Talk:Wafa Sultan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Messed up Talk Page

I had to revert the talk page as someone cut+paste the article into it. I also removed a large block of copyright text which was a transcript. I think you can do little bits to prove a point but pasting the whole lot simply makes no point. Also in the main article I've removed that link to answering-christianity.com as the general consensus is that its a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan (it may be an "OK" criticism of Christianity, Israel, Jews etc and whatever turns that guy on but from the first paragraph he calls her "ignorant" and "foolish", "She does not even deserve my time to refute her", and "she is becoming too famous for her own good" and then spends pages (and some time) on what truthfully is a very unfocused criticism of this Doctor. Ttiotsw 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We should add quotes from Wafa

I dont want revert wars. Why should Wafa's quotes not be added to this page? For example:

"Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

“I don’t believe you can reform Islam,” says Wafa Sultan, who contends its scriptures are riddled with violence, misogyny and other extremism.

and a lot of other stuff like that. I want to make a wikiquote section for her, and also we should have some of her prominent quotes here as well. The "others" as usual will try all they can to stop this from happening. --Matt57 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be better in WikiQuote, per normal policy regarding extensive quotes? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to a Muslim View

I dont see why the Muslim point of view cannot be put there, the link to answering - xtianity was removed because it was so called racist etc, but this has no such problem and the link deserves to be there to give both sites of the story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.216.98 (talk • contribs) .

There are millions of Muslims in the world, why is that website notable? Who is the author? I suggested you explain why he was notable, or why that website is notable, and you haven't. If we don't link to NOTABLE responses to Sultan, then we'll have to link to every response on the internet. - BalthCat 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

yes if we start removing all not so notable responses then we have to remove half the responses on the net. There is no muslims side of the story at all in the entire page.

All those non-notable responses on the net are still there, out on the net. And can easily be found. They are, however, not in here, cluttering up a relatively small article. If notable responses can be found, some one could write a small "Criticisms" section, explaining how the notable response replied to her criticisms (and not how the editor responds to her, or how some blogger responsds to her). So far no one has yet found a notable response, and no one has yet written a small criticisms section. (Aside from calling her Satan, which was fairly small.) I'm surprised no one has found a notable response yet, to be honest, and I expect that eventually some one will, and some one will add a reasonably sized Criticisms section. - BalthCat 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Its just a link given to a review of her interview by a Muslim, we are not cluttering it with millions of links, you guys seem to have removed other links on one pretext or the other giving lame excuses , hence that link deserves to stay.we need the Muslim side of the story as well. anyway it was a typo in the last post, i mean there are many such links in wikipedia, its the view that matters not the notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.37.91 (talk • contribs) .

I have quite a bit of trouble imagining you can't find a notable muslim scholar, imam or political personality responding to Sultan who isn't a nobody blogger. As it stands now, I can't remove the link (which I would remove) without breaking the WP:3RR rule. It isn't a "muslim view point" it's a link to a non-notable blog. If I write a blog post about how Sultan is wrong, should *I* get to link to myself because I need to add a Canadian viewpoint? - BalthCat 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it the site is not a Blog as you claim it to be. It is a view from the other side, you asking for notability is like asking all Wikipedia authors to be "notable" which is defenitely NOT the case. and according to your very own logic, it makes Wikipedia less notable due to the notability factors of the authors here. hence your view does not stand. 125.22.32.124 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for opinions, and so it isn't the place for "views from the other side" only articles which explain the views from the other side, as demonstrated by people of note. Your logic play is not relevent because I'm not discussing the notability of Wikipedia editors, I'm talking about the notability of that website, and that website alone. MY opinion of Wafa Sultan hasn't been linked to the article. I remain certain that a response notable enough to include should come from a notable person. You have not yet explained why Ebrahim Saifuddin or the True Call website are notable, and so I am having trouble believing he is notable. He may BE notable, just show me that he is. Otherwise, please, find a notable muslim commentator to link. This is not unreasonable. - BalthCat 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont see why you are harping on the notability factor, it does not really matter, there are millions of links in wikipedia, as long as they contain info/opinion thats all that matters, i am not going to dispute each and every notability of the link, nobody does that. nor does it go againt any wikipedia rule. 125.22.33.42 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia: Notability (people), Wikipedia:External links. - BalthCat 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good you brought those links up. Please care to read the links again, 1) The Notability it talks about is the notability of Articles in Wikipedia 2) Also it tells that "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. 3) What might be notable to you might not be to others. 4) Also the link on external Links says this "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link: WHICH IS ALLOWED. Hence this is another point of view which deserves to stay. Unless someone finds a better alternative to it.

