Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Archive 2

Quality problem with article, indirect prediction based on time from "now"

The article contains the text "Hirsi Ali still has six weeks to react to this before any final decision about her citizenship is taken", which should probably be replaced by an actual date. But this wikipedia article is my only source of information about her, so I don't know what the true status is. Given that she wrote an article for the latimes, though, I guess that she already moved to the US and lost her Dutch citizenship. Rrenaud 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed quite confusing. My guess is that the sentence should say she had six weeks, at that point in time, and is referring to the period from May 16 (the date given for the parliamentary debate), and June 27 (the date given for the announcement that she'd keep her citizenship). I'll make this change in due course if no-one asserts this is not what's meant. She's certainly now living in the US (there were multiples references to this in an interview she gave to the BBC), but I doubt she's lost Dutch citizenship. That would only happen if she's already been granted US citizenship (which I'd doubt), and that Dutch law recognises the disavowal of other citizenships in the US (which I wouldn't take as read: I know that the law in Ireland and the UK cheerfully ignores this as fanciful rhetoric...); or she's voluntarily renounced it (which may not even be possible). Alai 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

She has Dutch citizenship, technically she never lost it. This is just a tense issue, as the article was expanded considerably during the 2006 crisis. I intend to radically review this article some time this year, because I believe it can become FA. Then I will look at these issues. C mon 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made that change, in the meantime. Alai 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AEI political orientation

This is a cross-post from the talk page of the anon editor who states that AEI is 'conservative'.

Can you please provide a source for your assertion that AEI is a conservative organization? On their website, they present their agenda as essentially libertarian. The fact that Hirsi Ali is a pro-choice atheist doesn't really fit with the 'conservative' tag. RJASE1 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It says right on American Enterprise Institute, "a conservative think tank". They may not be paleoconservatives in the mold of Patrick Buchanan, but they maintain very close ties with the current administration, and have a history of uncritically lauding their moves. They're about as nonpartisan as Karl Rove. If you want to dispute the characterization of AEI as a conservative think tank, please take it over there. grendel|khan 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it over there...my objection to this is that, in the U.S., the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are POV-loaded and I don't think either fits Hirsi Ali. But you're right, the adjective in this case applies to the organization, not the individual. RJASE1 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right; Hirsi Ali is quite a fixture among conservatives in the United States because she agrees with them on issues of importance here--which has absolutely nothing at all to do with her domestic politics on other issues. So while she may be conservative to Americans, she may be something else entirely to the Dutch. (AEI, however, is still conservative.) grendel|khan 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very well established that the AEI is conservative, just as the Brookings Institution is liberal. Just look at think tanks in any political science textbook.

If only conservative think-tanks are are offering her a position that says something about the liberal community. Dogru144 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that surprising that conservative think thanks are more interested in her then liberal ones. It says much more about her then about the think-thanks. She is primarily noteable for her very vocal attacks on Islam, which many people feel are bordering on xenophobia. While she has a right for these views, and appears to be more informed then many of a similar ilk, it doesn't change the fact the views she are most strong about are not something which most liberal think-thanks are predominantly interested in. Liberals tend to be more interested in reducing conflict and/or recognising the problems of all religions, not on attacking Islam. She appears to dislike all religions and is pro-abortion which is something most American conservatives wouldn't agree with, but these views are not something she focuses on. Anyway this is OT so I won't be discussing it any further Nil Einne 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well AEI waved enough money and a good employment contract in front of her face, and SADLY she took it.

She is anti-Islamic & Christianity

Islam is backward, Muhammed was this, etc etc, what is the name for this? her entire career is about cursing islam, she is an apostate of the faith, associated with anti-Islamic content, what better example do you need. And then Netscott says no refence in article. Have you read this article? Critic is not the same as Anti-Islamic sentiment. I critic Muslims "Muslims need to be more involved in stamping out extreamism" but "Islam is a primative religion of pedophiles" is not a critic it is religious intolerance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, having that view is fine but if any particular individual is going to be labeled as having "anti-Islam sentiment" then there had better be reliable sources using wording along those lines relative to her (this per policy). This section is sparse with such citations. (→Netscott) 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us to go around labelling people. Just the facts, especially as this is a living person. Metamagician3000 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So why is there an antisemitic, and holocaust denier cat?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think those categoties are inappropriate you can seek their deletion. The second one sounds to me as if it could be applied pretty objectively, not so sure about the first one. But we're here to discuss this article and how to improve it, not whether certain existing categories that don't relate to this article are subjective and POV. Metamagician3000 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you Anti-Islamic people stop deleting criticisms about this Ali.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xsp85 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on both your talk page and my talk page, the problem isn't with the criticism, it's with the point of view and the poor sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very sensitive to the harm that it can do to living people by publishing poorly sourced and damaging material about them. That applies Ms Hirsi Ali and anyone else. Hence the template on the top of this page. People removing such material are just doing their job, even if the material was added in good faith. Metamagician3000 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For such a controversial writer, the article includes very little criticism of her views. (There is plenty of discussion about the falsehoods she told to stay in the Netherlands.) For balance, it would be good to have such criticism, but it must be well-sourced and not libellous. So go ahead and add criticism, according to Wikipedia policy. BrainyBabe 09:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only two reviews of Hirsi Ali's new book that I came across in the past couple weeks were in the Economist and the one by Lorainne Ali in Newsweek. Both were very critical of her and her work. For the Newsweek review, see here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17204802/site/newsweek/ --Mon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.91.215.208 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I just added another a new article link to the criticism section of further reading. I hope someone has the time to go through these articles and expand the criticism section actually in the article. It's rather tiny for such a controversial figure as Hirsi Ali.

Actually, I just noticed this article is listed as a "good article." IMHO, that's pretty ridiculous for exactly the reasons mentioned above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.134.234 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Minor: brackets/parentheses

Oh dear. Twice in the past few hours, editors with good intentions have incorrectly changed something I had inserted with good reason. The first time, I changed it back, and wrote why in the edit summary (for which that editor thanked me). The second editor must not have read this, and made a good-faith edit. As I don't have time to keep reverting it to what is strictly correct, I will insert something half-way correct and hope it stays without causing trouble. If two people so quickly see and change something that they believe is a simple copy edit, I have no reason to doubt that many others in the future will do the same thing, out of good will, but erroneously.

This is the issue, from the bibliography, as it now stands:

Forthcoming: Short Cuts to Englightenment, a philosophical fantasy in which Muhammad wakes up in the New York Public Library and is "challenged by John Stuart Mill, Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper, (Hirsi Ali's) favourite liberal thinkers".

The problem is that this is a particular form of quotation. I took the words directly from the Evening Standard article, and in this passage Hirsi Ali is speaking in her own words, so of course she says "my favourite liberal thinkers". But the grammar of the entry requires the third person, so I changed the word "my" to "Hirsi Ali's" and put that phrase in single square brackets [ ] to show that I had changed the words -- but not the meaning -- of a direct quotation to fit the grammar, in this case from third to first person. This is standard citation practice. I guess a lot of well-meaning people don't know this, and assume it is a typo (of which I make many). So I have changed the square brackets to rounded parentheses, and hope this stops the confusion. BrainyBabe 14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I'm sorry! Will look closer at the edit summary next time, my bad. Nice work on the article, by the way. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually do know the convention of using square brackets in that way, and of course it is strictly correct. For some reason it wasn't transparent to me that that was what was meant the first time I read it, perhaps because it didn't seem like a quote from Hirsi Ali herself but from a journalist's words, so I thought it was a typo (hence my thanks when you corrected me). I'm really not sure what is best - I'd rather not use the less correct round brackets - but I'll leave it for now. Metamagician3000 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we try something like this? Forthcoming: Short Cuts to Enlightenment. As described by Hirsi Ali, this will be a philosophical fantasy in which Muhammad wakes up in the New York Public Library and is "challenged by John Stuart Mill, Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper, my favourite liberal thinkers." Metamagician3000 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had another idea -- do it correctly, and insert invisibly into the code the warning not to change the single square bracket. I'd prefer to avoid an unnecessary first person, especially in the non-narrative bibliography section. As follows:

The single square bracket is correct here. It is not a typo. It represents the changing of something within a direct quotation -- in this case, from first to third person. The article at bracket gives more examples of this standard citation convention.

