User talk:NickCT/Archive II

List of colors

can you review Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:List_of_Colors and see if you still agree to keep? Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bartholemew

Please read WP:NPOV and do not re-add the tag. If you still have concerns, raise them on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Neutrality

		The Barnstar of Neutrality
		For working hard to keep bias out of the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

.

So kind Noleander! Thanks v. much. NickCT (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see:

Please see here [1]: a fork of Template:Muslims and controversies footer . Thank you! Mootros (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"See also" links

You've been here a year now. This is wrong. If you hate Apples, you cant link "stupid" on the Apple article, see what I mean.

You can link things in See also only if they are directly related to an article and where you're not pushing a POV. You dont want people to start linking Criticism of Muhammad on every Muhammad related article, right? Its the same thing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt - Two points

I was trying to reflect views held by a number of groups (see [2],[3]).

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is. Can you perhaps enlighten me as to what you consider Islamophobia? Or perhaps your POV is that it doesn't exist? NickCT (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The same kinds of WP:OR arguements could be applied to defend the inclusion of a see also of Criticism of Muhammad at Military career of Muhammad, and all other Muhammad related articles (since a number of groups and people are critical of Muhammad). Do you agree we can have them there? And that death threat is not a "contention", its a fact, mentioned in sahih Hadith multiple times, you know that. Its not a matter of Islamophobia not existing, thats not the issue here. The issue is: If you're ok with Islamophobia being linked as a See also at that Council article, then you should also be OK with Muhammad's criticism being linked at all his articles. Agreed? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt57 - Sidebar perhaps. Footer no. As long as no footer exists for the other Abrahamic religions I can't help but feel that Islam is being singled out.

I wouldn't really oppose a sidebar, as it would be hard to argue that the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims isn't critical of Islam. However; I might offer one counter point, which is; should we put Criticism of Judiasm on Nazi? NickCT (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about a footer or sidebar. I'm talking about the See also section. Why should we not link Criticism of Muhammad at Military career of Muhammad, in the See also section? Or is that ok? Its KB, looks like. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. When I read "Criticism of" I assumed we were back to discussing the footer issue. I've reread your post. I think we really have to refer to RS on this matter. If you consider say Sherman's March; this is a subject about which there is a lot of contention in RS. Some arguing it was legitimate warfare, some arguing it was the first example of modern war crime. In cases where significant "criticism" of this nature exists in RS, it's probably OK to add "Criticisms of" in "see also".

So, to answer your point; I know little about the Military career of Muhammad, but if there is significant scholarly RS which is critical of his military career, than yes, Criticism of Muhammad would probably appropriate. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So your standard is if there is "significant scholarly RS which is critical" of the article topic, then we can link it in the See also section. So where's the "significant scholarly RS" that justifies you linking Islamophobia to Central Committee for Ex-Muslims? On a less-important note I find it funny you have an atheist userbox on your userpage but all of your edits are pro-Islamic / anti Islam-criticism.

To apply your other quote: "In cases where significant "criticism" of this nature exists in RS, it's probably OK to add "Criticisms of" in "see also".", you and I know that there is a tonne of criticism about Muhammad, from scholarly reliable sources (they're all reliable, otherwise that Criticism article cannot include that stuff), so it should be OK for us to link Criticism of Muhammad to all the article topics where he has been criticized. He has been called a warlord and pedophile, womanizer and so on (to sum up the reliable sources). So any article that has to do with these areas should link to the Criticism article, according to your logic here.

The point is, the same (faulty in my opinion and it shows WP:OR/Synthesis) reasoning you're applying to link Islamophobia on that Central Committee for Ex-Muslims can be applied to many other articles. Now to come back to another thing you said previously:

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is.

For you to say that the statement "ex-Muslims are under a death threat" is Islamophobic and hence Islamophobia should be linked there, is WP:OR. You should know that because you've been here a while since 2007. We dont do anything that is OR. We only say what reliable sources say, directly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt57 - You've made a number of points. Let me try to address them 1 by 1

1) So where's the "significant scholarly RS" that justifies you linking Islamophobia to Central Committee for Ex-Muslims

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims isn't really a well known organization. I think it probably just barely passes WP:NOTABLE. As a result I don't think the bar is very high on what might qualify as "significant". If I were to want to put Islamophobia in the "see also" section of The US Congress, I would have to provide more "significant" RS.

This is no criteria: "Central Committee for Ex-Muslims" is small so we can list the articles silly/crap over there. What I mean is this. Notability is only important when we're deciding to keep/delete an article. Linking Islamophobia as you did in the way and as you justified yourself is OR, as I explained. You have to 1) provide an RS 2) stay away from OR, no matter how big or small the subject of an article is.

Yes obviously you must avoid WP:OR regardless of the importance of a subject matter. That's not the point. The point is the amount and quality of RS required for lesser subject is lower.

And your job is to prove using multiple reliable sources that Ex-Muslim council is an Islamophobic organization, otherwise what you did was a violation of WP:OR.

Which I believe I've done.

2) atheist userbox on your userpage but all of your edits are pro-Islamic / anti Islam-criticism

(chuckle) - Are you implying I'm a secret Muslim? No. I am much very an atheist and happen to believe all religions are equally silly regardless of whether you're worshipping Yaweh, Ala, Jesus, Ganesha etc.... The keyword there though is "equal", and I approach WP with a strong emphasis on WP:RNPOV. I happen to think that WP suffers from a degree of systemic bias against Islam primarily as a result of the fact that there aren't many muslim editors, and there are a lot of editors who probably have latent predijuices against muslims. The "pro-Islamic/anti Islam-criticism" can probably be attributed to a desire to mitigate this systemic bias (be it real or percieved).

If you think they're all silly, you should do some anti-religion editing too. I did see one of them so I'll admit that. Anyway its still puzzling why most of them are pro-Islamic. But again this isnt important as compared to the other issues here. If you have a few good edits that are critical of Islam let me know. I didnt see your whole history in any case so I probably missed them.

I think my statement above about there being "systemic bias against islam" explains why I actively seek to eliminate anti-Islamic POV material from WP.

