Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Why is there this random photo of Ayaan with Steve Jurvetson?

It's a photo with no significance to her biography or career and seems strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.145.24 (talk • contribs) 2016-03-12 (UTC)

I second this, and recommend its removal.Dtwedt (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are few photos of her. I swapped with a photo without Jurvetson. --— Erik Jr. 16:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SPLC

Re: [1]. The text already says that the SPLC removed the list. So half this sentence is redundant. The other half is about the apology to Nawaz. So since this article is about Hirsi Ali, not Nawaz, it's off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Undue

The article is overwhelmingly biased against Ayaan with the bulk of the reception being negative. Looking at the contributions it appears a lot of these edits come from users who are opposed to her views on Islam and not approaching the article in a neutral way.--173.162.148.157 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you be more specific and give us some ideas about the kind of modifications you want to do to improve the neutrality of the article? Whining is not enough, you have to propose specific changes (add something, remove something, replace something, trim something, etc... this is how Wikipedia works)--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If I need to make it clearer... There's two positive lines of her in the reception and then there's an entire criticism section where a few specific biased users (checking the contributions of a few of the top editors) used it to pile on negative diatribes against her. She's polarizing but she's not overwhelmingly reviled and the article clearly favors the views of one argument. Either the criticism section needs to be trimmed significantly or the positive comments need to be expanded on.--24.147.160.219 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There are some issues with the Criticism section, such that critics are unnamed or it is not explained why these critics are important. I tagged a few, but an editor deleted the tags instead of fixing the problems. AadaamS (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree: Insofar as I can tell having just now read the article from top to bottom, Ali has many critics, and had a very sad early life. Overwhelmingly the contents of the article seems to focus on the statements of uninvolved observers, who note that Ali's methods are controversial, and will not easily sway many people because of their directness. That being said it does not appear that there is disproportionate weight given to her critics- though you might argue there is simply not enough weight given to her achievements. So right now the article reads "sad early life"->"citizenship controversy" ->"publication controversy" ->"criticism"->"publications"->"awards". Yes the first half of the article is overwhelmingly negative and sad feeling, but that's just how her life has gone, there is little that can be done about that. It's an encyclopedia article,sometimes it will be sad, you wouldn't for example expect the article about the Holocaust to have cheery upbeat parts after all. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t get what point you are trying to make. The issue isn’t about her early life in regards to her mutilation, the issue is in regards to one viewpoint being over-represented. She is a controversial figure but not to the extent that a majority-negative reception is accurate.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article over-represents the rather obvious Islamist and pro-Islamic views on Ali - their criticism of an Islam critic is simply not needed, and the article repeats this sky is blue information. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree And I deleted the tags AadaamS put in because they were spurious. A tag attached to the name of a person who provides the referenced statement noted at the end of the same sentence? It's an attribution so as not to be in Wikipedia's voice. And Hirsi Ali's religious viewpoint attracts a lot of negative attention in part because of its pretty evident bias. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

She’s a controversial figure but has received lots of positive acclaim as well. To suggest that the overwhelming majority of reception she has received is negative is simply untrue and presenting that viewpoint as being the case is a sign of bias.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that users who aren't satisfied with the current condition of the reception section would find their time better served looking for WP:RS supported material to insert and less attacking other editors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

It’s an example of the inherent bias in this article. You have someone with a clear bias steamrolling the article with negative views on the subject. I don’t see how that’s acceptable with Wikipedia’s policies on bias. —173.162.148.157 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, I would suggest you would have better luck in adding additional reliable sources into the article than in complaining that a specific editor made edits to it whose POV you dislike. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

I’m not an experienced editor which was why I brought the issues of bias here. I think what needs to happen is for the article to be trimmed at minimum for balance but if I were to do that my edits would be reverted immediately.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If you start asking for reliably sourced criticisms to be deleted on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you'll probably find it hard-going. This is why I suggested that if you find there isn't enough positive coverage in reception you should be trying to find more - because your assertion that the current weight of the article doesn't reflect the reality of her reception hinges largely on whether positive responses to her can be found that have not been included. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Her multiple awards alone from feminist and human rights organizations alone are an indication that she is not someone who is generally viewed with the overwhelming level of disdain that a few specific editors would like to suggest when they dogpiled on people who are opposed to her criticism of Islam.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:HAT: “This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction

