Talk:Magdi Allam

Opinions and Stances

I have added a few lines under opinions. As it is clear that his recent booming career is also related to historical events (9/11, Iraq war) and his U turn on many issues (Israel, Palestine Integration and so on) I have detailed all of them in the same chapter. I have added referenced comments on his opinions from the deputy director of his previous newspaper, as his change of stances also evolved in a change of workplace. --XPTN (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Magdi Allam.jpg

Image:Magdi Allam.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 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 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Secular" Muslim

It's impossible to be secular and Muslim. Islamic law states that someone is only a muslim if they practice Islam. Islam isn't like Judaism where you can be orthodox/secular or athiest. To be a muslim you have to have two things. Faith and Action (doing what the Quran says). This guy fails both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.39.0 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the text where it said he was not a Muslim. He says he was, albeit unobservant. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not the subject meets his/her standards. --Beth C. (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is an entirely separate situation; Jews are an ethnicity as well as a religion and one remains ethnically Jewish even if they convert to another religion. According to Rabbinical traditions, the child of a Jewish mother is considered to be (religiously) Jewish until they convert formally to some other religion. Also, when the Bosnian Muslims were "ethnically cleansed" solely because they were Muslims, they were killed whether they were atheists, skeptics or believers. They were killed because they were historically and culturally Islamic, even if they were not practicing every day. If Magdi Allam was raised as a Muslim and never converted to any other religion, he is (at least in the eyes of the Catholics) a lapsed Muslim who is a Muslim until conversion whether he currently practices or not. Besides, he may have used the moral structure of Islam to guide him even if he was not openly devout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam isn't run by Catholic laws. Catholics can be lapsed. Muslims can't. In fact if a Muslim doesn't do what he is meant to be doing then from that moment on until he becomes a Practising muslim he's an atheist. Your right about Jews being an ethnicity and a religion. Islam isn't like that. It's a global religion which supersedes "culture". Islam IS your culture because it's more then a religon. It's a way of life because it governs what you do every single day. You have to follow that. This guy didn't. Let me give you an analogy. You can't have a non praticisng murder. Your either a murder or your not. Btw here is a good link. http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=4131&ln=eng&txt=practising It's about a "muslim" man who doesn't pray. They are clearly treating him has a non-muslim and all he did was ignore one of the Five Pillars (what all muslims must do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.118.133 (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the whole Bosnian nation wears short skirts -- because it's impossible to be Muslim and secular...

Perceive that there are always degrees in everything, up to and including religion; that the bigger the religion, the gayer the spectrum of colors in it, since all Muslims cannot answer to one authority. And the Bosnian Muslims lay over what the chief cleric of Iran thinks of them, really. They proved it when they were given a choice and picked Europe over Saudi Arabia. --VKokielov (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

There seems to be a negative POV in the article; maybe it's weasel words ("incendiary," for one) being used. I can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't look NPOV to me. I'm concerned that this article might go further down this road after the today's news of his conversion to Catholicism.

"He objects to allowing Muslims to have their own courts in matters of family law (a suggestion that was controversially deemed inevitable by the Archbishhop of Canterbury Rowan Williams)." Reworded this to make it more NPOV, I hope. --Beth C. (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your rewording because it is not accurate and is a distortion of the issue and of the positions of Rowan Williams and Magdi Allam. The issue that the Archbishop of Canterbury was talking about was allowing Muslims to have their own courts in matters of family law. That was what Williams was suggesting and, in fact, that is exactly what Magdi Allam was objecting to, as evidenced by the excerpt from his article in English that is referenced in the article. Rowans did not suggest implementing Sharia law for all of England, which is what can be inferred from your change. It is both inaccurate and unfair. I am changing it back to the original and including a direct quote from Magdi Allam. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. Like I said, "I hope."  ;) Thanks! --Beth C. (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There do seem to be clear POV problems with this article. For example,

• "the Western media's propaganda effort that lead to the invasion of Iraq"

I think that can be changed with "US administration". I think there is little doubt that there was a propaganda effort: false claims on WMD, forged intelligence reports. There is also little doubt that Allam had a part in that in Italy: he wrote a book on Saddam Hussein where he repeated many of the allegations on his regime that was later found without base --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "he assumed stances violently critical of the Islamic world as a whole"

That is well documented in the quotes of him. That he thinks that the Islamic world is inherently "evil" is just a fact. A million quotes could be provided here to support that--XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "allegedly capable of revealing to Westerners"

He certainly proposes himself as an insider. Maybe we can reword allegedly capable with "self described capable" or the like--XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Allam's style also became increasingly polemical."