Really? Have you see this? The problem on WP actually is, systematic bias for Islam. Thats 65,000 edits right there for you and tonnes like that go on every day with no one to watch over them, including one that you made, by linking Islamophobia there. Are you sure now that Wikipedia is anti-Islamic? I think our work should be to clean up the mess that Jagged_85 has created by editing 1000's of page with pro-Islamic bias, while grossly violating rules such as making up references or falsely quoting them and so on. Thats the problem here and there are many editors who continue to show that pro-Islamic bias while violating policies and preventing dissemination of actual information about Islam. This goes on constantly here.

Matt - You're cherry picking again. You might want to read wikipedia's article on conformation bias.

3) I know that there is a tonne of criticism about Muhammad, from scholarly reliable sources

Again, I'm not much of a scholar on Muhammad, so I'll have to believe you. I would mention here though that obviously hundreds of thousands of RS exist that address Muhammad. If you can only present a handful that make the "warlord and pedophile, womanizer" assertions, I'm not sure that really qualifies as "significant". If on the other hand, there are dozens and dozens of RS making any one of those claims, than sure, add it under the "see also" section. I guess the point is, since Muhammad is such a widely known topic, the bar is quite high on level and quality of RS you must present to link under the "see also" section.

You have to believe me? Why dont you read the Criticism of Muhammad article to see how much he's been criticized? Once again its suspicious that you're minimizing the criticism and calling it "insignificant" at the same time you're professing to be an atheist. You did say that all religions including Islam are 'silly' so, I guess its ok.

But ok. I see your point. Yes Muhammad is a huge topic and so we must list only the biggest Reliable Sources there and so on. But again to come back to the topic, for you to say "They're claiming there's a death sentence, and I think thats Islamophobia and I'm going to link it there", is OR. This is the main topic of this whole discussion.

Look dude, a lot of RS exist critizing a lot of religons. Just because your culture happens to be one which critizes Islam, it doesn't mean you should try to write that POV into WP. I'm sure a number of Imams have "talked smack" about Christain's belief in Jesus. I'm not sure that critisism is "significant" in the context of Christainity itself.

Christianity is not the topic here. I dont have any faith system, so the term "my culture criticizes Islam" (seems like an anti-Christian statement) is not true. I don't for one second dont believe that you're an atheist. You've already said you're here to wipe out "anti-Islamic bias" which is strange. There is no such thing as an atheist where all his edits are pro-Islamic and he cant provide a single edit where his edit was critical of Islam. And we dont have to shy away from saying that. We all know we come with our own internal points of view, critical or favourable. What matters is that we follow Wikipedia policies. Thats how the whole Criticism of Muhammad article was made. My point is, we should be honest about our beliefs so they match with what they're editing but I know this isnt a requirement here. I can profess to be a Muslim for that matter but it would be strange if all my edits were anti-Islamic.

The "christanity" point and "your culture" point were seperate. I wasn't trying to connect the two. I don't for one second dont believe that you're an atheist - Could you clarify? This seems like a double negative . we should be honest about our beliefs - I agree entirely. You'll note that one of my userboxes says as much. I have been honest and open. Have you? Note, you haven't really explained why you feel it's so important that CCfExM isn't labeled Islamophobic.

4) "ex-Muslims are under a death threat" is Islamophobic and hence Islamophobia should be linked there, is WP:OR. You should know that because you've been here a while since 2007. We dont do anything that is OR. We only say what reliable sources say,

Sure. But let me offer a few counterpoints. A) Like it or not, you can't completely banish an editor's judgement when making an article. WP:OR doesn't suggest an editor can't do things like categorizing based off his/her judgement. A lot of stuff which is obviously true isn't explicitly stated in RS, or isn't easily found in RS. Would you suggest that we should scower every article for "see also" links which RS might not exist for and erase them? Wouldn't you accept that there are probably a few "see also" links which are appropriate & accurate but might not have good RS to back them up? B) As I mentioned above, a couple groups have made the Islamophobia claim, so it's not like I'm pulling this from thin air. C) I'd still like to get your opinion on whether you think it level-headed and neutral to go around saying "European muslims kill people who try to leave their faith"? (note, obviously I realize your opinion constitute WP:OR, but humour me).

Alright, then. Is it OK for me to say this: "Quran contains violent verses (9:5, 9:29 etc) and so I should link Violence or Destructive cult there". I'm exercising my judgement here too, right? "A lot of stuff which is obviously true isn't explicity stated in RS, or isn't easily found in RS." <---- Dito. So lets link Violence at the Quran article.

Those couple of groups who made that claim of Islamophobia: What was the exact claim made? Who are these groups? Are they reliable sources? I can find 100 more groups that claim that Quran is full of violence. Do you get my point now.

"European muslims kill people who try to leave their faith" This is false. This is not what the article said. It said "Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam, Jami said.". I'll let you see what the differences are in those statements. But even if thats what the article, the OR issue still exists. For us to decide that someone saying "Euopean muslims kill anyone who leaves Islam" is Islamophobic and hence we should link Islamophobia there, is WP:OR.

Again, the Quran is a fairly significant subject. The quality and quantity of RS you'd have to provide to suggest that the Quaran is intrisically violent, is far greater than that I have to provide to suggest the Central_Committee_for_Ex-Muslims is Islamophobic. I think you understand that the Central_Committee_for_Ex-Muslims is trying to make the point that European muslims seeking to leave thier faith should fear reprisal. I don't why you won't accept this point.

Who are these groups? Are they reliable sources? - I provided links. Look for yourself.

Ok. [4]. Who is Islamophobia Watch? Are they a reliable source? Maybe you contribute to the site, I'm not sure. The article says "As we've already pointed out, the Council of Ex-Muslims is a complete fraud." - are these the extremists you're saying are reliable sources? "so-called ex-Muslims", that site says. Only a Muslim says an ex-Muslim is a "so called" ex-Muslim. They use Western names to gain credibility. The author is definitely a Muslim, I will assure you of that. But the point of this again is: How are these sources reliable? The 2nd link you gave [5] (notice how I'm formatting the links. The way you did broke the thing and I fixed it): I did not see anyone here saying the Ex-Muslim group is Islamophobic. Did I miss anything? Edit: Its funny that 'Martin Sullivan' (real name probably: Mazhar Suleman) from Islamophobia watch is aware of how WP works because here he links to the contributions of an editor. In any case, no one takes Islamophobia watch seriously. We can see that by their statement that "Ex-Muslim Council" is a complete fraud. Your edit to that page of course, that links Islamophobia to their page in the light of all this, is interesting. Whats your opinion of Ehsan Jami? Do you think he's a real ex-Muslim? Do you think there is no such thing as a death threat for apostates?