with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It

should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the

objections of other editors.” And the bias in this article is a relevant topic of discussion.173.162.148.157 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh for the love of... Just stop. This is WP:NOTAFORUM and you are not asking for any substantive edits. Instead you've repeatedly violated WP:AGF, insulted a random editor who hasn't even weighed in here and suggested there's a conspiracy against Hirsi Ali rather than doing what at least two different editors suggested and finding supportive reliable sources to include. Then, when I closed this off as an obvious waste of everybody's time you called me involved on the weak basis that I recently deleted spurious tags on-page. Just drop the WP:STICK and find something productive to do with your time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been solely discussing the article and it’s violation of NPOV. I’ve explained my issue with bias and WP:UNDUE numerous times. That doesn’t apply to “notaforum” which is just discussing the subject itself. And you’ve been an active participant in this discussion so trying to close it goes against what the template instructs.173.162.148.157 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have provided precisely zero concrete examples of WP:UNDUE statements or sources in the text and have repeatedly refused to provide any sources supporting your assertion that the article, as is, is a violation of WP:NPOV. You keep insisting it's undue because you dislike some of the editors who have previously edited it, but that's not relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New book: Prey

Ayaan has released a new book, this should be mentioned. Most sources appear to be commentaries however:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/books/review/ayaan-hirsi-ali-prey.html

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/women-rights-europe-under-attack-ayaan-hirsi-ali

2001:56A:F123:4400:D97E:541B:76A0:561 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see the book is in the article, so that concern has been met at least. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why I am now a Christian

I read the entire essay, but it isn't really clear if she is more than a "cultural Christian", and that's what I took away from it. For what it is worth, Dawkins also describes himself as a cultural Christian. I also think that was the primary thesis of her essay, that the reformation of Christianity allowed for secularism and atheism to co-exist without the call to destroy them found in political Islam today. Obviously, she goes one step beyond this simple argument by asserting that the story itself (the whole shebang, ball of wax, enchilada, or megillah) is the driving force for the values of progressivism and modernity. It's an interesting idea, and it's one I've been investigating for a long time, but there's a lot of counterarguments that she should have been aware of or at least addressed, but chose to ignore. I would like to see more critical discussion about it in the article. Her position sounds a lot like the philosophy of Leo Strauss who believed in the primacy and importance of a noble lie (or story) to drive civilization. My guess is that this essay places her in the neoconservative camp, along with the rest of the so-called "liberals" on the right. Viriditas (talk)

Outside of listing her as a Christian in the article, this would predominately fall into original research territory, which is something that Wikipedians can't do on their own.

I agree with you that it's an interesting argument/story, @Viriditas:. KlayCax (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Either way, the section on her conversion to Christianity is way to long given her long public life and smacks of WP:RECENTism. I believe we should give a one or two sentence summary. The reader can read the whole article if they want details. Ashmoo (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree: it's one small paragraph, which is fine. If there's more material out there, it would be excellent to see it included.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV problem

Recent edits by StardustToStardust and KlayCax have been made to the article in the wake of the right-wing news blitz over Ali claiming to be a Christian (which I touched upon in the above thread). Previous to their tag-team distortions, other editors make a series of policy-compliant edits that properly added this information to correct parts of the article and discussed it in the appropriate context.[2]

Everything was fine until StardustToStardust arrived, changing the entire stability of the article, to now calling Ali "a central figure of New Atheism" in the first paragraph, which is completely out of the context of the third paragraph where her role is discussed, and then immediately juxtaposing this extraordinary claim with "she announced her conversion to Christianity in November 2023", again, out of the third paragraph where it is discussed. They then went on to rewrite other stable sections out of chronological order, duplicate material in the same section (female genital mutilation is now discussed twice in the lead) and remove in its entirety her opposition to male circumcision.[3]

StardustToStardust claimed in the edit summary that they removed the content about male circumcision because the link was dead,[4] but that's not how we edit Wikipedia, and I think StardustToStardust knows that. A quick search shows that Ali's comments about male circumcision were recorded on video with an English transcription provided,[5] so one wonders why the material was removed.

This is not an improvement, it is the destabilization of a former stable article. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax comment:

1.) female genital mutilation is now discussed twice in the lead In two different contexts. The first relates to her activism against FGM. The second recounts her personal experience of FGM.

2.) to now calling Ali "a central figure of New Atheism" in the first paragraph This is uncontroversial. She's frequently listed as a top figures in the movement by reliable sources.

3.) over Ali claiming to be a Christian What evidence do we have that she's not really Christian? Even from a conservative, traditionalist perspective? Does she deny a theistic view of God?

