Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Translation

Note: this page is freshly translated, and still needs to be checked for small errors etc. Kim Bruning 22:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Politicology the same thing as "Political Science"? Feel free to change it if I am wrong. Antandrus 22:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I changed political leeks to political observers. I am a native english speaker, and the only definition of Leek I (or Webster's, for that matter) know of is a vegetable.Jeffpw 15:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally you shouldnt be copyediting the talk page comments of another user, because that would be considered vandalism. I agree leek is not correct usage here, but it is User:TDerz'responsibility to make the changes to a better meaning. Intangible 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's blatant anti-Welsh bigotry, that's what it is! :-)--Chris 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is all the information that was here yesterday?

You mean this information? (waves wand) Check page history next time, thanks for the heads up! :-) Kim Bruning 13:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Ali's statement about age of Aisha at consummation

I removed it. Lots of people say lots of things on this issue, and many say that young girls today mature much earlier than did young girls of premodern times. That debate can be characterized at Aisha perhaps, but not here. Here we are just discussing the statements that got Ali threatened with legal action, and perhaps the arguments of the players in that episode. Babajobu 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument of life-expectancy was exactly what players in that episode brought forwards. How about this compromise:

Critics of her statement pointed out that marriages occured much earlier at that time because the life expectancy almost 1500 years ago was less than half of that today [1].

I would agree with you if you meant that the controversy about her actual age at the time of their marriage could go into Aisha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajab (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide a citation that somebody actually made this argument in response to her claims. The Wikipedia article on life expectancy has nothing to do with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and as written it looks like a Wikipedia editor is posing this defense of Muhammad's marriage/consummation with Aisha. If you provide an appropriate citation I'll leave the comment in, however. Babajobu 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, to be honest with you the whole passage is messy: "This referred to Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was nine years-old" is given as a fact without evidence or reference & then we take back that statement in parenthesis: "(Other sources give her age as young as six or as old as fourteen)" And then we maximise confusion by a third sentence: "According to hadiths, she was six at the time of marriage and nine when the marriage was consummated." All this controversy should go into the Aisha article & is quite irrelevant. Instead of all this confusion we should write "Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was alledgedly nine years-old" & maybe reference to the age at marriage controversy section within the Aisha article. - I'll try to find that citation for you... Rajab 10:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough, the section needs a rewrite. Babajobu 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali a muslim feminist?

I' am missing a critical note on Hirsi Ali's claim that she is doing it all for the liberation of muslim women. Muslim women are rather offended by her actions than grateful, as she (1)declared herself a non-muslim; (2) is blaming islam as a whole for practises like female circumsision, suppression of women etc. and therefore rejects the way of emancipation within islam, whereas female circumcision is practiced only in some African countries by muslims, christians and animists alike, and a majority of muslim women argue that emancipation, liberation is possible based on koranic verses on women and sex-equality (for instance Amina Wadud, Riffat Hassan); and (3) she refuses to communicate with practicing muslims (whether male or female) about the issues she is raising. Therefore, her supporters are mainly right wing males and a couple of secular feminists.

She lately issued an article stating that even 'moderate' muslims are dangerous, because the simply didn't discover true islam, but will so soon. For Hirsi Ali there is only one islam, that of Osama Bin Laden.

Can anybody include this in the text in good English? Being Dutch, I consider my English not good enough. If necessary, I will look up references for the statements I made above. --Abubakker 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

References to notable sources are a very good idea, and then attribute the views to the sources, rather than stating them as general truths. Babajobu 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This survey suggests that 1.6% of Dutch muslima's support Hirsi Ali, whereas 87.7% believe her efforts to be not or hardly useful. (The article deserves a better translation than mine.) Bart van der Pligt 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for muslim folks on other parts of the planet I think. (at least in my very small sample :-P) Kinda strange. Kim Bruning 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it strange? These women are brought up to believe they're nothing more than chattel. Someone coming along and telling them that it's better to live another way is not going to be welcome. GreatGatsby 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that most muslim women thing they are chattel, but I agree that it is fair to assume that most are unhappy with her "support"--Dr.Worm 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a muslim woman, I can say that I know no woman who was ever brought up to believe she was "chattel" -- and I also know no woman who supports Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Trying to draw conclusions about the mindsets of women who oppose Ms. Ali based upon your own view of her as a reformer, rather than upon muslim women's stated points of contention with her, does nothing to further any discussion of the subject. --208.101.137.72 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe that she is an arrogant fanatic she is not just a critic of Islam she hates Islam and muslims I really would like to see her helping a muslim woman even if she remains muslim. She is no different than Muslim fanatics in their intolerance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.160.249 (talk • contribs).

I don't think we can add that assessment to the article. All we can do is accurately represent her and let the audience decide.--Dr.Worm 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher is Vandalizing

Pecher, the external link you removed was not link spam, because it dealed directly with Ali's views. Please stop vandalizing. CuriousOliver 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing other people of vandalism when there is none. Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets only a cursory mention on the page. On top of that, your presentation of the page as a "refutation" of Ali's article is just untrue; the page does not refer to that article in any single instance. Pecher ^Talk 09:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not listening. It is a direct answer to an op-ed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You have no right to delete other people's work just because you do not understand it. It is vandalism. Why don't you be productive and edit somewhere else? CuriousOliver 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Shortest ever

This is the shortest intro of a person in Wikipedia I have ever seen. Nothing. Anybody who has not heard of Hirsi before, must go to the links to have any idea what she is famous for. Perhaps a quote from her blog would be enough, like this one:

'I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission.' DanielDemaret 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

or perhaps

Ms Hirsi Ali wrote the script for Submission, a film criticising the treatment of women in Islam that prompted a radical Islamist to kill Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street in November 2004. DanielDemaret 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am entering this last text. Please leave an explanation note here if it is removed.DanielDemaret 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the article was very short. I've changed it, translating parts of the dutch wikipedia. The piece on her political views is very short. Feel free to expand!C mon 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the category Muslim reformers re-inserted?

I had removed the category Muslim reformers, because it is clear from her criticism of Islam that she is no longer a Muslim. If somebody re-inserts it then please give reference for the statement that she is a Muslim. Andries 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can not even find such a category under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browse

Is there such a category? If there were, and it was defined, one could conveivably interpret "muslim reformers" as anyone wanting to reform muslims. A clearer way to put it might be "Advocates of muslim reform". One could perhaps have put Salman Rushdie in the same category. DanielDemaret 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the category Category:Muslim reformers that is a subcategory of Muslims. Andries 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Everybody who dislikes Islam wants to reform Islam. Are we going to add all people who publicly criticized Islam into this category? Andries 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Strictly speaking, from what I have read in blogs and letters to editors of web articles, far from everyone who dislikes Islam wants to reform it.DanielDemaret 13:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see the ambiguity of the category. I use it in the sense of someone who wants to reform Islam , regardless of their current religious status. Perhaps as has been suggested by DanielDemaret a term like "Advocates for Muslim reform" or such phrasing might be more to the point and less ambiguous.--CltFn 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think reformers who are muslim is how most people will read "Muslim Reformers". Otherwise Slobodan Milošević should be included for his efforts to reform Bosniaks out of existance.--Dr.Worm 08:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have looked thru the list. If only muslims belong there, you should delete Taslima Nasrin from the list. You should, in fact check all the ladies of the list. I found few references to them being muslim. In fact, in the case of Taslima, she might not be a reformer at all: She might be one of the many who simply want to abolish it.DanielDemaret 14:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not even sure about Hirsi advocating reform. I have only read of conditional reform: That if muslims want to live in peace, they should reform. But in other readings, I can not gauge if she really thinks muslims want to live in peace. I did not advocate her being in the list, I was merely curious as to the definition of the category. DanielDemaret 14:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Radical Revision

I'm going to revert the radical revision by C Mon, all the way back to the original version. It seems the page was cleared of all information before the C Mon revision. Although there is some new, good information, the organization of the page is such that it's a lot harder to find any given information in the article. Also, the category "incidents" just doesnt sit well with me. Its just so broad and imprecise. However, I hope C Mon or someone else (myself maybe) could incorporate the new information, such as her tribal heritage, into the older, clearer, format. TheKaplan 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! It's strange that no-one has noticed before that the version was blanked. Thanks for noticing!

But I don't think it's cricket to revert a version to an earlier version, without discussion, because you think the new page is not set up well. Let's discuss the pro's and con's of the new organization, and try to merge the two versions in an organizational scheme that is based on some consensus.

Arguments why I organized the article like I did:

• Biography: This is the basic set up I have been using expanding stubs of dutch politicians. I've never heard complaints about this scheme before. Unlike the current scheme it's structured.
• Incidents: I'm willing to merge this with rest of the article. But in a discussion on the Rita Verdonk article I proposed making such a list to give a good overview of the political climate surrounding Verdonk. I though Hirsi Ali merited a similar scheme.
• Prizes: I've merely integrated a paragraph into the articles structure.
• Political View: I made my radical revision after I read Daniel Demaret's complaint that the article was very short. So I added a to be expanded "political views" segment. Maybe a bit broad now, but it was mend to be expanded to give an overview of Hirsi Ali's political views.

I hope we can come to some consensus about the organization of this article instead of reverting people's work, without discussion.

C mon 12:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no call for sarcasm. I noted the definite worth of the new contributions, and hope you'll join me in adding the info into the older format. TheKaplan 05:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My comments were not meant sarcastically. But please next time discuss such an important reversion before making it.

C mon 12:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've "merged" the post- and pre-radical revision versions. I hope this version doesnot cause reversion.C mon 13:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Organization

Does anyone else think that there should be a new heding that breaks the political career section into two parts? There seems to be a definite spot where a new heading would be appropriate, but what would the newly created section be called? TheKaplan 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is so good to see you guys get along and compromise, kudos. Unfortunately, there are so many problems with so many articles like the Persian people, even Rome, and others that I really don`t know what to do anymore. I have even set up an Rfc here[2], but to no avail. Nevertheless, everytime I see a new, clean article like this I get encouraged--I genuinely mean that; keep up the good work guys. By the way, are you guys sure Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Dutch, and not Ethiopian? ThanksZmmz 08:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

She was originally Somalian, not Ethiopian. And yes, she is now Dutch. I can't find an English source right now, but here's a Dutch one, [3]. jacoplane 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheist or Muslim?

In the article Ayaan is referred to as an atheist but she is categorized as a "Muslim Reformer", should she be recategorized as an Atheist or not? The Fading Light 1:20, 24 March 2006

There was a previous inconclusive debate about Hirsi Ali's categorization as Moslim reformer see #Why is the category Muslim reformers re-inserted?. But in the preface of the book of the current edition of the Atheist Manifesto she writes that she is an atheist. So yes she's an atheist definitely.

C mon 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then if you don't mind I will place her in the Atheist Category alongside Muslim Reformer. The Fading Light 8:07, 24 March 2006

Critique of Hirsi Ali

I'm no fan of Hirsi Ali, I nonetheless deleted the following: "Her critics states that her popularity derives from saying what the western media want to hear about Islam". We need a balanced NPOV piece about the critique on Hirsi Ali's view, not add one-liners in the intro. C mon 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We should all be fans of Hirsi Ali. As a black woman who arrived in Europe under the conditions she did, to educate herself, then to rise to parliament, all before she was 35 years old, she certainly deserves praise. Then to have the courage to stand up against Islamic zealots who have threatened her life. Perhaps old Europe is not ready for someone as progressive as Ali. Now that she is leaving for the US, Europe can go back to being ruled by stodgy old white men who are afraid to take a stand against radical Islam. Dtaw2001 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You relialise as a self-proclaimed atheist, and being claimed to be a progressive feminist by others, Hirsi Ali is going to work for a very conservative christian think tank? Apperently she isn't that progressive. And if you had followed the debate, and her points plus they way they were made, you would realise this. As for the usage of 'old europe'. That was used by Rumsfelt because the governments didn't ignore the opinion of its people in the Iraq war, as was done in his 'new Europe'. So the 'old Europe'-statement refers to that part of Europe that is too democratic for Rumsfelt. You want to use that statement?

That VERY conservative Christian thinktank is VERY lucky to get her. But I agree with your statement of "old Europe." I think "Fortress Europe" is the correct term. Also, with regard to my use of the term progressive, I was using the dictionary definition. PROGRESSIVE: "Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods." I think her critique of radical Islam and its treatment of women falls into this category. Progressive does not always equate with leftist or liberal.Dtaw2001 14:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The AEI is neither VERY conservative nor VERY Christian; it's fairly conservative and religion-friendly, that's about it. It has a number of non-Christian and non-religious staff, I believe.--Chris 14:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not in the US. But it is compared to Europe. Here in the Netherlands no one understands why AHA is going to this think tank. Also, a lot of her statements are too extreme for 'religion friendly' United States. AHA is anti-religion. She thinks Islam is a retarded religion. She believes there can not be a moderate Islam. She is against veils of any kind. She believes any sign of religion should be illegal for people with a public function. She is against religious education. Muhammed is a perverse man, Muhammed is a pedophile, Muhammed is a despicable person. Atheists have the right to offend religious persons, etc. The list goes on. America correspondents claim that if she makes these statements in the US she will no longer be taken seriously. I wonder if the AEI have actually read her books.

dutch documentary (zembla)

Tonight a documentary will be shown on dutch television which will give some more background of AHA before she came to the Netherlands. I'll try to put some of its points down here later, before they can be entered into the article. Intangible 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the documentary showed some interesting facts. That Ali was a UNCHR sponsored asylum seeker in Kenia, and was thus ineligible for political asylum in the Netherlands at that time (Ali lied about coming from Kenia directly to the Dutch IND). Furthermore 3 people (brother, aunt, ex-husband) claim that Ali was actually present at her wedding. Her ex-husband even visited her in a asylum-seeker center in the Netherlands. Ali herself has responded that indeed her story to the IND was made up, that she deliberately used another name and different age when being interviewed, and that if she would tell the truth, she would have been sent back to Germany instead. In the media aftermatch, current minister of integration and immigration Rita Verdonk stated that she would have deported Ali, if she were to be minister at that time. Verdonk predecessor as minister (and director of the IND in 1992/1993) Hilbrand Nawijn believes that Ali should still be deported. Intangible 15:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also in Zembla: Ayaan was granted asylum in less than 5 weeks, a procedure which normally take months if not years. In her Zomergasten interview in 2005 she was insistently probed about the activities of her father in terms of income and profession by the interviewer Joost Zwagerman. V8rik 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what Zembla stated, it's not uncommon at all to be granted a status within a few weeks, especially if your position is 'politically opportune' regarding Dutch international policy. E.g. in later years Kurdish Iraqi's were given a status quite easily; often within a few weeks. It was part of Dutch international policy.

