Talk:WikiIslam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Self-Citations

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

---

Just adding a friendly note here on referencing: Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia when discussing articles. The same should be the case for Wikiislam. Wikipedia referencing works through citing secondary and tertiary sources, and not primary sources. Please avoid using the website itself as a citation since it is a publicly editable wiki that is prone to change. The website itself is also not peer reviewed; any self citation risks synthesizing information to create original research. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NarSakSasLee. What are your thoughts on using a limited amount of information from the Wiki in light of WP:ABOUTSELF? Snuish2 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A limited amount of information would have been fine, but the problem here is that it is a wiki that is prone to constant change via anonymous users who are not experts in the field. These users cannot also be said to be truly representing the wiki or its goals. It is better to use secondary and tertiary sources for stating what the website is about, not the website itself. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like WP:USERGENERATED is also useful here. It says that Wikis are generally not allowed. However, I do see limited use of articles citing the Wikis themselves at Wikipedia and Citizendium. Snuish2 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that wikiIslam is privately owned and they do have a peer-review process - WikiIslam policy guidelines - Pending Changes As such we should be able to quote goals and about at least, no? Also, the OR cited in this article use deprecated links and quotes removed from WikiIslam, and they are still being treated as though they are valid. Thank you. Editor atlas (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The "peer-review" process that Wikipedia policies refer to is a peer-review of experts, as would occur in a scholarly journal. Snuish2 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur. @Snuish2: is right. That isn't how peer review works @Editor atlas:. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

"Criticism" or "Reception"

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

---

@NarSakSasLee: I disagree that the section should be named "Criticism." Established articles like Wikipedia, for which you cited a precedent above, typically use "reception" and there are essays detailing why sections named "criticism" should be avoided (see WP:CRIT). Snuish2 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand what the actual issue is here? Maybe I'm not getting it since I've have spent too much time in the academic literary world to see what's wrong here. To help you understand my point of view, I've personally published works in academic journals and my works themselves have been subject to criticism - so I would expect wiki articles that deal with my works to have a criticism section. Similarly, we're dealing with a body of literature with Wikiislam, and literature is subject to criticism.

Therefore "criticism" is a better name for the use of the section since actual works have been commissioned to critically examine the websites content. Such works have criticised the website for it's unscholarly nature and particular slant of view. "Reception" sounds very ambiguous. But maybe it's supposed to sound that way? I'd be willing to go for "reception" if you can clear this issue (with a short, concise reply), because with section naming I like to be precise in order to give the reader an idea of what the section is about.

- NarSakSasLee (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll use a portion of the essay I linked above: "Although the term 'criticism' can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word 'Criticism' should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include 'Reception', 'Reviews', 'Responses', 'Reactions', 'Critiques', and 'Assessments'." Snuish2 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'd be okay with calling it "critique" since this aptly describes the content found within the section. NarSakSasLee (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Great. I have no concerns about using "critiques." I've changed the section title. Snuish2 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, pleasure having come to an appropriate conclusion with you. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Who is the Founder of WikiIslam?

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

---

Two days ago, the article was modified to assert that Ali Sina is the founder of WikiIslam. As NarSakSasLee correctly pointed out, the source does indeed mention in passing that Sina is the founder. The citation in the book, numbered 13, is simply to "faithfreedom.org." I changed this back, but Doug reverted.
My understanding is that individuals who were members of the FaithFreedom forums began WikiIslam. In the past, I was reluctant to name Sina as the founder since WikiIslam has actually never cited him as its founder, nor has Sina ever claimed to be its founder via his websites (faithfreedom.org and alisina.org). He has not been shy associating himself with Islamophobic vitriol before and I would not expect him to withhold taking credit for founding WikiIslam if indeed he had actually founded the wiki.
Sina is also mentioned on page 66 of this detailed article on WikiIslam, but the authors simply describe him as a contributor to FFI. On the earliest archived version of WikiIslam's page of itself that I could find, the page notes that WikiIslam was created in collaboration with "Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International," not by Ali Sina or Faith Freedom International. @NarSakSasLee and Doug Weller: thoughts? Snuish2 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This version of their FAQ from 2012 addresses the question:

• Is WikiIslam owned by Ali Sina or Faith Freedom International?
• No, we are not. WikiIslam was created on October 27, 2005 in collaboration with Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International. However, in August 2008, the site was moved out of FFI's server and since then we have been an independent site not owned by Ali Sina or Faith Freedom International.

