Ibn Khaldun 127

Welcome!

Hi Ibn Khaldun 127! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

2022-04 New English Review - far right/left labels

Maybe you could look at NER's website yourself, like doing your own research.

NER published in its website many articles by far-right persons, including members of the Counterjihad movement.

NER published in its website several articles supporting the Eurabia conspiracy-theory (in the name of which several hundred of persons where injured or killed ten and half years ago in Norway), including by Bat Ye'or herself, creator of the conspiracy-theory, Phyllis Chesler and Richard Rubenstein.

• https://www.google.com/search?q=Eurabia&as_sitesearch=newenglishreview.org
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/98835/sec_id/98835
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/101226/sec_id/101226

Yesterday was published https://www.newenglishreview.org/cancel-culture-in-princeton/ which use the woke and cancel culture far-right tropes.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I took your advice to explore some of the NER links. Many of them didn't work. However the last one you listed re: cancel culture I read. I am struggling to see how this can be categorically stated as a far right review. One can disagree with its opinions but that's just a healthy feature of democracy isn't it? Debate? Re the 'tropes' you refer to of 'wokery' and 'cancel culture', are you objecting to the terms themselves or that there indeed exists an element of society who are shutting down debate?

Maybe i should ask you to read

• Bat Ye'or
• Eurabia
• Counterjihad
• https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2018.1493876 if you can not access this article, there is a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQuC-D3gIo

and compare with

• https://web.archive.org/web/20120509091608/http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/98835/sec_id/98835
• https://web.archive.org/web/20120104114657/http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/101226/sec_id/101226

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links but what are your personal answers to my questions? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Those links are my personal answer to you complaining that « the articles cited merely label NER as 'far right' but without explaining/justifying why. » and requesting « to know Mr Dorling's and the SPLC's reasoning for applying such a label » in User talk:92.5.37.141#New English Review - far right label. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We could give each other reading lists but that's not really a dialogue. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So somebody committing an atrocity in the name of a 'Eurabia Conspiracy' makes the those putting the 'conspiracy' guilty too? Surely if that logic applies then terrorists committing atrocities in the name of Islam makes those supporting Islam guilty too. That's flawed logic. Muslims are not guilty for terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, the terrorists are. In the same way, any atrocity committed in the name of an idea does not make those proposing the idea guilty. Unless of course the ideologues are proposing violence to further their cause. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

« So somebody committing an atrocity in the name of a 'Eurabia Conspiracy' makes the those putting the 'conspiracy' guilty too? » ==> I can not answer because i do not know which conspiracy you are talking about. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

« Muslims are not guilty for terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, the terrorists are. » ==> Maybe you should tell that yo NER's authors. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

But then this also applies to your point above. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

New English Review: political orientation

Editors keep removing a paragraph which describes NER's political orientation and modus operandi, taken from the NER's website. It seems others are being allowed to give an opinion on NER'S political stance but its own description is not allowed.

My reasons for reinserting the paragraph after its removal have been included in the edits: "Reinserted deleted paragraph with appropriate links. The paragraph is a factual description of what NER claims on its website."

Although it is correct to say the NER has been called 'far right', which is why I have not opposed this statement, it is incorrect not to allow a sentence which draws attention for the need to qualify this label. The cited works do not make a case for the label and do not themselves cite a valid source for their own claims. I have slsk made this clear in my edits: "The sentence in parentheses is a factual description of the content of the articles cited. Neither make a case for categorising NER as far right. It is correct to say they call NER far right but is also correct to say they do not qualify these statements in the articles cited."

It seems any attempt at objectivity, qualification or a differing view is not permitted and NER's description of itself is proscribed. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New English Review. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Felida⁹⁷ I did what you suggested under the Talk page 'political orientation' for this article and had some discussions with other contributors. We eventually agreed to acceptable changes. But there is a user who refuses to engage in discussion, is rather terse, keeps removing my edits and adds more of their own, which are clearly advocating a particular stance on this article. I don't understand how they get away with this when I have in the past received a warning that I am getting into an edit war. I now understand I should use the Talk pages but this user doesn't seem to have to engage and so edits the article in any way they please. I've requested dispute resolution and am awaiting for a response but the probelm keeps growing as more content is added. The citations themselves are very controversial. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried what you have suggested but am being ignored. One of your editors said it was OK to include a sentence on how the NER describes itself but another has disagreed, saying it is self referential. When providing info on an organization's political orientation I think it only fair to include a sentence on how they describe themselves before launching into accusations by others. Otherwise the information doesn't aim at neutrality. More worrying, Wikipedia contains many entries where what organisation's say about themselves is included and I provided a list of some of these. There seems to be a double standard at play with reluctance to attempt impartiality. Instead of taking my latest comments/suggestions on board, the editors have referred back to my original suggested paragraph to be included, saying it sounds promotional. I have taken this feedback on board and changed it to a single sentence which is purely factual, no opinion given. But this has not been acknowledged. It doesn't seem like a dialogue but resistance to provide more balanced information. I am not objecting to citations where NER has been called 'far right', it is a fact such accusations have been made. Surely, if other entries include what organizations say about themselves to give a flavour of their orientation this principle should apply to all? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging other editors

@name does nothing unless you are using "reply" in which case you need to click on the name. See Help:Fixing failed pings. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I clicked "reply" for Felida97. Is it a failed reply? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 if you clicked on their name in the edit space you write in, it should work. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)