Let's not consider 'Zembla' to be authoritive on this issue. Although I believe they tried to offer an honest picture of Ayaan's history, they tended to make things appear slightly more spectacular then they actually are. Ayaan owned up to her lies years ago. The documentary offered no new facts at all. Let's wait untill this media hype has blown over and then decide if new facts should be added to the article. Bart van der Pligt 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship

The article now reads that Hirsi Ali does not have citizenship, but under dutch law you can't be elected into parliament unless you're a citizen. So can any one please provide a citation for this, otherwise I'll remove the sentence. C mon 20:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

She cannot be a MP. That is correct. So she will announce tomorrow she'll step down (or so the rumours go). Intangible 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The Dutch government has announced that they will consider AHA's Dutch citizenship not granted, returning her to the status quo ante of before 1997. This means that she'll still be allowed to live in the Netherlands, but as a Somali refugee, not as a Dutch citizen. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually Hirsi Ali has another six weeks to prove otherwise, that she didnt fraudulently obtained Dutch citizenship. So she could have stayed on as MP for another 6 weeks. Intangible 21:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a complicated situation, but it's not very helpful for the lead to say "Hirsi Ali has not received Dutch citizenship, and unless Hirsi Ali proves otherwise, she will lose Dutch citizenship within six weeks." Can someone who know more about it than me fix that? Henry^Flower 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the minister stating that someone has not received Dutch citizenship, and the actually formal ending of the procedure in which someone is struck from Dutch citizenship. So right now there is just an observation from Minister Verdonk about Hirsi Ali's situation. Intangible 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC announced that she is planning to move to the United States. If we wait a few days then this might be a moot point.--Dr.Worm 08:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

She is still a Dutch citizen at this moment. Read the sources or watch reruns of the debate. —Michiel Sikma, 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim or Islamist?

I was reverted for changing "Hirsi Ali has had to maintain a high level of security due to Islamist threats..." to "Hirsi Ali has had to maintain a high level of security due to Muslim threats". Why is it more correct to say "Islamist"? For obvious reasons we do not know the identity of the people that has made threats against her, but has anyone of the Muslims that has public opposed her, called themself "Islamists", and not just Muslims? Another thing is that the editor that reverted me, mentioned that is lot of Muslims that support her. Somehow I find that hard to believe. Could anyone mention a Muslim that has publicly supported her? -- Karl Meier 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Off the top of my head let's point out that Hirsi Ali co-signed MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with the Canadian Muslim author Irshad Manji who wrote the book, The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith. Karl, please stop editing that is tantamount to muslim-bashing. I'm reverting your edit now. Netscott 09:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That Irshad Manji co-signed the MANIFESTO is a good argument, eventhough I believe that a lot of Muslims wouldn't consider her a Muslim at all. The fact that she call herself a Muslim is what matters in this case. Still, though, if we can't find a anyone that oppose her, that call him/herself "Islamist", I find it strange that we identify the Muslims that has made threats against her as such. -- Karl Meier 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only understand your protests in the view that you might have doubts about such terminology due to concerns over original research and if that is the case (and your edits are not examples of bad faith) then that is understandable but I'm sure that it is possible to supply the necessary citations and demonstrate previous research that uses such terminology much as I've demonstrated your false logic of using the general term muslim. Netscott 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the problem is not just original research, but also that it is not neutral to throw the label "Islamist" at Muslims that has never called themself "Islamists", or even accepted to be called that. Another thing is that I don't get your point about the general term 'Muslim'. Just because some other Muslims like Irshad Manji disagree with their postition towards Ayaan Hirsi Ali, doesn't make them "not Muslim" and I don't see that it in any way should be wrong to call them that. -- Karl Meier 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Karl, it is very wrong to blanket refer to Muslim threats. Muslims the world over are as varied as ethnicities. Your initial logic in this regard is a bit like saying that George W. Bush has to maintain a high level of security due to caucasian threats. Rather ridiculous no? (A better line would be: George W. Bush has to maintain a high level of security due to White supremacist threats.) Also your logic about what people refer to themselves relative to what others refer to them does not appear to demonstrate a reasonable grasp about how names and associations work. Do you think Hitler ever referred to himself as a genocidal killer? In terms of this discussion all that matters when writing Wikipedia articles is that verifiable and notable souces are cited using given terminology. Netscott 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. There is no CareBear-paragraph on this site which claims that all articles must only refer to people by what they refer to themselves as, and be tolerant of various crazed views. If that was the case, the Muhammad cartoons would surely be gone by now. Wikipedia is an informative site, not a mediator between conflicting cultures or whatever it is you envision. Joffeloff 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing www.vvd.ml

I removed a citation of www.vvd.nl from the References section because (A) it was manually and incorrectly numbered; (B) inclusion in this section with a number implies a specific citation in the article, and I found no such citation; and (C) it is already included as the first line in External links as Ayaan Hirsi Ali's official website. (It should be tagged with the language it uses, which I assume is Dutch — not Norwegian as I erroneously stated in my edit summary. D'oh!) If one wants to put it back into References, it should either be a general (not numbered) reference citation, like:

* {{cite web
   | url = http://www.ayaanhirsiali.nl/
   | title = People's Party for Freedom and Democracy
   | accessdate = 2006-05-16
   }}

Two notes:

1. This looks like a dynamic news page, so if it is to be used as a reference, permalinks to specific information are recommended. These should included article/item titles and publication dates (see {{cite web}} for how to add these).
2. The actual website title should be used instead of "Ayaan Hirsi Ali's official website". I've provided what I think is the English translation of the Dutch description (courtesy of Alexa.com and freetranslation.com).

~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh, which is it? Oh, ayaanhirsiali.nl is just a forward to www.vvd.nl, which is the website for the political party she is/was a member of. Don't link to redirects or forwards please! Kim Bruning 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another "d'oh!" from me. I was working with both the malformed reference (which used www.vvd.nl) and the external link (which used www.ayaanhirsiali.nl), and failed to notice that they weren't the same URL, only the same result. It should be:

* {{cite web
   | url = http://www.vvd.nl
   | title = People's Party for Freedom and Democracy
   | accessdate = 2006-05-16
   }}

This makes it even more important to clarify the nature of the site. If Ali treats it as her official website, to the point of simply redirecting her own sitename there, it raises the question of whether the site is simply a front for Ali's personal agendas, whatever they may be, instead of a broad political movement, as the title implies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am quite certain vvd.nl is not Ayaan Hirsi Alis personal website, for some strange reason. :-P Kim Bruning 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision 'rebuttal'

I removed the following sentences from the circumcision section on the grounds that this is an article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not female circumcision so a discussion about the non-Islamic nature of the practice does not belong here. The cite does not refer to Ayaan or Holland but is quite general. The reader can go to the linked female circumcision article if they are interested.

Female circumcision is not part of the Islamic religion. Islamic scholars note that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete) or infibulation, or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations.

Ashmoo 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Parlamentarial Debate

The night of May 16 some of the most interesting pieces of political debate were displayed Dutch Parliament. The players were minister Rita Verdonk versus the rest.

Rita Verdonk, Dutch minister of Integration (and 'vreemdelingenzaken'=foreigners ...) and VVD party colleague of Hirsi Ali did not stay as consequent in a parlamentarial debate - which took 8-9 hours in three rounds today - as her nickname Iron Rita might suggest. Rita Verdonk turned around 180 degrees and is now willing to investigate which exceptional arguments might exists in order not to simply 'have to state' - without taking an appealable decision of her own - that Ayaan Hirsi Ali 'would have never actually rightfully received Dutch citizenship' as she wasn't fully correct about her name (please notice that her identity was not questioned) and date of birth. This sounded as lipservice to many of the parlamentarians who lined up to ask questions and question her credibility and the meticulousness of the investigation which was finalized within 48 hours. Some hours after the start of the debate, Verdonk astonished many by stating that Hirsi Ali still had Dutch citizenship until the end of 6 weeks. It was pointed out that this opposed diametrically earlier impressions given by Verdonk. If true, than there was no need for Hirsi Ali to resign from her position in Dutch Parliament. The main objection and criticism of Verdonk's way of dealing with the procedure was carelessnes and negligence.

The motion - supported by a very broad majority of the parliament - presented to minister Verdonk gave her explicitely the 'legal space' to investigate, which she denied to have for many hours of the debate.

The second round of the debate showed an incredible stamina of minister Verdonk to stay rigid and having no other choice than than that what the law imposed to her. Her answers to the many questions appeared evading and repetituous to political leeks, but didn't convice the faction leaders of (all) other party leaders either, including her own VVD. A third round of parlamentarial debate was required by coalition CDA faction leader Verhagen which started 2 o'clock midnight.

Verdonk's agreement to look into the matters again with the given 'legal space' of the parliament appeared to be driven by the wish to survive politically as she is a candidate for leadership in the next elections. She declared to reporters that she does not feel politically dammaged. While she might be elected by her own party as leader for the coming election as half of the votes are already given (the contender is M. Rutte) and cannot be changed, it is likely that the image of her party VVD is indeed dammaged. Verdonk's attempt to profile herself as strong 'macha' (female macho) who puts the rules over all other considerations might be counterproductive. Voters might not like persons who let prevail personal ambitions over the back and political lives of others (Hirsi Ali). A returning question was therefore whether Verdonk took the very fast steps to present the over-the-weekend investigation in public to the parliament for her own political ambitions. It was also pointed out (Femke Halsema) that the Parliament didn't want and needed to be informed that early or at all at this time (if it was only a constatation and not a decision) as Hirsi Ali lost her MP in consequence.

The issue started last week when Rita Verdonk issued an investigation about Hirsi Ali using an incorrect name and birth date during the immigration procedure a decade before. Minister Verdonk claimed only to have acquired knowledge about that fact after TV emission 'Zembla'. A large part of Dutch population was aware of that fact by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's own statements in her book and another TV discussion round several years before. Femke Halsema pointed out that Hirsi Ali's parlamentarial e-mail address is ...magan@..., whereupon party colleague Verdonk claimed (functionally?) angry and emotional never to have had e-mail contact with her. A minister does not only comprise the person fulfilling the ministership but also her staff and civil servants at the ministry. The ignorance appeared very incredible. (addition: Was there an investigation (by Halsema or other parties?) What was the outcome of this investigation? Was it limited to minister Verdonk's own e-mail account? Did it include other e-mail accounts of her ministry? Tommie 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

This was an overwhelming display of support for Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Dutch parlament across all factions. The discussion culmulated about the correctness of minister Verdonk's constatation, which she didn't want to call an (appealable) decision. It disclosed the incoherence of her story. Within some hours the 'facts' changed from 'there was never an effectuation of Dutch citicenship' to 'Hirsi Ali still has the Dutch citicenship until the end of 6 weeks for the time limit of the appeal'.