The current version of the FAQ is also helpful:

• Who founded WikiIslam?
• WikiIslam was created on October 27, 2005 by various online activists led by Axius and was hosted on server space provided by Faith Freedom International. Starting in August 2008, the site separated from FFI and operated as an independent site. In 2015, following excessive amounts of vandalism, the site came under the management of the Ex-Muslims of North America.

Snuish2 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is case of unintentional OR and SYNTH. Let me explain; the source which is cited clearly says Sina was the one who founded Wikiislam. I'll quote it here: "Wikiislam is a "community-edited website" that was registered on October 27, 2005, though it opened on September 4, 2006. It was begun by an Iranian ex-Muslim named Ali Sina and is maintained by an organisation known as Faith Freedom International (FFI)". It can be found from this source:

1. Mays, Christin; Deland, Mats; Minkenberg, Michael, eds. (2014). In the Tracks of Breivik: Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe. Berlin: Lit Verlag. p. 162. ISBN 9783643905420. OCLC 881140905.

1. I will attach an imgur screenshot of it, so you can read it in whole.

Since this is a scholarly peer reviewed source it is much more trustworthy than what Wikiislam itself claims now or may have done in the past. In other words it doesn't matter what Wikiislam itself actually claims now or has in the past; the point is the authors of a scholarly source have determined the sites origins. Since researchers have determined this, this is what we have to go with. Again, we cannot reference the wiki itself since it has been subject to constant revision since 2005.

Also with respect to the page 66 article you've mentioned, they do mention he's a contributor, but it is possible to be both a contributor and founder of a website.

- NarSakSasLee (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: thanks, the source you are quoting is the same source that led to my revert. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, I mentioned above that In the Tracks of Breivik does say that -- I originally added that source to this article. In regards to the article in CyberOrient, it would be incredibly odd to describe someone (Sina) as merely a contributor to an associated website (FFI) if you believed that they were also the founder of the website (WikiIslam) to which the article is dedicated to describing. I don't share your position on whether we can reference the Wiki; WP:ABOUTSELF permits limited use of such citations and articles that have had much more vetting by the community, such as Wikipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia, RationalWiki, and others contain a few citations to the wikis themselves. It is also appropriate to determine whether In the Tracks of Breivik may be inaccurate in this instance. See this explanatory supplement. In light of the CyberOrient article's description of Sina, the absence of any assertions by Sina that he is the founder of WikiIslam, and WikiIslam's fairly consistent account of its own history, asserting that Sina is the founder is problematic. Snuish2 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The article on Cyberorient is irrelevant here as it does not comment on the websites foundation. As explained above you can both be a founder of something as well as a contributor. Furthermore, we cannot reference the wiki itself on a subject about itself unless it's backed up by another reliable source (this avoids the subject in question trying to avoid more controversial aspects about itself which it very well may want to hide). Wikiislam may have claimed in the past that it was founded by Sina but later may have distanced themselves from it (we don't know, and it's better left to researchers to answer this question). Therefore it's not appropriate to claim In the Tracks of Breivik may be inaccurate as it may very well be accurate. However, I'd be okay with adding in something to the effect of "it was founded by Ali Sina of Faith Freedom International, but Wikiislam itself disputes this". I think this would be a good compromise without delving into OR and SYNTH. @Doug Weller: you're input would also be valuable here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Something like that should work. I've also found this.[1] It says "Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International (FFI). FFI identifies itself as “a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat”. Ali Sina also established Wiki Islam which only prints material which is negative towards Islam. He identifies himself as an ex-Muslim and says that he uses the pseudonym Ali Sina because of fear for his life.