Just like to point out that I removed the link to answering-christianity.com a few weeks ago as it was a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan not because the site was racist (It may be that too but that's not my concern). Looking at Ebrahim Saifuddin site it too is also truthfully a very unfocused criticism of this woman. It starts out with a strawman about what does and doesn't constitute a knowledgeable Muslim then continues with saying outright that she's not a knowledgeable Muslim and thus using that to refute the spirit of what she says. He closes by saying that "She has not come forward with anything new that would be worth analyzing" (yet spends time to analyze) and that he takes "her nothing to be but an attention seeker who craves to be another Salman Rushdie". The real clincher is this "Muslims are advised not to try to threaten her at all." and truthfully that refutes all he says regarding knowledgeable Muslims: if they were knowledgeable Muslims then they would not need to be advised to not threaten someone. As with the personal attack approach to criticism on answering-christianity.com the site on www.thetruecall.com is equally an obnoxious example. I'm all for non-notables to have relevant comment linked in to Wikipedia but this isn't it and reflects poorly on the Muslim world. Come one there must be at least ONE non-misogynist, non-hateful, critical site in the zillions of sites out there !. Ttiotsw 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not an Ebrahim saifuddin site, he is just an author over that. And it is a critical analysis of her and her talk, The review points out to important infomation she tends to ignore. So what if he advises muslims not to threaten? How does that make the review a hate/misogynist propoganda???? Also he points out why she is not a knowledgeable Muslim. Plus Wafa herself spills out hate in her speech. Its funny how you support her there. There is no hate statement in any of the statements you pointed out. Its a critical analysis and there is nothing wrong with it and it deserves to stay. Cause we need a POV from the other side. Its funny that you are ignoring the hate spewed by Wafa but have a problem with the site . 203.101.54.182 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it could stay except it is refered to as a Muslim point of view. Given that Ebrahim Saifuddin questions the authenticity of how knowledgable a muslim that Wafa Sultan is, is this commentary by Saifuddin from a personal point of view or as a knowledgible muslim ?. He himself has raised the doubts as to what a knowledgable muslim constitutes and as such that you can be a muslim but not a knowledgable muslim and this discounts what you say. I suggest that the link stay but it be retitled to "A Review of the Al-Jazeera Interview with Wafa Sultan" by Ebrahim Saifuddin as it is unclear if what he says represents the point of view of all Muslims both moderate, indifferent, ignorant or knowledgable. That way then he would appear as a Wiki link and then people can add content to show how notable he is. Unless he is under a different spelt name at the moment he doesn't appear at all. This is what's given us doubts as to his notability. Ttiotsw 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is bothering to see how some people claim that they hate censorship but they themselves do it here. There should be a link here to the opposite side's view. Answering-christianity is one of them. I cannot see how it is anti-semitic, even more important, I cannot fathom your humanity and pluralism while it seems it is okay for you and others like you to be anti-muslim, but brainwash the rest of us about any criticism of jews as anti-semitic. Certainly I see a lot of anti-islamic views here but somehow I don't say they should be removed because they are anti-islamic. I will re-establish that link under the title "Muslim Response," and welcome others to make other relevant links under the same heading. regards, -Lugalwiki