For political leeks it is astonishing that minister Verdonk didn't (have to) resign, despite her constant display of stubbornness to understand the scope of the motion. During the 2nd round she still interpreted it as a mandate to investigate the availability of options and awaiting input of Hirsi Ali. She was repeatedly pointed to the fact (Verhagen a.o.) that Parliament explicitely gives her the options for doing a careful investigation on her own, independent of Hirsi Ali's input. During a break, Wouter Bos, PvdA leader pointed out that therefore not the full 6 weeks had to be used, it could also be earlier.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali returned her membership of parliament and will work several months earlier in a think tank in Washington. Tommie 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

After the second debate: at the latest six weeks later, many followers of both debates have now been introduced to the legal concept of "fiction", which is expressed in normal language by phrases as "deemed never to have (had)" (received her Dutch citizenship). Tommie 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dutchness

Hirsi Ali has never been Dutch, please quit reverting the changes that establish this fact in the article. (categorisation, introduction) --84.30.97.206 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Minister Verdonk has stated yesterday that Hirsi Ali is still Dutch for at least another 6 weeks. Please stop your vandalism. Intangible 16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition of vandalism, please quit your false accusations. I dare you to link me any edits of me that are vandalism. --84.30.97.206 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Intangible shouldn't have used the word vandalism, but have assumed good faith on your behalf. He is correct about Verdonk's statement however. jaco♫plane 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the law someone is considered to never have been Dutch at the moment he or she lied on his or her application. This has been proven the case. Because of this Rita Verdonk already sent Hirsi Ali a letter notifying her of this. Rita Verdonk did not recall this statement. Now Rita Verdonk has six weeks to research the possibilities of giving Ayaan the Dutch nationality back. Vice-premier Zalm says on Dutch national tv he is convinced that Ayaan will get her nationality back soon. Which means they acknowledge that Ayaan currently does not have the Dutch nationality.--84.30.97.206 16:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Minister Verdonk has stated in the House of Representatives yesterday that Hirsi Ali currently holds Dutch citizenship. The minister is who determines the status of citizenship of Dutch citizens, not anonymous wikipedia editors. Intangible 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments before replying to them. I never said that Hirsi Ali holds the Dutch nationality because I said so.--84.30.97.206 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, you said Hirsi Ali has never been Dutch, which is incorrect, because minister Verdonk yesterday said that Hirsi Ali still holds the Dutch nationality [4] Intangible 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Really valid source, a 100 page word document without any indication of where to find the proof of your questionable and ever changing claims. --84.30.97.206 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Minister Verdonk: "Ik wijs erop dat Ayaan voorlopig nog steeds de Nederlandse nationaliteit heeft." Intangible 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote by Minister Verdonk is: "Minister Verdonk: Ik wijs erop dat Ayaan voorlopig nog steeds de Nederlandse nationaliteit heeft. Zij is toch gewoon Nederlandse? Ayaan Hirsi Ali heeft zes weken de tijd om te reageren.", which translates as "I'm pointing out that for the moment Ayaan has still got the Dutch nationality. She's just Dutch no? Ayaan Hirsi Alsi has six weeks time to react." jaco♫plane 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read up a bit further and follow the debate: Minister Verdonk: Ik heb de Kamer geantwoord dat ik in dat kader betrokkene per brief heb medegedeeld dat op grond van deze uitzending en de nu bekende gegevens vooralsnog moet worden aangenomen dat zij geacht wordt het Nederlanderschap niet te hebben verkregen, dit in lijn met jurisprudentie van de Hoge Raad. This is later in the debate then the piece quoted by you. Also please see check this[5] bbc news report written this morning about the debate. And I quote: Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk says she may consider the possibility that Somali-born MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali could re-apply for Dutch citizenship. That's a reliable English resource.--84.30.97.206 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the main impression I get is that Verdonk is being inconsequential here. A majority of parlement wants Verdonk to reconsider her letter to Hirsi Ali [6] . I think we should leave this issue as it is for the moment until there is more clarity on the situation. jaco♫plane 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia should not reflect the opinion of the majority of the parliament of Holland but the 'truth', how relative that might be. I have provided some excellent sources proving Hirsi is not Dutch at this moment. (the official report of the house of representatives debate and a BBC news item about it) If you think so different I urge you to please give a source of this, which you until now have not been able to do.

Plus if the article does not state that Hirsi has the Dutch nationality then it's not wrong either way, while if it states that she does have it is definetely wrong.--84.30.97.206 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only an observation that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has not received Dutch citizenship. There is a strict meaning of what this means in the procedure of determinining the citizenship status of Dutch citizens. Intangible 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please provide sources, the BBC news item and the tweede kamer reports both say she does not have Dutch nationality.--84.30.97.206 17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called constatering in Dutch. Intangible 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I know Dutch, I'm from Holland myself, thank you. But are you ok with me changing the parts of the article claiming AHA is Dutch now? Since were not able to provide any sources claiming otherwise and if the wiki-article does not state that Hirsi has the Dutch nationality then it's not wrong either way --84.30.97.206 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are sources enough, see for example [7]. Intangible 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

'The truth' doesn't exist. Everyone knows who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is. This could mean that it does not matter that the law does not know who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is. So what do you want? That what 'the truth' says, or that what the law, according to Verdonk's statement, a statement she has withdrawn to survive the debate, says?

It is actually very simple. Verdonk claims to have observed that Hirsi Ali, who is Dutch, and Hirsi Magan, do not match. And that therefore the real Ayaan Hirsi doesn't have the dutch nationality. The problem with this is that it is not clear if Ayaan can't use the name of her grand-grandfather, Ali, instead of the name Magan. It is her name, not the one of someone else. So if you interpret it this way there is no problem.

If there is a problem then, according to the Hoge Raad, Hirsi Magan never received the dutch nationality. But this is only true when special circumstances do not exist. Verdonk claims she had to ignore this statement of the Hoge Raad. No reason was given. The dutch parliament forced her to consider these special circumstances and she has accepted this. This means that the observation no longer stands.

As for special circumstances. There can be many. But which one count? The Hoge Raad did not say anything about this. This means Verdonk herself, or a judge has to consider this. Special circumstances can be the fact that when her dutch nationality is withdrawn she has no nationality left. This is in violation with international treaties. So this is not possible. Clearly a special circumstances. Another is that she has been threatened with deadly violence. Another is that she is was a parliament member. If it is decided that she never had the dutch nationality the parliament had only 149 members for three years. This is not allowed by the Dutch constitution. What this means exactly is unclear to me. It may mean that all actions of the parliament are also terminated. I guess this is kind of special also. The fact that she lived in the Netherlands for 12 years is also a special circumstance. The list goes on.

In the end it will be clear that Verdonk was wrong and that her nationality remains untouched. The reason for this will be political rather than legal. Just as the decision from Verdonk to 'observe' the lack of a Dutch nationality was also motivated by politics instead of by legal issues.

So what is the truth? There is no truth.

Heh i put 'the truth' between for a reason, and I said it was relative, as to not fall in a philosophical discussion about there not being any truth etc. So I'm gonna avoid that. We shoud be talking about the nationality as it is legally defined. This is also what you use in your arguments. It's a political discussion yes and political arguments will count but the purpose of this discussion is to define the legal status of AHA, not any other status.

First of all you argue that Verdonk withdrawn her statement to survive the debate. As you can read earlier in this discussion and on the linked official Tweede Kamer report she did not do this.

Your statement about the special circumstances is true until a certain point. Yes there are possibilities for AHA to retain or regain Dutch nationality if there are special circumstances. However these special circumstances do not work like magic. This special clause will only come into effect if the minister decides so or the judges rule it. This has not happened yet and thus the observation of Verdonk still stands.

Please provide any sources if you still think the BBC news item and official tweede kamer report is wrong.--84.30.97.206 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The motion adopted, both of them, tell Verdonk to reconsider. She said she will accept the motions. If she is actually reconsidering is unknown to us. We can only assume she is. This means she will inform us about the status of AHA in the near future. She has to do this within 6 weeks. If you read what Verdonk said in the first term of the debate and if you read the two motions adopted, both of which she claims she will accept, then these two contradict each other. This is a fact. And you know this. I don't have to supply sources. The question is if she will put deed by her word and execute these motions. So if you claim that AHA isn't dutch at this moment you need to give me a souce telling where Verdonk said that she will not execute the motion. If you can't there is no reason to assume Verdonk is lying.

This debate is pointless because we will know if AHA is dutch or not in a few weeks. Wheneter she is dutch at this moment in time is irrelevant. Wikipedia can report and decribe the conflict between the parliament and Verdonk.

It's true that there were two motions adopted both of them urging rita to reconsider but hanging that reconsideration AHA is not Dutch. Neither of these motions claim AHA is Dutch at this moment. And there are sources, check out the earlier link to bbc & the official tweede kamer debate record in this article. --84.30.97.206 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We can only be certain of what people have actually said and written. Let's leave the interpretation of what they said up to the readers. It is not our place to tell readers what to think. Kim Bruning 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the important point is that Verdonk claimed she never considered something, that she never made a decision. She only made an obervation and informed the parliament. She defended this in the first term of the debate. Then two motions were adopted. She has claimed she will execute them. This means the observation she has made has become meaningless because she now will make a decision, a consideration. Verdonk won't admit that she has withdrawn her points in public because of her election as a party leader. But of course this is what has happened.

Removed blog commentary

I cut the following quote from the May 2006 subsection.

Dutch weblog GeenStijl notes that it is curious that Ayaan who is black herself will work for an organisation that also employs Charles Murray, the writer of The Bell Curve, a book claiming that black people are more stupid than white people which has been denounced as supportive of scientific racism by critics.[2]

1. Pursuant to WP:V, blogs may be used only (i) in articles about themselves (See here), or possibly, (ii) when the blog in question is published by a well known, published researcher writing within the scope of his or her expertise. (See here). Although those two rules conflict slightly, GeenStijl is apparently not a well known published researcher on the subject of hereditable IQ or anything else, so the conflict doesn't matter in this case.

2. Pursuant to WP:RS, blogs may not be used as secondary sources under any circumstances. (See here).Thanks,TheronJ 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand these rules and I agree on them but I'm not using the weblog as a source to establish facts. The facts in that paragraph are also to be found in the American Enterprise Institute and The Bell Curve. I'm merely noting how these facts are observed by one of the major Dutch media. This is not some random weblog but one of the biggest Dutch websites which is owned by the biggest newspaper of the Netherlands. [8] It has a history of making big journalistic discoveries themselves. I hope this will convince you to put the paragraph back in. --84.30.97.206 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation would still be to leave it out - (1) I don't think it fits any of the exceptions for citing weblogs, and (2) it's current events, and are we really going to include the reaction of every editorialist on this issue? If you're dying to have it in, my suggestions, which you can take for what they're worth, would be (1) do a major, sourced rewrite for the english Geenstijl entry, so that we can see the extent to which it's an actual journalistic enterprise and not a blog; and (2) identify the specific author of the entry, so that we can see whether he or she fits WP:RS.

Of course, I'm just one editor -- does anyone else want to weigh in? Thanks for working with me,TheronJ 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the reaction of every editorialist if they are all the same, but this was some new information for me, and certainly interesting. It's also in the various mentioned wikipedia articles on the subject but I'm afraid that if I put it together myself without a source it might qualify as original research (or do you think it's acceptable?). The journalist that wrote the item is Ambroos Wiegers. --84.30.97.206 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the cleanest way to include that would be to include a sourced sentence stating that the AEI sponsored Charles Murray and leave it at that. I'll see if I can write something.TheronJ 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

GeenStijl did have a scoop a week ago or so about a public prosecutor on Bonaire sharing his private documents on the Limewire p2p system. But I find this GeenStijl piece on Hirsi Ali to be an editorial opinion. Intangible 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying.--84.30.97.206 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what you think, 84. I've written a sentence that sources directly to the American Enterprise Institute and Bell Curve pages. TheronJ 18:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please avoid De Telegraaf as a source?

If other sources are available the I think we should rather not use De Telegraaf. Andries 20:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you provided absolutely no reasons, we can only assume that you don't like De Telegraaf for some reason and would like it to not be used as source since it may have a different point of view than yours. If you believe that De Telegraaf is too sensationalist to be seen as credible source, then you should state so in your request! —Michiel Sikma, 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I dislike De Telegraaf because of its sloppy, sometimes subjective journalism and sensationalism and that is a good reason not to use it in Wikipedia as a source. It is not the right-wing stance that I have a problem with: I find the NRC Handelsblad right winged too, but I like the newspaper and find its journalism is good. Andries 12:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Right-winged? The great thing about the NRC Handelsblad is the fact that it doesn't take that much of a stance. It leaves a lot of room for personal opinion and interpretation of the reader. That's why I like to read it. But I guess it doesn't matter too much in the end. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch politician

Does there still have to be a mention of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as being a Dutch politician as she is no longer Dutch, or a politician at all?

Well has-beens count too so she could be in some politician category. But not Dutch since she never has been Dutch. --84.30.97.206 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, she is still Dutch at the moment. Didn't you read any of the sources that are listed in the article, or watch the debate on Dutch television if you live in the Netherlands? —Michiel Sikma, 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Trotzkij was still Russian, even after Stalin had him expatriated, wouldn't you agree? -- Stiip 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian?

Isn't she a lesbian? -- 24.214.43.55 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. You're thinking of Irshad Manji, I bet.--Chris 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Kenya?

"Female circumcision is a part of certain cultures in some Islamic countries, including Kenya and Somalia, where she lived ..."