There are a lot of problems with Starlight's edits. I've removed most of the issues you pointed out of. But I see nothing objectionable in the remaining changes. What's the POV being pushed? KlayCax (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I just finished explaining it on your talk page and I don't see how you've removed any of the major issues; they are still in the article. We don't need to talk about anything twice in the lead, least of all FGM. If we take the WHO at their word, then 200 million girls and women have undergone the procedure, while 3 million are at risk per year. Why is this notable to mention in the lead? It's mentioned for POV reasons having to do with Staright's bias. Why do you think it wasn't mentioned in the lead before?

The first paragraph in the previous stable version was about what Ali is notable for. She is not notable for being an atheist or a Christian, but that's where Starlight added it. The previous version was correct, the current version is not. The previous version follows up with a paragraph about religion, explaining how Ali was a former Muslim who became an atheist, and who now identifies as Christian. We don't highlight this in the first paragraph, because the lead has a distinct structure. The first paragraph tells us what she is notable for, and she is not notable for being an atheist nor for being a Christian.

Ali is notable as an activist, a politician, and as a critic of Islam, and for the subjects and topics related to that notability, none of which have to do with atheism or Christianity. Only right-wing news sources think Ali is notable for being an atheist and a Christian, and we aren't FOX news, we are an encyclopedia that has strict standards regarding article structure, content, and lead sections. It's weird to me that you can't see how the article has completely degraded and destabilized with Starlight's edits. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas - I agree with you about mentions. Certainly something like FGM could be mentioned in the intro, then developed in the body of the article. With regards to Atheism and Christianity, I assure you that, given this topic has been reported and discussed in this article in The New York Times in the last few days (not to mention the National Review and The Spectator which, while conservative, are certainly not deprecated sources for this encyclopedia). In short, it's notable. By the way, I've ridden the notability rodeo before, and the principle only applies to whether the subject of the BLP is notable. Once that's established - and in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it's well and truly established - then anything reported about the subject, given a decent secondary source - can legitimately be included. I say @KlayCax and others should proceed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand the objection here. It's important to note that Hirsi Ali was already mentioned as a figure within it before this news story broke.

See here, here, et al. for examples. The claim that Hirsi Ali was a leader in New Atheism isn't new. This source published by Oxford Publishing describes her as such. (And not in positive terms.)

Claiming that her (significant) involvement with New Atheism is only noted by "conservatives" or "right-wing media outlets" isn't true at all. KlayCax (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've come a ways toward that being settled, haven't we? The material is widely reported and directly relevant.

I do think the "not in two places" rule of @Viriditas should be observed, so I've removed the second mention of the topic in personal life section at the end.

The one thing I think is missing is on this area of what the subject personally believes as being true as of late 2023. There is nothing in the secondary sources on this.

There's an excellent interview done by the former YouGov Editor-in-Chief, Freddie Sayers, where Hirsi Ali directly engages with this question. (It can also be found on Youtube.) But as of this moment, there's no secondary source available.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax, @Viriditas and all other editors of good cheer,

I'm keen to see if we can get this article to the point of a NPOV.

Looking at the discussion above, and keeping in mind some recent edits. I submit that:

1.) female genital mutilation (FGM)... in the lede has appropriate, reliable sources now

2.) calling Ali "a central figure of New Atheism" in the first paragraph is pretty well established; the book by M H Khalil provides the substance, and a recent piece from New York Magazine called here "a face of New Atheism" which roughly means she was a central figure. (And, yes, I've added that source in.)

3.) the question of Ali claiming to be a Christian is settled as a basic statement, but there are contrasting views as to how personal the decision is, so I have included opposing views.

So, are there are there other details to attend to, that could make this article closer to neutral?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

( @Joyous! This is the monkey like editing I'm talking about. ) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dutch Americans

Are people with Dutch heritage. If I move to Somalia, live there for 10 years and then move to the USA, I do not become an Afro American. My (recent) ancestors did not live in Africa and hers did not live in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:27:6BF0:3946:BAAD:7B1B:4C71 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would posit that if you get naturalized (become a citizen) then get elected to Parlament, it would be very legitimate for you to identify as Somali-American. Refael Ackermann (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It really comes down to whether she's reported, by a reliable source, to be "Somali-American" or what-have-you. If there are enough news pieces and such that describe her in those terms, then that's what we could use in the article.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP vio and edit warring

IP 83.105.44.124 has been repeatedly adding content to the article over the objections of other editors. I see parts of these edits as clear BLP violations, including the unsourced assertion that Ali's "statement of conversion from atheism to Christianity only in November 2023 is questionable at best". IP pings don't work, so I'll post a message at their talk page. I would love for them to come here and build consensus for their changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am here. Please specify what exactly do you not want on this Wiki page and why?

