Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

-- She now lives in the US - someone needs to update the page to add this information consistently. See http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.177 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (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.

Simply saying "Hirsi Ali, being atheist and pro-choice, is not a typical conservative, thus AEI, by hiring her, ipso facto is not conservative" is not a valid argument. I too was perplexed by this hire, being that AEI is widely acknowledged as a conservative think-tank. I think what AEI does is mentally cherry pick her strong stance against "backwards" (Ali's words) Islamic values but turns a blind eye to the fact she recognizes no god, not just Allah. Remember, she comes from countries where sharia has been imposed and has been on the receiving end of the abuses of the integration of church and state. Anyway, just look at who else is at AEI: Kagan, Perle, John Yoo, to name just a few: these guys are heavy hitting neo-cons....--Petzl (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

uh, is trolling like dogru's really necessary on WP? can't we leave this to ASchlafly and the competent people at conservapedia?--Petzl (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (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)

[Un-indent]: As it stands:

forthcoming: Short Cuts to Enlightenment, 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 reason this has been causing problems is that its meaning is ambiguous. Here is what I suggest it be changed to:

forthcoming: Short Cuts to Enlightenment, 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", who Hirsi Ali describes as her "favourite liberal thinkers".

or

forthcoming: Short Cuts to Enlightenment, 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, [who are Hirsi Ali's] favourite liberal thinkers".

I prefer the first version without any square brackets. Since the article is semi-locked I can't make any changes to the article myself, so could someone else do it? 86.9.201.247 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2008 (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.

Should remain documented that only "Ali" and not "Magan" or "Hirsi" got published in govn't newspaper "Staatscourant" and 2003 elections lists at VVD party #16. Furthermore with one MP-seat per 60.000 votes, around 1 out of 300 voted for her.

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)

Category issue

what is wrong with the category:Anti-Islam activists? Seems like an appropriate category for her, though I personally prefer category:Critics of Islam but this category was deleted and will probably remain so. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:critics_of_IslamAndries (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The category:Criticism of Islam is the category used in the article (not category:Critics of Islam), and this category is not deleted at all. Tomixdf (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

This page is undergoing some pretty agressive edits that are largely unreferenced, and IMO quite POV. Maybe time for some discussion on this? Tomixdf (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm listening! I am also watching the increased activity and will be glad to engage as a moderator. My name is Eric. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good someone is listening. The article has now completely deteriorated due to many spelling errors and lots of POV edits. I suggest to revert to one of the older versions and to avoid edit torrents like this in the future. Tomixdf (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at this slapstick, for example (quote from the article): "Ali married by her own choice. She married a man that she knew and she attended her own wedding. She received ample financial support from her husband.". Tomixdf (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the state it was before the edit torrent. Please start a discussion _before_ making radical changes to the article. Consensus is a good thing! Tomixdf (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All the edits seem to be made by the same unregistered user from Richardson, TX. These edits are of poor quality and very POV, and not at all limited to "sorting the events by date". So again: please start a discusion and allow people the time to check the edits, instead of making a million changes at once and re-verting every time someone cleans up the mess! Tomixdf (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any reactions from third parties to the recent edits? Should we have this page protected somehow? Tomixdf (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection necessary?

We're having a very agressive user (unregistered, operating from Richardson, TX) working on the article, who is making an enormous amount of POV/poor quality edits. I've tried to correct a few times, but he keeps reverting. Opinions? Should the page be protected? Tomixdf (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the quality of the edits is very poor. Just one example: "Freud's work, for example, placed her in contact with an alternative moral system, one that was not based on religion." is replaced by "She read some of Freud's work, for example.". Hilarious, actually. And there are numerous examples of such low quality edits! Hardly the work of "professionals with good reputations". Tomixdf (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. "She read some of Freud's work, for example." is meaningless and irrelevant. What was there before (true or not) actually made sense in the article. The point is that the Freud section was not simply deleted, but replaced by essentially nonsense. I'm reverting to the last version before the edit war. After that we can work along the tried Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Tomixdf (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"honesty and loyalty are not among her stronger qualities" is your personal point of view, and that POV does not belong in Wikipedia. Please read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle rules. Tomixdf (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I requested page protection a few days ago. I was told politely to "deal with it". :) So I can help do that... E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 09:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle rules. In a nutshell: make a limited, focussed change, wait for reaction, take it to the discussion page if controversy. Thanks. Tomixdf (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm all for it. Please consider registering to ease discussion. Tomixdf (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected. User:76.220.202.205 is making changes that is full of POV and bad grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's check how to do this. Tomixdf (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Leaveout and 76.220.202.205 are the same person, aka a WP:SOCK. Making such large and numerous POV edits to a controversial article goes against WP standards. Also, Leaveout notified Admin. of supposed "wrongdoing" by Tomixdf, just so Tomixdf knows. (See:[4]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot, 76.221.187.73 is another sock puppet for this person, so any edit made by these three accounts is going to be heavily biased.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed it. Not very worried about it :-). Tomixdf (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for protection has been made to Administrators since 76.220.202.205 continues to edit without regard to WP:CON--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! Tomixdf (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Look what 76.220.202.205 has been doing to Theo van Gogh (film director). Call me crazy, but I think 76.220.202.205 is sympathetic to jihadists? /end sarcasm --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we allowed to talk about the political context?