Dude. Certainly question the quality of my sources, but at least grant me that I'm not pulling this charge from thin air. Do I think death threat of apostates exists? Sure. Lot of religion work to exact vengance on those who leave the faith. Mormoms for instance are famous for trying to socially exile people who quit the religion. What I find a little hard to swallow is that European Muslims who leave thier faith are under a demonstrable threat to there well being. I'll tell you what, find me one article in which an ex-muslim was injured/killed for leaving Islam and I'll drop my argument. Make sure it's one of the real Europe countries (i.e. Germany/France/UK/Spain, and not Albania/Estonia etc).

I forgot to respond to this:

I think you understand that the Central_Committee_for_Ex-Muslims is trying to make the point that European muslims seeking to leave thier faith should fear reprisal. I don't why you won't accept this point.

I'm sure you've seen Apostasy in Islam. Yes, ex-Muslims live under a death threat. Multiple Sahih hadiths (you know very well what they are) and Imams and scholars have all supported the death sentence for ex-Muslims. This is exactly what Ehsan Jami said at Central Committee for Ex-Muslims: "Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam". But again for you to link Islamphobia there because you think this statement is Islamophobia is OR. Once again, thats the reason for this discussion. Please provide multiple reliable sources that label the Council of Ex-Muslims as Islamophobic, or you should admit that your edit was OR and equivalent to me linking Violence at Quran. Also there is no such thing as "Quran requires more reliable sources for Violence being linked there". All articles require reliable sources equally, period.

Again, show one example that demonstrates the "threat" you claim European muslims live under is real and not imagined. Another reference [6] for the CCfExM being anti-Islam.

5) Thanks for the debate. While I think your reasoning is flawed and probably slightly predijuiced by religous sentiment, you points are at least cogent and your debate is dialectic (something that WP often so sorely lacks). NickCT (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats ok, thanks for calling my reasoning flawed. Allow me to say that actually its your reasoning that is flawed. Seeing that you like (dialectic) debate, hopefully you're fine with me being straight up with you. The problem again is your quote:

The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is.

So once again, for you to say that the above is an Islamophobic statement and then link it in the See also, is: 1) WP:OR 2) like me linking Violence in the Quran article because "If Quran 9:5 and 9:29 arent promoting violence towards non-Muslims, I dont know what is". Tell me why I would be wrong to link Violence at the Quran article.

1) WP:OR - I provided sources

2) Obviously you're cherry picking verses from the Quaran to make it fit your preconcieved notions. But if you were able to find a good quantity of high quality RS that make the same point, sure, like Violence to the article.

The sources are unreliable. The 2nd source doesnt say anything. Please explain why the sources are reliable and relevant.

Likewise, you're cherry picking statements from unreliable organizations to further your own point of view that supports that Islamophobia should be linked from that Ex-Muslims page.

Of course there are reliable sources that connect Quran to violence. They're all listed at the Criticism of the Qur'an. One should be forthright about the faith they believe in and their edits would tell that in case they dont want to.

It's hard to find high quality RS for the CCfExM as it isn't very notable. I can provide with a ton of other references, but I'm not sure it's going to get much better in quality than what I've already given you. Anyway, you now have three somewhat reliable sources saying the group is critical of Islam. In my mind, this is enough.

I replied under your points if thats ok. This isnt a small problem. Your approach is problematic for all the edits you've done and are doing for Islam related articles. You have a severe anti Criticism-of-Islam attitude and thats ok, but you're injecting OR into articles, and thats not ok. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a severe WP:RNPOV attitude. And again, WP:OR means you are generating an idea or fact independently. That's not the case. NickCT (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, WP:OR means you are generating an idea or fact independently. - you got that right. Now you have to prove that the way you linked Islamophobia was not OR (that is the primacy focus of this discussion). Look at your original statement: "The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends that European muslims are under threat of death if they consider abandoning Islam. If this isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is." -- how is this not OR? As mentioned above, please prove this statement is not OR, but supported by multiple reliable sources. And then maybe we would have a case for that link. I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. As I said, what you did is like me linking Violence in the Quran article. I encourage you to read this part of the policy you linked: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs.". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I made the "The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends ..... isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is." statement, after you ignored the sources I provided. I figured if sources didn't work, perhaps logic will. Apparently, neither do. And as I've said over and over Quaran is a much more notable subject than CCfExM is. The burden of proof for me saying CCfExM is Islamophic is not that high. NickCT (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Note, you haven't really explained why you feel it's so important that CCfExM isn't labeled Islamophobic."

Its not a matter of importance, 'NickCT', its a matter of OR and WP:RS

"Another reference [7] for the CCfExM being anti-Islam."

How is that source saying that CCF. is 1) anti-Islamic or 2) Islamophobic? All its saying is that Ehsam Jami is an Islam critic. Thats no secret. Thats written all over his Wikipedia page in fact.

"It's hard to find high quality RS for the CCfExM as it isn't very notable."

I'm asking you for **A** Reliable source that says CCF. is Islamophobic, not a high quality reliable source.

"Anyway, you now have three somewhat reliable sources saying the group is critical of Islam. "

'Somewhat' reliable? How are they reliable or relevant? More importantly, what have they said? It just sounds like some kind of Jagged_85 incident all over again.

You're avoiding my questions. This is about the 3rd time I've asked you now to tell me WHY you think those sources you gave me were reliable and relevant. Can you please look in this whole discussion and address my points now?

The sources you gave were either not reliable, or were not relevant and did not talk about CCF. being Islamophobic.