Only, bother, I can't remember the code to do this -- I tried and it didn't work. Can anyone help? Something like <! > which look like old-fashioned swearing symbols. BrainyBabe 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[Un-indent]: Okay, let's see how it goes. I still wouldn't mind some kind of hint that the words quoted are her own - I think that should be made more obvious to our readers somehow. But I'll leave you to think about that. It's not a big deal. Metamagician3000 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hang on ... I'll go and check how to do it. Metamagician3000 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked it: Try this: See what happens. I.e. this edit contains some invisible words showing you how to do them if you put it into editing mode. Metamagician3000 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that works. You may well be right about "some kind of hint" -- but also that it is trivial in the overall scale of things. I have no more thinking power at the moment! I rather like the elegance of hidden code. It serves to educate those who delve behind the scene -- those who take the plunge from reader to editor. I think the article is better now than a few days ago, but it does need reasonable, verifiable criticism of her views, although I'm not going to go searching for it. BrainyBabe 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Subtitled Dutch Interview

The holy Ayaan (original title: De heilige Ayaan) is a report from the Dutch [[1]] investigative TV series but including english subtitles: http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060804.asf -- Livinginabox 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

POV check

Xsp85 (talk · contribs) left a tag on the article that it has POV issues, but never left a note on this page saying what his concerns were. I also had to remove a libellous quote from the new "Catholicism" paragraph that the source attributed to Theo Van Gogh, not Hirsi Ali. The paragraph as it remains is fairly innocuous, especially if you read the full quote from the source article. I'm going to wait a couple of days for objections, but if there are none I'll remove both the 'POV' tag and the Catholicism para (or find a way to put it in context). RJASE1 ^Talk 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. The article is generally very factual at the moment, not a hatchet job or a work of a hagiography. Metamagician3000 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we never heard back from Xsp85, so I removed the tag and the paragraph. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism

This section should be allowed. Since it will be unfair to Islamic people. Thats is her view on Christianity. She is also Anti-Christianity as she is Anti-Islam. She is atheist. I removed POV, but keeping Catholicism comments. XSP85 07:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Here is the complete quotation as described by the source given for the paragraph:

“

Do you see any positive sides to Islam? That’s like asking if I see positive sides to Nazism, communism, Catholicism. Of course Islam preaches generosity and kindness and taking care of the poor and elderly and so on – but these values aren’t limited to Islam. If you weigh what is provided in terms of kindness and humanity against the evil that can come from a society built on radical Islam, you will see that liberals must stand up to this like they’ve stood up to other ideologies.

”

I guess I would welcome some explanation of how this quote adds up to a position of anti-Catholicism - I have to admit I'm mystified. My interpretation is that she's saying any ideology has both positive and negative aspects that must be weighed against each other when deciding the overall value of the philosophy. Apparently Xsp85 (talk · contribs) sees this as an anti-Christianity quote, but I'm not getting it.RJASE1 ^Talk 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

user XSP85 is drawing conclusions where none are warranted and trying to insert a section based on his interpretation of what he thinks she is meaning. That's really OR. Her statement is neither positive or negative on those ideologies, Thus I have removed this quote.--CltFn 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about this - different interpretations are possible. However, after reading Infidel recently I'm pretty sure she is anti-religion in general, as well as being opposed to other comprehensive ideologies such as Nazism and communism. She sees them all as false and fundamentally illiberal, though she especially opposes what she see as patriarchal aspects of Islam. Metamagician3000 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should stay. I also agree with user Metamagician3000.--redzone 1:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

I understood that she has defined herself as an atheist for some years now. THis Financial Times profile [2] refers to her as such. In this sense she is against all religions. BrainyBabe 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if sourced into the article. However, the Catholicism section was a dumb way to express that, unless we're going to have a paragraph for each religious sect that she doesn't believe in. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't contribute to the Catholicism debate. My point is that there seems to be no difficulty in calling her an atheist. BrainyBabe 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that much is certainly clear. She dsscribes this in detail in Infidel - how she came to realise that she did not believe in God. See especially pages 280-81 where she describes her realisation while on a holiday in Corfu in 2002, and how it affected her. Page 281: "One night in that Greek hotel I looked in the mirror and said out loud, 'I don't believe in God.' I said it slowly, enunciating it carefully, in Somali. And I felt relief." Metamagician3000 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On the "Religion Atheism" tag: last I heard atheism still wasn't a religion yet (although one could describe some fanantical non-believers as such I suppose but) in general this applies to both "strong" or "weak" (agnostic) atheism varieties so this label either needs to be removed or rewritten: "Beliefs Atheist" or better "Beliefs/Relgion None". I will be coming back to do so... Mattjs 10:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The general feeling around is that we should not have a "religion" of atheism in these boxes. E.g. I'm sure you'll find a lot of support for this on the talk page for the Richard Dawkins article. I support removal of the label, but her atheism should continue to be mentioned in the text of the article itself. Metamagician3000 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I think atheism should be included in the basic info boax about her: it is a strong part of her identity and has relevance on her notableness (noteriety?) and thus why she is included in the encyclopedia. BrainyBabe 12:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam tag

Why is this at the top of the whole article? If one section is likely to get spammed, could the tag not go at the top of that section? It just looks so ugly. It's not as if the article is about a commerical product or a medical issue that would prompt salespeople to target it. BrainyBabe 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed, as no one has attempted to justify its inclusion. BrainyBabe 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Metamagician3000 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - I think I may have mistakenly put it on this article when I meant to put it on another, sorry for that. That said, the external links section of the article probably needs to be pruned. :) RJASE1 ^Talk 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

anonymous contributor

It is not Fair. Hirsi criticizes Christianity and Judiasim, but we don't see that in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:212.24.224.16 (talk • contribs).

Is there a tool within Wikipedia to find out who put the above anonymous comment? I'd like to learn how to do this. To the anonymous contributor: please add the criticisms you mention, with references. BrainyBabe 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence "ANONYMOUS contributor", "Brainy Babe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.111.110 (talk • contribs)

Well not exactly anonymous. We have your IP, so we can see that you are from Silver Spring, Maryland, using Level 3 Communications. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-19 23:41

New book

How are we able to describe it in such detail? Source? Metamagician3000 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've just taken the article to peer review to see what specific objections or general comments emerge. Metamagician3000 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Awadewit has written great peer review of the article and some others have also done good work over at the peer review. Could we put some work into addressing their points? Metamagician3000 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

UNHCR or UNCHR?

The article stated her Kenyan education was: "under sponsorship of the UNCHR" but surely this is an error -- it would have been the UNHCR, wouldn't it? The High Commission on Refugees pays for education. Can someone check in Infidel or elsewhere and reinsert it correctly? thanks BrainyBabe 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the whole reference to UNHCR has been removed. For completeness sake the correct agency was UNHCR. The reference is on page 61 of "Infidel" Jasmoe (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical views

As a self-declared critic of Islam, she should have been criticized by Muslims and others. Does the article include that? If not, then it should be included. --Aminz 07:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course everything what damaging the holy hirsi ali got censored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.110.54 (talk • contribs)

I will delist this article from GA status because it is not comperhensive missing a very important section. See Submission (film)--Aminz 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a GA review process for delisting if doing such would be controversial. I would oppose delisting myself. - Merzbow 05:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? There is nothing about critical views with respect to her. Have you seen the Submission (film)? It is very insulting. --Aminz 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't clearly fail the criteria, so you can't just delist it. You have to give editors a chance to fix it first. - Merzbow 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check out GA review process. I've added it there. --Aminz 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Aminz can "just delist" it, he just has to have a justification, which he does have, even if it may not be correct, that's how speedy delisting works. Of course, that doesn't mean someone couldn't of immedietly GA/R'ed it anyway.... Homestarmy 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's polite practice to give the editors some time to fix the issues first, then delist. The project is not harmed by giving a 7-day reprieve (like that given to GA nominees in any case other than gross failure of the criteria). - Merzbow 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now delisted it. --Aminz 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Returning to Aminz' orginal point, the article includes criticism of Ali's stances. I only took a cursory glance at the article and saw several mentions of criticism of this woman. Kyaa the Catlord 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I've applied for review of the delisting, which I consider unreasonable. I will, however, do some copyediting to ensure it is at the standard of good style it was at when it was listed. Metamagician3000 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The GA/R nomination resulted in a decision for this article to remain delisted. Several concerns were brought up in the first review which resulted in the delistment of the article. The suggestions for improvement made during that review have clearly been ignored. Although there are several issues that need to be addressed in order for this article to meet GA, the one that stands out most to almost every reviewer who has made recommendations on this article is the presence of 25 fact tags. This is unacceptable and fails GA criteria 2b.

