiser people sensed the danger and warned others while the foolhardy remained confident that nothing bad is going to happen and argued that Nazis are also humans. They accused these people of being paranoid. They were wrong. Nazis were not humans. They were monsters. 50 to 60 million people perished because these gullible "do-gooders" did not want to face the ugly truth. We are facing a worse enemy today. You can of course argue that I am wrong. If so prove it!

I have a challenge for you. Organize a written debate between me and any Muslim scholar that you wish to invite or even a panel of them and publish the result. I will adhere to any format you suggest, short of undermining my safety. I bet this would be of much interest to your readers and perhaps will answer many of your own questions. If I am defeated, that would be the end of me and my site. You’ll get all the credit for clearing the air and shutting down a site that has created so much controversy worldwide. If I win, then perhaps it is time that the world starts listening and does something to prevent the impending disaster.

Abul Taher: If a story was to go ahead, I would need to contact you by phone and chat to you. We would also need a picture of you, which we would get a photographer to take of you.

You can’t be serious! Ali Sina

---

--CltFn 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean there is a human being on this planet who has seen that thing talking . lol . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

oh..sorry...my mistake...I should have known before getting excited...its the same stuff...flying horses talking to pink elephants...lol . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you , are you referring to the prophet Muhammad visit to heaven on a flying horse? LOL--CltFn 16:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

lol...sorry to have disappointed you . I was specfically talking about that thing who calls himself ali sina . cheers . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he was right , you response is straight out of his interview. Did you read that section. How was he able to predict that you would react that way?--CltFn 16:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news: raving bigot predicts he will be denounced as a raving bigot - pictures at eleven! :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just zis Guy, you know? - your insults of prophet Muhammad is innapropriate and uncalled for. --CltFn 12:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation of the identity of the anonymous bigot, do you have a reliable source for it?  :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Never thought of it that way actually , but its probably as credible as anything else in the strange POV universe you live in. Do you even know what the word bigot means? Because it sure sounds like you have no clue by the way you apply it to Ali Sina. There's a book i recommend to you , its called a dictionary.--CltFn 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The article quotes sources such as Jerusalem Post, Asia Times and the site of Geert Wilders, the head of the second largest party in Netherlands. Al Andalusia is a Muslim. Ali Sina is critical of Islam. This raises the question of the impartiality of Al-Andalusia. Doesn't a man whose site has received over 37 million visitors in six years deserve a mention in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanSplash (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The article relies entirely on unreliable and questionable sources:

• Faithfreedom.org is run by Sina, should not be used per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources.
• Geert Wilders is notable but not reliable.
• JPost and Asia Times: Asia Times is non-mainstream and dubious. The Wiki article links to op-ed columns or "blogs" hosted on the websites of JPost and the Asia Times, which are not known to undergo fact-checking on their blogs and consequently cannot be considered reliable sources (in contrast with say "The Guardian" blogs which are written by professionals and blog content subject to the newspaper's full editorial control).

If Sina is covered by mainstream news sources, or other reliable sources then please use them. I added back the tag Al-Andalusi (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

Aspects of this article are being discussed here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ali Sina (ex-Muslim). Thank you, The Interior (Talk) 19:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ali Sina the hater

Its old but i have here an evidence that this men hate muslims and their religion, showing in his own website his hatred: Ali Sina calling for killing all muslims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluereveneno (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah and the original link is avaible here anybody can see by himselff the nature of Ali Sina and in my opinion its very questionable if this man was really a muslim before: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11566&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 Fluereveneno (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Exposing Ali Sina's extreme hate and foul mouth Part I: http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/true_face_of_ali_sina_1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluereveneno (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted the last edit as per WP:BLP blog comments are not reliable sources and further and Anti Muslim critic is Neutral and Ali Sina has not been accused of Violence only writing is very strong.Further sources in the article clearly state he was a former muslim and hence reverted it. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ali Sina only criticism islam, never insulted muslims, you are the one who lie and distort facts.

You are so brainwashed that you think islam criticism is a crime. We know extremist people like you, they have no place on wikipedia, the speech is free here, and the criticism is free too here, wikipedia is not an islamic site, it's a no religion or all religion site, but not a weapon of your propaganda based upon distorting fact.

I could say answering christianity is a hating site also, according to your criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:E19D:BA01:5DEF:9456 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Aliens, birtherism, and other conspiracy theories

Why no content regarding Sina's public statements regarding space alien conspiracy theories, Obama being a crypto-Muslim, or any of the other truly insane shit he's posted about on FFI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ali Sina Hate speech and Islamophobia

Here is what Ali Sina thinks of Muslims from his website faithfreedom.org:

"This Muslim (I find the word "Muslim" very derogatory and insulting. It is synonymous to stupid, barbarian, thug, arrogant, brain dead, zombie, hooligan, goon, shameless, savage and many other ignoble things. I don’t know whether this most disgusting word elicits the same meanings in you or not. So when I want to show my despise of someone I call him "Muslim". But because Muslims are stupid, they don’t know all these things and they are proud of this name. This is a win/win situation because I insult them and they are happy and thank me for it. Isn't that smart?" [1]

Some quotes from Ali Sina's rant "Every time I Read a Muslim Letter I Want to Puke" [2]:

"Muslims are liars by nature. Muslims are the followers of Satan and they lie instinctively. They blatantly and shamelessly lie the way Muhammad instructed them to do."

"As long as Muslims are Muslims they do not deserve to be treated in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Right"

“It is not an insult to say Muslims are not humans"

“They must be colonized and ruled with iron fist”

Called Muslims "animals, Satan worshippers, stupid, evil"[3] in the forum of Faith Freedom International.

Called for the killing of Muslims.[4]

The list goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluereveneno (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash, we can't just go through the subject's website and cherry pick quotes at random. This is original research. We need to find secondary sources that select from his copious output what is important. As Ali Sina is barely notable, I understand the dearth of secondary sources. That doesn't permit us to write an article or section based on our own original research. Please remove the original research. Re: [8] Jason from nyc (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post Magazine piece

The article relied heavily on a piece labeled "feature" from the Jerusalem Post magazine. The story is a feature story, in particular, a human-interest story. I have removed it per WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:BLP since it was used to assert facts in the article. Snuish2 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The relevant text from WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." Snuish2 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that Faith Freedom International would be redirected. Snuish2 (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to redirect Faith Freedom International (FFI) to Ali Sina (activist). I've been working to get these articles better written with reliable sources. While there a few sources that mention Ali Sina in passing and one source that discusses his film project at greater length, there are hardly any on FFI. There are absolutely no reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of FFI. Snuish2 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• That sounds absolutely fine to me. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just wait until the discussion concerning FFI on original research-board is over. If nobody reacts, it is gone on 4 March and you can go on with the redirect. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable. Snuish2 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.