So do you think she deserves to be in hiding and is guilty of some kind of "sin" against islam? Do you think free speech in Holland should be restricted when it comes to criticizing a religion?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Exhibit A of why you are too biased to contribute to this article. Please do not edit this article anymore until consensus is made. I'm trying to be civil.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

An administrator has been informed and the article will be reverted back to the version before you and your sockpuppet's edits. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits the last ten days (163 revisions). I urge you to make consensus here. _→AzaToth 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not an expert on the subject, I can't decide who is "right" or "wrong", and as it has been a content dispute and revert war with multiple participants that last ten days, I decided the best action is to restore the article to the revisions that existed before the war broke out. I urge you to try to find a solution to this problem, and if this is not possible, additional steps in the dispute resolution process has to be made. _→AzaToth 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't side with anyone, true that there was an 3RR violation, but I decided that everyone in the dispute has editwarring, and either I would block you all for a period of time, or I protect the page. I choose the latter. _→AzaToth 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you (a) register properly instead of hiding behind various IP numbers and sockpuppets and (b) start discussing some very specific points you want to see changed. After consensus is reached, the article can then be edited. Also, keep in mind that your (or my) opinion on Ali and her behavior/actions is irrelevant. Tomixdf (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the new information about the sockpuppeteering, I have changed the protection to semiprotection instead (indefinite at the moment). Have a happy editing _→AzaToth 18:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I came across this article today, and was hoping some of regular contributors on this topic would take a look at it. I know Ali is a controversial person, but some of the claims in the new article come across as defamatory. I've posted a notice at the BLP noticeboard as well. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Two of the accounts editing the article are probably sock puppets of the person who was editing this article. He/She had 3 or 4 sock puppets and was banned...and some of the edits to the article you're referring to resembles the material that was being insterted in this article. I'm going to ask an admin to take a look.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's a reincarnation of Leaveout (as indicated by content & IP adresses). Tomixdf (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has now been deleted per WP:CSD#G5, as it was created by a banned editor. Please let me know if this recurs. Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies everyone for sticking the link in there. I didn't read the article, nor did I figure out that it was our tube sock editor. Cheers E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another sock puppet of Leaveout - 76.221.184.75. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV link

I removed a link to a POV PDF file (so-called transcript of Zembla TV broadcast). Example of POV: "Here Zembla’s story is confusing. First they suggest that Ayaan stems from a rich family, now it appears that she wanted to marry for an airplane ticket to Europe. This reasoning is not compatible. If you are from a rich family you can pay for your own ticket." Tomixdf (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a reputable source. External links do not have to be neutral and can be POV. The story is a bit confusing, but so what? Andries (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but in that case it should not be presented as a simple English transcript of the video. Tomixdf (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)\

I did some more reading and you are correct and I was wrong. The link that I inserted was not just a transcript of the documentary, but a protest against the Dutch documentary. The protest was directed not so much against the contents of the documentary, but the suggestion that Hirsi Ali was a liar and that the documentary gave any new information. It is true that most issues highlighted by the documentary had already been openly admitted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself. Andries (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO the link can be added, provided a good description of the document is given. Tomixdf (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i removed the video links since they were entitled 'Ayaan is a LIAR'.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but then I replaced the link with an English transcript without stating that she is a liar and that is not a copyright violation. See my edit on 5 Feb 2008 Andries (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of your edit's replacement of the video with the transcript. I just mentioned it to let people know why I removed since this is a controversial article and has been the victim of alot of POV edits.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomixdf: Detail in intro

Are you seriously proposing that the intro need to include such details as the fact that she is currently living in the Netherlands pending the provision of security arrangments in the US? If that kind of detail goes into the intro, what doesn't? The intro is supposed to be a general overview of the article to come. Unschool (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Information about her temporary status certainly shouldn't be in the intro - only information which has permanent relevance belongs there. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the details can go, but the fact that she is still living undercover, and has been for a long time, should be in the intro IMO. Tomixdf (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To describe her as living "undercover" is not correct; I have seen no information indicating that she is living incognito. That she continues to live under protection was made clear in the version that I had provided.Unschool (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro works for me now, thanks. Tomixdf (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the section "Criticism of Hirsi Ali" due to the following reasons:

• it contains POV (Ali has been criticised for making inaccurate judgements and sweeping generalizations about Islam and Muslims, quite often to win points among Western Islamophobes.) Also note that she is labelled 'islamophobe'.
• it contains original research (Also her characterization that the Arab/Islamic world is "retarded" was a gross oversimplification as there are many predominantly Muslim countries which are way ahead of predominantly Christian countries in Sub Saharan Africa and Latin America in terms of human development).
• it is unreferenced (first example, also ..., while attacking the character of Muslim immigrants in Europe and championing more checks on immigrants of Muslim origin.)