Dude, I made the "The Central Committee for Ex-Muslims contends ..... isn't an islamophic argument, I'm not sure what is." statement, after you ignored the sources I provided.

Once again, as I said: the sources you gave were not reliable. Here. I will repeat the "sources":

• [8]: Unreliable. Who is the author here? Some guy called "Martin Sullivan" who is supposedly a pseudonym. It makes me think he's somewhere on Wikipedia himself as he knows how to link to contribs.
• [9]: Said nothing about "CCF being Islamophobic". Can you provide the relevant quotes?
• [10]: Says Ehsam Jami is an Islamic Critic. That doesnt mean you the CCF is Islamophobic. To label anyone as Islamophobic is controversial in any case and if you ask me, it doesnt make sense. To label Ehsan Jami as Islamophobic is equivalent to calling Muhammad Kafir-phobic because in Quran 48:13 he writes down (those are his own words, in my opinion, which differs from yours ofcourse that they are not his words) that Kafirs will burn in Hell. He seems to have some kind of phobia for Kafirs. And perhaps Allah is Jew-phobic because he says they were turned into Apes and Pigs Quran 5:60. But ignoring my opinion, there are reliable sources and notable people who have discarded the whole concept of Islamophobia.

The point is again: you have to show reliable sources that directly state that CCF. is Islamophobic. Can you please now show those sources or quotes so we can verify that? Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

'NickCT', to confirm what I'm asking you: ---> Please provide the exact quotes of the sources and explain why they are relevant or reliable. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Ok.... Let's review

1) Another boost for the 'Council of Ex-Muslims' fraud (Islamophobia Watch)

You say unreliable? I admit, not the best source. However, note the following from the source -

“ Its spokeswoman, Maryam Namazie, said the group provided an alternative voice to the "regressive, parasitical and self-appointed leaders" from organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain and the "oxymoronic" Islamic Human Rights Commission. ”

This tidbit appears in other sources (see [11]). I guess your not going to take the logical argument here that a group which says a religion is against human rights probably is against that religon.

1) The term Islamophobia is as I said, controversial and some scholars and reliable sources have rejected and discarded this term. 2) It is still OR for you to put in a link to Islamophobia. Like I said, its like me putting a link for Violence in the Quran or even Islam article. I can bring a lot more references and quotes from Islamic scholars who have preached violence. If Maryam Namazie saying that the group is against Islam means we can link Islamophobia on the CFXM article, then Quran, hadith snad tonnes of Islamic scholars saying that Kafirs (non-Muslims, I'm sure you know what it means) should be killed, means we can link violence on the Islam article. Standards for reliable sources are higher for Islam? No. All articles need to have reliable sources, period.

2) OIC Islamophobia Observatory

This reference does't explicity state the group is islamophobic. It does however;

a. Discuss the CCfExM in the context of Islamophobia

b. State that foreign minister of Holland would not meet with CCfExM's leader (Jami) because of the contraversial way Jami portrayed Mohammed in his film.

None of that directly states that the CFX is Islamophobic and even if they did, it could be argued that this group is not notable enough to talk about the CFXM and so on (or other arguments). Then we should link Violence on the Quran article because Robert Spencer has said that its a violent religion.

3) No ex-Muslim committee for Ehsan Jami

I don't think it's a lead to say since Jami is anti-Islam, his group dealing with Islam is probably also anti-Islam.

Anti-Islam and Islamophobic aren't necessarily alway synomous, but they are usually.

What does Kafir mean by the by?

As I said, the term Islamophobic itself is a controversial terms and many scholars and reliable sources do not agree with it. If Islamophobia is fear and dislike/hatred of Islam and/or Muslims, I ask you, is Hitler'Phobia a valid term too? What about Kafir Phobia too? Look at Quran 9:5, 9:26, 48:13 and see the dislike/hatred Islam has towards non-Muslims. What do you say about that, Mr. NickCT?

And so therefore when the term itself is controversial, you cant readily apply it like that. You can say the sky is blue because everyone agrees on it, but you cant say CFX is Islamophobic unless everyone agrees that the term is a valid term. If it was, that would be acceptable if you said it like "A says CFXM is Islamophobic". Because you cant say on the Muhammad article that "Muhammad was a pedophile", because people would censor it out. Remember, he married a 9 year old when he was 54 which is why people label him that. So we only say "A says that Muhammad was a pedophile." Get it.

4) Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

The Times quotes Jami as saying "we want to make a clear statement that we no longer tolerate the intolerence of Islam, the terrorist attacks"

Additionally, the Times states that Jami "has compared the rise of radical Islam to the threat from Nazism in the 1930".

Again, not explicitly stating that the group is "Islamophobic", and to try and avoid you shouting "WP:OR" at the top of your lungs, I won't say it's the obvious conclusion, but it is.

Yes, that would all be WP:OR. You cant make these kinds of links yourself. I cant link Pedophilia at the bottom of Muhammad's articles while quoting hadiths and scholars, can I?

In conclusion, there is no one good source that states explicity "CCfExM is Islamophobic"; however, a couple sources state it implicity, and some reliable sources provide pretty strong backing circumstantial evidence. As I'd said earlier, given that bar is quite low on this one, I deem this sufficient.

There you go, you said it yourself: "there is no one good source that states explicity "CCfExM is Islamophobic" - and so we cannot and should not link it there.

As a post-script, re Its not a matter of importance....

Well clearly you like making these kinds of points (based off a review of your edit history). Obviously the subject has some importance to you (beyond the mere policy). Why? Remember.... openness and honesty is best. NickCT (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes honesty is the best policy however I can say I dont want to disclose any information beyond the fact that I dont have any faith and that doesnt mean I'm being dishonest.

I fixed your broken links here. Note the correct way for linking to external links:

• Wrong: [http://wikipedia.org|Wikipedia]: gives us: [12]
• Right: [http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia]: gives us: Wikipedia

Click these 2 links yourself and see what I'm talking about.

In summary:

1. Islamophobia is a controversial term and is not accepted by all reliable sources as a valid term. Its usage and acceptance is controversial and not accepted by everyone. Therefore you cannot apply the term anywhere as you like
2. To do things like "Z said this so organization ABC must be Islamophobic", is OR, specially in the light of #1.