Ali Sina and Faith Freedom run the anti-Muslim Wiki Islam site." The magazine/website is mentioned in an OUP publication.[2] and the author/founder is "Sheila Musaji" who seems reputable.[3] and details here.[4] I see the SPLC used an email of hers in an article.[5]. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Incredible. I didn't know the founder of FFI and Wikiislam was this...toxic. Thank you for directing this to our attention. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate both of you engaging in this robust discussion. I was previously having difficulty finding archives of WikiIslam before 2010-2012, but I kept digging and found this very early version of the FAQ from April 2007, which is entirely consistent with what's found In the Tracks of Breivik. It stayed that way until November 2008, at the very least. Early versions of WikiIslam's "About us" page even explained that the wiki started at wiki.faithfreedom.org. It does seem that WikiIslam later distanced itself from that version of its history, for whatever reason. I'm going to withdraw my request to have this addressed. Snuish2 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent detective work. Thanks for your cooperation. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Very well done indeed. You're detective work is precisely the reason why I don't trust sources talking about themselves in articles about themselves. I suppose if we're going to mention Wikiislam's take on it's founding, we should mention that it both claims to have been founded by Ali Sina/FFI and also claims not to have been founded by them. How should we word this then? Any proposals? NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I would present this in the article. Maybe a footnote at most. The sentences from the 2007 version of the FAQ are: "The site belongs to and is maintained by Faith Freedom International. FFI is an organization whose goals are to unmask Islam and help Muslims leave it. It is founded by Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim from Iran." In the Tracks of Breivik certainly takes this to mean that Sina is WikiIslam's founder, but what if the antecedent of "it" in "it is founded by Ali Sina" is FFI and not WikiIslam, given that the preceding sentence is about FFI? The sentences are poorly written. I think that gives WikiIslam some plausible deniability.
However, this earlier account is certainly not consistent with later versions of WikiIslam's history in regards to its relationship with FFI. In 2014, for example, WikiIslam described its connection to FFI more tenuously: "WikiIslam was created on October 27, 2005, in collaboration with various individuals from Faith Freedom International who provided the site with server space, technical help and exposure." WikiIslam was an outgrowth of FFI, having started at wiki.faithfreedom.org, and yet the 2014 account states that it was created in "collaboration with various individuals from FFI" and misleadingly implies that the site had some level of independence at its onset. Snuish2 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. At the end of the day we can't really assume things. We can only go by what scholarly sources say. So the "Tracks of Brevik" source has to stay in at least since it's been peer reviewed. However, with respect to the Wiki itself, I'm still uncomfortable with quoting it about itself despite the contradictory claims Wikiislam has made of itself. But, I feel at the same time something about it needs to be said (so a footnote would probably be more appropriate). On a side note I'm doubtful now that exmuslims of america even owns the site at this point. No other source appears to claim this. But I suppose that's for another discussion. For all we know exmuslims of america is probably owned by Sina himself. I'm sure if it was sold to a registered charity (which I think exmuslims of america is) then there would be some sort of public record for it. Something seems very strange about it all. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather just leave this unaddressed since I don't have much doubt remaining about the accuracy of In the Tracks of Breivik and we don't have any reliable sources describing how WikiIslam has inconsistently recounted its own history. I don't want the article to devolve from the professional tone we've achieved. Exploring the history of its pages would without a doubt reveal many inconsistencies and misrepresentations. Snuish2 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I feel uncomfortable quoting the wiki about itself anyway. Better just leave it to peer reviewed researchers. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

"Critiques"

@NarSakSasLee: Some of the reactions I've been finding are only a paragraph or half a paragraph long. I'm concerned that these are not detailed enough to be called "critiques." Snuish (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What would you like to rename it to? NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Of the possible names we considered before, "Reception," "Reactions," and possibly "Assessments" may still be appropriate. Snuish (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Lets revert it back to reception. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that's the best catch-all term for the content. Changed. Snuish (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hasn't the site changed?