Again, I think it is enough to compare his pre 2002 writings with his current. Many quotes are provided through the article. --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear POV judgment. If some people have thought this, it can be reported, but it has come from reliable sources. --Bwwm (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

being a polemist is nothing so strange, nor insulting. Some people chose a role as polemist. He clearly did. It's what he is famous for. We would not be writing this article if he did not. Read any of his work. I repeat, how is this constituting POV ? Would be POV if we stated that a certain dramatic actor became succesful on a newfound role as comedian ? --XPTN (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Once characterized by a sober, moderate approach, a rational method of arguing, and almost complete absence of passion (see quotes above), he now began to use very explicit, inflammatory, and often sensationalistic language"

same as above --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is clearly a negative POV on his change. If you want to report that people have thought this, then please quote reliable source. It is not the job of this article to make that kind of a judgment. --Bwwm (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Being inflamatory, polemic or explicit is a legitimate style in commentaries, at least in Italy. Some commentators choose to be so. In USA, would you say that calling O'Reilly inflamatory and explicit is POV? He probably defines himself that way. --XPTN (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added secondary sources on his style, see if you like it now. --XPTN (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• In his writings since 2003, Allam has infuriated many Muslims and non-Muslims alike, with his denunciations of multiculturalism, lashing out at what he calls "the Islamization of society."

I do not see what is POV about this. He clearly have infuriated a lot of people. 200 Italian intellectual signed a petition against him, for instance. --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Infuriated" is strong. Please provide sources for such statement. --Bwwm (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's probably just the English. But he did infuriate a lot of people. He has chosen a role as a dividing figure. --XPTN (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "In a piece accusing mosques of fostering hate" - the piece says, in Italian, that he does not want the new mosques to fall into the hands of those who preach hatred.
• "justified the extreme measure of a government ban on building mosques. "
• "This was very puzzling to many of his life-long readers"

every other day one of his former readers writes to La Repubblica basically asking what is gone wrong in Allam head since 2002. I would call that being puzzled. I did provide a link to one of this letters and the director's response under criticism. I think that as his chenge of stance is undeniable, it is also relevant - in fact obvious - to remark whether is old readership has followed him, or if he has acquired a newer one.--XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citation to reliable sources. --Bwwm (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I do so under criticism. --XPTN (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "His unwavering support for Israel"

One of his books is literally titled "Long Live Israel!". He claims that Israel is the culture of life, as opposed to Islam as the culture of death. Just do a google search on his recent statements. You will convince yourself very easily. Anyway, it would not be bad to ad some of his quotes.--XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Godfather was Maurizio Lupi, an elected representative of Forza Italia with notorious connections in the Vatican establishment."

Maurizio Lupi was a lifelong leader of Comunione and Liberazione. You do not get more connected with the Vatican than that. I suggest you try to get baptized by the Pope himself. On Easter. Live, in world-vision. See how it works out. Anyway, being connected to the Vatican is not an insult. Thus I don't see why this would be POV anyway --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but simply the use of the word "notorious" shows just how POV the comment is.

Well, then perhaps the problem is in my English. I assumed notorius standed for "well known". I must be missing a gradation in meaning--XPTN (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From the dictionary: Notorious "famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed" --Bwwm (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I ignored notorius had a negative connotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XPTN (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

--Bwwm (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Interestingly, most of the signatories of the petition against Allam are Christians"

I will provide reference for that. There are plenty of sites of Allam supporters lamenting that the signatories are mostly good catholics arguing against what they perceive to be a defender of Christianity. Cardini is certainly Christian and (very very) conservative. Anyway, I do not see how this would be POV. At the most it would be not well referenced. --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I put this here is the choice of 'interestingly' reveals the POV once again.