This is primarily a biographical article about Wafa Sultan. If notable figures have offered arguments against specific points she has made, I see no reason why those shouldn't be included in the article. However the link you have added is extremely POV and represents a self-published opinion. That does not fit with Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources (WP:RS#Self-published_sources), which discourages linking to self-published material. I have not myself removed the link, but anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy will most likely do so shortly. EdJohnston 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, everybody makes the so-called rules that suit them best, right? Then I wonder why there is a link to criticism of Islam? I wonder why you don't apply that seemingly NPOV view to the fact that this article does spread hatred toward muslims, hence there should be a link for those who are interested in hearing the other side's response. regards, Lugalwiki 71.106.148.109 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the answering-christianity link is of quite poor quality as a criticism of what Wafa Sultan has said or even the spirit in which she has said it; quoting the link the reviewer refers to her "lies" and that "She does not even deserve my time to refute her.".

When so-called "Muslim" rebuttals of other peoples views stop referring outright to "lies" and belittling the person's views then that would be a review that would be of encyclopaedic quality. Until that time we too have "little time" for such reviews. This Wikipedia article also doesn't "spread hatred toward muslims" but I feel in some respects that it says that people should be able to reform what they see as wrong. Other mainstream religions have reformed and we allow those moderate voices to be heard without hatred against them. I'm not saying that Wala Sultan is a Martin Luther but eventually there will (should?) be a reformation. This is an aside though as we must simply record what has been said from reliable sources and since September last year (see previous talk) the quality of answering-christianity has not improved as a external link. Ttiotsw 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hatred?

It is this personal event that is thought to be the catalyst of her hatred towards Islam.

Has she said she hates Islam? There's not enough in the article for me to determine if it's as passionate as that, and not just a deep critical eye from being so familiar and disappointed with it. --4.254.118.214 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, is you read the whole video on Youtube and read this article, you'd notice that she attacks Islam in every possible way that provokes anger among many Muslims. The way she said it is sounded like all Muslims are terrorists, bad and that they should deserve to live in this world. This is what I call an anti-Muslim extremist: not by the actions but rather by the words she said. --58.168.116.192 02:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags by Kitrus

I have removed these tags as no discusion was done, either before or even after, the placement of tags. statsone 20:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Their are several discussions in the Talk page referring to the unbalanced nature of the article. Just about every heading in the Talk page is regarding biased content, not style or anything else.

And these points are answered and in many cases dealt with. Please be more specific and post on each topic. statsone 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the article reads like a promotion of Wafa Sultan. Their isn't a single reference in the article to opposing views or criticism. Critical views consist of a few weblinks tossed at the very bottom of the entry (External links). They haven't been incorporated into the article. The tags are very much appropriate until further work is done to the entry.--Kitrus 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does there have to be opposing views? The article is about one person, and not a topic. statsone 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Links section cleanup

I can't think of any other Wikipedia biographical entry that has anywhere near seventeen (17) external links dedicated to the subject's "Interviews and Speeches"--Kitrus 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links are to speeches and articles on the topic. And they are in 2 languages. How is this excessive? Please see Links to be considered statsone 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you name any other Wikipedia biographical entry that has anywhere near seventeen (17) external links dedicated to the subject's "Interviews and Speeches"?--Kitrus 06:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, there are link to 2 different languages. So I do not feel it is exessive. Is there a reason this is not appropriate for the article? statsone 05:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Muslim verses sect name.