Please be more careful in future editing. Do tell me if you think Hitler Phobia or Kafir Phobia are valid concepts, if you just go by how the terms are defined (dislike/hatred of X). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Matt57, several points addressing the above.

1) You've continuously made this point about linking violence in the "see also" section of QuRan, or Pedophilia to the "see also" section of Muhammed is equivalent to Islamophobia in the CCfExM article. I've continuously countered that this isn't a valid analogy because the difference in notability is vast when comparing either Muhammed or Quran to CCfExM. This point seems self-evident. The same policies (like WP:OR) apply, but the burden-of-proof is much lower on CCfExM. I'd thank you not to bring up this analogy again as its slightly straw manesque.

And as I've said multiple times, the burden of proof for quality and reliable sources is the same no matter what article or issue you're looking at. If a subject is less notable, it doesnt mean we can inject OR and POV's into the article and make synthesis. You have admitted yourself that "there is no one good source that states explicity "CCfExM is Islamophobic" and you still continue to defend your linking of Islamophobia over there, making all kinds of invalid justifications.

Sure "there is no one good source that states explicity "CCfExM is Islamophobic", but there are good sources that make the assertion implicity, and some OK sources that make it explicity. I think this satisfies worries about WP:OR.

2)Of course there's debate about what Islamophobia means. The same could be said about Antisemitism and yet a number of article link Antisemitism to "see also" sections (see Dreyfus affair).

Who cares about Antisemitism, we're talking about Islamophobia here. Please stay focused on the topic. So once again, when Islamophobia is a controversial (and actually silly and invalid) term, you have to be very careful when linking to it. I've explained that before.

Antisemitism and Islamophobia are equivelant religous bigotries.

3) Since we've started discussing you've a) implied that I'm secretly Muslim, after I stated I was not, b) suggested that I in fact knew what "Kafir" meant, after I stated I didn't, c) refused to reveal basic details about yourself and your opinions presumably because you're worried there are people who are out to get you. Respectfully, I might suggest your behavoir seems slightly paranoid.

Thank you for being so kind to link to Paranoid personality disorder and suggesting that I have that personality disorder. May I suggest that you being an atheist and having every edit of a pro-Islamic and anti-Israel in nature might point towards a case of multiple identities. Please dont make personal attacks next time. I have made a note of this attack.

(sigh) Right dude. You're being "attacked". Listen to yourself. Try some intraspection.

4) re Hitler Phobia or Kafir Phobia; Not really sure I understand the point here. I'll say this much though; I'm sure there are a lot of muslim groups that espouse strong anti-Western, anti-infidel ideologies. I think it would be appropriate to put something like a Kafirphobia link in the "see also" section for those groups, just as I think Islamophobia ought to go under the "see also" section for CCfExM. NickCT (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What is Islamophobia to you? Please define it as you understand it. And no you're wrong, we cannot link Kafirphobia for those groups, unless there were reliable sources making a direct link that is not synthesis. Otherwise we would be injecting our POV into the article. I dont think you're understanding any of this and after all this discussion you've still not understood that your linking Islamophobia on the COXM article was a POV-violation and most of all, OR as I've explained. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've touched on an important question here. What is Islamophobia? I'm surprised you didn't accept my analogy to anti-semitism above. Islamophobia as litterally translated from greek obviously means "irrational fear of Islam". I would expand the definition to mean "An irrational fear and/or hatred of Islam and/or Muslims". Is that fair? Frankly, I define anti-semitism as "An irrational fear and/or hatred of Judiasm and/or Jews". Is that fair?

Obviously Karfirphobia is a word we just invented, but imagining for a second it was a real word; if there was an Islamic group who's stated purpose was to protect Muslims from infidels who wanted to stamp harm muslims out Islam you really don't think it would be appropriate to put label a group like that with Karfirphobia? Doesn't the idea that infidels are out to get Muslims smack of WP:FRINGE? Wouldn't it strike you as an "irrational fear"? NickCT (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes removal

I'm AGFing, and assuming that this was just a mistake.[13] Please be more careful in future. Rami R 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. My mistake. I'm not sure how I did that. I sincerely apologize. NickCT (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sheik Yassin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sheik Yassin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Avi (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sheik Yassin.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sheik Yassin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Avi (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith?

This edit may be construed as assuming bad faith, especially after the detailed explanations I gave you on the talk page of the article. You may wish to consider if that edit is actually an indication of psychological projection. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Perhaps I was assuming bad faith. My comments are accordingly struck. However Avi, your failure to acknowledge that there could be anything contentious about the image in question makes assuming good faith hard. I've delt with editors intentionally inserting derogatory images into articles for POV reasons (both in I/P articles and non-I/P articles) and I find the practice particularly dispicable. If you really didn't select the image to be intentionally derogatory, than I sincerely apologize for assuming so. But frankly, I find it a tad hard to believe that you can't see any reason I might believe this was an intentional choice.

Of course, by accussing me of psychological projection you are ironically assuming bad faith from me. But that's OK. Obviously we both have oppossing viewpoints on this one and we are unlikely to achieve consensus. I think at this point the best idea would be to seek comment from others. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I dropped five wikiproject notices, and I hope we'll get some more input besides the four of us who have commented. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there NickCT, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:NickCT/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bot! Seems a little awkward as the image is used elsewhere on WP, but hey, who are we to question. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam Sidebar "Delete" but still here.

Hello. I just noticed the result of the criticism of Islam sidebar discussion was Delete. Can you explain why this has not been deleted? Shouldn't it have been deleted not just edited and replaced complete with the same talk page?Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:Muslims_and_controversies. Thanks. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hfarmer - I'm not sure if you're confused or if I'm confused by your question. The deletion discussion you reference concerned Template:Muslims_and_controversies which has been deleted. It did not concern Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar. Is that clear? NickCT (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is if you click the sidebars discussion link, it leads to the same exact talk page as the deleted template. It makes me think that this is just an alternate version of the template. I asked the mod who closed the discussion and he said that's just what it is. To fully expunge that template each alternate version needs to have a deletion discussion. --71.239.120.235 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Took me a little while to see what you were talking about. From Template_talk:Muslims_and_controversies -

• 13:14, 17 May 2010 Mootros (talk | contribs) moved Template talk:Muslims and controversies to Template talk:Criticism of Islam sidebar ‎ (revert)

I'm not sure why the two templates shared a talk page, but I'm not sure it matters. Template:Muslims_and_controversies has been fully expunged per the deletion discussion. If some discussion page material remains, I don't see why that matters.