Does this mean to say that female circumcision is practiced by certain Islamic cultures within Kenya, but not by non-Islamic cultures in the same country? Because it appears to read that Kenya is an "Islamic country," which is hardly accurate. --208.101.137.72 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we can't get too much into the background of Female Circumcision. I think that the article at least makes reference to the fact that most muslim cultures do not practice FGM. Maybe community is a better word than culture. A community is group of people living in a particular local area where culture means something a little broader.--Dr.Worm 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation, although this is only a minor point in the article.--Dr.Worm 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording ... I wasn't looking for a demographic history of either Kenya or the practice on a whole; just a rephrasing which referenced itself a little more clearly. --208.101.137.72 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Picture on Main Page

I find the current picture on the Main Page to be much less flatterring than the one originally up there, the first picture at the top of the article. The one on the Main Page portrays her as less serious and looks like a headshot one might see for an actor or actress from the 1980's. The one on the article makes her look professional and actually like a parliament member. Stephen 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well she isnt a MP anymore, so the current picture -of this article- is counterfactual. I agree the picture on the main page isnt everything. Rather see one from the Time Magazine awards ceremony. There are actually even less flattering pictures of Hirsi Ali around, from the early 90s. Intangible 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture just lets us see what she looks like. I say leave it in, because the one thing she is going to be most famous for is being MP.--Dr.Worm 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance in this article

I have had this page on my watchlist for a long time, but haven't been really involved in editing it. However, I would like to make one general point. At the moment, three quarters of the introduction to the article is about the recent controversy regarding Ali's citizenship, and consequent events. I think this is somewhat unbalanced. Wikipedia is not a news site; it's not so much the place where people should come to hear the latest news about Ali as where they should come, having read something in the news, to find out about her in full. As such, it's important that the introduction to the article cover all her important achievements and important events relating to her without being particularly taken up with what has happened most recently or what is in the news at the moment. I would suggest that if anything, 3/4 of the intro should be about Ali's background, work and achievements before this controversy, and 1/4 about this affair. Of course, the body of the article should cover the affair in full. Palmiro | Talk 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro. These details make the intro too news-dependent and therefore hard to maintain. They also look like an attempt to undermine her, along the lines of "we can't take her seriously because she lied about her age." It reminds me of another article about a campaigning feminist where one editor was at pains to stress that the subject had given birth out of wedlock. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A majority in the Dutch parliament has since introduced a motion forcing Mrs. Verdonk to reconsider the issue.[3] Hirsi Ali had already suggested she may move to the United States, after she was subjected to a court injunction evicting her from her home. Her neighbours had sued on grounds that her presence exposed them to the risk of a terrorist attack, although the police had testified in court that it was one of the safest places in the country due to the many personnel they had assigned there.

In May 2006, Hirsi Ali admitted in a television newscast that she had lied about her full name, her date of birth, and the manner in which she came to the Netherlands. However several sources, including her first book The Son Factory, which was published in 2002 stated her real name and date of birth. So these details were considered by many to be public knowledge. Furthermore, Hirsi Ali has asserted that she had made full disclosure of the matter to VVD officials when she was first invited to run for parliament in 2002.

According to the newspaper Volkskrant, Hirsi Ali now plans to move to the U.S. and "start working for the conservative American Enterprise Institute in September after reaching a deal with U.S. authorities about her security."[5] United States Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick has stated that Hirsi Ali would be welcome to the United States, independently of her immigration status in the Netherlands.

For example, her film Submission, directed by Theo van Gogh (who himself was assassinated for his works), made her one of the targets of the Hofstad Network.

These text snippets could all be moved into the main body of the article. IMHO. Intangible 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this article does appear to be suffering from recentism. Netscott 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the intro is too long. I will take a shot at moving most of the info into the body of the article. TheronJ 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT move request

This talk page has been tagged with a move request after an editor who engaged in WP:POINT behavior in trying to move this article yesterday requested the move. Before this goes any further this request should outright be denied and the issue be revisited in the event that Hirsi Ali herself either announces she'll revert to using her birth name (I would think a very unlikely occurrence) or she becomes better known under her birth name than her adopted name. Netscott 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Kim Bruning, You should not simply remove the move discussion. Please put it back on or you might fall foul of a WP:POINT violation yourself. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Watch who you're accusing there my fellow editor and perhaps apologize. Netscott 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are but a move request has been made and it is the role of the WP community to decide whether it has merit or whether the nominator might have violated WP:POINT. Simply removing the request from the Talk page is not the proper procedure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight there friend. Netscott 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies and corrected recipient. The point still stands. Fwiw I agree with you on the merits, but between a commonly used name and an actual name it has enough merit to be discussed. If the move is non-meritous the commonity will certainly agree. ~ trialsanderrors 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it does not make a difference where the article is as long are both names are in the first line and as long as one name re-directs to the other. Both is the case now. Andries 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not recognise the validity of Wikipedia:Requested moves as a wikipedia policy. You're free to use recommendations on that page, but I am equally free to revert you when you do. Kim Bruning 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism ~ trialsanderrors 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that removing spam isn't vandalism. Sorry to get you caught up by the way. Requested Moves is a mess, and you just happen to be caught up in the middle of me contesting it ... again... *sigh* It just never stays fixed. :-( Kim Bruning 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling my edits or opinions 'spam' or 'silly'. ~ trialsanderrors 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* You said it, I didn't. Kim Bruning 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

12:03, 18 May 2006 Kim Bruning (rv silly requested moves spam. Talk first.)

12:43, 18 May 2006 Kim Bruning (→Requested move - kill the idiocy, no one wants to move this page except one person. Let them explain their motivation first, and then maybe we can think about it)

12:45, 18 May 2006 Kim Bruning (proper spelling (and please respond before you try to re-spam the requested moves template))

<reply> Requested moves is silly, not you. ("blame the procedure") Kim Bruning 21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Take your fight against Requested Moves to the appropriate talk page, but don't engage in incorrect attributions or talk page vandalism here. ~ trialsanderrors 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At your option, you may start a request for comments about my action here. Kim Bruning 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree with User:Kim Bruning that the tag shouldn't even go up. My feeling isn't strong enough to remove it... but with the tag stemming from a WP:POINTed attempt at moving this article previously, I sooner see it as superfluous artifact of the POINT behavior. Netscott 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, this sounds very much like a duel between two WP:POINTers. ~ trialsanderrors 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am neither intentionally disrupting (rather the opposite), nor are my actions illustrating any particular point, as far as I'm aware. Kim Bruning 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing the talk page to curb discussion because you hold a strong opinion on the outcome of the discussion is not disruptive? ~ trialsanderrors 21:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. The Requested moves votespam does not in fact stimulate discussion, so I removed it. I then inserted a section which will hopefully start an actual discussion (or not, if no one happens to be interested, which I somewhat suspect). Kim Bruning 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please refrain from misattributing my edits as spam. You are also not in the position to remove content from the talk page just because you disagree with it, under vandalism policy. If you believe the move will be opposed (as do I -- to clarify, this does not mean I expect unanimous defeat. This is a controversial issue with many PoV's) let the vote happen and keep it around for future referral. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are opposed to moving the page, and think the move will be opposed by other people, then you have already gauged consensus. Congratulations. If you then continue to request a poll, you're just being obstinate. Note that it's certainly not vandalism to apply the snowball clause in such a situation. Kim Bruning 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Change of tack is duly noted, but you should read Snowball before you try to take refuge in it: rather, it assumes that nobody will undo that action if it is taken. If the action is undone, then the original assumption was wrong, and process should take precedence. At no point does Snowball justify talk page vandalism, especially not as ex post rationalization. ~ trialsanderrors 22:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still on the same tack as I have been all evening. Keep cool and assume good faith for a bit. Have you noticed the section(s) below this one yet? Kim Bruning 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have, especially that you're still trying to frame the discussion to your own interests. But since you seem to accede that a discussion his healthy and moved away from the spam accusation I guess we can put the move request tag back up. ~ trialsanderrors 23:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't spam again. Especially not using templates designed to stifle discussion. Thank you. Kim Bruning 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of fellow editors clamoring for this move or even responding to this discussion or the one below started by User:Kim Bruning (where's that original WP:POINTist?). Is there really any point now to even throwing up the tag again? Netscott 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So, should we move it?

I don't want to actually disrupt anything. Are there any good arguments to be found for moving the page at this point in time? Please only state arguments, for now! I think we can find consensus quickly enough that way:-) Kim Bruning 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose moving. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) repeatedly says that "names of articles should be the most commonly used name." Hence Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton, Mark Twain instead of Samuel Langhorne Clemens, and Tony Blair instead of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is known nationally and internationally as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Whether that name is technically correct doesn't matter. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 06:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Voting, please see above talk. Netscott 07:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Voting', as per above. C mon 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It helps if you don't put * and triplequotes around your statement, because it makes it look like your opinion is final. This is not so useful if your objective is to try to obtain consensus in your favor, because people will be disinclined to try to seek compromise with you. If you're interested in quickly polling where consensus lies, then using such formatting is useful, of course. :-)

In the mean time;

Would those in favor of moving the page to Ayaan Hirsi Magan please put forward their arguments? Kim Bruning 09:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayaan will probaby continue to call herself Hirsi Ali. Her lawyer wants to fight against the fact that Magan can be her only correct name. Her lawyer claims that 'Hirsi Ali' is not a false name. Just as Magan, Ali is the name of one of her male ancestors. It is just one that isn't commonly taken according to Somalian tradition.

So Ayaan will continue to be called Hirsi Ali. Maybe her new passport, which she will get indefinitely, will bear 'Hirsi Ali' after all.

• Support Moving We should move the article. It is clear now that the real name is Magan not Ali. She lied about her name as quite a few other things. We cannot name an article using imaginary names. If an article should be named by considering what the person is well-known for (or s/he would like to be named as), Magan should be named as 'Liar' and this should be the name of the article (or 'Angel' respectively). As far as I know the naming convention in Wikipedia requires naming the articles by the real names of the people. If this is not a written rule, it definitely is logical and most resonable. We are technically able to redirect all the other names to this article. Noone will have trouble in finding her article. So there is no reason to debate about if it should be named by real name or an imaginary name. Changing her name most likely is a tactic. She tends to present herself with an Islamic name to sound more from an Islamic tradition than she really is. That definitely 'wow's people listening to her. But this is nothing to do with the ensyclopedic way of naming an article about a person. Mokotok 05:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "As far as I know the naming convention in Wikipedia requires naming the articles by the real names of the people." The opposite is true. The naming conventions require naming the article by the most common name. This doesn't have to be a real name. This can be a pseudonym (e.g. Bob Dylan) or the short version of the name. Or the name under which someone is best known. Whether that name is technically true is irrelevant. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 20:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. - Ayaan Hirshi Ali will always be known as Ayaan Hirshi Ali. Not as Ayaan Hirshi Magan. Even if she WILL start to name herself like that, please wait until she starts to do it. It's ridiculous to use a less commonly used name for someone as name for the main article. The Ronaldinho article is also not named Ronaldo de Assis Moreira. The Elvis Presley article is also not named Elvis Aaron Presley. The Iggy Pop article is also not named James Newell Osterberg, Jr.. The Bob Dylan article is also not named Robert Allen Zimmerman. The Alice Cooper article is also not named Vincent Damon Furnier. Do I need to go on? There is no reason to make the name of this article Ayaan Hirshi Magan, and it actually violates a Wikipedia guideline to do so! Please stop this silly discussion. —Michiel Sikma, 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank the above people for ignoring my advice, and acting in a knee-jerk fashion. At the same time, it would be unfair to chastise you without thanking you for stating your opinion, which is indeed valuable :-) . Due to all the bold letters, I worry. Perhaps we can consider some compromise? Kim Bruning 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would like to thank the above people for ignoring my advice, and acting in a knee-jerk fashion." — uhh... pardon? —Michiel Sikma, 22:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

People are reading less and less :-( "It helps if you don't put * and triplequotes around your statement, because it makes it look like your opinion is final." (See: this section) Kim Bruning 18:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take our que from what the media does. If they continue to use Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then so should we. In the meantime, lets' just slow down and wait and see what happens. --rogerd 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue is now virtually a moot point as the disruptive editor who initiated the move request User:Mokotok was a sockpuppet of the now permanently blocked editor User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 08:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a refugee?

I see that the category "Refugees" that I added was removed, and I care to question why.
The way I see it, Hirsi Ali's fammily fleed Somalia and sought political assylum in Kenya, which makes them all refugees, and than she fled Kenya and sought assylum in Holland, which makes her a refugee twice over. Even if we accept that becuase she lied in her assylum rewuect her refugee status from Kenya should be regarded as invalid since (which I hardly see why), she is none-the-less still a refugee from Somalia. Is it not so? Harvest day fool 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Ayaan Hirsi Ali is currently a Dutch national. Intangible 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But she was a Somalian prior to that. The fact that her nationality changed doesn't cancel the fact that she was a refugee from Somalia. Harvest day fool 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that while her citizenship is up in the air, her residency permit and refugee status are not being contested due to status of limitations. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hirshi Ali is not a refugee. She would be if she were to lose her Dutch citizenship, but not yet. I'm unsure whether the short time during which she ran away in order to come to the Netherlands would officially count, though. —Michiel Sikma, 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, she did indeed lose her Dutch citizenship. Second, I don't see what that has got anything to do with it- once she fled her homeland of Somalia, she's a refugee from there, no matter what other new citizenships she might acquire in her lifetime. And last but not least, as article itself affirmes that fact, as seen in this quote: "Apart from a Dutch passport, Hirsi Ali does still have a Dutch residency permit (similar to a Permanent Resident Card) on the grounds that she is a political refugee."

Based on these grounds, I think I it's perfectly okay for me to re-insert the refugee category. Harvest day fool 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't lost her Dutch citizenship yet. The Dutch government has announced that they intend to strip her of her Dutch passport. Hirsi Ali has six weeks to appeal, and she will probably do so. It will then be brought to the courts, who will decide on her citizenship. That will be a matter of years. Hirsi Ali will lose her passport if and when the court reaches that verdict. Her Dutch passport will not be taken back retroactively. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More accurately, one very stupid minister announced that she intended to strip Ayaan Hirsi Ali of her citizenship. This minister has been resoundingly smacked down by parliament (in a monster emergency session lasting 'till 3 AM) , and she was summoned to the prime ministers office and been given a solid telling off by the prime minister personally. Kim Bruning 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lying on Asylum request, revelation?