There is a slow edit war flip-flopping between various sect names. To stop this I had suggested just using muslim and another person has supported that by editing it and I support their edit. Unless you can show a reliable source it should stay as "muslim". I have added hidden text asking for cites. Ttiotsw 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:68.115.147.116 has given a source [1]. Is this sufficient or incorrect as per WP:BLP? --statsone 04:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Status as a secular muslim reformer and activist

Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim, as the original article stated. 66.42.111.218 Marcus, Nov. 17th, 2006

I have moved the above statement to this new section. Please add new items to the bottom of the talk not the top. I have reverted your edits as WP:LIVING very much applies and you can't add content that contains statements without them being verifiable nor remove stuff that she has said i.e. she self-describes as "secular". She is a muslim reformer and "activist" based on consensus view of editors. Ttiotsw 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the timeline in March in the interview she says she is not a christian, muslim or jew but a secular human being who didn't believe in the supernatural. In May she says she is a muslim. Given you can have "secular jews" (and atheist jews but I will say outright that simply stating that you don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean you are an atheist as atheist is a term specific to believe/no believe in god/gods and she has not said she doesn't believe in god ergo she is not an atheist), so logic would indicate that she is now a "secular muslim" i.e. goes with the traditions/lifestyle but has issues with certain stuff. Ttiotsw 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "secular" should be removed. In the Time magazine article, she is quoted as: "I even don't believe in Islam," she says, "but I am a Muslim." Since she calls herself "a muslim" that should be good enough for wikipedia. If we are going to start playing judge and jury as we seek to qualify her religious identity, we need a better qualifier than "secular". --JJay 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why secular (as she has described herself twice in the previous interview) and muslim are mutually exclusive. Obviously saying you are muslim cancels christian/jew but not secular. Ttiotsw 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good point. It's not very clear based on the various interviews whether she is affirming or renouncing her religion. The current description may be best for the time being, unless she makes a clearer statement in a future interview. --JJay 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I see the link where she said she's a Muslim? She's giving confusing statements. If she's said she's stopped practicing Islam and is searching for a new God and that Quran is full of "violence, mysogny and extremism", she's definitely not a Muslim. I'll see if I can get her email. --Matt57 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly confusing, she says in the link to time online at the top of the article - "I even don't believe in Islam," she says, "but I am a Muslim." [2]. It may be worth contacting her as you suggested on my talkpage to clarify. Wikipidian 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats confusing. I know she's not a Muslim. She says she is, to perhaps give an impression that she's a former Muslim or to gain a stronger effect on Muslims. But in any case she should say openly if she's an athiest or not. If she's a muslim, she has to believe that Mohammed is Allah's chosen prophet and Quran is the word of God. Obviously she doesnt believe in that otherwise she wouldnt say the Quran is full of extremism and violence. I'll try to get her email and ask her.--Matt57 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

She was asked by Ibrahim al-Khouli in the Al-Jazeera debate if she was an Atheist (translated by MEMRI as "Heretic"). She neither denied nor confirmed this; however, she pretty much made it clear she is not a Muslim. She may have been one in the past (a very weak hearted one IMO) but as to her current beliefs, I would assume she is an Atheist. Therefore, I think she should be referred to as an Atheist and not a Muslim. Furthermore, she is from Shia Alawite heritage which in some Islamic communities is seen as outside the fold of Islam as they revere Ali (RA) as a divine figure; so maybe in some views she may not have been seen as a Muslim in the first place. Anti Hypocrisy (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello - Isn't Wafa Sultan an Alawite? That's what the reference I added states. I'm not mad about this. The previous edits and their edit summaries appeared to be hostile vandalism, so I assumed they were. Phrases like "c*cksuckers" and "you have no right to do this" from anonymous IP's supported my belief that these edits were made by some angry vandal. I restored the original material because I found evidence (the ref I provided) that agreed with the original material.

