Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites:
“ | The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals, and their activities, and even then should be used with caution. |
” |
This sub-page of the MOS is aimed at identifying those sites. Here is the procedure.
Nominations that are not regarding a specific web-site will be removed.
Alright, considering that there are no established protocol, ill be bold and move this up to the discussion section.
Here are my arguments, the site is:
-- Striver 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
--- ALM 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, im not sure if web is applicable. Does a site need to be notable to be quoted from? I doubt it... this needs input from multiple editors. -- Striver 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Site is partisan but not extremist. It is certainly not scholarly and written by unrecognized amateurs, and for that reason should be used very sparingly as a source. - Merzbow 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Extremist is something very strong. Trying to get Muslims to leave Islam does not fall under that category. Arrow740 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, Very scholary website see http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/index.html -- Java7837 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Very 'scholarly' website? Are you sure?
Here are my arguments, the site is:
-- Striver 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is another person arguing that this is an extremist site. I second all those arguments. -- Striver 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
So basically the only claim is the claim for scholarly work, and as mentioned regarding the peer review process is missing for Islamic apologetics. When this is in place then this is admissible. To present FFI as partisan and extremist is thus premature at this time. Ttiotsw 08:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good site cites its sources directly from online translations of the hadith and the quran merely puts this material together to prove a point also Aminz is wrong its views are that of modern historian community-- Java7837 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is extremist because its views are far from that of modern historians; too far. -- Aminz 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are my arguments, the site is:
-- Striver 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, Prof. Carl Ernst states that Spencer's interpretations of Islam are deeply flawed, that his books are not scholarly since they are not published by university-presses which practice blind peer-review. I think that makes Spencer disqualified as a source for Wikipedia. -- Aminz 06:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
True, he is a critic and of course a notable one and I personally too have no objection of using him in Criticism articles. But I don't think university professor never criticize. Anyways, I think we are on the same page. -- Aminz 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites:
“ | The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals, and their activities, and even then should be used with caution. |
” |
This sub-page of the MOS is aimed at identifying those sites. Here is the procedure.
Nominations that are not regarding a specific web-site will be removed.
Alright, considering that there are no established protocol, ill be bold and move this up to the discussion section.
Here are my arguments, the site is:
-- Striver 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
--- ALM 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, im not sure if web is applicable. Does a site need to be notable to be quoted from? I doubt it... this needs input from multiple editors. -- Striver 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Site is partisan but not extremist. It is certainly not scholarly and written by unrecognized amateurs, and for that reason should be used very sparingly as a source. - Merzbow 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Extremist is something very strong. Trying to get Muslims to leave Islam does not fall under that category. Arrow740 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, Very scholary website see http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/index.html -- Java7837 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Very 'scholarly' website? Are you sure?
Here are my arguments, the site is:
-- Striver 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is another person arguing that this is an extremist site. I second all those arguments. -- Striver 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
So basically the only claim is the claim for scholarly work, and as mentioned regarding the peer review process is missing for Islamic apologetics. When this is in place then this is admissible. To present FFI as partisan and extremist is thus premature at this time. Ttiotsw 08:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good site cites its sources directly from online translations of the hadith and the quran merely puts this material together to prove a point also Aminz is wrong its views are that of modern historian community-- Java7837 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is extremist because its views are far from that of modern historians; too far. -- Aminz 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are my arguments, the site is:
-- Striver 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, Prof. Carl Ernst states that Spencer's interpretations of Islam are deeply flawed, that his books are not scholarly since they are not published by university-presses which practice blind peer-review. I think that makes Spencer disqualified as a source for Wikipedia. -- Aminz 06:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
True, he is a critic and of course a notable one and I personally too have no objection of using him in Criticism articles. But I don't think university professor never criticize. Anyways, I think we are on the same page. -- Aminz 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)