The GA/R discussion, now in archive, can be found [[3]]. This article should not be brought back to GA/R. Once the issues have been addressed, it can be renominated at WP:GA. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but this entry Ayaan Hirsi Ali is quite lengthy, but has no distinct section for criticism. Her critic are wide and varied and should amount to lengthy section. This article minimizes critics and obfuscates the aura of controversy around many of her political stand (not just to with Muslims, but to do with economics, geopolitics etc.) I challenge the neutrality of this article, especially in the way it is composed and framed. daveb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.14.127 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has problems - the lovey-dovey treatment Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets from us is a bit nauseating. However, it would be tolerable were it not that it contrasts so starkly with the way we treat other religions - including (or perhaps especially) critics thereof. There is a vast imbalance, easily visible in 1,000s or perhaps 10s of 1000s of articles across the encyclopedia.

Have a look at the article of Israel Shahak to understand how very badly we treat Islam compared with other major religions. At the latter article, an Israeli Professor of Chemistry who was critical of extremists within his own religion, Judaism, gets absolutely slated by us eg from his article - Edward Alexander stated that Shahak "was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism.". Shahak lost confidence in his religion over the use of a telephone for a life-saving call on a holy day, and over the response of scholars when he queried it. Our article implies he lied on both counts, and that the behavior he describes couldn't be based on any kind of religious rules anyway.

Meanwhile, this subject told lies about her name, age and how she reached the Netherlands, and has admitted the falsifications in several media interviews since 2002. Yet we quote her: Violence is inherent in Islam — it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder" as if these words were both acceptable speech and true. We're invited to accept what she says about the behavior of Muslims - when she made a particular point of telling damaging lies on this very subject! PR^talk 11:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes PR, everyone who reads this is invited to draw their own conclusions, including you, we do not spoonfeed our readers. That is part of our NPOV policy. If you don't like it.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of Infidel to hand?

This sentence was removed because no citation is given. It provides useful context for the fast-tracking of ther refugeee status, however, and I seem to recall reading something to this effect in the book Infidel, which has now gone back to the library. I paste this sentence here in the hope that someone can verify it. BrainyBabe 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Somalia had been stricken by a serious famine as well as engulfed in a civil war at that time, so asylum seekers from Somalia were routinely granted asylum on humanitarian grounds.

I actually gave my copy to a friend as a gift, so I don't have it to hand. But I don't remember it saying anything that explicit, which is part of the reason why I deleted that particular sentence; unlike some others with cite tags, it looks difficult to source. Of course, I'm relying on memory and may be wrong. Metamagician3000 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're remembering from page 193 of Infidel... "The Ethiopian girls with whom I shared the bungalow at first seemed frivolous and hopelessly silly. They said I was so lucky to be from a country mired in civil war, which meant I was far more likely than they get refugee status and be allowed to live in Europe." Jasmoe (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed from political career section

The following sentence nmakes no sense. I assume it was messed up in a previous edit but am not sure how to find out. Can anyone correct it and re-add it ? Thanks. BrainyBabe 11:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From January 2003 to June 2006, she worked shortlisted number 16 Ali, A. H. (Ayaan) (v) as chosen MP for the party with 30.758 election votes.

MA?

What's the MA after her name? --AW 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article says "After earning a master's degree in political science from Leiden University, ...". So I would infer that "MA" is short for "Master of Arts" which is a college degree more advanced than a "Bachelor of Arts" (BA) but less advanced than a "Doctor of Philosophy" (PhD). JRSpriggs 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. There's no reason to have that on her name then, many thousands of Wikipedia subjects have masters degrees. --AW 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference leading to incomplete external article

The link of the reference which declares Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be "a chameleon" leads to an incomplete article of 'The Econimist'. This article is only viewable for registered users. However, for proper verification the entire article has to be available. Since this is not the case, and the editor who introduced this material with the link has not updated the reference, a Verify credibility-template has been placed on that section. If anyone can find the proper full article then the template can be removed. Please do not remove the template unless the section is properly referenced. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your position is a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. Sources used to verify information do not need to be accessible to every reader in order to be credible; if this were the case, books only available in university libraries would be verboten – a rather ridiculous position for an encyclopedia to take, n'est pas? The reference in question is an article published by an impeccably reliable newspaper which directly verifies the claims made in our adjacent article, and to quote the reliable sources guideline, "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet". There has been no justified reason to doubt the credibility of the citation, and I am removing the abused tag as a consequence. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Muravchik review of Infidel

In the AEI section [where I moved it from the lede], there is a highly positive review of Hirsi Ali's book Infidel from a Joshua Muravchik. Muravchik, you will note by following the link, is like Hirsi Ali affiliated with the AEI, which casts his objectivity and the neutrality of our mentioning it into doubt. Furthermore, the review was not published in an authoritative publication but was "posted on the summer reading list for the Middle East Strategy at the Harvard University website" according to our article. I wonder if, for such a proiminent work, there might be better reviews for us to feature, in the interests of encyclopedic standards and neutrality. I note, for instance, that it was reviewed in both The Economist and The New York Times. Any objections? 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Surname

Both "Ali" and "Hirsi Ali" are used to refer to the subject in the article. This is unprofessional and most likely incorrect; we ought to use the correct surname consistently. According to NYT, CNN and BBC, the correct usage is "Hirsi Ali". Or am I missing something? 86.41.80.244 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

This article has been nicely written, with both criticism and praise of Hirsi Ali well contained in the article. Restructuring of the article is therefore not required. If this article is to be restructed, then community consensus must be obtained.

Apart from this, the IP editor who restructured the article removed valid content from the article. He is obviously ready to engage others in an edit war, and is hiding behind his IP address. I have thus requested page protection until community consensus is reached. Amsaim (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What content specifically did I remove? Since when is community consensus pre-emptively required for improvements? What substantive problems do you have with the current structure? What is this "hiding behing his IP address" nonsense - I don't see you revealing your name anywhere. Please clarify. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is usually considered polite to post a message requesting a discussion before making large edits to an article, particularly regarding restructuring. I would suggest that both of you discuss in detail what changes you'd like to make, and come to a consensus properly, rather than using protection or blocks. As for IP addresses, whilst registering a username is not compulsory, it does make discussions more coherent, as involved editors can take note of all contributions made by the same person. It doesn't matter if the user reveals their real name - its simply the continuity of a username that assists the flow of discussions. Colds7ream (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. I have just declined the protection request, but I will fully protect this if the edit warring continues. GedUK  13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute that the edits I have made are large; I have only added/fixed references and made cosmetic changes elsewhere. The "edit war" if one can call it that was over a tag – hardly a substantive issue. When I have considered major changes, I have posted to the talkpage (see below). In any case, thank you both for reviewing the matter. Perhaps now that Amsaim's obstructionist tactics have been frustrated he will come and discuss the substance of the material. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars don't have to be over substantial issues; believe me, I've seen them blow up over the smallest thing. Oddly, tags are often one of the reasons. GedUK  14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, but Colds7ream's comment seemed to suggest that the bone of contention in this case was large edits, restructuring and detailed changes which ought to have been discussed in advanced, rather than the "unreliable source?" tag for The Economist. I suspect the proclivity to edit war over tags is due to the fact that the warrior aspirant need not do much research in order to arrive at a position on the matter she can defend; not so for substantive disputes, which rule out the lazy. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