Again, I'm neutral on this. I don't know the history of this person. I also know nothing about the Muslim conflict. I am only working to make a properly referenced encyclopedia. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal references

It probably should be added that Sultan criticizes the rhetoric (in Islamic discourse and the Qur'an itself) that nonbelievers are "monkeys," "apes," and "swine." Badagnani 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys Are Swines? were is dat?yes,monkeys are for those who spread corruption in the land like murder,rape etc.--Actionfury199 (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Political views

The statement "The trouble with Islam is deeply rooted in its teachings. Islam is not only a religion. Islam [is] also a political ideology that preaches violence and applies its agenda by force." is contained in the video in the first link of Interviews and speeches

   * Wafa Sultan discusses the effect of the Muhammad Cartoons and the freeing of Muslims http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Negt6IzxPTo

I have never edited here before, so I hope someone else can do it properly. Areasortarisewords (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad External Link for Personal Website

I don't know if http://www.wafasultan.org/ was once her personal web site - but as of 21 March 2008, it looks like a domain name parking page. If she does have a personal web site, I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.27.4 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

On NPOV Dispute, it clearly states "Drive-by tagging is not permitted." In order to insert tags for NPOV disputes, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies..." Until the content is specifically stated, the tags should not be inserted. statsone 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My standard Paste:

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.

This is a topic with many active editors, and I won't presume to edit it. I would suggest that if the consensus here is that of Statsone, above, then you remove the tags yourselves, and keep doing it in the future if tags are not commented fully.Jjdon (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia linking to smear as criticism

When Wikipedia is linking criticism, it should not link to smears. This link ""Islam's Ann Coulter: The seductive and blinkered belligerence of Wafa Sultan" Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein" tries to lump Wafa Sultan together with Ann Coulter. Wafa Sultan has nothing to do with Ann Coulter. So the link to this should be removed as an instance of a pure irrational association.--85.165.86.210 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the most logical criticism of Wafa

I don't know what was the good reason for you to remove the most logical criticism of Wafa Sultan? Which is the video named Who is Wafa Sultan:

• "WHO IS WAFA SULTAN PART 1 OF 5"

• "WHO IS WAFA SULTAN PART 2 OF 5"

• "WHO IS WAFA SULTAN PART 3 OF 5"

• "WHO IS WAFA SULTAN PART 4 OF 5"

• "WHO IS WAFA SULTAN PART 5 OF 5"

It is the most civilized way of criticism by analyzing what she said herself to show the contradictions in her speeches without insulting her in any way and without making up information about her. The only good reason I see if this page is made by Wafa Sultan herself or one of her supporters. If not, please explain.

Thank you. --Alexpachanga (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and DO NOT accuse people of conflict of interests without very good grounds. Youtube is not a reliable source. It is a video blog site. Unless the channel is from a well known publisher then it's not anywhere near worth citing. So who is "mohielshennawi" who joined Youtube 2 weeks ago ? I must admit that it does look better than the videos that are titled "..THE PIG.." or "...THE FAT UGLY PIG..." etc etc. What is it with these people and the CAP lock key ? Anyway that is my most logical reply. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah this is rich - On your talk page it looks like you created a page for "Mohi Elshennawi". The same name for the person that is on Youtube. The Wikipedia page for Mohi Elshennawi" was deleted. You joined here two weeks ago or so and the "mohielshennawi" on Youtube has joined there two week ago. Now *that* is what a conflict of interest looks like.

Are you two related in some way ?. .Ttiotsw (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all I apologize because you took my statement –personally- as an accusation. I just was trying to find a good reason for removing the video’s link from the critical openion part of Wafa’s page. My point was not about a “PIG” or a “COW”. Also it was not about who made the video. It was about removig the video’s link , especially when the video is anlayzing Wafa from what she's said herself. Other than that, all the information about her were taking from WIKIPEDIA.

I believe that you’ve already explained why, in your first four statements. Thank you and I really appreciate it.

Ah this is richer - You did not have to return -what you called as an accusation- to me.

I don’t believe it’s one of the rules to know if the person is related to another to make the person subscribe in your site.

WIKIPEDIA is may favorite website and I really appreciate the wonderful work you’ve done.--Alexpachanga (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobe?

criticism;a serious examination and judgment of something; "constructive criticism is always appreciated

islamophobia;prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West"

I think Islamophobia best describes her after seeing her videos.

