Talk:Bill Warner (writer)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6][7]. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teh following ius a satirical source that was just posted on you tube in the last week but it lists several sources and mentions people listed by SPLC in several places. It makes many of the arguments I would make https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs8lhiKtG04&t=1sIsaw (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to dispute SPLC as a source in this instance. There is a need to explain why it is valid. Just saying that SPLC has a negative view of Warner 1. Doesnt deal with his actual work as opposed to his views. and 2. Is an opinion by SPLC rather than showing the evidence SPLC has.Isaw (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at the

reliable sources noticeboard. So long as it is attributed to the SPLC it's fine. Of course you start a new discussion at RSN but I don't see editors changing their minds. It's widely used in the media, by academics, etc. as a source. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It may have been discussed in the past but SPLC continually add sources to their list. It has not been discussed in relation to Warner and I would like to see wher SPLC has been discussed in relation to Islam and anti-Islam in the US. I will give some examples below this comment.Isaw (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the place to mention it but the edits done by Doug Weller since the beginning of the edit war are restoring balance to the entry and not painting Warner, as it did earlier, as an anti Islam muslim hating bigot. It prompts me to look at others who might be treated in the same light such as Lauren Southern or Tommy Robinson and others who are lauded as human rights defenders but are very in favour of Sharia Law such as Linda Sarsour. I think maybe all of these biographies may also require some balance.Isaw (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BUt neither Lauren Southern or Tommy Robinson (activist) are human rights defenders, they are both pretty unpleasant far-right activists and anti-Islam. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You r personal opinion of whether someone is "unpleasant" is irrelevant. In the last week Tommy Robinson was involved in fronting a free speech campaign in the UK which also involved Lauern southern. Your labeling of people as "far right" continues unabated I see. Has free speech stopped being a human right? I note also your mask has slipped again in regards to whom you incorrectly label and whom yo9u chose to ignore. My personal opinion of Laurn Southern or Tommy Robinson or indeed Linda Sarsour has nothing to do with dealing with their right to express their opinion as is also true in the case of Warner. You on the other hand seem to have a pre conceived notion about someoine based on their opposition to Islam as an ideology.Isaw (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through some of the above as we shouldn't be discussing it here. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point about other people such as Robinson and Southern and Sarsour IS RELEVANT because it clearly shows your personal bias with respect to editing articles about people who might criticise Islam or others who praise Islam. It relates to the broader issue of how people like me who might point out bias in articles are singled out as haters or far right or anti Islam and moves made to dismiss the points they raise. To be fair you have softened your attitude with respect toi Warner but I dont want to have to go through this every time I point out valid suggestions. I dont want to have to defend myself from personal attack. Nor should I need to point out the OPINION on others as "far right" or other labels is hearsay. It isnt good enough to say the SPLC doesnt like someone. why dont they like them? It is quite clear with ardent racists which are easy to quote. But not with the likes of Warner and people like southern and Robinson are not on any SPLC lists so that source isnt even applicable but I dont want to wander into the content of their biographies. Im only stating them as general examples of what is hapopening in the specific caseof warner i.e. bias with respect ot the personal opinions of the editor about the subject. Isaw (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say you don't like personal attacks. Well, this page is not a place to discuss me either. If you want to discuss whether we can use the SPLC here, go to

WP:RSN, i'm not repeating what I've already said. I have no idea why you think the SPLC, which tracks hate groups etc only in the US, would mention Southern or Robinson. That's not a valid argument. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm gonna guess this was written by him to promote his own works, and clearly needs rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.232.67 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC) --Please do not vandalize this page and remove information, it seems that some pro-warner wants to edit this page to promote him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.232.67 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the editing is being done with a particular anti Warner bias. Particularly when the editors claim the page was written by Warner himslef for himself. That suggests that people who are at least not for Warner and probably anti Warner should be editing it when really their opinions about warner should not come into their editing. I dont think it is made clear at all that Warner opposes Islam only in so far as it imposes its rules on others or attacks individual rights. I think the tone opf the entry supports the idea that Warner hates muslims.So I suggest we put in quotes from Warner saying he does not oppose indivdula muslims or the right of muslims to follow their religion and have such beliefs. Then it would be clear Warner does not oppose Muslims today who are not following those scriptures of Islam which are against non Muslims and/or against civil right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y46rmJnSr0Q for example. In that video Warner uses a shortened list from "The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers," by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr. http://www.alukah.net/culture/0/35562 English translation https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alukah.net%2Fculture%2F0%2F35562 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like everyone on this page to read this https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/anti-muslim-inner-circle