I was not the one who used that. It was reworded for style by others. I don't think whoever reworded was motivated by POV, but we can change it into "actually"--XPTN (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

--Bwwm (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "The spectrum of his detractors is considerably varied with respect to political and religious affiliations. Many of those who knew him well throughout his entire career generally dismiss him as a phony, who invented a new persona for career and economical gain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwwm (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other problems:

The following sentences are taken from an article verbatim without being placed in quotation marks:

the fragrances, sounds, colors and flavors of his beloved Aunt Adreya's home and the streets of Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo - a colorful, pluralistic and tolerant city where girls wore miniskirts and boys sported Beatles haircuts.

This was the city where he was detained, interrogated and imprisoned at age 15 by the Muhabarat, the secret services, on suspicion of spying for Israel, because of his relationship with a Jewish girl, also 15 and "the first true love of his life." "The trauma of that interrogation at the Muhabarat barracks accompanied me until that day on Christmas Eve 1972, when I left Egypt to continue my studies in Italy."

Some of quotes which are presented as being verbatim quotes are in fact translations of Italian sources. They should not be presented as verbatim quotes.

--Bwwm (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In general I think the problem is the following. Allam had very sober, argumentative and moderate tone. After changing stances, he deliberately assumed a very controversial role, he did make many statements that - for instance - in USA would be considered hate-talk, and has assumed a polemic tone and a violent style. There is no sugarcoating that. But that is what he choose to be, very freely so, and it should be reported. After all we are describing Magdi Allam. In an article about Celine it would not be POV to report that he was antisemitic: he just was. We reported his style and stances via his own quotes. Now if that sounds POV, perhaps it's because Allam himself has become so much POV... --XPTN (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You may believe that to be true, but this article is not the place to argue it. This is an encyclopedia article. Please cite reliable sources for your statements before claiming anyone is antisemtic, violent, engaging in hate-speech. --Bwwm (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all Allam is certainly not antisemitic. Also, I think we did provide many quotes - possibly more than usual for a wikipedia article. --XPTN (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that when writing a biography of person, especially a living person, it is not sufficient for you to provide quotes from primary sources, and then give your interpretations of those primary sources. You need to provide references to reliable and verifiable secondary sources for any claims you make regarding Allam or how people interpret or react to him. There are almost no secondary source references in this article, despite some very strong interpretation. You may believe he has a violent style, or engaging in hate speech, or whatever else. You can write your own blog about that, but don't do it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedia articles, not for original research and opinions about that original research. --Bwwm (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. The titles of his last three books are "I love Italy, but do Italians love her?", "Long live israel!", " My life against Muslim terrorism and Western unconsciousness". Now, would you or would you not call that a polemic style of writing? Do these titles sounds to you as excerpts of a scholarly work? Have you read any of his quotes here reported? Would you judge the following quote "the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive" to be explicit? I do not attach any negative connotation to being an author of polemic and explicit pamphlet. Many journalist chose to do so, so did famous writers and thinkers (Voltaire for one), it is a legitimate journalistic style, and to point it out is no more POV that to say that today is not raining. To explain it with an example: I would not consider a comedian to be a lesser actor. But our discussion has reached a senseless point where I am saying "After a long, mixed career as a stage actor in Shakespearian roles, Jerry Lewis rose to world prominence in his newfound role as a comedian" and you rebut "That's POV! Stop calling him a comedian, unless you can prove he was one! You might think he is a clown, and are entitled to, but please write it in your own Blog, but not on Wikipedia" and then I answer "Hello?!? He did 'the nutty professor' does that sound Shakespeare to you ?!?" --XPTN (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on this article