Re-reading this line: "In May 2006 the Dutch television program "Zembla" [11] revisited a previously publically disclosed fact that in her asylum request, Hirsi Ali lied about her real name, her age and the country she arrived from." from this version of the May 2006 events section I'm thinking that it isn't accurate. Does anyone know if Hirsi Ali previously admitted to actually lying on her application? If she merely admitted to going by a different name previously but never mentioned her asylum application in relation to that fact then Zembla's report was a revelation that she'd lied. Netscott 04:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

She actually already admitted it extensively in the Dutch magazine HP | DE TIJD. Search for "Ayaan" at their website. —Michiel Sikma, 11:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that she admitted to lying on her asylum request in the interview she have to HP | DE TIJD? If that's the case then that'll need to be edited into the article because as the lead part of the May 2006 events section stands it has her admitting only that she used another name and birth date... (but not specifically in relation to the asylum request). Unfortunately my Dutch is nil... so if you could confirm this that'd be great. Netscott 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a television broadcast of the program Barend and Van Dorp, in which Hirsi Ali said she lied on her asylum request. Note though that both this program and the HP/De Tijd article are from 2002. That was before Hirsi Ali went into politics. So it didnt receive that much attention in the other media outlets. Intangible 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayaan admitted about 50 times that she lied before the Zembla broadcast.

Hirsi Ali lied about her name, her status as a refugee and her birthdate, maybe NOT about her forced marriage

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lied concerning her birth date and her status, it is true, since she didn't tell the Dutch authorities she did not come directly from Somalia but had found a safe sanctuary in Kenya already. However, it was not safe for her And claiming her name was "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" instead of "Ayaan Hirsi Magan" ist not really that much of a lie, since Somalis form their name through their father's names (...daughter of...son of...son of...son of...) and she picked the name of her grandfather, Ali, instead of that of her father, Magan. She was forced to do so because she did not want to enter that forced marriage with her cousin. Why did Ayaan Hirsi Ali prefer to go to the Netherlands instead of going to Canada? She know English already but Dutch she had to learn. So why did she not go to Canada but to Holland? Because she did not want to accept that forced marriage.

True.

In the "New York Times" we read:

(...)

In recent days, bloggers and commentators have challenged Ms. Hirsi Ali's motives for fleeing to the Netherlands. She maintained that she wanted to escape a forced marriage with a Somali cousin, and while waiting to meet him in Germany, she secretly left for the Netherlands.

Defending her account, she offered a letter she received from Kenya, from her sister Haweya, in August 1992, after her arrival in a Dutch refugee camp. "Your husband in Germany is looking for you," the letter reads, "and the whole search is being coordinated by father here."

Referring to members of their clan, Haweya wrote: "Practically all the Osman Mahamud in that area are looking for you everywhere. Be warned."

Her detractors have also said she lied about her relationship with her father, Hirsi Magan Isse, a former politician who had to flee Somalia. They say she had nothing to fear and had a good relationship with him.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, underlining the duress facing her, agreed to release the last letter she said she received from her father — his curse.

In January 1993, after writing to beg forgiveness for her disobedience in refusing the husband chosen, she said she needed his blessing.

"Dear Deceitful Fox," her father replied. "You do not need me and I do not need you. I just invoked Allah to disgrace you, as you have disgraced me. Amen!

"This is the last message you will receive from me, as your letter was the last message I will accept from you. Go to hell! And the devil be with you.

"May Allah punish you for your deception," his letter ended.

"Amen! Yours, The Fool."

Pathological Lier

Shes a great deciever. I don't care whether anyone will belive me, but Ayaan has never in her life stepped foot in Somalia. The places she has resided are Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Europe. She comes from a well-to-do family that are untraditional and never forced her to marry, as she claims they did.

I'm pretty close to her family.

Obviously, so close that you can't even afford to mention your nickname or IP here. -- Stiip 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Article not up to Wikipedia standards: much too much Point of View

There is much too much 'point of view' in this article on Hirsi Ali. The selection of information is absolutely partisan. One remark about "category: people using their mother's surname". That does not apply in this case. Her mother's surname is not Hirsi Ali. How about introducing a new category "women using a different year of birth". There are quite a few.

Letter deletion

I deleted the letter that said Hirsi Ali was still welcome at the AEL. It did not give any additional information. S710 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Migration section

Netscott revert my edits to the migration section. I nuanced a blatantly POV, insulting and not to the point section, which called Hirsi Ali Hirsi Magan, and which did not take into account the recent Opzij interview. I'm re-inserting it. -- C mon 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least replace it with some decent English? Also avoid the weasel words that it was filled with? Netscott 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, when discussing people entering and leaving a country we're talking about immigration. Human migration primarily deals with mass movements of people thoughout history. Netscott 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It was filled with "weasel words" because in the case of the phone call it is Hirsi Ali's case versus Verdonk's, I wasn't present at the phone call, so I can't say what Verdonk has said, were you? But I've removed them. Next time please discuss reverting some ones changes at the talk page! -- C mon 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Compared with what you replaced the relatively small amount of text you entered looked poor without even having to research it. With vernacular errors and weasel words it made more sense to just replace it. Netscott 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried to edit what you've re-entered but on the face of it , the text seems rather dubious and not well supported/cited. Netscott 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dutch cabinet crisis

I've put the current event tag on, because the debate on the nationalization process of Hirsi Ali has caused a cabinet crisis in Holland, with the possibility of the second Balkenende cabinet resigning. Intangible 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an English language article about it [9]. The parliamentary debate continues, but it looks pretty clear the second Balkenende cabinet will resign. What a great story. Intangible 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And another one [10]. Intangible 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I would like to propose to treat the current events of June 29 in the second Balkenende cabinet article. This crisis concerns D66. V8rik 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the reason for this crisis is the fact that Hirsi Ali was pressurized by the Dutch government to sign a letter that made Verdonk look good. So these consequences should be added to this article. But I'll wait until the debate has finished. Intangible 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

---

This whole citizenship business seems completely bizarre to me. Ayaan Hirsi doesn't come out of it very well. As I understand the entire affair:

• ) Ayaan Hirsi appears on a TV program and says that she lied when applying for Dutch citizenship. She says she gave a false name and age and didn't reveal that she had been living in Kenya and Germany.

• ) Rita Verdonk says very well then, then your citizenship should be revoked.

• ) Ayaan Hirsi resigns from parliament and says she wants to move to the USA in any case. Among other things her neighbours haven't been very friendly (they wanted her kicked out of their apartment building because of the numerous death threats she has received).

• ) International media jumps up and down, says the Netherlands is intolerant and is kicking out Ayaan Hirsi for being a troublemaker.

• ) Dutch parliament says this is no good, Verdonk should reconsider.

• ) Negotiation between Verdonk and Ayaan Hirsi's lawyer. Lawyer says she didn't really use a false name, because it was the name of her grandfather, and here are some statements from her relatives to prove it.

• ) Verdonk says, well that's OK then. We'll just get Ayaan Hirsi to sign this letter confirming this new fact and to make an apology for misleading me.

• ) Ayaan signs the letter. Later she appears on TV saying she didn't really agree with it, she only signed it to get her passport back.

• ) Dutch parliamnt says it isn't impressed with the actions of Verdonk. Opposition in parliament try to pass a vote of no-confidence against her, which is supported by D'66, but still fails.

• ) Parliamentary faction of D'66 says it wants Verdonk to go. Cabinet doesn't agree.

• ) Parliamentary faction of D'66 withdraws its support for the coalition and the cabinet resigns.

Peking Duck 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that Prime Minister Balkenende made a gaff by saying himself it was a "political deal" basically in the debate of June 29, 2006. Intangible 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems possible that Balkenende wanted Ayaan Hirsi to retain her citizenship, but also had to avoid making Verdonk look bad. She couldn't be seen to be deviating from her "rules are rules" approach to asylum applications now that the asylum seeker was a parliamentarian and political celebrity. This was pretty much an impossible task. It shouldn't be surprising that the cabinet resigned and not just Verdonk. Peking Duck 07:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes for "Political views"

I am trying to give at least one quote for each section subsets of "Political views". This might be obvious to some, if so I want to make it clear that I am not doing this arbitrarily. (please) Help if you could. --Oskart 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

I changed the fair use image to a public domain one. It was reverted. According to WIKIPEDIA:Fair use#Policy "Use fair use if no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and "Always use a more free alternative if one is available". I do agree that the fair use one is better, but I still think we should use the public domain one.

• public domain image Image:Hirsi Ali.jpg
• fair use image Image:Ayaan hirsi ali parliament.jpg

Garion96 ^(talk) 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but the images are not equivalent. One shows her role (pertinent to the article) as a member of the Dutch parliment while the other is non-descript. One does not give the same information as the other. Netscott 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that works in this regard. But I don't know for sure. I will check at WP:FU and see what they say. Garion96 ^(talk) 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Whatever they say goes obviously but I'm glad you've been inclined to at least see the logic I've explained as plausible. Netscott 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Although I don't agree it does make sense. Garion96 ^(talk) 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the images are equivalent for the purposes of this page. The fact that the fair-use image shows her speaking in the parliament doesn't change the fact that the point of having an image here is to show what she looks like. Unless there's something really specific discussed that only the fair-use image can illustrate (the way she's holding the microphone, the significance--if any--of her red blazer), the public domain image should be used. User:Angr 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that the "fair use" image shows her in her Parlimentary role has no meaning? That red blazer means something in that regard. Netscott 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to think about that one. :) But for that red blazer to be included in the article, you would need a source. Garion96 ^(talk) 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just sourced the image and added it's source and credit to the image page as well I've tagged it with the proper {{Fair use in}} tag. I didn't realize that the source info and such was not included in the Wikipedia image. Netscott 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of bickering about an image which is perfectly acceptable , why not spend your time on more useful activities such as actually making progress on the material in the article?--CltFn 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No one's "bickering", unless you want the image to go the way of the Dodo on Wikipedia's servers the image needs to be properly sources and cited (which I've now done). Netscott 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not the source of the image which is a problem. It needs a fair use rationale, and if included in the article it should be sourced why the red blazer and this image is significant. Which personally I don't think is possible and too much hassle. The PD image is, like Angr said, enough to show what she looks like. Which is the main point of having an image. Plus it's a free image, which I always prefer in wikipedia. See WP:FU for more info. Garion96 ^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just added further details to the image caption on the article to render extremely clearly why this particular image corresponds better to the article. Netscott 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you need to change the article to justify the image presence is a clue to the importance of this image to this article. I don't think this image adds any more relevant information to this article than the PD one. Being more beautifull/appropriate/usefull (unfortunatelly) doesn't make a case for Fair use. If the image is not important by itself, or is not historically unique, we have a hard time to claim fu. --Abu Badali 17:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just seen this on Fair use. The huge advantage of PD over Fair Use really does outweigh the other arguments. I know there are better details in the Fair Use, which could justify it, but they're not that much better, when compared with the fact that there is a PD image of her that can be used. Nothing's perfect. Tyrenius 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks, have you in fact even read this article about her? If not I strongly suggest you do and then re-evaluate your position on the importance of this image before removing it. Thanks. Netscott 17:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just added further details to the image's fair use rationale found on the actual image page please do review that information as well. Thanks. Netscott 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

1. It is politically significant, as the page depicted shows Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her former role as a member of the Tweede Kamer in the Netherlands' parliament. This is particularly significant because her former status played an integral role in the disolving of the Netherlands' Second Balkenende cabinet.

   What was the role of this picture on the disolving of the Netherlands' Second Balkenende cabinet?

2. It adds significantly to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article and is being used there for informational purposes.

   The image adds to the readability and prettyness of the article. But it does'n add significantly new information. I believe I can understand the process leading to the disolving of the Netherlands' Second Balkenende cabinet without the help of this image. The images gives me usefull information on how she looks like, though. --Abu Badali 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the image is illustrative (demonstrative) of her former role that played such an integral part in the subsequent dissolution of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's cabinet (and his corresponding resignation). Netscott 17:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point!! Being illustrative/demonstrative is what makes it not fair use! This is very basic to the Fair Use of images on Wikipedia. See #8 in Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. --Abu Badali 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like you've got me... take her away.. Abu Badali.. I'll be sure to find a more illustrative PD image shortly. :-) Netscott 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's done. There are some non free images of her in flickr (see search results. You may want to contact the photographer as ask him to release the image under a Creative Commons free licence. Believe me, it works. I have done it some times. The idea of having one of your images in a site like Wikipedia is very persuasive. Just make sure the flickr user is really the author of the picture (some few user upload files they don't own) and make sure to explain him what does it means to release an image under a free license. Good luck. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip but I've found a better source that provides PD images... there'll be a new one or two shortly. :-) Netscott 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! I always love free images in wikipedia. That's the reason why I changed it in the first place. Care to share that source soon btw? Perhaps we can use it some for other articles? :) Garion96 ^(talk) 19:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a very comprehensive site and it is a bit difficult to locate pertinent images... I suspect it won't be much use to fellow Wikipedians but once I get up an image or two of Hirsi Ali the source shall be clear. I'd tell you now but I'd rather not be "scooped" by someone. :-) Netscott 19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There, now that looks much better. And now you know the Rest of the Story. :-) Netscott 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Far From Neutral

As far as I know, Wiki being an encyclopedia requires neutrality and objectivity, and the fact that I can tell that this article was written by a Muslim (with disdain for Hirsi Ali) is a clear indication of its bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .

Please,

Please, someone, tell me why this photograph has been removed??:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali&oldid=61453868 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali&limit=500&action=history >.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the above section of talk. (→Netscott) 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thank You.

