92.5.37.141

The insertion of 'far left' was just to highlight how easy it is to throw labels around, in the same way 'far right' keeps being used. There was no ill intent.It is correct to remove such opinions without valid source referencing. Which brings me to my main point. Even the SPLC's and Philip Dorling's claims that the NER is 'far right' need qualifying; any respected academic or researcher would agree with such an elementary demand. Both the articles cited merely label NER as 'far right' but without explaining/justifying why.

Dorling's claim (in the article cited) seems to be based on the managing editor's questioning of Islam's status as a religion. Does merely raising that question (whether one has sympathy with it or finds it distasteful, or not) automatically make one 'far right'?

There are some Alevis who regard the version of Islam dominant today as misguided and stemming from an Arab imperialism. Does this mean these Muslims are far right too? (We must be careful not to inadvertently aid suppression of minority voices and dissent within minorities). There are also Koranic and Hadith verses which support Ms Bynum's claims and some Muslims draw attention to these (notably Majid Nawaz) in the hope of promoting a more liberal form of the religion, rather than a literalist interpretation - something we in the West benefitted from when the Church went through such a process.

I would be very interested to know Mr Dorling's and the SPLC's reasoning for applying such a label, rather than take their assertions at face value (which is the whole point of peer review at the highest levels of research and which Wikipedia seems to want reflected in its content).

New English Review - far right label

The insertion of 'far left' was just to highlight how easy it is to throw labels around, in the same way 'far right' keeps being used. There was no ill intent.It is correct to remove such opinions without valid source referencing. Which brings me to my main point. Even the SPLC's and Philip Dorling's claims that the NER is 'far right' need qualifying; any respected academic or researcher would agree with such an elementary demand. Both the articles cited merely label NER as 'far right' but without explaining/justifying why.

Dorling's claim (in the article cited) seems to be based on the managing editor's questioning of Islam's status as a religion. Does merely raising that question (whether one has sympathy with it or finds it distasteful, or not) automatically make one 'far right'?

There are some Alevis who regard the version of Islam dominant today as misguided and stemming from an Arab imperialism. Does this mean these Muslims are far right too? (We must be careful not to inadvertently aid suppression of minority voices and dissent within minorities). There are also Koranic and Hadith verses which support Ms Bynum's claims and some Muslims draw attention to these (notably Majid Nawaz) in the hope of promoting a more liberal form of the religion, rather than a literalist interpretation - something we in the West benefitted from when the Church went through such a process.

I would be very interested to know Mr Dorling's and the SPLC's reasoning for applying such a label, rather than take their assertions at face value (which is the whole point of peer review at the highest levels of research and which Wikipedia seems to want reflected in its content). Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

---