and then read http://splcexposed.com/ which discusses the above source Isaw (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you are goiong to critique SPLC you might learn some history of this and save yourself needlessly restating past arguments Or you may actually need to restate them. I was not aware of this when I came to this page. I just noticed a page that seemed to launch directly into a personal attack on Bill Warner and wondered if some balance mighg be warranted by adding some positive references to Warner. Almost instantly the edits were removed. dont forget SPLC is a multi million dollar business so it is likely many people willproduce many agruments against you if you critique SPLC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232#Is_an_SPLC_report_a_reliable_source_for_List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_130#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_148#SPLC_&_Men%27s_Right:_Is_this_article_speaking_for_the_SPLC_or_Arthur_Goldwag?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_(again)_&_Rousas_John_Rushdoony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_70#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_Blog_Reliability

Actually I now realise the are so many discussions on SPLC it will take me a long time to post over 500 pages of references so browse ::this search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=SPLC&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=bvcocdvq0w5mnqo9500yewrrk

This guy is not a Islamic historian at all nor has any credentials in Islam.

Daniel Gibson isnt an academic or professionsl historian either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gibson_(historian)His lack of credentials and degrees is often referred to. But I would suggest based on HIS PUBLISHED WORKS that he is an expert in the history and Archeology of Nabetea and the Arabian Peninsula. Isaw (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.islamophobia.org/islamophobic-organizations/175-center-for-the-study-of-political-islam.html http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/president-obama-is-the-face-of-islam-in-america/ http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2012/08/bill_warner_political_islam.html https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2010/10/24/antimuslim-crusaders-make-millions-spreading-fear/28936467/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/inside-tennessees-anti-muslim-slush-fund/ https://mic.com/articles/156100/meet-the-activists-fighting-to-save-tennessee-s-children-from-islamic-indoctrination#.1nlnUGErf https://www.huffingtonpost.com/manzoor-cheema/north-carolina-community_b_10155638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPLC user1 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First this claim

"Bill Warner (born 1941, United States), true name Bill French, is an American author of a series of books about Islam, including shortened versions of the Koran[1], life of the Prophet Mohammed[2] (The Sira, Sirah Rasul Allah) and his traditions (Hadith)[3]."

I believe I can see what was intended here. It is clearly ludicrous that they were trying to claim warner wrotew the Koran Sira and Ahadith. the idea seems to be to have a reference to what Islam regards as the Koran as opposed to what Warner published so people can compare them. I would go with re entering these references and for Warners the "shortened version" his Sira and His Hadith add in references such as https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Islamic-Theology/zgbs/books/15755551/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_15755541#3 which is actually shorter than Warners shortned version and for Sira https://www.amazon.com/Life-Mohammed-Taste-Islam/dp/1936659069/ref=pd_bxgy_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1936659069&pd_rd_r=M5CBQBMSQ57S8VPZTG15&pd_rd_w=S5qwX&pd_rd_wg=a86Lw&psc=1&refRID=M5CBQBMSQ57S8VPZTG15 and for hadith https://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Taste-Islam-5/dp/1936659018/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1936659018&pd_rd_r=WPGKDKEQYVKNY6ETPMER&pd_rd_w=NTVkU&pd_rd_wg=EiVpV&psc=1&refRID=WPGKDKEQYVKNY6ETPMER REaders then have a source to "official" Kopran Hadith and Sira and can compare them to Warner's workIsaw (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First it claims he wrote shortened versions of the quran and sources this to www.alim.org, just that website

http://www.alim.org/

Warner is not apart of this website nor does his name come up in this website.

Then it cites to works by Ibn Ishaq, claiming French wrote this.

Third whoever wrote this doens't seem to understand Islamic history 101 at all. We don't need to say traditions(Hadith) we just say Hadith, and then sources this to https://sunnah.com/, just that link nothing specific, which again French has no part of that website nor is involved with it.

SPLC user1Actually Muslims say ahadith ( plural of hadith) in Arabic. But this is moot. Are we going to replace all references to "god" with "Allah" or vice versa?

also it would bhe usefull for you to provide a reference as to what you mean by "Islamic history 101" since the reference you deleted the sira is as far as I khnjow the earliest extant history reference on Islam or Mohammad.Isaw (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now for some facts

This guy is on the SPLC hate list as part of an anti-Islamic hate group

Coming from a user called SPLC user1 that seems more like blowing your own trumpet than any actual evidence. I mean if you are actually a repersentative of SPLC ( are you?) then producing evidence from yourself isn't independent is it?Isaw (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/anti-muslim-inner-circle

It states his real name is BILL FRENCH, he goes under the pseudonym Bill Warner.