Also please indicate why have you removed the legitimate changes right away, instead of starting the talk first.

The way I see it, the page should be reverted back to the way I edited it, and then we can discuss and come to a consensus and only AFTER the new edits can stay or be removed... On what grounds your edits PREVAIL over my edits? 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not feel that leaving the BLP violations in the article while discussion continued was appropriate per WP:BLPREMOVE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

At the IP's user talk page, they questioned my removal of the content they added about Muslim schools. I'll start with just one of many objections: the line "Her attacks in the previous years against Muslim faith schools, whilst protecting Christian and Jewish schools, which is something an "atheist", such as her, should not technically have done" is not supported by the cited source. Contentious claims about living people always need to be cited to reliable sources that explicitly support the claims. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response!

1) You justify removal by saying that there was a BLP violation. However, above you mentioned that this is only your opinion, so it's not an objective truth or fact. I don't see a BLP violation. It's a matter of discussion whether there is a violation or not. You should have started a discussion about it, and not remove the edits right away, according to the procedure.

2) Her attacks on Muslim schools were references by an article from The Guardian and AU Daily Telegraph. The Guardian source is a very good article, indeed. Why have you ignored this reference?

3) The phrase "Questionable at best" is further explained by giving two arguments. If you don't like the phrase "Questionable at best" you can edit it, to say "Controversial" or smth else. Why remove the whole section?? 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

1) It's true that it is my opinion that the edits included BLP violations, although I'm quite confident. If I'm wrong, others will surely join soon to tell me so. Until that happens, the content should not be restored, per WP:BLPRESTORE.

2) Your edits which I reverted did not cite any Guardian articles. Which one are you referring to?

3) Your arguments should not be included in the article, unless they are made explicitly by reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Ok, we'll see.

2) The one in lead section and the one in the one of the sections below. Do you confirm then that there was AU Daily Telegraph reference indeed? Since you only mentioned not seeing Guardian.

3) This argument was made in the Guardian article; this controversy was highlighted there, actually.

This is the Guardian link, by the way, for both 2 and 3:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-fighter-for-freedom-or-just-a-help-for-hanson 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I did see the Telegraph article, and neither it nor the Guardian piece you just linked supports the content you added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you actually read the article then.

It says in black and white about her call to ban Muslim schools in Australia, whilst at the same time saying that Christian and Jewish schools are fine, no problem with them.

Please re-consider your stance on this, or I will have to escalate this further. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Using one small part of the source to make a much larger unsourced contentious point about a living person is a BLP violation. If you disagree, there are multiple avenues for escalation. Among other options, you could post a neutral request for input at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or call for sanctions against me at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Both will likely lead to editors evaluating both of our content opinions and conduct so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I will consider those options, thanks!

Before I resort to them - can you clarify where exactly Wikipedia forces editors to use the approach you described in your comment - "Using one small part of the source to make a much larger unsourced contentious point about a living person is a BLP violation".

This is how referencing works - you look at the sources, you read them and you reference them. The paper could be 100 pages long, but you only need the part which is maybe 1 paragraph or 1 sentence long.

And how is that edit "contentious"? - this is taken directly from the source (The Guardian). 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the text of the edit that you cited to the Daily Telegraph, and which you now claim is supported by The Guardian:

Her statement of conversion from atheism to Christianity only in November 2023 is questionable at best due to at least two reasons: 1) Her attacks in the previous years against Muslim faith schools, whilst protecting Christian and Jewish schools, which is something an "atheist", such as her, should not technically have done 2) Very convenient timing of the conversion which was shortly after a start of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which began on 7 October 2023 - she extensively discussed this conflict in her article about the conversion.

Wikipedia doesn't force editors to do anything, but our policies do not permit unsourced contentious info to remain in articles about living people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are citing the wrong edit.

We are talking specifically about her call to ban the Muslim schools.

It was in the section about schools down below.

The one in the lead could be rewritten to not mention the Palestine and not mention questionability of her conversion, only the fact that she was against.

P.S. The argument about conversion however stands - I found other reputable sources that question her conversion into Christianity to be one of convenience, but I am not willing to explore this avenue for now - let it be on her consciousness.... 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Then you're referring to

Hirsi Ali demonstrated a bias and prejudice directed towards Muslim faith schools, when she issued a call to Australian government to ban Muslim faith schools, whilst arguing at the same time that there are no similar arguments for banning of Christian and Jewish schools, which counteracted her own arguments that she is against all faith schools

You think that's all supported by the sources you've cited? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The Guardian article explains this in a very clear terms.