Do you think that Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar should be deleted? NickCT (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Could you link to the behavioral similarities in edit summaries that you talked about here: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello, NickCT. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

I received an email a couple weeks ago from a guy named "Matt57" talking about you.

The topic was: "Nick CT" He said: "This bastard is actually a Muslim. He claims he's an athiest on his user page. All of his edits are pro-Islamic."

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Supreme Deliciousness. Thanks for the note. You'll see that Matt and I had a colorful conversation on my talk page above.

I really don't know what to say to Matt57. I've told him that while I do make many "pro-Islamic" edits, I see it more as an effort to counter what I perceive to be systemic bias against Islam on WP. I am in fact very much an atheist, but at the same time, I hold high the spirit of WP:RNPOV. I'm not sure why Matt finds this idea so hard to swallow, or why he remains so vitriolic against perceived "pro-Islamic" edits. Frankly, his mentality scares me a little and I think I will try to avoid him in future.

As a side-note Supreme Deliciousness, I've noticed that you seem to do a lot of private "e-mailing" with other WP editors. Not trying to be overly critical here, but I wonder whether this in line with WP's spirit of openness? Is there some advantage private e-mail holds over posting to user talk pages? NickCT (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the guy and have never sent him an email, I don't know why he sent me it. Could you please point out what emails exactly you are referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the Breein1007 SPI. You mentioned you had private communications I believe....... NickCT (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have personal information about him, so that's why I sent it through email instead of revealing personal information about him at Wikipedia. So whats the problem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in the SPI. I thought the so-called "personal information" was in the form of e-mails. Wrong I guess? NickCT (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the evidence was not any emails. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas article advice

I enjoy interacting with the POV editors making the already "the case against Hamas" entry even more bloated with anti-Hamas opinion, but my larger goal at this point is to defend the pre-September 15 version of the article. It at least was pretty damn NPOV up to and including the history section. Is there anyone or any process I can appeal to? I've already written to User:Peter Symonds, who helpfully put the article into protective status in Feb. 2009, but so far no response. What else can or should I do?Haberstr (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Haberstr - I largely agree with your with your sentiments. Unfortunately fighting these kind of NPOV issues can be a real challenge when there are slew editors who's primary interest is to push their POVs on WP. Though we hate to admit it, WP sorta is a democracy, where majority often trumps sense and reason. Enough POV editors working together can distort articles over the objections of lone neutral observers.

If there were a good way of addressing this, someone on WP probably would have figured it out by now, and these kind of issues wouldn't exist. Alas they do.

In my limited experience, the best way to combat problems like this is to approach them piece-by-piece. Take the most visible and most egregious POV issues and debate them, RfC them, get them changed. Trying to make too many changes at once can often exasperate neutral observers called in to offer opinions.

Perhaps we could get started by you describing the specific lines or sections of the current article you feel have NPOV issues? NickCT (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"The case against Hamas." Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another productive comment from Wikifan12345. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion - this is the correct way to tackle content disputes. Marokwitz (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have done what you suggest, the section by section approach, in laborious detail on the talk page, for the intro section and the first two subsections of the history section. More such explanatory stuff will follow as I further edit the post-Sept 15 wave of POV changes all the way through the article. So far this has not resulted in an ending to the mass reverts, but it has produced some several changes to my 'pre Sept 15 plus good ideas from post 9/15 reverts' contributions.Haberstr (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Sources

• Please see a comment in Talk:Hamas regarding use of the terms by mainstream sources. You may want to revise your !vote. Marokwitz (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yassin's picture

I dont know whats going on with Yassin's picture issue but if you're that passionate about it, its not too hard to contact someone who owns an appropriate picture of him and ask them to release it into the public domain. If you sent 5 emails I'd say at least one of them would agree. Eww at that the first picture in that link. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(chuckling) - Thanks Matt57 for an uncharacteristicly constructive suggestion. Tell me, have you ever e-mailed someone to ask them to release a picture before?

Also, I'd be interested to hear your impression of the current image up for Ahmed Yassin. Do you think it looks a little deranged?

Also, in an attempt to demonstate I have some neutrality note that I protect anti-Islamic commentator Pamela Geller's page from vandalism, and I took a percieved anti-muslim stance on Park51.NickCT (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've emailed and gotten a few pictures. I dont care what happens in the Yassin case, whatever you guys come up with, I'm busy. Oh thats obvious vandalism, I've reverted that all the time. It doesnt mean anything but thanks. Dont know about the Park51, I dont care over there too. If you want to get the picture, you can see this page. [15]. For Yassin since you asked well, its fine if an appropriate image is shown for his main picture. The 'deranged' (yes it looks like that) one can stay but can move to the bottom near his assassination section. Usually bio articles have 'presentable'/'best form' images. I don't care if he was a terrorist supporter which he was, it looks like but then again I dont care about any of this. Muhammad Ali an example where we can go and find out a deranged picture of him (because thats his present), however currently the page has a 'presentable' picture. You can go and get a good public domain image of him and in any case that can be used in his article whether its on the top or not.