Why is the facrt that Bill Warner is pseudonym relevant? Do the entries for Stevie Wonder and John Wayne suggest there is something wrong about their names?Isaw (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He "Heads the for-profit Center for the Study of Political Islam in Nashville."

Bill Warner may be making money from books? This is a bit rich given the SPLC source quoted above ( which you apparently represent) is one of ( if not the largest) commercial concern of its type in the US having hundreds of millions of dollars in cash funds. Pot kettle and black are three words that spring to mind. Isaw (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His credentials

"Former Tennessee State University physics professor; author of Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (2010; under the pen name Bill Warner)."

Summarizing

"French has no formal training or background in law, Islam or Shariah law — which in any case is not an established legal code, as the book title implies, but a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications. He garnered attention recently by leading the opposition to a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn."

We can see he has no credentials in Islamic law or history, yet whoever wrote this is promoting him as if he is and removing anything that critisizes him as such as "non-biographical info" while structuring the entire page as if it were a marketing/promotion ad. Which is against Wiki rules

We can replace this with a better version

"Bill French (born 1941, United States), known under his pseudonym as Bill Warner, is an anti-Islam writer and the founder of Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is a self-proclaimed "scholar of Islam" despite having no formal background or education in law or religious studies. He is cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the top 10 Anti-Muslim members[1][2] A former Tennessee State University physics professor, he is described as "using math to prove Islam is evil" [3]

You would want to be careful with supplying such suggestions as we can apply them to Ahmed Deedat or Syed Qutb who come lower doiwn the bestseller list on history of Islam than Warner comes. Isaw (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/anti-muslim-inner-circle

http://www.islamophobia.org/islamophobic-organizations/175-center-for-the-study-of-political-islam.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/president-obama-is-the-face-of-islam-in-america/

SPLC user1 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

"His books about Political Islam have been translated to many languages. He has written dozen of books on Political Islam and his book Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is a bestseller in the field of Islamic law.[4]"

This makes an unsubstantiated claim, and then sources to his amazon page to sell his book. Nor can I find any sources saying his book were a best seller in "Islamic law" or any of his works in any university library about Islamic law.

Best sellers list number 14 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Hadith/zgbs/books/15755511/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_3_12522 The Hadith (A Taste of Islam) (Volume 5) Paperback – December 1, 2010 Number 59 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Quran/zgbs/books/12527/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_12532#3 The Life of Mohammed (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – September 17, 2010 Number 30 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Islamic-Theology/zgbs/books/15755551/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_15755541#2 Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (A Taste of Islam Book 3)Kindle Edition Number 55 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Islamic-Theology/zgbs/books/15755551/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_15755541#3 A Two Hour Koran (A Taste of Islam Book 1) Kindle Edition Thats FOUR books on teh best seller list i found after a five minute trawl. I note as some very notable names such as Ahmad Deedat or Syed Qutb were lower down the list than Warner.Isaw (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides his publication activity on Political Islam, he gives talks on a national and international level and provides interviews both on television [5][6][7] and on other forms of media.[8] He takes part in discussions about Islam and gives lectures in various parts of the world,[9][10][11] including a conference supported by the president of the Czech Republic.[12]

Here it states he gives lectures around the world on international media, yet the only sources are youtube videos of small fake news websites, his own youtube page, and fringe conspiracy websites

Then it talks about his organization, which I included in the first sentence. Many of the sources are from Eastern European newspapers and then just filler nonsense which cites to a registration paper which lists all the businesses in a certain area. Again this isn't relevant and can be violating the privacy of unrelated neighboring businesses and private homes

"In 2014, he founded the international educational organisation CSPI International with its headquarters in the Czech Republic.[13] Headquarters of his international organization are in a small house, where another 1101 economic subjects have their headquarters.[14]"