For example, "Telling the Truth about Islam? Apostasy Narratives and Representations of Islam on WikiIslam.net" from 2013 (CyberOrient, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 64-93) says:

"the narratives of ex-Muslims (here called apostasy narratives) are of great importance for WikiIslam and its adherents."

but currently WikiIslam's "History" section says:

... The mission statement and new policy and writing guidelines were added, while many articles on the site were removed, including satirical and polemical content, ex-Muslim testimonies, as well as op-eds and personal essays. (highlighting added)

Shouldn't we consider the possibility that the attacks by Larsson 2007, CyberOrient, etc. have had their desired effect and moved the site away from being what the lede calls an "an anti-Muslim" wiki? -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

We have reliable sources calling the site "rabidly anti-Muslim" as late as 2019 and no reliable sources yet contradicting such assessments. WikiIslam accounts of its own history have been found to be not credible, and even contradictory, in the discussions above. Relying on it as a source for itself is problematic and inconsistent with policy. Snuish (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted edits

The following edit was added 14 April 2021 and deleted 20 minutes later:

As of 2021 the website's About/Mission statement/History page states that WikiIslam is "a non-political and non-religious wiki" that "remains neutral towards religions, world views, and issues of a political nature and likewise stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary." It does not state who owns the site but does say that in 2015 it came "under the management of the Ex-Muslims of North America", and that this group "initiated an overhaul of WikiIslam, with the stated goal of setting a high criteria of objectivity, neutrality, and professionalism" in late 2018.

Its section on "WikiIslam vs. Wikipedia" says nothing about political correctness or censorship but does state that Wikiislam has "differing goals" from Wikipedia which have "led to different policies and guidelines", such as the use of primary sources and which sources can be considered "notable".

Here is a paraphrase of the edit summary:

while I know Wikipedia looks down on citing a source from the subject of the article, I think if the source is identified and directly relevant it ought to be included. The current article quotes wikiIslam: '"opinions critical of Islam" would not be censored on WikiIslam "for political correctness,"' but it's not there, or not there anymore. Shouldn't that be noted??? Currently the article sound as though Wikislam is a website equivalent of Counter Jihad Coalition or ACT! for America)

It was deleted by Snuish2, who edit summarized:

Inclusion of its mission statement is quite self-serving and at odds with WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:MISSION. Its stated objectives are not supported by its assessments in reliable sources, even those that have described it as of 2018 and 2019. This warrants a discussion on the talk page if you insist on including it.)

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add? The inserted section seems to be a clear-cut violation of WP:NOR and WP:ABOUTSELF. Snuish (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:ABOUTSELF you cannot use the source ONLY if it meets the following criteria: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;2. it 3. does not involve claims about third parties; 4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 5. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 6. the article is not based primarily on such sources. The about page of WikiIslam meets none of these criteria (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam), so I have replaced the misleading, outdated quote with the current, correct information.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And to claim that it is now neutral and/or reliable would violate the first prong. That claim would be both self-serving and exceptional, given that it would be contradictory to multiple reliable sources. There are also WP:SPS and WP:USERGENERATED, which prohibit the use of wikis. Snuish (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not violate the first prong. The policy clearly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves." You have provided no evidence that this is wrong or self-serving. Also the sources you keep citing are clearly incorrect, the testimonies for instance no longer exist on the site and saying that they do is clearly inaccurate and contested by the later, more accurate source. Moreover if Wikis should not be cited then why was it OK to cite the Wiki back in 2015, but not now?--Underthemayofan (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Where is the 2015 wiki cited? This is unduly self-serving information and an exceptional claim. It absolutely violates the first criterion. Snuish (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"WikiIslam described its purpose as "collect[ing] facts relating to the criticism of Islam from valid Islamic sources without the effect of censorship that is common in Wikipedia" and claims to have started as a result of the difficulty in "presenting 'correct' (i.e., critical) information on [Wikipedia]."" This is a direct citation from the Wiki in 2015, if this is citable so should the current mission statement be citable. Why would a mission statement from 2015 be more relevant than the current mission statement?--Underthemayofan (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is, again, a total failure to comprehend WP:RS. This citation is from a third-party source, not WikiIslam itself. Snuish (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The citation is quoting WikiIslam. What exactly is the functional difference here?--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The functional difference is that a third-party peer-reviewed reliable source has determined that it is relevant to its topic and significant enough to be noteworthy in a discussion on the topic, as opposed to a Wikipedia editor drawing from a primary source. Snuish (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