Emadd (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Information

We have tons of information and referances about Wafa Sultan but very little information actually on the page! Also, she has a book that is soon to come out (October 13), I think that that will greatly improve the length of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littletemchin329 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Subtle problems with article

She is described as an "awalite". The ruling family of Syria is Awalite, and many, perhaps most, Muslims do not consider Awalites to be true Muslims. The highly unfavorable article on Sultan in InFocus (see Reformist or opportunist above) calls her an awalite, every other article I have read (eg url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html?ex=1299733200&en=d13886daba5e586f&ei=5090&partner=rssus ) says she is Sunni. I am changing the article to say she is Sunni. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Youtube link to rebuttals by Ibrahim Al-Khouli

I'd reverted the edits that "censoring and leaving behind the rebuttals by Ibrahim Al-Khouli [5]." as it didn't feel right...but then I reconsidered and allowed the edit after mine was reverted but tagged with who? on "censored" and Wikilinked this scholar. Then I looked at the Youtube channel details and I find that it is basically run by someone with a chip on their shoulder. As it smears the subject then WP can't really be seen to promote such a reference as WP:BLP applies so I'm reverting. In summary I'm happy that we could link to the video but first find a channel that isn't full of so much invective and find a reference that says it was censored. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the InFocus newspaper article questioning Sultan credibility?

I remember a link to a newspaper article was linked on wikipedia before, why did you guys remove it? It provides sources that show clearly that Sultan was lying when she talked about her experience that changed her life as it says in the main article:

"Sultan said she was shocked into secularism by the 1979 atrocities committed by Islamic extremists of the Muslim Brotherhood against innocent Syrian people, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor, Dr. Yusef al Yusef, an ophthalmologist renowned beyond Syria, in her classroom in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo where she was a medical student. "They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'Allah is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another God."

Obviously, this was disproven in the following newspaper article:

http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/4009/135/

where it was found out that:

'As to the claim that her professor (thought to be Yusef Al-Yusef) was gunned down before her eyes in a faculty classroom at the University of Aleppo, Halabi said the incident never took place. "There was a professor who was killed around 1979, that is true, but it was off-campus and Sultan was not even around when it happened," he added.

InFocus contacted the University of Aleppo and spoke to Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, who confirmed Halabi’s account. "Yes, the assassination took place off-campus," he said. Dr. Asfari was keen to add that no one had ever been killed in a classroom anytime or anywhere at the university.

Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore, told InFocus that she never heard of the assassination. "We would’ve known about the killing if it had happened," she said. "It would have been big news on campus and I do not recall ever hearing about it." Moezzin, who lives in Glendora, Calif., added that government security was always present around the university given the political climate in Syria at the time.

What are perceived as inconsistencies and half-truths like these convince Sultan’s critics that the motive behind her invectives against Islam and Muslims is other than her alleged desire for reform.'

You should at least point out that incidents that happened in her life are questionable or unreliable since they are not even sourced, because either they never happened or didn't even involve her.

128.97.253.2 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Amro Gaber

IMO this should definitely be placed in a "Criticism" section of the article. A lie by her such as this seriously dents her credibility. I propose a criticism section as is the case with other personalities. Anti Hypocrisy (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As a student of journalism, I feel compelled to point out that there is only a single source that supports this claim, and the source remains nameless, faceless, and potentially nonexistent. When people think of unidentified sources, they almost always recall the glamor of "Deep Throat" in the Watergate Scandal, however reporters are always admonished when using non-record sources, even when the source could possibly lose their life for their record. Considering the fact that the source had relatively little to loose, I think their credibility suffers severely from their choice to remain anonymous, that is if the reporter did not fabricate the quote in the first place (trust me, I've done this for various assignments).98.114.216.86 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