New book out

It seems she has a new book out, titled 'Nomad'. From the description at amazon.co.uk, it seems like this one is also autobiographical, and not the fictional account of Mohammed meeting modern society that has been announced earlier? Mortene (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Key Portion of Life History Missing

Somewhere between the section on her "Youth" and "Early Career" her decision to leave Kenya and seek Asylum in Holland should be set down. What I know is only from reading a couple of newspaper articles, so I don't feel I'm in the best position to write this. From what I understand, her father's decision to arrange a marriage for her was the impetus for her leaving & this led her to change her name and birth date slightly presumably to avoid being found by her dad. (There are some unclear statements by her about choosing her grandfather's name and how that was perfectly valid.) Since these discrepancies form the basis for Holland's later attempt to revoke her citizenship, they are important details as is her becoming a Dutch citizen in 1997. Ileanadu (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Political career unclear

There appears to be something missing in the last three paragraphs of Ayaan Hirsi Ali#Political career, and I placed a {{clarify}} tag just after "her party" as an example, but the rest is quite unclear. Can someone with good sources clean up this section? What needs explanation are: "her security measures", "stood for election to Parliament" (... and what happened?) "tenure in Parliament" (something missing?) -84user (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Estrangement

I have a question, and I have no idea what the answer is. The article's opening includes this sentence:

She is the estranged daughter of the Somali scholar, politician, and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse.

Isse is now dead. Is it proper to still refer to Ali and Isse as "estranged"? 98.82.0.102 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the word estranged should be removed from opener. Her estrangement from her father during his lifetime either is or should be detailed in the body. Donama (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I was thinking as well. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Niall Fergusson : partner

The article on Fergusson mentions their personal and ideological relationship, but that ref seems not to be reciprocated as yet at this article. I presume the ideological connection makes the other part relevant, but I am not an expert !Feroshki (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the newspaper article and subsequent correction they printed at the Fergusson article. Seems to me that it is speculation by the media rather than fact and so probably is not in line with WP:BLP (even in the Fergusson article!). Unless Hirsi stated she had or is in a relationship with Fergusson and we have a citation for that I don't think we can put it in here. What do others think? Donama (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a fact. “There is a new man in my life: Niall Ferguson, a British historian and TV presenter; the situation is a bit complicated. I am deeply in love and that feels great,” she told a Dutch magazine last week."

From an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Times: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article7120478.ece 119.224.9.212 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's add it in. Donama (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How exactly are you going to word appropriate article content from that quote? Active Banana ( bananaphone 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of my effort? Donama (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The photo is use

Why is the photo from her book Infidel not being used in the article? This is the photo that most publications use. Did a Wiki editor take the current photo with their instamatic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends only to use free images in biographies of living people. Any exception to that means the permission, has to be very broad so that the various redistributions of Wikipedia content doesn't break any laws. If you find a better free image, upload it and use it here! Donama (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference 82 broken

The reference: "^ Journal of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's lecture at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard" looks to be broken.

It points to http://www.rogerhouston.org/rogerhouston/2006/05/ayaan_hirsi_ali.html which seems to no longer exist.

--Hugovdm (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Opposes circumcision?

Does Hirsan Ali oppose male circumcision? The RTL link supporting that is broken, and the quote following doesn't seem to support it either. DaBunny42 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"firestorm of controversy and widespread condemnation of brandeis"

Claims regarding the prevalence of a particular viewpoint are best cited and attributed to a secondary source that surveys and summarizes the field of opinion. Language like "a firestorm of controversy" is unencyclopedic IMO and probably shouldn't be included no matter who said it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree, and I have tagged that sentence as needing cleanup. My quick check of the several cites failed to find the word "firestorm", but I listed several other problems that need fixing in the tag's reason field. -84user (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Views

So much material has already been quoted by her that many additional, repetitive quotes by Hirsi Ali in the "Views" section are not needed. Try to summarize/paraphrase her views; this is not a newspaper article. What do second-party sources say about her and about her writing, after they acknowledge that a former Muslim woman is criticizing Islam? Did she get any laws passed while in parliament? Did she get any programs established for Muslim women in the Netherlands, or shape any policy? What programs did she support? What did she do at the AEI? Did she publish articles there or do research? It is curious that major sources do not appear to report her numerous statements; many of the sources used here for cites are more marginal publications.Parkwells (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Perspective

This article is about a very public and controversial figure, but that does not mean that each speech and action that has been reported in the press needs to be included here, such as what she said at a speech at a 2007 conference in Australia. This is overkill and it makes the article seem circular in content, as the same ideas are repeatedly expressed. It also causes a reader to lose track of what Hirsi Ali has accomplished. Let's focus on the major events in her life and what she has achieved, rather than repetition of what she says and what others say. The asylum/citizenship controversy is covered at length in two places and might be better covered just once. If there is to be so much content on what she says, there need to be other secondary sources to provide some perspective. I'm editing to try to reduce repetition of facts and positions; for instance, material about her and Verdonk is later repeated related to her claims in her autobiography about certain conversations between them, but there is nothing further from Verdonk. There appears to be no end to that.Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Brandeis controversy needs to be summarized. Everyone jumps in on something like this in our 24-hour-news cycle, but everyone does not need to be quoted. Please use paraphrase and summary.Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with incomplete cites and too many sources not in English

Having so many citations to articles in Dutch, Danish or German make the sources difficult for English-language speakers to use in this, the English-language Wikipedia. I understand that Hirsi Ali was reported more thoroughly in Europe, but it would appear that some of these issues would also have been reported in the British press, particularly the asylum controversy that appeared to affect the government. I am willing to, and have used Google translate before, to get a good sense of articles in other languages. But, many cites in this article are insufficient to find the original articles; the cites often do not connect to specific articles, but to a publication's main page. This is sloppy editorial work. There may be other readers like me who want to read the original.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My editing re: asylum controversy

When the story broke about Hirsi Ali's omissions or distortions on her asylum application, there were many different reports, as well as responses by her at that time, and by members of her family, government officials, etc. I think it is enough to try to cover what was said

1) on the program about her application,

2)how she and

3)others responded at the time, and

4)what took place as the government grappled with it.

I think it is highly inappropriate to insert in that coverage, quotes and statements from Hirsi Ali's two autobiographies, especially the one published years later in 2010. No comments from reviewers are included here. There does not seem to have been any attempt to find responses from people she made claims about, such as Rita Verdonk's asking for her support for the party nomination as leader. That is why I made a separate section for the autobiographies, and put there Hirsi Ali's statements/writing about the asylum application, etc. - separately from the events of the breaking story and its aftermath. Otherwise it is even more confusing. Given the context, I think it is important to keep a sense of what was said when, rather than adding to the record from a later account by only one actor in the events.

Also, in terms of her books, it would be useful to provide coverage of their reception by reviewers in the mainstream press or academic journals, as is usually the case for books, and not solely by a fellow colleague at AEI. If none of her books has been reviewed by the mainstream press or academics, after all the international controversy about her, that should be noted.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Awards section is too detailed

This section is way over the top, with country flags and paragraphs of exposition. This is not Facebook or a film contest. Each award should be briefly listed with the year, not with each presenter and other current info.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there deeper responses to her criticism?