&, I really do mean that; if my recollection is correct, then that would be the kindest message that you've ever sent to me. Although, I have seen you write kindly to others. &, you've written many messages to me, &, yet more, far more, about me. And I doubt ever calculating how many times that you've deleted me. I do perceive this as a real start. Have I ever complimented one of your messages previously??

Now, as to my original question: Is there a way to access the original photograph page? I do know that frequently those pages would include source-data for the other webpages, from whence the images had been derived.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is slightly humorous that Wikipedia:Fair_use == WP:FU.

Hopiakuta 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section of Ayaan still missing

Although Ayaan as a person is very controversial, her article doesnt have a general criticism section like most biographies of controversial figures in wikipedia. I propose to add a new section to her Wikipedia entry titled:

• Criticism of Hirsi Magan
  • Her history
  • Her Books
  • Opinion on Islam

I would like to make a beginning with using the following article.

62.163.161.226 10:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Before starting on such edits I would strongly advise creating an account for yourself. For the purposes of this article the name generally used is not "Hirsi Magan" but "Hirsi Ali". Utilization of outside text is permissible so long as usage of such text does not violate the authors' copyright. (→Netscott) 10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the way the criticism section is going. I have two problems:

• the inclusion of UNICEF is non-sensical. UNICEF did not critize Ayaan Hirsi Ali directly. Questions surrounding the practice of Female Genital Mutilation should be answered on the Female Genital Mutilation page. This is like including Bjørn Lomborg, a prominent environmental skeptic, on every green politicians article. Critics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be limited to those who critize her directly.
• the critique of her personal history can best be included in her biography, because it is relevant information to the reader of her biography, that some of her statements are in dubio.

Furthermore I will include some criticism she has gotten in the Netherlands from several prominent proponents of multiculturalism.

I will implement these changes immediately.

C mon 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.62.163.161.226 11:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lao Wai has reverted the edit I made, stating: "rv irrelevant and potentially libelous claims". I'm reverting it, because not only was the change discussed on the talk page and endorsed by another user, all I did was move some information and add the opinion of Dutch proponent of multiculturalism. C mon 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop the bias reporting, be fair what Muslims think by adding Apostate controversy

This article falsly claim that she was ex-muslim. There are lot of evidence out there that she wasn't a Muslim at the first place. Her father left Islam when he was living in the West. She was given a choice to pick any religion. Her brother picked Christianity, but she didn't any religion herself. She pretended to be a Muslim to get visa to Western countries since she is claiming that she is fleeing from a force marriage, and the West think Muslim treat women badly and she knew that and it would easy for to convince the Embassy if she was Muslim rather Christian or something. That's why she changed last name from Morgan to Ali and claimed that she is from Somalia but didn't mention Kenya in which she lived her most of her life for the embassy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarikur (talk • contribs).

Look this article is currently rated A-class. In order to retain the quality in this article, new additions (especially if they might be controversial) need sources right away. You have not presented any sources, while various Wikipedia guidelines, like WP:NPOV and WP:BIO, call for this. Intangible 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding the apostate controversy to the article! Wikipedia operates with a Neutral Point of View, adding a "Muslim perspective" does not make the article more neutral. If you have problems with the neutrality of the article, please post them here or make referenced, neutral contributions to the article. C mon 06:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

C Mon's vandalism

I am reinserting the reference to the hadith. There is no interpretation required for these verses. If you had looked at some of the wikipedia articles on this you would already know what I am talking about, but because you haven't I will link them. Here (one of the many references in Bukhari's hadith) and here (a reference in the Sahih Muslim).

First, please assume good faith! Do not call each action of an editor vandalism. I structured and wrote most of this article, I am not a vandal!

Second I will accept your edit for now, (although I've rearranged it to prevent linking away from wikipedia in the text according to AWB), but expect that some one will find your interpretation offensive to islam. Independent of whether it's spelt out in English translation of the Hadith, you can still interpret the passage differently. I would advise you to read Aisha's age at marriage at wikipedia.

On a final note that the Aisha's age at marriage should be discussed there and not on the Hirsi Ali article. Happy editing! C mon 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So if someone could possibly find something offensive to Islam, EVEN QUOTES FROM THEIR OWN HOLY BOOKS, WITH NO HINT OF PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, it must be removed. I see. It all makes sense now. You removed the piece of information that you apparently didn't know, which is that the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most highly esteemed hadith collections in Sunni Islam. I can live with that as most wikipedia articles not directly related to Islam suppress the names of the hadith, but I think your political correctness has run amok. And if someone removes something for no good reason, I consider that vandalism. Arrow740 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So we have different views, which we will never reconcile, but can you live with the way the text is currently arranged? C mon 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Arrow740 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

The introduction is not neutral. In the discussion about her citizenship only her letter to the New york Times is mentioned, not the objections of others to its contents. Her mea - culpa declaration is called a "dictate", not the arguments of minister Verdonk. The introduction is concluded by the sentence "Her prospective arrival in September 2006 was welcomed by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick." Reads like an advertisement and is clearly intended to draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized, namely that she left parliament prematurely.S710 13:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Youth

"When she was six, her father escaped from prison and her family subsequently fled the country as political refugees. Initially they moved to Saudi Arabia, but after three years the Saudis expelled them, again due to her father's political activities. They then moved to Ethiopia, which, as the center of opposition to Siad Barre, welcomed them. But it was also somewhat dangerous for the family, so they immigrated to the much more stable and safe Kenya, where they obtained political asylum."

I removed the above story as it was unreferenced since long, and seems to be just fancy POV with lot of weasel words

"Throughout their teenage years, she and her sister turned to reading as a pastime, as every weekend and evening they were locked inside by their mother.[citation needed] It was in these books that Ayaan would be exposed to Western culture and values for the first time, including the Nancy Drew series, which portrayed a fictional female character who solved mysteries and operated freely as an equal to her male counterparts. According to Hirsi Ali, these stories would play a pivotal role in her redefining what it meant to be a Westerner.[citation needed]"

Seems like a hollywood script where she plays the heroine and could make it to the main page of the website of some Xenophobic scandinavian political party websites. I removed it because it is unreferenced since months. Zencv (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Response:
Zencv, here is a quote from Infidel: "Haweya and I read all the time. Mahad used to read, too; if we did him favors, he would pass us the Robert Ludlum thrillers he picked up from his friends. Later on there were sexy books: Valley of the Dolls, Barbara Cartland, Danielle Steele. All these books, even the trashy ones, carried with them ideas—races were equal, women were equal to men—and concepts of freedom, struggle, and adventure that were new to me. Even our plain old biology and science textbooks seemed to follow a powerful narrative: you went out with knowledge and sought to advance humanity."Mwltruffaut (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

________________

I am in favor of removing "Her first name, Ayaan, means 'lucky person' or 'luck' in Somali." In the chapter "Loanwords in Oromo and Rendille as a mirror of past inter-ethnic relations," in the 1994 book African Languages, Development and the State, Günther Schlee seems to translate ayaan as "day."
However, in his 2001 book Culture and Customs of Somalia, Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi writes the following: "Ayaan means good luck and destiny, someone who is in good luck and prosperous might be referred to as ayaanle. Ayaan is also a popular name for girls. In the ancient Cushitic religion, the ayaan, or ayana among the Oromo, are good spirits or angels that mediate between god and humans and whose blessings one seeks. As is known from practices among non-Muslim non-Christian Oromo, the chief priest of the Cushitic cult is the qallu."

Regardless of what her first name means, this seems more like trivia than actual biographical information, no? Mwltruffaut (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits again

We're having some disruptive edits again, this time by Zencv. For example, he or she added She has received several awards for her work from right wing political parties and organizations in Europe, while these awards are for example from Time & Reader's digest. Hardly "right wing political parties and organizations in Europe". Judging from spelling errors and strategy, I suspect it's a sockpuppet of a user that was banned some time ago. Comments? Tomixdf (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither Time, nor Readers digest gave her any award. Time chose her as 100 most influential person, but this is accounted for in another sentence. The reference you provided says this "Ayaan was named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People of 2005," one of the Glamour Heroes of 2005, and Reader's Digest's "European of the Year. She has also received Norway's Human Rights Service's Bellwether of the Year Award, the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship. "

The "awards" she got was mostly from European right wing parties. I will consider adding this sentence unless you can provide some facts which shows that the "several awards" she got were from more mainstream parties and organizations

And well, don't call names and launch personal attack on people who present views that you don't like, OK? Take some time to read Wikietiquettes. Zencv (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom, this definitely looks like it could be a WP:SOCK of Leaveout. I'll ask an admin to help. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AgnosticPreachersKid - I am not whatsoever you think, but Im having fun seeing your intolerance of other opinions. Bring some objective arguments if you can

Early career

Lot of POV and OR are presented as facts, all based on a single source which was interestingly from Hirsi itself. I added the "she claims" word before those sentences which are from those sources, because it cannot be verified using independent sources. I also added {{Fact}} tag for the story of aunt's advice because, the source provided was a Dutch weblog and this is English Wiki Zencv (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Theo Van Gogh was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri -- a Dutch Muslim. This article should include this fact.

Is the word "controversial" POV?

It certainly can be. But just as certainly, it need not be so. "Controversial" has a definition, and this woman—of whom I am a huge fan, by the way—meets it all the way and then some. The controversy surrounding her beliefs and personal history tore apart the Dutch government, the controversy over her movie and her collaborator's subsequent murder polarized Muslims. She is as controversial as they come.

Now I know that some regard the word "controversial" as inherently pujorative. And some people have used it that way. But its true meaning is objective, and in the context here, is perfectly apropos. Unschool (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and I would also argue that not only is the use of the word appropriate, it is preferred, per WP:LEAD. A reader who reads this entire article will eventually pick up on the fact that she is indeed, the center of much controversy. But WP:LEAD tells us that the reader should know this from the beginning—even from the first sentence, if possible. We need to make sure that the reader immediately picks up on what makes this subject notable, including controversy, from the start. Unschool (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let the reader draw their own conclusion from reading the article. That word doesn't need to be in the lead sentence. Kelly ^hi! 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a critical element of who she is. You fail to address my points re WP:LEAD. And it is not POV, because WP:NPOV is intended to keep us from taking sides or indicating favor—it is neither criticizing her nor praising her to indicate that she is controversial, because she is. She acknowledges it, her allies acknowledge it, her enemies acknowledge it. Frankly, (and forgive me, I'm not trying to be uncivil here) it comes across as a bit ignorant to assert that it is POV to call someone controversial who is recognized as controversial by all persons concerned. Unschool (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think subjective qualifiers like this are almost never necessary, especially in the lede. There must be some other way of addressing her controversial-ness in the lede without using a word that's so subjective and generally pejorative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that the use of this term is in any way inappropriate, I do concede that superior writing might get across the point without invoking such a term that we both concur is taken—rightly or wrongly—as having a pejorative connotation. I'll give it some thought. Unschool (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards in Introduction

We are again seeing biased editing from Tomixdf, quite often vandalising in the process. During the process of last editing, I had explained my rationale for including the sentence "mostly from right wing parties...". Without providing any alternative arguments, this user keeps on reverting my edits. Readers digest did not give her any awards, it was that a group of readers who took part in the poll selected her for a particular title. Other names listed , which really gave her the award are mostly right wing parties in Europe and hence the sentence. Stop warring now. Zencv (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution is unreferenced. Where is it stated that her prizes come "mostly from right wing parties..."? That's just your personal irrelevant opinion, unless you provide a reference for this. And she DID get a reward from Reader's Digest in 2006 (see http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/rd-european-of-the-year-2006-i-52.html). Do Time, Reader's Digest, Government of Madrid's Tolerance Award, Swedish Democracy Prize ... all fall under "mostly from right wing parties"???? Tomixdf (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What she got from Time was NOT an award. Even if you argue that the one from Readers digest was an award, most of the other awards are from right wing parties. Thats why I wrote "many of them", and in any case, I did not write "all of them". If you are exactly looking for the word "mostly from right wing parties..." in the reference, then first you have to provide a reference which says that "she got several awards for her work" and then we can talk.Where does it says that she received several awards for her work? This was your POV based on what was provided in the reference. Zencv (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed "for her work" to "for her positions" and explained the circumstances, with a sourcing note, about one of them, the "Freedom Prize" of the Swedish Liberal People's Party. Calling it "awards for her work" is POV too, and it was really about the positions she took up and defended. Setting up an award like that and giving it to the people who champion your own issues is an easy way to generate media attention.

And Zencv is right, most of those awards are from right-wing parties promoting very strict migration laws and persistent struggle against islamic law etc, that's easy to see if you check each of the parties in question. Of course they don't present themselves as "more right-wing than most" or "nationalist" in just those written words but then why should they? Sourcing something like that can't include that you must demonstrate 1) that the parties in question are active, 2) that they have such and such an outlook (give me the WP definition of "right-wing" translated into an exact list of political measures that miust be present??) and 3) that they picked Hirsi Ali because of her views and not for her courage and for her being in that film, all of this in Swedish, Danish or Dutch which most of you can't read. Reading a selection of news coverage from that time and campaign materials from those parties will make the matter clear. Please notice that I didn't reinstate "mostly from right-wing parties" because I didn't want a fresh edit war with some guy denying the obvious, but the fact is those awards are from minor parties that run on these issues. /Strausszek (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Additional Text

Hi,

I wonder if you would be interested to add the following two paragraphs to the Wiki. References are provided, I have put the text between -start here-- -stop here-- lines. Thanks in advance !