Whoever is changing this article claiming that he converted from Coptic Christianity is vandalizing this article. Magdi himself says in his autobiography he was brought up as a Muslim to Muslim parents. I will give you the direct quotes in the hope that it will convince the vandalizer to stop vandalizing:

And Magdi Allam himself, a leading figure at the Corriere della Sera newspaper, what does he say about his faith? (I thank Lorenzo Vidino for help with the following information.) Allam published an autobiography Vincere la paura. La mia vita contro il terrorismo islamico e l'incoscienza dell'Occidente ("Conquering Fear: My life against Muslim terrorism and Western unconsciousness") in 2005 in which he wrote at length (pp. 18-52) about his childhood in Egypt, where he was born to parents who both identified themselves as Muslims and was raised a Muslim.

A few quotes make this point evident:

"The Islam that I have lived, the Islam in which I was born and raised..." ("L'islam che ho vissuto, l'islam in cui sono nato e cresciuto..."), p. 27.

"My mother, who has always been a practicing Muslim, ..." ("Mia madre, che è sempre stata una musulmana praticante, ..."), p. 32.

"My parents were both Muslims, they believed in the same God and shared the same set of values and culture" ("I miei genitori erano entrambi musulmani, credevano nello stesso Dio e condividevano il medesimo sistema di valori e culturale"), p. 37.

This is from an article here: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4325] SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not simple enough to call your self a muslim in Islam. I have already explained why he isn't a muslim. The only reason why this is still up for discussion is because people want to see a muslim convert to Christianity has a strike against Islam. Well this is a bad example. Every year many muslims convert to other religions. Muslims who ARE actually muslims. Not those who call themselves a Muslim only because of his culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.27.240 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

do not remove links about his faith

this is a contentious issue so every statement must be backed by a source. please stop removing the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfEvidentTruths (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. --Beth C. (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

a logical structure

Articles should have a logical structure that is easy to follow and not jump from one statement to another or from one period to another period without logic. It's clear Allam radically changed his opinions. From writing in a communist newspaper, and then a left-leaning newspaper, supporting integration of immigrants, supporting Palestinian rights - from all of this - to what he is advocating now. So the article must be structured logically to reflect this. Thus, the "opinion and stances" section must structured accordingly. If any Italian-speaking user would like to add quotes that prove and supplement either phase of his stances - please do so in the appropriate section. Please do try to find quotes or articles from him in his pre-2001 era, and then readers can see for themselves the transformation, contradiction, or whatever you want to call it.SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Somebody has completely removed that section in the last hour or so ?!? --XPTN (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's still there. The article was simply reorganized. It's easier now to add quotes from Allam or criticism of Allam in the right place. Whatever the issue, discuss his views - however controversial or extreme - in the right place. And if it's criticism of him - it goes under the criticism heading. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. It does lok nicer now. I've added more stuff, trying to get it fully referenced. I feel the section on criticism will need to be reorganized too, very soon. --XPTN (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

artilce does not violate NPOV

I agree with user talk:XPTN that the description of Allam's stances and writing style does not violate NPOV policy because there is no personal opinion in stating that a journalist writes in a very polemical style and makes extreme statements, as long as you quote those statements and also quote sources that have criticizedhim. And this article does both. It is simply pointing out undeniable facts that are easily verified. Also, the article compares his writings to his earlier period and such a comparison clearly shows not only a 180 degree turn, but also a much more extreme approach - one that is marked by making wholesale, general, and very negative statements against an ethnic group. Consider this: Had a famous journalist anywhere else suddenly started writing a statement such as this - "the root of evil is inherent in a Jewish religion that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive" - and trust me (I'm Jewish) that one can cherrypick ancient Jewish sources written in different eras to bring "proof" for that kind of statement - there is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia would not only lablel this journalist "extremist," but also "inflammatory," "racist," and most probably also "anti-Semite." So, the descriptions used by XPTN are actually very toned-down and moderate, being extra-cautious and very fair to Allam. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view, this article should consist mainly of what reliable secondary sources say about Allam. Few opinions on such a controversial person can be considered as really objective, so there has to be an adequate overview.