Does anyone knows whether she have official website or website which regulary publish her articles? Because I understood she is very fruitful writer, but I couldn't get successful googling of her official website or something similar. --Gilisa (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Can an admin please protect this article or at least monitor it? Because some idiot keeps removing sources and switching her religion from Sunni Muslim to Nusairi. 63.216.117.85 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Memri video, and several interviews, she herself says she's not a Muslim. so why is her religion stated as muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.218.133 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The idea that the videos emailed were one sided has no reason to be here. There are other links online that show the whole video, the video might of been shortened to specify the point of what she was saying rather than the whole debate. Of course that would mean a smaller attachment and easier to send.--86.160.201.185 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Memri transcription was heavily biased and horrendously flawed (Memri itself being selective, and extremely right wing), why isn't a more accurate transcription/translation, like the one listed here http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.218.133 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Criticism section

I am interested in adding to the criticism section the fact that she also has lied or contradicted herself in her speeches. Here are some links that could be used as sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0gPnNtiR0M

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/wafa-sultan-a-poseur-playing-off-of-ignorance-to-further-hate/

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-wafa-sultan-lying-over-her-niece.html

And lastly compare speech transcription to news source video:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/3902

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/December/God-Who-Hates-What-Sharia-Law-Means-for-the-World/

Would this criticism be legitimate and allowed to remain or would it be taken down? Thanks. I am sure I could find other sources if needed if that is required to get this legitimate criticism addressed on the Wiki. Please let me know if someone else can add this using some of these sources or if I will be allowed to add it. Thanks. --KRaZyXmAn (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the bottom 2 sources are straight from the sources itself I'll use those and try it. Please let me know if you think of a better way to word it or say it and I'll adjust it, or you can adjust it with those sources. --KRaZyXmAn (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections should be avoided if possible. Maybe try to work sourced critical material into existing sections as counter weight ect..--Mollskman (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not add the section but all the material have valid sources and the criticisms are certainly warranted in this case. I think if anything we can edit it, but not delete it. --KRaZyXmAn (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of problems still. The way the section is written is far from NPOV. Also, maybe try to include criticism in the appropriate sections that cover the topic being discussed, ect. Maybe we need more people involved rather than just us? Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reformist or opportunist

I am moving this section here to the talk page to be sourced properly. Currently this appears to call her a liar, as well as make a number of unsourced claims. Only the MEMRI bit has a source, and I'm not sure it makes sense to leave it in, while I pull out the rest. - BalthCat (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Adnan Halabi*, a Syrian expatriate who met and got to know the Sultans when they first came to the United States, spoke at length about the Wafa Sultan that very few people know.

As to the claim that her professor (thought to be Yusef Al-Yusef) was gunned down before her eyes in a faculty classroom at the University of Aleppo, Halabi said the incident never took place. "There was a professor who was killed around 1979, that is true, but it was off-campus and Sultan was not even around when it happened," he added.

InFocus contacted the University of Aleppo and spoke to Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, who confirmed Halabi’s account. "Yes, the assassination took place off-campus," he said. Dr. Asfari was keen to add that no one had ever been killed in a classroom anytime or anywhere at the university.

Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore, told InFocus that she never heard of the assassination. "We would’ve known about the killing if it had happened," she said. "It would have been big news on campus and I do not recall ever hearing about it." Moezzin, who lives in Glendora, Calif., added that government security was always present around the university given the political climate in Syria at the time.

What are perceived as inconsistencies and half-truths like these convince Sultan’s critics that the motive behind her invectives against Islam and Muslims is other than her alleged desire for reform.

According to Whitaker, the founder of MEMRI is an Israeli named Yigal Carmon. "Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin... of the six people named (as MEMRI’s staff), three - including Col. Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence." (The entire article can be obtained at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Another feature of deliberate bias and media myopia, critics say, is the fact that the Al-Jazeera clip was edited intentionally "out of context" to reflect one single point of view and promote Sultan’s arguments through American-style media sound bites, reducing the other debater to a mere punching bag.