In section Circumcision add

 It is not "circumcision. It is correctly called "CLITORECTOMY".

-start here ---------

When in Dutch parliament, she has proposed obligatory yearly medical checks for all girls who have nor been subjected to clitorectomies in the country, who originate from any country where such female mutilation is practiced. If a girl turned out to have had a clitotorectomy, the state would report this to the police. The girl's protection would prevail over respect for the girl's privacy <ref>{{nl}}"VVD: extra inspectie tegen besnijdenis", ''de Volkskrant'' newspaper, January 22, 2004, frontpage</ref>.

- stop here --------

In section Immigration add:

-start here -----------

In an article in the LA Times<ref>"Europe's Immigration Quagmire", Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2006, M.1, also [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1149331111.html?dids=1149331111:1149331111&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+22%2C+2006&author=Ayaan+Hirsi+Ali&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=M.1&desc=The+ostrich+and+the+owl%3A+a+bird%27s-eye+view+of+Europe "The ostrich and the owl"]. There is a revision available online at [http://www.europeanfreedomalliance.eu/articles/The_Owl_and_the_Ostrich.htm "The Owl and the Ostrich"]. The original was published in the Canadian "Toronto Star" October 15, 2006.</ref>, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has expounded her view on immigration in Europe. Noting first that immigrants are overrepresented "in all the wrong statistics", she sees the following possible consequences of Europe's current immigration policy: trade in women and illegal arms, exploitation of poor migrants by "cruel employers", and Muslim immigrants who are receptive to Islamist ideas. She draws the attention to the numbers of illegal immigrants already there. Current immigration policy will lead to ethnic and religious division, states will lose their monopoly of force, the islamic law, or [[sharia]], will, in actual fact, be introduced at the level of neighborhoods and cities, and exploitation of women and children will be "commonplace". To avoid this situation, she proposes three general principles for a new policy: * Admission of immigrants on the basis of their contribution to the economy. In her view the current system "is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories". * Diplomatic, economic and military interventions in countries which risk causing large migrant flows. * Introduction of assimilation programs which acknowledge that "the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration".

-stop here -----------------

Thanks Tcherkoff (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

done with slight changes. Corailrouge-eng (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The gratuitous name-calling in this section has been removed in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of rapidly removing content in violation of the policy regarding biographies of living persons (BLP).

The remarks were inappropriate because they merely call Ms. Ali unflattering names, without adding any substance. One gratuitous comment called her a liar yet her misrepresentation, on an application for asylum in her attempt to escape oppression, have already been covered at length redundantly in a previous section. That section also gives an explanation to counter such claims. That is a fair presentation; what appears redundantly under "criticism" is not.

Another comment called her a "chameleon" without providing explanation. This type of baseless characterization does not belong in a respectable encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

Ms. Ali may be a controversial figure, but she should be given the same treatment on Wikipedia as any other living person. The fact that these comments have appeared in this article for some period of time do not change the fact that they are in appropriate.

This section clearly violates the BLP principle. If someone has some additional criticism of substance, sure bring it. But let's lose the pointless name calling. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How can criticising someone's hypocrisy based on solid facts(like launching a crusade against illegal immigrants while being one herself) be name calling? To comply with NPV, one has to present all point of views in a BLP. This article clearly has an undue weight, as a result of frequent removal of any criticism by fan editors and heaping praise on the subject.

Also just stating the opinion of a highly respected source like Economist magazine is not name calling.BLP of well known public figures clearly state :

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out Suigeneris (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. After further research,I have replaced the terms "fraud" and "hypocrisy" with "inconsistency" in order to better balance this article. The inappropriate word "fraud" highly charged. Under U.S. law, "fraud" is a criminal felony; simply lying on an application seeking asylum hardly qualifies. Also "inconsistency" is a more neutral term than highly charged word "hypocrisy". Furthermore, neither of these terms appears in the reliably sourced article in the U.K. Guardian.

The other source, which calls her a "fraud", is not a reliable published source; it is an activist website of the UK Muslim Public Affairs council, which has as its principle purpose "to defend Muslim interests and Islam". Note on its website that its enemies are routinely skewered with epithets such as "Islamophobe" and the site even misspells the word "Opression" (sic).

Because this source is not reliable, it fails the high bar set for source inclusion in articles about living persons. See WP:BLP which states:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Furthermore, this source fails the test for reliability. See WP:QS which cautions against using such sources:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Fan, are you a big fan of freedom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.148.36 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." - sounds like it would exclude most editorial pages, many tv discussions and all manner of polemical writing. Editorials and rouser pieces aren't written the way they perhaps used to be. When the article is about someone who is acknowledged to be very controversial, and who's made her name through controversy, it's really problematic to rule out sourcing for statements - not for agreeing with those views! - from any site or any publication that could be called "extremist" in some respect. With the right bigot mentality, almost anything can be called extremist!

She's not controversial only with muslims, actually. /Strausszek (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious tag should be removed

There is a single dubious - discuss tag in the article, in the section on Social and political views > Muhammad, and the tag should be dealt with and removed. At the moment the tag marks a run-on from a quote, and it is not clear whether the unquoted statement can be attributed to Hirst Ali or not. If Hirsi Ali actually ever gave reasons for her statement on perversion, those reasons should be quoted, or paraphrased and explicitly attributed to her. Anything else is speculation as to her reasons for her statement, which I think has to be classified as original research, and therefore removed from the article. On the other hand, if someone else of repute has attributed those reasons to her statement (even if she didn't), that could be referred to. Another possibility is that she did use those reasons for her statement but the facts of what she said (for example the ages) are not consistent with the views of most religious scholars, in which case this inconsistency/controversy should be stated (and the reasons attributed to her explicitly, as I already said). If she didn't say this at all (the presently unquoted text), and the statement about Muhammad (for example the ages) are not consistent with the views of most religious scholars, the rest of the sentence after her quote should be removed immediately since it would be non-factual and POV. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the article in question, and she does not say exactly that, but it is close. http://www.trouw.nl/achtergrond/Dossiers/article1431856.ece Article is in Dutch, the translated text goes as follows: "And worse still: he fell in love with Aisha, the nine-year-old daughter of his best friend. Her father said: 'Please wait until she reaches puberty,' but Mohammed didn't want to wait that long. He gets a message from Allah that Aisha has to be prepared for him. That is apparently the teachings of Mohammed: It is permissible to be with the child of your best friend. Mohammed is measured by our Western standards as a perverse man." Buhgoil (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

kid's is slang

The last paragraph in the section on Social and political views > Circumcision is sloppy and needs to be written. It has problems with tense, grammar, and use of slang. Since the article is semi-locked I can't make any changes to the article myself, so could someone else fix it? 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

TIME award

The article lists "100 Most Influential Persons of the World" as an "award".[ http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2005/time100/leaders/100ali.html] But that list only notes notable persons, not great ones, and as such it also lists Al-Qaeda's Zarqawi. The TIME's list can hardly be considered an award.Bless sins (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Capital City Clarification

Change #1: Section: Biography - Youth (The implied reference nation is still Somalia. One might think the the article states that Nairobi is the capital of Somalia)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "They settled in the capital, Nairobi" to "They settled in the capital of Kenya, Nairobi"

The context of the sentence is still Somalia, so it is insufficient to state only that they settled in the capitol when the city specified is Nairobi (because the capitol of the nation in context is Mogadishu). The context change must be stated explicitly.

Changed it to "They settled in Nairobi, Kenya," as I think it sounds better, and the fact that it is the capitol adds nothing relevant. —Jomasecu (t•c) 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 18:16, 31 January 2008 AzaToth changed protection level for "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" ‎ (target of a blocked sockpuppeteer [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

As over 18 months have passed, and the article was removed from the BLP watchlist by BLPWatchBot back in September, I'm reviewing whether semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming the opinions of regular editors, I've contacted the protecting admin, AzaToth. --TS 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was just removed from the watchlist, I would agree we can lift the protection, though if the sock decides to return, we'll need to protect it again (unless we can get flagged revs up and running first :)) _→AzaToth 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If we unprotect I'll be watching vigilantly and will revert any problematic edits, and ask a sysop to restore protection if necessary. --TS 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

unprotected. _→AzaToth 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - December 2009: "Awards"

Most of the awards mentioned in the intro are from anti-Muslim small organizations in Norway and Denmark. If necessery I can provide evidence. --Walk&Talk (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and indicated that the Swedish liberal party, when they gave her an award, were obviously highlighting their own positions on immigration and assimilation by giving a plaque to a hero of theirs. Dansk Folkeparti and the current Danish government see her as an ally too. It should be made clear that those awards represent a manner of political horsetrading. Strausszek (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• This section here was probably written to give some justification behind the placing the NPOV tag to the article, the tag which was introduced to the article at the same day by Walk&Talk. I would like to more clearly understand what is actually the statement in conflict to Neutral point of view. I can guess that by pointing to that the awards were given by reportedly minor or anti-Muslim organization, it is probably argued that the "awards" does not deserve to be mentioned in chapter "awards" (and should be removed or differently labeled). Is it so? Or what actually is the objection? Any suggestion to the action which should be done? Please if possible verbalize it somehow that it could be solved, (if possible and if agreed by others of course) Reo ^ON | +++ 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Those awards were essentially publicity stunts intended to highlight the policies on immigration and "culture conflict" relating to the West vs Muslims; talking points which the awarding parties share with Hirsi Ali. That's a not quite uncommon function of prizes and honorifics of this kind (you could say Obama's Nobel Peace prize had some of the same flavour: it was a way of sending a message and trying to highlight both Obama and a certain outlook on international relations, I'm saying that although I strongly support him, and so did many established journalists and writers who are also sympathetic to him).

The parties that awarded those "freedom prizes" to AHA are generally small, though established in their national parliaments, and in the past decade they have consistently emphasized the contrariness of "muslim culture" to the West, to Democracy and Security, just like Hirsi Ali. They are right-wing, sometimes ultra right-wing, and the "protection against muslims" and "place proper demands on muslims, so they don't become terrorists or leechers on public money" thing is a keystone of their agenda, though obviously they would not overtly label themselves as combative against muslims in general. I can vouch for this, I live in Sweden and have been following the political scene here and in the countries next door for a long time, more than twenty years. So, those prizes, in my opinion and that of mainstream opinion here, were means of self-publicizing and of using Ayaan's supposed 'struggle against muslims and against PC thinking' as a mirror for their own efforts to rally people around a culture war against "muslim terrorism" or islamofascism, as Norman Podhoretz and others have called it.

I'm okay with mentioning those awards but it should be pointed out - as it is now for the Swedish award; that's my wording in the text at present - that they are heavily politically weighted. That much is obvious to anyone living in the countries concerned who doesn't have a big hood to wall off their eyesight.

AHA herself has received generally very favourable comment in the mainstream media in Sweden and Denmark. In mainstream terms, she's as admired here as in the Netherlands or in Britain, I would say, though there's been widespread resistance to the most blunt of her statements on what muslims are and what they do, her way of rolling all muslims into the same blanket unless they somehow confess or convert to a strict, western liberal outlook and lifestyle. That's hardly the first priority if one is grappling with the big and small conflicts of life in a refugee camp or a city like Beyrouth, Nairobi or Rawalpindi. Her'person - her life story - is more admired than the full range of her politics, though some influential mainstream papers and politicians will conflate the two of course and hold Ayaan up as her own No.1 example of the cultural/political/religious rift she is talking about. Strausszek (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You very much for that long response and action. (And well, I do agree with the move of the ChildofMidnight as well). That is in my opinion very much needed to put the article forward. I understand your position. Now there is not already the nead to talk much about it (when it is probably resolved), so I only conclude, that I dont like, when people put the POV header to article without rationalle, or with such an minimal one, that none is bold enaugh to guess how to work upon improvements. (actually that might be often intended by the one brought the POVtag). So the NPOV warning can endure at the TOP of the article for very long time and make an impression upon the readers.

As with the AHA, I admire her too. Why flying through Paris I bought there her book Infidel. In light of that book, in light of what she had lived through - it makes pretty good sense everything what she says and everything what she does. As with potentiall criticism of some traits of muslim culture of the imigrants - we are in need of mature discussion without hate or prejudices on one side or the wish based apologetics on the other side. Unfortunatelly, most recent critics/debaters have some hidden agenda behind as the main aim, and do not help to solve it or help. AHA when critisizing is genuine. That is the uniqe feature. Reo ^ON | +++ 01:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

In order to clean up the external links with this article, I suggest to remove all links except these three:

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the battle against the radical Islam, personal weblog
• The AHA Foundation, organization fighting the abuses of women's rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali, profile at the American Enterprise Institute

Rubenescio (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all other external links and removed the clean up template. Rubenescio (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud the removal of excessive external links, the use of the {{sisterlinks}} leaves a bit of space to balance out if you want to restore one or two. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is "chameleon" a criticism?

"In its critique of Ali's autobiography, The Economist called her a "chameleon of a woman", referring to her "talent for reinvention"."