There are quotes in this article by Hirsi Ali criticizing Muhammed, saying how he would be considered today for certain behavior or statements. It would be useful to have some sources that discuss how Muhammed's behavior was considered in his own time, for instance, the age of his wife at marriage. Has her age been documented in sources outside the Koran, or is the Koran the sole source for these statements? Haven't any of Hirsi Ali's critics noted that she is using current values to criticize an ancient text? there seem to be holes in the coverage of this article, if you look beyond the use of quotes from newspaper articles in the "she said, he said" back and forth.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In her review of "The Caged Virgin" in The Nation (referenced and cited in this article), Laila Lalami makes a measured analysis of Hirsi Ali's arguments and finds them wanting in terms of academic and historic rigor. I recommend people read this to understand the issues better. Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire Reception section is a huge joke. Evidently the "editor" of this "entry" could find only one individual, Christopher Hitchens, who wrote anything positive about her work. Furthermore, why the criticism of Laila Lalami is treated with such deference is anyone's guess. As for Nicholas Kristof, he may as well just start filling out a form letter in response to those who dare criticize Islam, because he writes the same exact thing about all of them. The Reception section is a biased mess.74.134.128.175 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Name

This may be a trivial matter, but when presenting her name it has:

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch: [aːˈjaːn ˈɦiːrsi ˈaːli]"

She may have moved to the Netherlands, but her name is NOT Dutch. It is Somalian mixed with Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.79.55 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Source

Here is a source with some criticism.[4]. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted criticisms

about 13k of criticism by third parties has been deleted. I think this is appropriate, what X says about the pope belongs in the X article, not the pope's article. I have restored a significant portion of the material which was well-sourced quotes of the author herself. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox religion

Atheism has just been removed from the infobox. I'm aware of the long-standing and apparently unresolvable argument over the general question of whether atheism can be called a religion. However, I believe that Ms. Ali's well-documented position is one of being actively *against* theism, and stating her religion as "none" does not adequately represent this. So I'm hoping that someone can suggest a better solution that addresses this point. Regards, Samsara 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument has already been settled: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." Source: Closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?.

It is a common mistake on Wikipedia to assume that there is something wrong or inferior about the article text and thus that all sorts of fine details and distinctions should be crammed into the infobox. The usual thinking is "someone will just read the infobox and get the wrong idea".

Actually, as a long-standing Wikipedia policy, whenever possible infoboxes should contain short, one word entries, or perhaps two or three words but only when you can't figure out how to do it in one. That's why we have 797 pages that use "Religion: None"[5]

Also, we really don't care about anyone who only reads the infobox. This is an encyclopedia. If you don't read an encyclopedia article, it is your own fault if you don't understand the subject of the article. Infobox entries have to be true (and "none" certainly is that), but they don't have to be and should not be detailed or comprehensive.

You are free to bring the above argument up at the infobox talk page if you want, but the last dozen people who did were told pretty much what I just told you above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to was not about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and it does not address my query. Please let's have genuine, relevant discussion here. I believe that implying that she changed from muslim to "none" is seriously flawed given that the whole point of her notability is that she's an opponent of theism and some of the practices advocated under that umbrella. Infoboxes should not have seriously misleading content. Samsara 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Global consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? overrules local consensus on this page. This is explained at WP:CONLEVEL. Neither Atheism or Anti-theism is a religion, and so cannot be put after "Religion =" in an infobox. If reading WP:CONLEVEL and Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? does not address your concerns, feel free to go to WP:DRR and ask for help. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi both, I'm here as closer of the RfC in question having been invited by a note on my talk page.

  In principle, I'm of the view that a local consensus should be capable of overruling the global consensus in the case of content RfCs. Content RfCs establish and document common practice, but they shouldn't have the force of policy. I feel that a local consensus should be able to set aside a content RfC if it makes sense for the particular article in question.

  In practice in this specific case, my first impression based on one read-through of the article is that it may be best to leave the "religion" parameter of the infobox blank. Ms Ali's position seems a bit too nuanced to fit into a one-word summary.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• (later) ... and now that I've read the article again and considered it carefully, I'm even more certain that we should leave the "religion" parameter blank. Ali's position seems perfectly clear. She's bitterly opposed to a number of Islamic practices and she's scornful of Islamic theology. I can see no evidence that she's similarly opposed to any other religion and I think to call her an "antitheist" would be a bit misleading. But her position is stronger than conventional atheism, and I'm reluctant to coin phrases like "Islamophobic atheist" for an infobox.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:

• "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."

More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)".

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

In addition, "Religion: Non-religious (Atheism)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the religion parameter.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Islam's followers are the enemy?

In the second paragraph Ali is cited as saying that she views Islam's followers as an "enemy" who must be crushed. In fact she states that Islam is the enemy, not the followers. There is also no mention of why she believes this; specifically, there is no mention that she suggests "it can mutate into something peaceful" once defeated, rather than peace being achieved directly through its defeat. She is also quoted as saying it must be crushed, but the article suggests she is speaking metaphorically of a deciding moment in the 'battle with Islam'.

The fact that only individual words are used in these quotes, if you could call them that, doesn't do much to assure me of neutrality. Cwbr77 (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• You are right, Cwbr77. The source article doesn't show Ayaan referring to Muslims as enemies. Its the interviewer who talked about in the question, and the editor on this page put interviewer's words in Ayaan's mouth. The factually inaccurate statement has been removed from the lead section. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fasi100. --Cwbr77 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Those were not the interviewer's words. She did say "Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful." and "There comes a moment when you crush your enemy."

Cwbr77 says: "she states that Islam is the enemy, not the followers"

This is not entirely clear, as "enemy" here could very well refer to the followers as well, considering that she said what she said about defeating and crushing the enemy (1) in response to a question about crushing 1.5 billion Muslims and (2) she refers to Muslims with (they/them) in her answer. So I don't think it is as clear as you make it to be. Nevertheless, I think we can settle for mentioning Islam in the lede at least (and btw, how can one defeat and crush a religion without harming its followers?).

Cwbr77 says: "the article suggests she is speaking metaphorically of a deciding moment in the 'battle with Islam'."

No, she says "I think that we are at war with Islam". As in right now.

If you want justify her "peace" terms further, go ahead. But I see no reason for removing the entire statement about her viewing Islam as an enemy that needs to be defeated. She is calling for war, and not merely a "vocal" critic against Islam" as the new wording says. I have restored it with some modifications in light of what has been mentioned above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you're attempting an edit war, specifically the reason why I didn't change it myself in the first place.

Interviewers specifically try to make views seem as extreme as possible. There is a clear tactic here: Ask one question ("We have to crush...under out boot?") and then another ("What does that mean, 'defeat Islam'?") and hope the interviewee doesn't counter the first question.

Also, I believe you are deliberately taking these "quotes" (singular words, no less) out of context in an obviously biased way. She at no point suggests that anybody is being (or should be) harmed other than those people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who are being targeted by extremists. The words "they" and "them" are merely third person forms; they don't indicate that you wish someone harm. She only uses it in the quoted section to say "they're (Western converts) the most fanatical sometimes", which is hardly untrue, and in the rest of the article it does no more than display her "us and them" outlook, which I am sure many Muslims also feel towards the West.

You can absolutely "defeat" a religion without harming its followers; by Conversion, for example. Or even by transferral to a non-religious outlook. A religion and its followers are not one and the same.

I think it's ridiculous to act as though she wishes to crush the Muslims, when it's clear to any rational mind that she wishes to drastically change everything, sure, but not to harm anyone; to prevent further harm, in fact.

I would be happy to see a modified version, but adding "Ayaan has been a vocal critic of Islam" to the beginning of the paragraph does nothing to reduce the bias in the paragraph, which was my concern. Cwbr77 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the hate and vitriol she spews towards Islam, the religion proper ("Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?" "No. Islam, period") and all Muslims (the problem it isn't just a few "rotten apples" in the Islamic community but "I’m saying it’s the entire basket.") are just words spoken under coercion by skilled interviewers?

We both agree that she indeed sees Islam an enemy that needs to be defeated. Correct? so that's there in the Wiki article right now. However, you maintain that she has good intentions and wants to achieve this peacefully. This claim seems rather speculative at best, as there is absolutely no indication in her interview of a desire for a peaceful solution to her "war with Islam". In fact, she states: "It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now" (no wonder Breivik was an admirer of her). Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Life in the U.S.