The rest would probably qualify as personal research. Selecting quotes from Allam's books and articles, in particular, would be a highly subjective exercise.

At present,the general tone of this article is quite negative, and more or less turns obsessively around the issue of Allam's mysterious change in political viewsGiordaano (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Under opinions and stances, opinions and stances should be listed. As the subject of the article, now 55, clearly inverted opinions at age 50, which version of his opinions should we report? While the latter are those who made him famous, the article would be lacking completeness if we completely obliterated the remaining 92% of his life. So we report both, and point to a change in stances who is paralleled by a change of style. We do not report the reasons for this change of view, that would be POV, neither we say that to change one's mind, even radically, is intrinsically bad. There is a fact and we report it. Indeed Allam's supporters see his "ideological conversion" as a sort of "seeing the light finally". His detractors on the other hand have an opposite point ov view. --XPTN (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As Allam has stirred quite some controversy, the section "criticism" could inflate ad infinitum. I chose to report criticism from relevant sources. I think the "ad personam" director of the newspaper Allam worked for for most of his life, and who has know him for years, qualifies as an interesting source of criticism. Gad Lerner also is relevant, as he is a Jew, Israeli, Italian, long time acquainted with Allam (they worked together in a few occasion), and refused to endorse Allam's pamphlet on Israel when Allam asked him, providing detailed reasons. I would say that is relevant criticism, and does not constitute POV insofar as it is reported as such. --XPTN (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policies are found [1] and [2]. The particularly important elements are:

• Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
• In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

--Bwwm (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, let's clear up something. Lincoln was a "significant public figure". Allam is somebody who writes on an Italian newspaper, and 10 years ago most people would ignore his existence even in Italy. Its not like hundreds of prominent scholars are analyzing him. It's not like we swim in third-party sources about him. We make do with what we have. Likely this wikipedia article is going to be the most dispassionate piece of work on him. --XPTN (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

where in the whole article is there original research? or unverified material?

I have reread the whole article and have not found one instance of original research. Nor have I found any material that is unverified or unsourced. Allam is not a musician. He is a commentator whose sole claim to fame is his published opinions about various hot-button issues, the controversy he has stirred by those opinions, and his unique life story of Muslim-turned Catholic and progressive-turned-conservative journalist. Ignoring those opinions would defeat the whole purpose of having an entry in Wikipedia about him. It would be a great disservice to the readers, and a kind of blatant, unwarranted misrepresentation of well-known facts. Moreover, ignoring his opinions or cutting down the Opinions and Stances section would be in itself tantamount to POV, because it only shows that the editor would like to "hide" - for whatever reasons - those very things that Allam wants to be known for and is, factually speaking, known for. Nowhere does the article attempt to explain or comment about his opinions or his change of opinions, unless it's a verified quote from a public personality. There is no attempt to answer the "why" question - why did he change his opinions so drastically - which is the most interesting question about Allam. Likewise, there is no attempt whatsoever to evaluate his 180-degree change - each reader can read the verified quotes, which are organized in a structured way, and make his or her own private assessment. It is not our job as editors to make that call, and the article never, even once, makes that kind of judgment. If you are not sure that this is how articles about journalists are written on Wikipedia, I suggest you take a look at the famous NYT commentator Thomas Friedman. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing POV concerns

Whoever was concerned with POV did not respond to any of the arguments (s)he had generated neither contributed to the article in a very long time. Can we just assume that the POV concern can be removed?--XPTN (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

the article partly abounds with adulation for the article's subject, partisan formulations, defamation of critics and omissions. the revision history shows that an IP from luxembourg made this edit a while ago.

in detail:

• allam was styled "famous leader" or "famous political leader" 3 times with this edit. thereof one was canceled later (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magdi_Allam&diff=next&oldid=376228440). an exageration for a simple deputy.