Tomixdf (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid the removal as deletion without challenging is not Wiki norm.

• There are indeed references. Tf there are still some sentences with POV, you can challenge and discuss those sentences instead of deleting the whole section. Looking into Wiki templates for dispute management would be a good start.

• "it contains original research " - this is referenced in human development if you cared to read, but will be provided with more links.

• "it is unreferenced (first example, also ..., while attacking the character of Muslim immigrants in Europe and championing more checks on immigrants of Muslim origin.)" - did you ever come across "citation needed" tag? Zencv (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't start an edit war, but your section is so blatantly POV and OR that it can't stay the way it is. Please improve it - a criticism section is fine, but needs to be balanced. In the mean time, I will add fact tags and wait for feedback from others. (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed some of the blatant POV and OR. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I added only referenced criticism. Now as the section has been restructured, it is quite clear who is criticizing and what is being criticized Zencv (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Undid unfair removal - I think the user who did this again after having been given lengthy explanation doesn't deserve another explanation for something which I would call Vandalism. Zencv (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The (unattributed, unreferenced) sentence "while championing more checks on immigrants of Muslim origin" is your personal opinion, and hence utterly irrelevant to the article. Provide reference, and formulate in an unbiased way, and it can go in again. Tomixdf (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Also, please avoid accusing others of vandalism (WP:FAITH) when it's apparent by the edit history that Tomixdf has been one of the people actually removing vandalism from this article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing a complete paragraph with 3 sentences because part of it is unreferenced can be called vandalism, especially if he is doing it again. While original research can be removed immediately, unreferenced parts can be retained if it fits into the article otherwise, with "fact" tag. There are other parts of the article with similar sentences. Even users who had otherwise removed Vandalism is not necessarily interested in an unbiased article which would represent all the facets of the subject. Zencv (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to add unreferenced claims and OR? Adding it again and again could also be considered vandalism. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your (indeed) very short section was both POV, OR _and_ unreferenced, which IMO certainly warrants swift deletion. Your new version indeed got rid of most of the problems, but still contained a blatant POV part (which I deleted). If you want the "while championing more checks on immigrants of Muslim origin" part in, provide reference and formulate in an unbiased way. Nobody will object to that (at least not me). Tomixdf (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• How to deal with OR - I have already written my opinion. But if adding unreferenced tag is vandalism, the page already has a few of them, which Im wondering why is not "swiftly removed". The accepted Wiki norm is challenging it etc. The "citation needed" can be produced by atleast half a dozen different tags. A biography of a controversial person without any critisicm section itself shows how one-sided the whole content was.Whether adding unrefernced claims would be considered Vandalism or not depends on one's own POV, isn't it? Zencv (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, consistently adding unreferenced claims to a controverstial article even though you know that's against WP policy (WP:CITE) could be considered vandalism. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Relata refero's version is better, but it still seems to me that three references are tied together to make a personal statement. What we need is a reference where it is explicitly stated that Hirsi was accused of hypocrisy and fraud BECAUSE she herself obtained permission to immigrate under false pretences WHILE warning against "mass immigration" in public. Tying three individual references together to reach an independent conclusion is OR. As far as I can see (and correct me if I am wrong), this joint statement is not made in any of the references. Tomixdf (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

POV in Introduction

I removed the sentence "She has received numerous awards for her human rights work". What number would make "numerous"? And the awards you get from like minded people and political parties cannot make you a human rights activist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencv (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding it back. Just because you personally think these groups don't count doesn't mean they're not valid groups. Also, she is an outspoken advocate of ending genital mutilation for one, yet you've removed "human rights activist" from the opening sentence by saying, "Nope, she's not one." Um, that's not really giving a reason why it should be removed. The right not to be butchered in order to satisfy some archaic practice condoned by radical Muslims is a basic human right. I'll remove the word 'numerous,' but the awards line is staying. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because you think it should be there is not a reason for that word to stay either. When what accounts "human rights" itself is contentious, how can you say that just because she oppose genital mutation, she is a human rights activist?..There are many, both Muslims amd non Muslims who oppose this practice, but they all are not human right activists. If you want to call her this holy name, then bring more arguments, proper neutral references and then we can think. Until that, the word cannot go.Zencv (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Call her this holy name." - same kind of language Leaveout used. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)