If you think it's needed, a reference could be added where she is reported to be against all faith schools (as if).

Again, don't delete the whole paragraph, but remove only parts you are not happy about or need additional references for (which you can request in the comment). Otherwise, it looks like you are abusing your powers. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're just looking for a neutral mention of her opposition to Muslim schools, then propose a neutral version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.

Here is one more source which establishes her opposition to Muslim schools. This time, there is even direct speech quotes from her (as in "she said"):

https://washdiplomat.com/womens-rights-advocate-hasnt-shied-from-criticizing-islam-2/ 83.105.44.124 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Please also explain why have you removed the properly referenced sentence about Niall Ferguson divorcing his wife of 16 years Sue Douglas to marry Hirsi Ali? This is well-known fact and there are multiple publications in the both American and British press about this. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your content made a claim about a "string of adulterous affairs" by Ferguson, which was not supported by the cited source. The piece in The Independent does not claim in its own voice that Ferguson divorced his former wife for Ali, though it does say that some of Ferguson's friends have made that claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, below are TEN more sources that support this edit - that Ferguson divorced his wife of 16 years for Ali (some of the sources also discuss Ferguson's overall conduct in this matter and tell about the existence of other affairs).

1. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2010/02/and_you_thought_dating_was_har.html

2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/romance-for-british-historian-niall-ferguson-1892263.html

3. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-media-queen-9189839.html

4. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/odd-couple

5. https://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-is-ditching-his-wife-for-a-young-hot-feminist-and-politcal-war-refugee-2010-2?r=US&IR=T

6. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2013/05/04/theres-wrong-theres-very-wrong-and-then-theres-niall-ferguson/

7. https://www.dutchnews.nl/2011/09/ayaan_hirsi_ali_marries_scotti/

8. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8738679/Niall-Ferguson-The-real-point-of-me-isnt-that-Im-good-looking.-Its-that-Im-clever.html

9. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/11/niall-ferguson-political-debate-england-america

10. https://www.dutchnews.nl/2011/12/ayaan_hirsi_ali_gives_birth_to/

P.S. If you didn't like the words "adulterous affairs" then you could have removed only them rather than remove the whole sentence. See WP:NOTPERFECT WP:IMPERFECT and especially WP:PRESERVE 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"tell about the existence of other affairs": which source? Just below WP:PRESERVE is WP:DON'T PRESERVE, which includes BLP violations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

First, please restore the original edit, without the "affairs part if you wish.

Then we can continue discussing the "affairs" thing.

You can't hold ransom to the whole of sentence because of one phrase.

That phrase can be removed and the rest of sentence should stay. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Above are 10 sources that support the most of the sentence (so it's verified) , so WP:DON'T PRESERVE does not fully apply here. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I second the assertion that many of the additions were BLP violations.

Also, we don't add things and then decide what to remove when something is controversial, we remove them and then come to a consensus over what the additions should be. It isn't holding things to ransom, it's the WP:BRD process. EasyAsPai (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:BRD is NOT MANDATED by Wikipedia policies, so WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPERFECT, etc take precedence here. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks EAP. Speaking of additions, I would be fine with adding some content about Ferguson's prior marriage and his affair with Ali. The proposal on the table, even without the "string of adulterous affairs" bit, is non-neutral

left his wife of 16 years Sue Douglass and his three children to marry Hirsi Ali

Does anyone have a neutral proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, as long as "neutral" does not involve "white-washing" both Ali and Niall Ferguson.

They did what they did, and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia and not hidden from the public.

Otherwise it's called censorship or propaganda. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not censorship or propaganda or whitewashing, it's making sure what we put in the article is verifiable and neutrally worded. If we have reliable secondary sources that state that he left his wife for Ali (in their own voice, not just that someone said so), we can state that in Wiki-voice. Otherwise, we have to phrase it conditionally. Maybe something about widespread media speculation about them having an affair, or that his divorce was a result of their affair? If there's enough reliable sources for that, it would probably pass BLP. We'd need to avoid using language that makes it sound like we're passing judgement, though, because NPOV. EasyAsPai (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Should certainly be mentioned on article about Niall Ferguson, as he is the person who took a particular action. I would caution against it appearing on the article about this subject. Feels a bit blaming-the-other woman, which ain't encyclopaedic, in my view. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)