This section contains an error. Per the reference, the Imam never threatened her with death. I deleted this claim for good measure as it is disparaging towards a living person. NiceAdam (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence didn't say he threatened her. Here's the exact wording: "Pittsburgh imam Fouad El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence and should be tried and judged in an Islamic country." It's well-referenced and we didn't distort the newspaper article. If we wrote that the Imam threatened her I'd agree with you. I am going to revert per WP:BRD. By the way, apparently he was fired because of his statement [23]. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There is still a problem. We should avoid putting words in someone's mouth. We need to use the actual quote to avoid the interpretation problem. The current statement in the article makes it sound like he called for harm to her: El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence. Before changing the article, let's have some feedback. Per the original article, it should be changed to "If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment,"NiceAdam (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence does accurately report what the news article says [24]. The news article says:

"Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added."

We say "Pittsburgh imam Fouad El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence but should be tried and judged in an Islamic country." We could quote the news article but our condensation gets the gist of the matter. The next sentence in the news article mentions the Imam's further qualification on Islam's prescription of the death penalty. He says:

"If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it."

As our article isn't about ElBayly or his interpretation of Islam we shouldn't go off on a tangent about him or his theology especially when it has nothing to do with Ali. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But, the article as it stands this second is being used to attack him and Islam. To avoid NPOV violations I recommend using the actual quote from the article rather than an editor's interpretation assuming good intentions. I have a real problem with the current "condensation" as it puts words in his mouth: El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence. I don't read the referenced article that way and I have been looking at the original story for the past week. Can we please get a 3rd party to chime in as I don't fully trust myself either? We will go with the neutral party says.NiceAdam (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You are refusing to accept the statement of a reliable source when you dismiss it as their interpretation. The sentance that followed is irrelevant to the point the newspaper is making. Don't confuse the two different statements. It's the first that we are reporting. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

But, these two sentences go together to say that he was talking about a fair trial which he felt was warranted. Since he was fired from the Islamic center, he was obviously wrong. But, we don't want to mention that.--NiceAdam (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong. He said what he said. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

oh, yes, please don't WP:CANVASS as you did on your talk page.Jason from nyc (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Genital mutilation - personal history

Ali said that the procedure was in fact not done in the traditional way on her, it was much "milder". So the sentence is not precise and it is not clear if she was "fully" circumcised. In addition, Ali's personal history is important for the power in her arguments. So her personal history should be told as exact as possible and necessary. The article now gives the impression that she was fully circumcised (according to somalian tradition). Please reinsert details. --— Erik Jr. 09:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Erik Jr.: Do you have any sources saying the procedure had been "much milder"? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Guardian interview (theguardian.com/film/2005/may/17/religion.immigration) reference already there. --— Erik Jr. 19:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This quote had been totally stripped of important context, and could've easily have been misread as though she was supportive of the procedure. Highlighting the phrase "should have been" out of context was inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell: ...And as Erik Jr. said, the former wording was not accurate, too. Could you please tell us how it was "inappropriate"? I mean, what's the context you're talking about? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting this quote at all seems subjective. This is not the place to speculate on whether she was "fully" circumcised, and (as the scare-quotes indicate) this is not a clearly meaningful distinction anyway. Why do we need to go into this much detail based on a couple of sentences in a much longer paragraph? The Guardian article, prior to the detail cited, spends multiple paragraphs explaining the specific reasons why FGM would be different if performed by a man, and why (according to Hirsi Ali), it's traditionally performed by a woman. Omitting all of that but including the "much milder" line is just luridly focusing on her body parts. If the intention is instead to provide background on her opposition to FGM, this is already disproportionate to the rest of the article. Her opposition is currently summarized in single paragraph without any of the religious and cultural context which the Guardian article specifically provides. The article provides this both directly and by quoting Hirsi Ali. The phrase "should have been" absolutely would need context to clarify that she does not state she should have been mutilated at all. This is clear from the article, and leaving that quote in without that context is using a trick of language to subtly suggesting that she thinks the procedure was performed incorrectly. If anything, the article indicates the opposite. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This version is better now. In spite of your explanations, we would add the paragraph, if I felt the need to build a consensus on that. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but you still have not answered my concerns about how this one detail is biographically relevant. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Should have been" does not refer to Ali's opinion (she was 5 y old at the time) but to the tradition. We should of course not speculate on whether she was "fully" circumcised, but "much milder" clearly means something less than "fully". Ali gave these private details in an interview with a major newspaper. I think the paragraph is fine now, these details are important as discussed above. — Erik Jr. 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Using Hirsi's interview in her article

There are at least 2 editors who keep undoing my edits when I quote Hirsi from an interview she gave before coming to the US back in 2006. The interview is from a documentary and she gave the interview knowing full well that what she said would be aired. The source is reliable (not even Muslim but Dutch interviewer), the information is verifiable and relevant about the subject of this article and significant. Looking for a neutral party to tell me if I am not right what can I do better. These editors keep bringing up BRD to me but most of them never take the time to discuss specific reasons for undoing this edit. FYI....here is the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxP8Uys8kc.NiceAdam (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

youtube sources are only accepted when they are published by an official channel (the channel that produced the video) not by an unknown user. Zembla doesn't have a youtube channel, but the video is available at their website: http://zembla.vara.nl/seizoenen/2006/afleveringen/11-05-2006/extras/the-holy-ayaan/

Your real problem isn't the source, it's the content you want to add: She claimed to be sponsored by powerful "interests involved" in Dutch politics". What interests, left, right, conservative, progressive? It doesn't tell us anything, there's just the suggestion that "something" is going on, that she is involved in "something", but no facts whatsoever. No matter how good your source is, such a statement without context will be removed, especially from a WP:BLP.

The part about ElBayly is clearly relevant, and sourced, so it should be included. No need to add a reference after every sentence, just keep the one at the end (and use http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_506958.html, the #... at the end is not needed).

The pregnancy claim is a clear violation of WP:BLP (wikipedia is not a tabloid; avoid gossip; Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced: it's potentially libelous and not even sourced, the telegraph article makes no such claim, as far as I can see) Ssscienccce (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent info. Thank you for your valuable feedback; I will do as you suggested: use better references and make sure to use NPOV. I will use this space before making some of the items you mentioned above to make sure I am doing this right.--NiceAdam (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that all critical comments were removed from the Reception section in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali&diff=654589847&oldid=654445278

This was defended on the talk page here (see "deleted criticisms", 2 april) with the argument " I think this is appropriate, what X says about the pope belongs in the X article, not the pope's article", ignoring the fact that only negative opinions were removed. A reception section necessarily contains other people's opinion, and should be balanced ( Wikipedia:Criticism), with both negative and positive assessments. At the moment it's totally one-sided. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Conservative?

For your consideration: Given that the article

• prominently discusses Hirsi Ali's criticism of Islam, usually considered a conservative stance in the context of Western politics;
• notes her involvement with AEI, which RSes concur is a "conservative" or "right-wing" think tank;
• sees fit to point out that AEI is such in passing;

and that it's very easy to find conservative news articles that defend her, as well as pieces that directly label her as a "conservative" - example:

Outwardly they might seem opposites: [Hirsi Ali's husband Niall Ferguson] the historian-cum-polemicist, a right-wing bruiser among public intellectuals and a ferocious critic of Obama; she feminine and calm spoken, in manner if not in content. But politically they were well attuned, conservatives with a shared antipathy to the soggy liberalism that feels constrained almost to apologise for the West’s achievements and fails to grasp how vulnerable its democratic values are in places such as the Middle East.

Should we follow suit in this article with such identification, and/or elsewhere on Wikipedia that she is named? 74.12.92.201 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The increasing association of a willingness to criticism Islam with political conservatism speaks more to the condition of the contemporary left than it does the nature of conservatism, or being conservative. Her willingness to associate with AEI doesn't define her ideology and the ham-fisted qualification of AEI within this article is poor form anyway. Regardless, if you can find a set of reliable and neutral sources which explicitly characterize the subject as ideologically conservative and you can coherently incorporate it into the article in a manner complaint with WP:BLP then bring that here. Our political parsing doesn't matter. GraniteSand (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

the ham-fisted qualification of AEI within this article is poor form anyway. In that case, perhaps it should be fixed/removed? I don't mean to "lobby" for this one way or another, I just wonder about the consistency of the article. It seems weird to me to repeatedly hint at a political position without stating it.