Here's a link to that story. http://web.archive.org/web/20110702144240/http://islamawareness.net/AntiMusWriters/Wafa/wafa_article006.html If it's a WP:RS, and especially if there are other sources confirming it, it should go in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Southern California InFocus seems to be a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion in info box

Another editor said there was consensus on this? Can you please link to that? Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently she said in an interview, when asked if she was religions, that she was secular. There seems to be a discussion above, "Status as a secular muslim reformer and activist", several year ago. They decided that that meant she was an atheist. I would have assumed secular meant no religion whereas atheist specifies that in greater detail. Perhaps none is the best choice. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason from nyc, thanks for pointing that out, I skimmed over talk and missed that. Being this is a BLP, we should err on the side of caution, especially for info boxs that don't really give context. I know, not off hand, that this was or is an issue with another BLP article, maybe a British politician that was of Jewish decent but now isn't practicing so it was a big bru haha. Why not just leave it blank rather than stating "none"? Does anybody else have an opinion or care? Maybe the BLP board would get more people involved and settle it one way or the other. Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your caution with respect to BLP is commendable. I'm willing to agree to a new consensus in that regard. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, if others think different, this can change. --Mollskman (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Please add new talk items to the bottom and not insert here. Please also add a content title so discussions can be organised.

Surely if Sultan has been proven (see above) as not licenced to practise as a physician nor as a psychiatrist in the US,then her occupation is not in these fields, particularly the latter. Could someone please amend this in the box at the top right of the article. Moarrikh (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk of Nuclear destruction of the Middle East

Hello, I would like to add a couple of quotes to this entry where Wafa discusses the possibility of nuking the Middle East in a public Q&A setting. Here they are, let me know what you think. Cheers, Viola Clay

Wafa Sultan is quoted at a lecture at the Ahavath Torah Synagogue (led by Rabbi Jon Hausman in NYC) as saying: “I believe King Abdullah can change Islam overnight, but you need to put pressure on him to do it, and the same kind of pressure you put on Japan, you might need it” at that moment someone from the audience interjects and asks, “atom bombs?” Wafa Sultan replies, “Yes. At some point the West will need to do it.”

she says: “Islam is infiltrating and you are doing nothing about it.” Someone from the audience then asks Sultan, “How would we stop it from infiltrating?” Sultan replies, “Get involved in politics, you have to know the kind of leaders you are choosing.” The man then says, “If we got involved in politics, what would our platform be, what would we say?” Sultan replies quoting Geert Wilders, “Islam is not religion!” The man interrupts and asks, “what would our platform be, what would A, B and C be?” Sultan replies, “the same you dealt with Nazism. The same way, the same exact way. The same way!” To this she receives a big applause from the audience…”you reversed the Japanese culture, the same, you might need to do it, you might need to do a heavy pressure, I cannot predict the kind of pressure, you understand it, I don’t have to say it.” Viola Clay (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I changed the title of your header, though. She talks of a nuclear attack, but not "turning the whole Middle East into glass" like some flippantly say. Modinyr (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear why her opinion on military matters are important. She has no expertise in this area. Her expertise is in psychiatry and she is known for her opinions of Arab culture and the mindset of middle east Muslims. We shouldn't have her opinions on the use of nuclear weapons any more than we would want to know Lenard Bernstein's opinions on tank maneuvers or Phil Donahue's opinion on the deployment of aircraft carriers. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because her opinions on Arab culture include military matters. The Leonard Bernstein article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Bernstein#Social_activism does include his opinions on nuclear weapons. --Nbauman (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I see some motherfucker removed it. Wonderful.

Text

There was a lot of text here which was copied from another web site. I have removed that text as it is unclear what the copyright is and it is not relevant to the Talk page. Please don't copy stuff like that unless you wrote the original transscript. Ttiotsw 00:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

true.88.230.167.168 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oriental Atheist.88.231.54.87 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)