Talk:Onward Muslim Soldiers

Comment 1

"Spencer provides an honest view on radical Islam that the media denies and disregards."? I smell soap... Eixo 13:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks that way. I have expanded the article from information gleaned from online reviews. This is far from adequate; I request that someone who has read the book proofread and expand it. I have putatively removed the NPOV banner. Could someone add a yellow attention banner (cant seem to do it - D'oh).--ChrisJMoor 15:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OnwardMuslimSoldiers.jpg

Image:OnwardMuslimSoldiers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OnwardMuslimSoldiers.jpg

Image:OnwardMuslimSoldiers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

The nom of the AfD of this article has deleted sources in the article which support the notability of the article. See here. I've restored them. I view the text, and the refs that supports it, as completely appropriate. Nom's deletion of them is interesting, considering the pendency of the AfD. I would urge nom not to delete the sourced material, and the refs, and nom has. Nom is free to discuss nom's concerns here, with the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability requires coverage in reliable sources. Stacking the reflist with sources that you pretend are reliable in order to claim a notability that doesn't exist is disruptive to the AfD process. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

These are fine RSs for the purposes for which they are used -- as book reviews, of the book in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a guideline or consensus that says that we may ignore WP:RS if the source is a "book review"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth at WP:NOTTRUTH. Those are reliable sources, then you can source information from them. Dream Focus 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What on earth made you consider that a sensible response to my pointing out that the sources were not reliable? Verifiability is entirely dependent on finding reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ros -- I agree with Dream. And I also agree with the two other editors -- Jeff Song and Tigerboy1966 -- who have, in addition to me, disagreed with you by reverting your deletions. You are edit-warring against the four of us. Despite having received two warnings with regard to your edit warring here (Tigerboy1966 and Armbrust), before your most recent deletion. And similar requests from me that you stop edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you possibly hope to gain by claiming the support of people who have never spoken in your favor? Is this indicative of a desperation to be loved, or just a problem with counting numbers larger than two? If you're hoping that endless reverting will make the source reliable, you are sadly mistaken. People opposing the use of the source have pointed out that they solicit reviews from whoever feels like submitting them, that they don't pay for content so it's written by whoever's desperate enough to put their work out there for free, that their claims of having well-known writers on their roster are false, and that most of their other content is written by their editorial board. All you have produced to weigh on the other side is "But my friend and I both reverted you!" It's meaningless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention in "The Islam Industry," Middle East Journal...

...is, as I've said, trivial. This is the sum total of the article's discussion of this book:

Robert Spencer, who (like Berman) does not have any background in Middle East or Islamic studies, and who is active in right-wing Christian causes, has now written two books on matters Islamic. Spencer, much like Berman, insists that Bin Ladin is an Islamic figure who inspires the masses. Spencer is very good at finding quotations from the Qur'an or from obscure Muslim clerics to "prove" the danger of Islam. ... Spencer states that "[w]hen modern Muslims like Jaffar Umar Thalib [sic] and Usama Bin Ladin declare Jihad, Muslims take them seriously...."²...In present-day studies of Islam, one can easily cite as a source for research "a writer on a Muslim bulletin board."⁴
...
2. Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003), p. 11.
4. Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, p. 21.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Review in Arts & Opinion

There's no consensus that the Arts & Opinion site's opinions or those of the reviewer Bassam Madany are reliable or notable (see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arts & Opinion; book review) so I've moved this link to "External links". Andrew Dalby 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But see the five opinions referred to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that you seem to have trouble counting, what you're arguing here is "Consensus doesn't matter if my buddy and I disagree with it." That is not a productive way of editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Onward Muslim Soldiers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421114807/http://fliiby.com/file/36628/mxp2040oug.html to http://fliiby.com/file/36628/mxp2040oug.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)