As for reliable sources, is The Independent considered not neutral? I'm not very familiar with UK newspapers. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing such qualifications when the topic has an in-depth parent article is not a hard rule but it's is my preference and is usually supported by style guidelines. Their inclusion is cumbersome, poor prose, and can lead to subtle but real issues with neutrality. As for The Independent, it has it's own politics, which likely believes it would benefit form characterizing Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a conservative, sure. British newspapers, unlike American publications, generally don't feign ideological indifference but that doesn't categorically preclude their use as sources. Sources with clear editorial bias may be used in all sorts of matters, as long as they are used with diligence and restraint. Neutrality comes into play vis-a-vis their usage when characterizing the nature of something they clearly have an ideological, instead of objective, position on; i.e. we can cite the Heritage Foundation or the Center for American Progress in general but it's inappropriate to use either, especially in isolation, to back the assertion that Barack Obama is a poor President or that Ronald Reagan is the most overrated President of the 20th century, respectively. For more info you should read the main guideline on reliable sources and it's associated content. It's a long read but worth it if you intent to do substantive work here. GraniteSand (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential Copvio

Please consider the results of this investigation. Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the May 20th, 2006 article in the Asian Tribune was a plagiarization of our 2006 wikipedia article. Here's a copy of Wikipedia a few days before on May 17, 2006: [25]. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Jason from nyc: Yes it was. But what should be done about the reference? Mhhossein (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes what was? Wikipedia editors did not plagiarize. The author at the Asian Tribune plagiarized. There are ample references that support our article aside from the shameful Asian Tribune article. Nothing needs to be removed from the text. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Jason from nyc: Yes the Asiatribune was plagiarizing. I just wanted to remove the tag. I did not aim to remove the materials and I don't know how it occurred. Anyway, Thanks for reverting! --Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the whole issue to our attention. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Could anyone add more necessary details to the lead. "Reception" is among the things needing to be added. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Has Admitted Lying About Her Past

She has admitted lying about her past, why this article doesn't mention this is beyond me. Why her lies are continued to be stated as fact is beyond me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1518532/Critic-of-Islam-to-quit-Holland-after-lies-are-exposed.html

• The documentary referenced can easily be found on Youtube

 Done --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• @David A:: Why did you reverted me? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with adding the link, just not at the start of the article, and thought that the later section needed to be shortened down and structured better. David A (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The newyork post source does not supprot her being somali-born. I agree with you with the rest. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mhhossein, the inclusion of that episode into the article has obviously been done long ago (if it ever was actually lacking), that's why I removed the flag in yesterday. And I would recommend that you stop inserting references focused on that episode into parts of the article which have nothing to do with that episode. Whatever your agenda for such acts may be, it abuses Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA: Thanks for replacing the source. The source now supports that "Somali-born" part. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation overkill

User:David A: We really don't need those too many citations unless they are meant to support something in the article and other sources can't do that job. Please see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There are only a few references, not remotely an overkill, and they are important to underline that there were considerable protests against the inclusion in several prominent newspapers. David A (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing "War against Islam" conspiracy theory insinuation from this article

I am now going to remove from this article a conspiracy theory insinuation from a highly dubious source.

The half-sentence to be removed is in bold:

She received a residence permit within three weeks of arriving in the Netherlands, although it was typical for applicants at the time to have to wait eight months for a decision.

It is the general disease of articles related to the Middle East or topics around Islam that some people try to insert insinuations about alleged all-encompassing conspiracies into articles. For more background see the War against Islam article.

Let's keep this article here clean of such. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA: Is "although it was typical for applicants ... " conspiracy theory? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The half-sentence "although it was typical for applicants ... " adds ZERO substance, as the time to proceed asylum/migrant cases very much depends on characteristics of the individual case. And the half-sentence "although it was typical for applicants ... " has ZERO relevance for the topic of this article here. The only possible motivation to put this half-sentence into the article is to produce an insinuation that there were invisible dark forces at work. With no discernable possible motivation other than to further conspiracy theory. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that 2A1ZA seems to make sense. David A (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA: Thanks for the explanation. However, we have to assess your claim, i.e. "asylum/migrant cases very much depends on characteristics of the individual case", by comparing it to reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If a reliable source says that she got a residence permit in 3 weeks while the average is 8 months, that is a relevant fact to include. The average gives a background to understand if 3 weeks was quick or ordinary. If there is also an account for why, that can also be inluded. --— Erik Jr. 08:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Erik Jr.: I'm in agreement with you. I don't think why we have to avoid a material supported by RS, unless proven otherwise is correct. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hirsi%2Bwins%2Brights%2Baward%2Bfrom%2BDanish%2Bcartoon%2Bpaper/2963014/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709064611/http://www.aei.org/scholar/117 to http://www.aei.org/scholar/117
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thebrandeishoot.com/articles/14184

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Varadarajan's view

Is Varadarajan's view, i.e. "with "multiple fatwas on her head,..." so important to be included in the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• No, it should be removed from this section, in my opinion. Jeroen1961 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi did the job! --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that she has multiple fatwas calling for her assassination is certainly important enough to include somewhere in the article. If you wish to character-assassinate her by cherry-picking sources that demonise her positions, then fine, it is not technically against the rules, although it may be too POV, but you cannot censor valid information from Wikipedia as you see fit. If you do not wish to keep it in the lead, then move it somewhere else. David A (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing in the lede

@Jeroen1961:, I find your recent changes in the lede to be problematic. Specifically, the removal from the lede of:

• "Following revelations by the Dutch TV programme Zembla that Hirsi Ali had lied to win asylum in the Netherlands,...". This is too important to be ignored in the lede. It led to her fall in Europe and her escape to the US.
• "alleged" before "oppression of women under Islam".