You can ask the guys [16] or any admin on what to write in the email. Once they reply with permission then um, you'll be forwarding that email to OTRS and then you'll be done. The main thing is getting those people to say "yes we release it in public domain/CC", whatever that CC license is, I forgot. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt57. The links are helpful. I agree with your "best form" thoughts. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rollback granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

sic

Hi there,

I've undone your reversion of my soft redirect at sic. The article was a simple dictionary definition, and i don't see how it would ever be anything else. As per the rules at WP:NOT#DICT, this should be soft redirected to wiktionary, where this sort of article is more appropriate. The article has been tagged for this move for over a week. If there is a reason you think this is not a dictionary article, then please let me know, or even better discuss on the Talk:sic page. Thanks OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

and frankly, your second reversion is just rude, given that the page was tagged for this move over a week in advance, and I started a talk discussion immediately upon placing the soft redirect, which you have summarily ignored. Poor wiki etiquette. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comments on talk page. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Shiny Object

		Sven Manguard's "Completely Safe" Irradiated Barnstar
		Not content with distributing ordinary barnstars, I have illegally enriched several ordinary barnstars, for the purposes of rewarding others for outstanding individual achievement. Congratulations, you have just been awarded one of these rare treasures. They glow in the dark, yes, but I'm sure they are perfectly safe. For reverting vandalism to my userspace before I had the chance to. Somewhat ironically I was reporting the very same vandal at AIAV at the time. Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, my second barnstar awarded ever, and while I was awarding it to you, the same vandal came back and tore up my space. Keep up the good work. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 24#Category:Jewish agnostics

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Black Falcon's talk page.
Message added 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding AFD

Hi, since I already know you are an open minded editor, I think you should reconsider your !vote in the AFD on The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, following recent rename and content changes in the article. I think that it is clearly a notable book. Marokwitz (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Marok, I'm really not sure. Here are a couple reasons I find it difficult to accept -

1) A WP article about what is essentially an academic dissertation of a notable politician is highly unusual. Can you point out another example of such an article?

2) The nominator's WP:POVFORK argument is convincing. I can't see any reason for giving Abbas' publication so much attention other than to push a POV.

Finnaly Marok, while you obviously aren't editting WP with any particular POV (*sarcasm*), I wonder if you really think it helps to paint Abbas as a fervent anti-semite? This kind of name-calling seems so childish (particularly when you start using the word "Nazi" in any context). It really only serves to inflame and to bring down the level of the debate. Is that what you want to do? Can't you fit enough POV material into the Mahmoud_Abbas#Doctoral_dissertation_and_book section? NickCT (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't appreciate your sarcastic hints. Good that other editors including the original nominator changed their opinion, so perhaps I wasn't wrong after all. Marokwitz (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you

for reverting yourself. i think you will see that my description was as neutral as i could make it and shown in the wording below in the article. 137.52.150.212 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Hanlon piece

Help me figure out what not to put in the article; saw your reversion. Trying to clean it up a bit. It did not seem to have anyone responding to the 2007 post. Pulling citations from the web to justify the earlier material by other authors.--Cmagha (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As it happens...

This resulted only from an attempt to search Pubmed to see if anyone had studied the diagnoses (and bedside manner) of House MD in any form. MEDLINE allows for fictional names to be registered as personal names, but it seems the content of House has been unexplored academically. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... An interesting point I guess. I seem to recall hearing about an analysis of the same nature done on the medical drama ER. The researchers who conducted the study discussed how inaccurate information was filtering through to US med students. I'm not sure if you could fine that study on PubMed though.... I mean, which scientific journal would carry it? NickCT (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a collegial way forward ...

Nick, AKMask, in good faith, started a mock up of an RfC in his user space. He also suggested that we wait until Monday to post it. You decided that his RfC was not neutral enough in its tone (fair enough) and said you would draft a more neutral one. I'm all with you there. But then, instead of waiting for his and/or anyone else's input you went ahead and posted your own version of the RfC on the talk page, thus usurping the process unilaterally. I have no problem with bold action and getting things done, but when someone else has started a process that is collaborative jumping into the process and usurping it in this manner comes off quite poorly. You now control the terms of the RfC by constructing all the options available to those commenting on it. That wouldn't normally be an issue, but given the fact that AK made a prior attempt that you explicitly disagreed with him about in terms of how the question was framed, this is, in my view inappropriate. I appreciate the fact that you say that you will edit it if someone disagrees with how you have structured it, but that is also inappropriate, especially once others start responding. A live RfC should never be edited. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying Gris. People have "usurped" my RfCs before and it's very annoying. The issue was, I didn't think AkMask's RfC really approached things in the correct way, so instead of asking him to revise the entire thing, I thought I'd just do it myself.

Re "A live RfC should never be edited" - I think it's ok to add additional arguments to the RfC and long as the fundemental question behind the RfC isn't changed. If AMask wants me add a couple of his points I'd be more than happy to do so. Additionally, if AMask strenuously objects to the way I've phrased the RfC, I'll close it.