1. We have a third party source, Ex-Muslims of North America who run it, saying these things, as well as the video by the very same two academics originally cited saying much the same thing 2. This is a reference work we are talking about, the policies clearly don't say that in an article on the Encyclopedia Britannica you couldn't quote what the Encyclopedia says about itself in its opening.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

By way of comparison, the article on the Rational Wiki quotes from the wiki and from the Rational Media foundation multiple times when talking about what the wiki claims for itself.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that EXMNA is a "third-party" source on a Wiki that they themselves own. They are a primary source. You'll note that the RationalWiki is tagged for using too many primary sources. The wiki also does not have a history being a hate website, so I'm not sure that the comparison is apt. Stormfront, for example, does not cite the website itself or its owners. Snuish (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Only one section of the article has that tag, the very next section "Content" does not have that tag but immediately cites RationalWiki itself. I really don't care what your personal feelings are towards the website, that should not affect how it is treated versus any other page on Wikipedia. Again, if they own the site and claim that they have done something on it which is verifiably there, and what they do on the website is the subject of the article, how does that not meet the standard of WP:Verifiability?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do I discuss my personal feelings about the website? Stating that it has a history of being a hate website is hardly a mere "personal opinion." WP:V does not mean that editors are going about checking the veracity of a source. Your argument here is not policy-based but uses one page as the basis of your comparison, and there are plenty of counterexamples, one of which I cited above. WP:Verifiability requires the use of reliable sources, the hallmark of which is peer-reviewed published sources, not the sources you've cited. I encourage you to read over WP:RS more broadly to understand both its letter and spirit. Snuish (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

New Section on the "History of WikiIslam"

Seeing as our best sources seem to indicate that the Wiki has changed alot, and much of the current material is out of date, I would like to suggest creating a new section, something along the lines of "History of WikiIslam" and moving most of the historical content into that section so that the rest of the article can be free to accurately represent the site as it now exists.--Underthemayofan (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

very good idea Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Louis P. Boog (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Very well, I'll go ahead and make those changes. As per Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF I'll be citing mostly WikiIslam internal docs about the website's policies and I'll use the video and the Ex-Muslims of North America site about the renovation. I'll also include another section on the renovation.--Underthemayofan (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"I'll be citing mostly WikiIslam internal docs about the website's policies and I'll use the video and the Ex-Muslims of North America site about the renovation..." You may not per the de minimis requirement in WP:SELFSOURCE. Snuish (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not acceptable. Organisations and people lie by omission and commission about themselves or try in various ways to make themselves look acceptable. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Organizations surely do lie, so if there's any evidence of that we can post it. But as per Wikipedia policy we can use sources that talk about themselves to describe the subject if they themselves are the subject of the article, as can be seen in here and here. As for the de minimis object, "de minimis means "of minimum/at a minimum" in Latin and Wikipedia's own De minimis article states "The general term has come to have a variety of specialized meanings in various contexts." The WP itself offers no definition, nor does the WP article, however in the section immediately after stating that the contributions are to be "de minimis" the article says "the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." The great majority of the sources and text in the article do draw from 3rd party sources, so this still fits the de minimis requirement as the policy lays it out.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You're using WikiIslam/EXMNA itself to reframe the entire article and arguing that doing so meets the "de minimis" standard. That can't be a serious argument. Snuish (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What begs credulity is that you want to use clearly old sources on a topic where they are clearly not relevant where they were. I stand by my assertion the current use of the sources meets the de minimis standard. It is entirely fitting with the text of the WP article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I join Snuish and Doug Weller in expressing total opposition to using WikiIslam as a source for anything in this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This 'total opposition' to using WikiIslam flies in the face of WP:RS which says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Do you seriously doubt that an overhaul took place, or that the material such as the testimonies was removed as per WikiIslam's about page? Is there any serious evidence that that WikiIslam or Ex-Muslims of North America are being deceptive here? Do you have a verifiable source saying that Larrson and Brekke were wrong when they said that the site had undergone an overhaul?--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)