Having a chameleon quality is not necessarily a criticism. --Roastporkbun (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but because the thrust of what she says ties in so heavily with her coming from a Muslim background (a very backward one too, and one that most westerners who follow the news identify with militancy/terrorism and sharia law barbarism) and she is defined in the media by that very background - if a white, christian male had been saying the same things in the same uncompromising, hectoring voice, it would have been dismissed as neo-conservative and likely colonial put-downs - the point that she has changed her outlook and thinking, several times, carries some negative weight. Plus, the words could hint on a view that she tailors her main talking points to the audience at a given time. She has been accused sometimes of being scripted, and Infidel actually was produced with the help of a co-author./Strausszek (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"the point that she has changed her outlook and thinking, several times, carries some negative weight."

Being able to change your outlook and thinking is proof that you can grow and learn, it should not carry any negative weight that over the years her position has changed. --216.228.91.174 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ayaan's next book will not be "Short Cuts to Enlightenment." It is called "Nomad" (1439157316) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.242.194 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think her remarks in an interview a month after she left the Netherlands that she had "privately" not been at ease with the zero-tolerance stance of Verdonk's cabinet against immigrants and muslims, those remarks smack of opportunism and weaseling. With a politician, what counts is what you do and submit in public and during the processes of decision-making, and Ayaan was very much a spokesman and symbol of the repelment of immigrants and the efforts to brand muslims as un-Dutch. As an (ex-)Muslim herself, she could voice talking points that would have cost others too much goodwill. If she had second thoughts about the efforts to push out clandestine and paperless immigrants and (implicitly, because of the Dublin/Schengen treaties) force them to return to the Middle East or Africa, she should have told Verdonk or told journalists, and if she didn't then those second thoughts are null and void and do not count in judging her political career. My personal opinion, of course, but it's shared by many people.Strausszek (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've absorbed the "Criticism" section into a general "Reception" section which neatly sidesteps this issue I think. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Question/s by Hirsi Ali and Wilders - which questions?

Under "Public Statements" one can read:

"In 2003 Hirsi Ali worked together with fellow VVD MP Geert Wilders for several months. They questioned the government about immigration policy. In reaction to the UNDP Arab Human Development Report Hirsi Ali asked the following question of Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and the Minister without Portfolio for Development Cooperation Agnes van Ardenne. Together with parliamentarian Geert Wilders she asked the government to pay attention to the consequences for Dutch policy concerning the limitation of immigration from the Arab world to Europe, and in particular The Netherlands."

Obviously something's been lost here between edits by different people. We never get to hear what questions or criticisms Hirsi Ali and Wilders put, nor if it's the same hearing as the one referred to with the two ministers, Scheffer and van Ardenne. Is all of this section about one event, when they urged the cabinet to pay attention to the immigration of muslims (as at the end of the quoted pasage)? Could be, but there's no certainty and anyway all of this should be sourced. Strausszek (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Islamophobia under See Also

I see some hyperbolic reactions and reverts from User:Amsaim when I added a link Islamophobia to the See Also section.(Looks like there was even an Aiv complaint launched by that user!?). In my opinion, it makes sense to add it as as Islamophobia and Criticism of Islam often overlap even though both are not the same. It doesn't matter if he/someone else consider the term Islamophobia as controversial or not. Hirsi is a prominent critic of Islam. Having a link there is NOT a statement that she is an Islamophobe, rather a balance to Criticism of Islam and abundant similar links that are already there such as Irshad Manji, Wafa Sultan, Tasleema Nasreen and Criticism of Islam Zencv ^Whisper 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Her name and her statements constantly appear in discussions both about the cultural role of islam and about the concept of islamophobia (the existence of which in the West is disputed by some, of course). I'd support adding the link, it's hardly POV in itself and one can easily make a good case for the view that she presents islam, at least in the forms in which it's known today, as an implacable and united enemy of Western civilization. That's recognized by Ian Buruma in Murder in Amsterdam, and by many others. Agree. Strausszek (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to include it in the article than as an external link. Is there a source that uses that term in relation to Ali? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If the article were balanced enough, it would have already been included in the (main section of the)article. As this is not the case, and the fact that the critics or opponents often accuse her of Islamophobia, it would improve the article if we have it included as a link. Also note that other links under this section do not have direct reference in the article, but are rather included as a collection of related topics. Zencv ^Whisper 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I know a few who have discussed Hirsi Ali in connection with islamophobia and strong, generalized criticism of islam, though they're not available in English - but then a source doesn't have to be in English to be acceptable as long as it can be checked! There's been a number of newspaper and magazine polemics in Sweden and Denmark about her since 2006 - between respected writers and journalists, not between "any guys in the street", even if they point to popular opinion sometimes. Some wish to characterize her as another Rushdie, others claim she is derogatory towards muslims and arabs, a lackey of colonial thinking really, a kind of Uncle Tom. Those debates tend to get very heated, because so much is sensed to be at stake, but it's solid I think that even in mainstream media she has often been linked to islamophobic thinking and to (a bit loosely put) neo-con policies, a neo-con world view that dismisses islam outright. Many of those opinion pieces are online. A Swedish journalist, Andreas Malm, published a book last year about islamophobia where Hirsi Ali figures prominently.

She has been explicitly connected with the concept of islamophobia a number of times. I'm not sure how far Infidel makes this contrariness explicit, beyond her own life story - she obviously focuses on her life and what it says in that book rather than on a philosophical discussion about islam - but in so far as she is presenting herself as the *example* of all muslim women and what they have to undergo (which she does), that makes the connection to "fear of Islam" (islamophobia) rather open doesn't it?

Plus, in an interview on the BBC program HardTalk about two years ago, the interlocutor (Stephen Sackur, I think) pressed her rather firmly - not rudely though - for answers about what options she saw for muslims, short of discarding their entire heritage, if they want to be modern people, and how she regarded her political career in Holland. Those issues connect with how she would present Islam of course, and as i recall it she pretty much said Islam is hopeless, the Qu'ran (and the talibans pointing to it and invoking it) rules everything and so any modernizing thinking and liberal practices must, to a large degree, be forced on muslims from outside, from the West. She didn't see anything in the muslim cultural/religious tradition that would help make that jump on its own terms, no room for a muslim Luther or Newton who would still be rooted in the wider muslim cultural background.

When she says she sees herself as a muslim Voltaire, she fails to realize how much Voltaire owed to the 17th century, to the background and the nation he came from. He didn't just create himself or jump in from a new, liberal tradition. Not very surprising, I mean his debt to where he came from probably slips past many students of the history of political ideas too, but very telling.

IMO, when she claims to be "still a muslim" herself, as she does sometimes, for instance at Sydney in 2007 (referred to in the article at two points) that's mostly just a figure of speech, a way to skate around issues raised by her politics and her media presence and which she doesn't want to grappple with openly. The talking tribune she has achieved, her media role, ties in with her being perceived as an exile from Islam, someone who came from "there" but is "like us". It's just like in an entrenched two-party system with strong ideological differences: when someone who used to be a powerful figure in the governing party changes side and begins expounding on how that party is destroying everything, at least their current defining groups are shredding everything that works; he can count on a lot of talking space, because there's a market for disgruntled and sweeping "truth speakers" who have come over. And of course he will present himself sometimes as "still a socialist" or "still a liberal" - that makes his position harder to attack.

Unfortunately, the BBC interview can't be watched online now except perhaps if you're living in the UK, which I'm not - I'm from Sweden. And the BBC don't furnish transcripts of those interviews. Or unless someone might upload it to Youtube - haven't checked. I personally think she's rather crude, you can't just accuse people of being ogres for coming from, in some sense, the same background as you did, the same cultural tradition, but failing to go down the same path as you did. Buruma compares her to Thatcher on exactly that count: her impatience and disdain of people who don't buy the same logic as she does, or aren't as quick to jump on the same train. That's my stance on her, but I'm not going to push my own ideas onto the article of course to make it an opinion piece. It should just contain what is valid and reasonably sourced and of course it should stay off personal attacks. Strausszek (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines are clear when it comes to adding material to articles: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. The introduction of the Islamophobia link in the See also section of this BLP article is an attempt to push the BLP article into a certain direction, an attempt to call the subject of the BLP article islamophobic. This is what Wikipedia says about Islamophobia:

Islamophobia is 'a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims. In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation.

If there are reliable verifiable sources that prove the above quotation about the subject of the BLP article, then there will be noone to challenge the inclusion of the Islamophobia link. However, since the added material was unsourced, it is perfectly clear that the addition is the contributor's own personal opinion. Amsaim (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Amsaim, contrary to your statement, most people here seem to agree that having it under See Also is not pushing a POV. I don't know what is your understanding of reliable verifiable sources, as in my previous comments here, I and Strausszek have explained why this link fits into this article. Your accusation that these constitute vandalism was contentious enough, nevertheless, please read excerpts from Wikipedia:Seealso#See_also_section: A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all.. It is not necessary to have a source for those links under See Also section. As per the concensus here, I will be adding it back and hope you will respect that Zencv ^Whisper 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, defining islamophobia the way the Runnymede Trust did - "dread or hatred of Islam, and (springing from that) fear and dislike of all Muslims" - doesn't imply that if there's one single Muslim, or a tiny group of them, whom one accepts while one is throwing bile at all others, on Muslims in general, then one couldn't be encouraging islamophobia. It's the structural polarization, the open or half open portrayal of Muslims as a united enemy of civilization that matters, not the attitude to every single Muslim you meet. Many people have concluded that Hirsi Ali sizes up Islam, and the Muslim community, as an implacably barbaric force, and it's easy to verify I think that her arguments have been used very often by people who are trying to put down Muslims in general, for whatever reason. She herself does nothing to distance herself from such use of her ideas and her life story either. Strausszek (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By adding the wikilink to the "See also" section, it is giving the general reader the impression that we side with the viewpoint that Ayaan Hirst Ali is an Islamophobe. As another editor has stated on ANI, we would not add pederast in the see also section of the Michael Jackson article. This is a clear BLP issue in my mind, and therefore it should not be readded. If you wish to discuss allegations of Islamophobia in the main article, with appropriate references, then this is fine. However, it is not fine to add it to the See also section. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy - your pederast analogy with Michael Jackson article is not a good one as the See Also section of Michael Jackson do not contain a list of contentious links related to pederast or something similar. Here that is not the case(we have links such as "Criticism of Islam"). Apart from being a very peacocky BLP, this See Also section almost serves as a catalogue for subjects related to Islamophobia. In any case, have you noticed the ridiculous arguments by User:Amsaim that this need to be sourced(well, are other links under the section such as Irshad Manji sourced?) and this constitute vandalism etc.? That user seem to have serious problem understanding the basics of NPOV and his arguments in fact help to keep the article biased. Zencv ^Whisper 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederast is used simply as a smear word, which has been the case for several decades: before homosexuality became more widely accepted, it was often routinely used about gay men to keep up the stigma. The "medical" meaning of 'person who has a desire to molest kids' is quite incidental to the smear value. Islamophobia, on the contrary, is a recognized concept and it's being widely used in reasoned discussion, even in academic debate, it's not simply something people toss about to keep their ground. As I pointed out above, Hirsi Ali has been discussed as a key figure within the field of islamophobic ideas and movements many times over: she's been pointed out as a figurehead of those views, and acknowledges it herself by constantly sizing things up as a battle between Muslims/violent Islamism and the West/Humanity - she rarely bothers to separate the two concepts slashjoined at each side of that equation. It's not something I am just offering as my personal opinion, it can be shown that this assessment of her exists (and has a decent bit of justification) and if you look around i'm sure those connections have been made in UK and American media too, or wherever it is you live.

However if I wanted to do a perfect and exhaustive article about such a controversial person, I would likely do it somewhere else so I could feel sure about what people would read and that I would keep the copyright or ven the money. With a BLP of such a person, with high edit frequency and very divided opinions about her, there's no chance the article will ever be perfect and frankly there's a limit to how much time one wants to put into the fine details of a piece which can get reversed by any John Blow the next hour, and ten times over. I think Zencv is completely right that the article will never be perfect and that some points made in a larger article would always be contentious, but the conection between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the wider awareness of islamophobia is not something that should be seen as contestable.

It's sort of striking btw that no one has put in a reference to her op-ed piece (syndicated or referered to in a large number of newspapers I think) after the recent Swiss referendum in order to ban minarets. She came out defending the yea on that line, defending it vocally and claiming that if Muslims are allowed to build minarets on European soil it would symbolize the wish for a Caliphate and support for Muslim terrorism. That was straight Eurabia talk and a prime example of islamophobia, but no one seems to have bothered to add it here. Strausszek (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that argument is a bit silly. Pederast obviously has negative connotations, but it has been used in academic literature over the years also. Islamophobia has also been used in academia, but has equally been used as a way of smearing the other party. Pedarast is a term that has a specific meaning that can be used to describe an individual, or to smear them. Islamophobe is a term that has a specific meaning that can be used to describe an individual, or to unfairly smear them.

If you can provide the sources that call her an Islamophobe, then by all means feel free to incorporate this into this article with adequate referencing in an NPOV manner. And the issues you bring up about Ali seem quite reasonable, but again I don't see how that makes it all right to add a pejorative term such as Islamophobia to the See also section.

As for an article never being perfect, that has really nothing to do with the see also section, the best way of resolving an article that isn't perfect is to correct the problems in the article itself. On Wikipedia, your text can be edited by anyone, at any time and so long as it is within policy and can gain consensus then that's the way we work. Adding "Islamophobia" to the see also section certainly isn't going to resolve article quality issues.

So you are aware, as this is a BLP issue, anyone may remove the term at any time and the three revert rule does not apply. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Useful and follows all relevant Wiki policies. Even a free image and a correct pronunctation of her name. Awesome!—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)