I hope in having made these concessions it will be noted that I'm trying to approach this is a fair way. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think you did this in bad faith, and I think we got off on the wrong foot on the NPOV/N, and I'm not trying to continue that. I'm just pointing out that I think there were better ways forward. Maybe next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok Griswaldo. Thanks for WP:AGF. Let me know if you think I can add a couple points to the RfC to make it more neutral. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To chime in here, that was pretty dick-ish in terms of how you completely disregarded and/or didn't read any of my comment asking for a response/statement on the other side and collaboration on the presentation of opposing viewpoints before we go live. No harm no foul though, just try and make sure in the future you comprehend what people you're working with are saying to you. -- ۩ Mask 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What can I say, I'm a WP:DICK. But seriously, is there anything you object to/want to change in the current RfC? NickCT (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, not at all. Im actually not wanting to put you on blast or anything, it was a more a general comment. You pretty successfully IAR'd :) -- ۩ Mask 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side-note, I'm a little confused why everyone is choosing option A on the RfC. I thought you guy argued earlier that there was "consensus" for option C. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You must not mean me since I never weighed in on the actual topic until now. I was just criticizing your approach at NPOV/N ... :).Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No one argued Ground Zero Mosque didn't deserve a mention, or a redirect/alternative title. It was the second (and continued) naked 'mosque' that was an issue. Saying it's frequently and controversially called the Ground Zero Mosque is hardly a POV issue. Referring to it after that as a mosque, especially just the naked wording, when there are RS's pointing out that it clearly isn't a mosque is what consensus has conclusively shown (including in the RfC) is a POV statement. In fact, the current wording (that you quoted in the RfC) is up because of an edit i made stripping out the 'and mosque' after the community center. If we've all been agreeing all along i have the feeling that we're all going to feel pretty dumb. -- ۩ Mask 20:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps there was less disagreement than I thought. I would point out though that User:Hauskalainen was trying to put in option C, and was citing the NPOV noticeboard as having "reached consensus" for that wording. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing i saw in the consensus at the NPOV/N board is that referring to it as a mosque in the article is POV, nothing about the fact that it is called the Ground Zero Mosque by opponents. If Haus is claiming something else I can only assume he's been reading a different thread. -- ۩ Mask 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See this edit. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you. He's wrong on a factual basis, and more so the community is coming in fairly strongly for the consensus I (and I suppose you as well, seems we agree and were just confused) read. Don't know where Haus is figuring backing for that edit. We did say his wording was good, but it was phrased as removing references to it as a mosque by the article. That's the important part i think he missed. Part of our mission as an encyclopedia is to be factually correct within the limits of sources. No source argues that there is not a large contingent of people who call it the Ground Zero Mosque. That statement is incontrovertible. However, in prose, we should avoid referring to it as a mosque. It's simply factually incorrect, and we have references to back that up, it's an easy editorial decision to make. Fringe History and Fringe Science (not calling this fringe, just the easiest way to show what I mean), where something can be shown to be incorrect, is handled in much the same way. We report on what people say/claim, freely, but when it comes to facts in prose, we maintain objective reality, without 'calling out' the proponents of the theory.-- ۩ Mask 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems we were confused. I thought you were arguing User:Hauskalainen's wording was the so called consensus. I did try to point out in this comment on the NPOV noticeboard that I was only 50/50 for the word "mosque". Anyways, it looks like the RfC cleared up this mess. Well done all around everyone. A good example of WP:DR. NickCT (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanitizing the Christine O'Donnell article

Your edit summary reverting my recent edit to Christine O'Donnell, to say nothing of the revert itself, was completely inappropriate. The statement was an accurate reflection of O'Donnell's own public statements, properly cited to a neutral source. O'Donnell hasn't contested the accuracy of the statement, although she apparently did object to a different comment in the same source, which characterized her as having been a "promiscuous partygoer." Variations have been in the article for some time, since shortly after the cited source appeared several weeks ago, and several editors have been fine-tuning it to more exactly reflect what O'Donnell has said. When a politician characterizes herself (or himself) as a repentant sinner, it's not unusual for them to detail their sins, as O'Donnell has done, and when they use that characterization as a significant part of their campaign posture, it's hardly unfair -- and it's usually necessary -- to describe the matters involved in writing an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia isn't in the business of cleaning up after politicians who make embarrassing admissions while campaigning. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Look Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Frankly speaking, your edits constituted blatant POV pushing. The NYT piece you cited offered a dozen quotes from O'Donnell, and you selected the one of her saying "I was a slut" then you tried to feature it prominently. If you can't see why this is WP:UNDUE, I'd suggest we simply follow dispute resolution guidelines and launch an RfC on the matter. As your attempts to include this material have already been reverted several times, I doubt you will have much success.

On a conciliatory note, I don't object outright to the inclusion of the material, but you have to change it considerably to achieve WP:NPOV.

P.S. I don't support O'Donnel, I just support WP:NPOV and doesn't like WP:SOAPBOXing. NickCT (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you bother to check before you write? I didn't cite the NYT Times piece; I didn't have anything to do with the the "slut" comment (which, by the way, reads “I by no means was a slut,” exactly the opposite of what you say. The statement I restored had been in the article, uncontroversially, until today, and I had nothing to do with inserting it to begin with. I restored it because it was removed without adequate discussion, against the tenor of prior discussion. We're talking about information stated freely by O'Donnell, advanced as part of her standard autobiography, and without it a great deal of related self-description loses its context; and if it represents anyone's POV it's O'Donnell's. We don't remove accurate information that a politician self-reports about what she characterizes as a pivotal time in her life, related to the positions that made her prominent, just because it now embarrasses some of her partisans. Get your information before you criticize other editors as sharply as you have. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. So I got the "slut" thing wrong. RfC the "drinking excessively and having sexual relationships" and let's see what people say huh? I never said we're removing the material b/c it "embarrassed her partisans", I said we're removing it b/c it was WP:UNDUE. Slight difference. Go find some other politician to slander. NickCT (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Jaymax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Incidents?

Hi, I saw your message, the link to Incidents you posted sends me to a "collection of four essays". As I'm pretty sure that's not what you had in mind, could you please post a link to the actual discussion (http:// included, if you want.) Thanks!--Therexbanner (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, found it.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Heartlight Minitries and WP:NPOVN

Hi Nick, a bit confused by your comment at the NPOV noticeboard (the latter half of which I agree with). Why is your opinion not appropriate? The Interior(Talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded on noticeboard. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Editors

Hello,

In regards to the discussion at Andre Geim, I have just noticed that many of the people arguing the opposing side are either members who mainly post on Jewish-related subjects (according to their contributions), or are known to take a certain position in discussion relating to "Who is a Jew?" (again according to their contribs., and talk pages.)

As I am relatively new here, I am not entirely clear on all the procedures one can invoke (apart from standard DR steps). Is there any way of bringing some neutral people into the discussion (I'm not trying to push a POV, they may very well take the opposing side). I am referring to people who have never been concerned with the issue of "Jewishness", and who would look at it from a pure policy/sourcing point of view.

I think that would be a good way of getting an unbiased opinion on the issue.

Best, --Therexbanner (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Therexbanner

I think the quick answer I would give you is "request for comment" (RfC). Also consider posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

Your observation re "I have just noticed that many of the people arguing the opposing side are either members who mainly post on Jewish-related subjects", is quite astute. Frankly speaking, there are a horde of committed Israel-Palestine (I/P) editors on WP that flock to subjects of this nature. It can be difficult to overcome the POVs that surround the matter.

Let me know if I can help you with anything. NickCT (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like everyone has reached a consensus, and with all the conflicting info. that we have, it will do for now. Thanks for your help & advice! --Therexbanner (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)