Further, whitewashing Ali's attacks on Islam, as though she only meant the Iranian/Saudi Islam is laughable. Her books spells it all out. Not to mention, YouTube is not an RS, especially this The Rubin Report (a white right-wing trash "anti-PC" show). Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it is my intention to create an objective article. I consider mentioning the Zembla programme in the lead to be tendentious, especially because it was no revelation, Hirsi Ali had been honest about her giving the name of her grandfather (which is allowed in Somalia) and a different date of birth (which was not seen as very problematic by the Dutch Immigration Services), before she entered Parliament. What led to her 'escape' to the US as you call it, had to do with political islam, not with this affair. I do not whitewash anything (as if Hirsi Ali committed some crime). It is obvious you are against her, and it shows in the way you express this in the article. The YouTube quotes are her own spoken words, they are therefore a reliable source. The film is not about alleged oppression, but about real, existing oppression. Your source of reference is not specific enough - you need to mention the page. I shall therefore revert your changes. Jeroen1961 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jeroen1961:, We don't care what ***YOU*** think about Ayaan or about the validity of her statements. Stop removing sentences you don't like and replacing them with your own POV which you are presenting as though they are facts. Tagged the article with POV until the mess is cleaned up. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are assuming I am giving my point of view. I am not. I have provided reliable sources.Jeroen1961 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NPOV. I tagged the problematic statements. Of course, you still need to explain your removal of "...Muslim immigrants are culturally unsuited to life in the West and are therefore a burden. For Ali, Muslim women will be saved only when they divorce themselves from their native religion and culture and embrace a Western consciousness as she did", cited by Yaghi, Adam (18 December 2015). "Popular Testimonial Literature by American Cultural Conservatives of Arab or Muslim Descent: Narrating the Self, Translating (an)Other". Middle East Critique. 25 (1): 83–98. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. You have given no specific source for your statements. As for the description of the film 'Submission', I took the description from the Wikipedia article Submission: "The film drew praise for portraying the ways in which women are abused in accordance with fundamentalist Islamic law, as well as anger for criticising Islamic canon itself." Jeroen1961 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There are at least 5/6 separate issues with your recent edits. Removal of 3 complete sentences, and the POV pushing on the rest. There is quite a bit of work to be done. The one on oppression of woman is one of them. The word "alleged" was there for a reason. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... WP:ASPERSIONS. Also WP:LABEL. Kleuske (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi: Also, please check the impact factor of the journals you are citing. I checked one "Middle East Critique" and it's IF is dismal. That would imply the authors cited in the "criticism" section you replicated in the lede are given WP:UNDUE weight. Kleuske (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes Kleuske, you are quite right, thank you for mentioning this. @Al-Andalusi: I assume you are of good will, I apologise if I accused you of being biased. I would just like to emphasise that specific citations are needed when adding statements about a living person. Jeroen1961 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jeroen1961:. I don't think it was justifiable to remove her views on Muslims, especially Muslims immigrants and Muslim women from the lede. She was certainly not just attacking Islam, the religion. The citation I used is from Yaghi, Adam, which was removed as part of your changes. But it's not hard to find other references, her books for example. YouTube is not a reliable reference as far as I know. Besides, the claim that she is merely attacking Iran/Saudi Arabia is not consistent with the views she espouses in her works, so I would suggest the removal of the wording "as practiced and enforced in Saudi Arabia and Iran". Oppression of women under Islamic law is not NPOV, so is the use of "Islam as an ideology". Finally, the episode with her asylum application should be restored. The word "revelations" is NPOV I believe. Thanks, but no need to apologize. It didn't bother me. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: Very well, I will remove Iran/Saudi Arabia, even though Hirsi Ali specifically refers to these fundamentalist Shiite and Sunni countries. I think mentioning the asylum application controversy in the lead in extensive detail is giving this controversy much more weight than it deserves. As mentioned before, the Zembla documentary did not really reveal anything, this was already public knowledge, as political leaders of her own party later admitted. YouTube not be a reliable reference? Why? After all, they are Hirsi Ali's own words, literally. Oppression of women in fundamentalist Islam is widely accepted as true, not POV, let us be realistic, I mean, look at the reality of misogynistic laws in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, for example. In any case I took the description from article Submission.

If you want to mention her views on Muslims, especially Muslims immigrants and Muslim women, as you say, they would have to be expanded in the main section and very thoroughly sourced. Jeroen1961 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I'm glad that we are making progress on this dispute. Well, she did say that contemporary Muslims (and other non-western groups) have not yet transitioned to modernity. Search for "modernity" in the article, and you'll find a couple of references. The point is, her views not only tackle Islam proper, but also its followers, and with sweeping generalizations. I think her views on Muslims is worthy of being added to the lede. A previous revision of the article had the following:

Ali maintains that Muslim immigrants are culturally unsuited to life in the West and are therefore a burden. For Ali, Muslim women will be saved only when they divorce themselves from their native religion and culture and embrace a Western consciousness as she did.

(Yaghi, Adam (18 December 2015). "Popular Testimonial Literature by American Cultural Conservatives of Arab or Muslim Descent: Narrating the Self, Translating (an)Other". Middle East Critique. 25 (1): 83–98. doi:10.1080/19436149.2015.1107996.)

(Grewal, Kiran (December 2012). "RECLAIMING THE VOICE OF THE 'THIRD WORLD WOMAN'". Interventions. 14 (4): 569–590. doi:10.1080/1369801X.2012.730861.)

But I'm ok with adding a shorter sentence like "She insists that contemporary Muslims have not yet transitioned to modernity". Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: You speak of "Contemporary Muslims", meaning "all" contemporary Muslims. However Hirsi Ali fully endorses, and cooperates with practicing Muslims like Maajid Nawaz of Quilliam or Asra Nomani of the Muslim Reform Movement. I suggest we change your sentence by adding the word "many" before "Muslims".

Balancing lede with critics POV

I added content to balance the lede with a summary of criticism section. All citations are articles published in reliable, peer-viewed academic journals. The best kind of sources for Wikipedia. User Kleuske removed some of the claims, arguing that "Better sources needed". @Kleuske:, can you explain what do you mean by "better sources"? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion central. I've addressed this issue above. In short WP:UNDUE. Kleuske (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This section was created before you added your comment. Kindly move your comment here to continue the discussion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the sources, use the appropriate tags. Removing them however, and then placing the cn tag is quite misleading. Also, the "impact" measure you use is subjective, and is not mentioned as a requirement in WP:RS. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am discussing it, which is the goal of those tags. Kleuske (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Mohammed Bouyeri, a second-generation migrant from Morocco

@David A:, I see you insist on replacing "Islamic extremist" with "Mohammed Bouyeri, a second-generation migrant from Morocco". The wording "a second-generation migrant from Morocco" is suggestive, and it is quite obvious what you're hinting here. Why don't you take a page from Ayaan's book and spell it all out somewhere in the article? I'm sure you'll come across some of her views on immigrants that are in line with yours. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and discuss edits instead of the editor. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was mostly interested in his name being spelled out, and as such I restored the old sentence that you removed. David A (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Individual feminist

Hello! This article has Ali tagged as an "Individualist Feminist." I couldn't find anything about this on the page. A cursory web search found pages by those who identify as this mentioning her or her work, but that doesn't mean she ascribes to their philosophy. Can we either remove this or add some proof?Teddywithfangs (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If not supported article text with references it can safely be removed. — Erik Jr. 08:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, it seems to me Ali qualifies as an "Individualist Feminist". I quote from the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism): "Individualist feminists attempt to change legal systems to eliminate class privileges and gender privileges and to ensure that individuals have equal rights, including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property." Ali does exactly that, not only does she seek to eliminate class privilege and gender privilege, but also cultural privilege. She accuses Western feminists of cultural relativism i.e. Western feminists tend to turn a blind eye to female oppression in Islamic communities, for fear of being accused of racism, which Ali believes is inconsistent with the notion of equal rights for men and women, in whichever culture people live. Jeroen1961 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Choosing a label for someone doesn't make it one the person chose. I can't find a resource where she uses this term to describe herself, so I'm removing the category label. Teddywithfangs (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim Extremist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which wikipedia has ruled is a reliable secondary source, she is an anti-Muslim extremist. If that's enough to label Jared Taylor a white supremacist, as it was shown it was, it must also be enough to apply a label in this case. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the SPLC has maligned Hirsi Ali. They are hardly an objective organization. Where is this "ruling" that they are a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, and source for what, exactly? Unschool 04:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:POINTed nonsense, as this IP has aggressively lobbied against the use of SPLC on other talk pages. Issues with Taylor have already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, such as that article's talk page where many, many sources support his supremacist status. The SPLC, like all sources, need to be judged on context. This source could be discussed, but preemptively poisoning the well by comparison to white supremacy isn't the way to do it. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since Mrs. Hirsi Ali is of Somali descent, shouldn't you include the Somali spelling for her name (and Somali pronunciation)?

You can't just exclude the way her name is spelled and pronounced in the Somali language that she speaks natively. I don't agree with her on many things, but this is a necessary change needed for this article. Zakawer (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The somali spelling should be mentioned in the lead. For the rest of the article use English spelling. AadaamS (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407213316/http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=947 to http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=947
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002133455/http://pen.org/page.php/prmID/1167 to http://pen.org/page.php/prmID/1167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928140712/http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain to http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716234644/http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html to http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928140712/http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain to http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716234644/http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html to http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.europeanfreedomalliance.eu/articles/The_Owl_and_the_Ostrich.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701113955/http://www.opzij.nl/opzij/show/id=18755 to http://www.opzij.nl/opzij/show/id=18755
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114060809/http://www.madrid.org/lapresidencia/contenidos/mejor_imagen/200503/galeria_02.htm to http://www.madrid.org/lapresidencia/contenidos/mejor_imagen/200503/galeria_02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323011817/http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/rd-european-of-the-year-2006-i-52.html to http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/rd-european-of-the-year-2006-i-52.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)