• but not only is he a famous leader, no, he also became a "famous journalist" via this edit. one of italy's most famous. btw, also the "repubblica" where allam worked, had to be called "famous" now. see for example WP:PEACOCK

• according to the edit, the "corriere" is more recognized than the "repubblica". again, a pov "assessment" which wouldn't be proper even if it was sourced. in 2003, according to the article, allam changed his mind and changed the newspaper and the IP claims that he changed to the "more recognized" newspaper

• consistently, the IP has deleted the information that allam wrote for the communist newspaper Manifesto between 1978 and 2003...

• the IP claims that allam is famous for nothing less than his "defence of Judeo-Christian roots of Europe and the West" (w/o quotation marks or source)

• an unsourced and pov comment was added to the information about the character of his writing at "la repubblica" ("His own stances were nevertheless made public via a forum on La Repubblica and in numerous interviews and appearances on talk shows. Thus, for most of his career, the public came to know him as a journalist with progressive opinions, who supports the integration of immigrants, especially North African immigrants, into Italian society, and praises the values and cultural identities of Muslim immigrants if they respect the values and duties equals for everybody without distinction, witch excludes any appeasement policy with Radical Islam that Allam always fighted.")

• the criticism of evangelisti regarding the sources allam used for one of his books was deleted. without explanation, commentary or source, as usual.

• before this edit, blondet, a critic of allam, was a "conservative Catholic" who wrote fort he newspaper of the Italian Conference of Catholic Bishops and at Lega Nord's political journal, afterwards he was an "extremist and radical antisemite militant" and "holocaust denier". this description is still partly existent in the article.

• tarik ramadan was/is called a "radical islamist", mentioned in the same breath like "fascists" and Qardaoui. the cited source is the personal website/blog of (likewise controversial) daniel pipes, strictly speaking a reader's comment on this. on this site allam is not even mentioned nor is the accusation ramadan or quardaui (or both) according to the edit made against allam and which ramadan allegedly had to confess to be wrong.

• " this: "Despite Allam's claims that his conversion will likely be met with violence from Islamic groups, the reaction of various Islamic groups was largely ignored and passed over." was changed to this: "Magdi Cristiano ALlam's conversion was criticised both by muslim associations and by progressive catholics involved in the apeasement policy with Islam and christian-islam dialogue." also this change shows which picture should be drawn of him.

(the word "appeasement" was deleted in the meantime)

then we have this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magdi_Allam&diff=next&oldid=409794512

• deletion of the criticism of zucconi
• deletion of the criticism of lerner

again, w/o comment or reason.

if i haven't stated otherwise, all of these edits are still "included" in the article. it's necessary reshaping the text, in a more neutral way. i suggest the creation of a section for the criticism, which was deleted or which is found now in inappropriate places (headings).

--Severino (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

now that the worst bias has been removed, there are still NPOV concerns; but if there's consensus, the neutrality tag can NOW be removed.--Severino (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Abandonment of the Catholic Church

On the 25 March 2013, he publicly announced his abandonment of the Catholic Church:

• (in Italian) Allam, Magdi Cristiano (25 March 2013). "Perché me ne vado da questa Chiesa debole con l'islam". Il Giornale. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
• (in Italian) "Magdi Cristiano Allam: «Lascio la Chiesa»". Corriere della Sera. 25 March 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2013.

Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Magdi Allam. 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/20080309164517/http://www.magdiallam.it./ to http://www.magdiallam.it/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309164517/http://www.magdiallam.it./ to http://www.magdiallam.it/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pandemia.info/2007/01/16/pubblicare_email_private_e_let.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704050848/http://www.dandavidprize.org/laureates/present2006-allam.html to http://www.dandavidprize.org/laureates/present2006-allam.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220025231/http://www.traces-cl.com/june04/dialoguetow.html to http://www.traces-cl.com/june04/dialoguetow.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723050255/http://www.dandavidprize.org/index.php/laureates/laureates-2006/62-2006-present-journalists-of-print-media/82-magdi-allam.html to http://www.dandavidprize.org/index.php/laureates/laureates-2006/62-2006-present-journalists-of-print-media/82-magdi-allam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)