SPLC user1 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS please add them here. Until tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay I'll refrain from editing, and just post it in the talk page for later SPLC user1 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This.[8] eg "In 1099, the largest and most significant year of the First Crusade he just lists two battles, Jerusalem and Ascalon, set piece battles of thousands that make all the history books. So there weren't any other Battles in the Crusaders march through the Holy Land? Ridiculous. Obviously it's going to look like a lot more Islamic initiated battles if you only list the largest battles of the crusades, while including every documented Muslim raiding party. Then there's also the scale issue. For Islamic battles he uses a scale of over a thousand years. For the Crusades it's only 180 years (1080-1260)." "Going through his data set I noticed many examples of Muslim v. Muslim battles that are included for some reason. Also, ludicrously, it seems that every battle of the Spanish Reconquista is seen as a battle of Islamic victory. I think the Spanish would dispute that" Doug Weller talk 17:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

actually most people in my experience are astonished how few battles christians instigated in the crusades. that is Warner's very point.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Crusades

Wikipedia lists First Crusade 3 battles; Second Crusade 6 more; Third crusade 3 more; Fourth 3 more; None for the fisth ; nmo entry for the sixth and noner for the Seventh. total 15 Battles. It can be clearly see also on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_301%E2%80%931300Isaw (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the reason Warner uses a scale of over a thousand years is clearly stated by warner - Islam fought battles to expand their influence over the non Islamic world and continued to do so for over 1000 years. The Crusaders fought battles because they were prompted to DEFEND the Holy Land from invasion by islam. and they clearly LOST IT in the long run and therefore didnt fight any more defensive battles as they had lost the land. As they were not fighting offensively they didnt fight after that.Isaw (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the spanish battles are not viewed as islamic victories and Spanish loasses . they ( and the french remember Charles Martel won a decisive victory in France which stopped the Islamic advance in europe) are viewed as offensive battles by Islam to take territory. If Spain was invadeed and occuipied for 700 years any spanish fighting battles against Islam are not regarded as wars of agression to win territory. Particularly since after they won Spain back the Spanish didnt take all of North Africa back from Islam.Isaw (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note on your talk page about this. Article talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article or any other subject. You're arguing that Warner is right about the Crusades (which we call a series of religious wars instigated by the church most of which were aimed at recovering the Holy Land and the count for these is more than 7), I'm just quoting a source wondering if we can use them. It's not up to us to argue for or against Warner's analysis, that's what we have sources for. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and I have responded to your note and to your ad hoiminem there. If "Article talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article or any other subject." you should not have beought up the spainih Reconquest then should you? or mentioned 'So there weren't any other Battles in the Crusaders march through the Holy Land? Ridiculous." You did that not me! You also say " I'm just quoting a source wondering if we can use them.It's not up to us to argue for or against Warner's analysis," which isnt true! you head the secion with "shows some of the nonsense of his stats" which is a personal opinion ***against Warner's analysis***. You are demonstrating double standards in this! So dont blame me for countering the personal opinion on the stats as expressed by youIsaw (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this. " Warm-up act Bill Warner, founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, noted that Wilders and a third speaker, a Muslim apostate who calls himself Sam Solomon, were not native-born Americans. "But Sam and Geert and I are neighbors," Warner insisted. "We live in the same civilization." Doug Weller talk 19:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. Eight years ago Bill warner spoke in a Church that Geert Wilders the leader of the Right Wing Dutch Party for Freedom which won 20 seats in Hollend at the last election , making it the second-largest party in the House of Representatives also spoke at. And eight years ago Bill Warner siad that Geert Wilders even though he isnt American came from the same civilization as Warner. and based on that you claim Bill Warners statistical work on Islamic scriptures is invalid?Isaw (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Doug Weller talk 22:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the relevance of you above reference to Warner's remark in the Church? Have you ever heard of the Scientoilogy of "dead agenting"? You clearly have an axe to grind for Warner. Please try dealing with evidence about any claim warner makes. For example Warner claims Islamic scriptures mention about how to deal with non Muslims . Warnber calls this "Political Islam" if you have evidence that Islamic scriptures dont mention non Muslims and his claims wher they do mention non Muslims are not true then Im forced to agree that "Political Islam" is fake. this should be really easy to do if it is true but instead you refer to thiord parties that call Warner names!Isaw (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources - I haven't checked them to see if they are RS yet, but will look tomorrow, I need to stop now. We do need to add something about the problems of translating the Quran.[9][10][11] Doug Weller talk 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed Isaw re-introducing some really poorly sourced content--that "Charter" does not seem to be a notable outfit, and it's run by an equally misty organization called "Mozuud Freedom Foundation". Note also that Isaw's claim of importance is sourced to nothing but a schedule of speakers at a conference, and the supposed supporting text is just a highly positive biographical blurb. Isaw, your edit summary, "No reason that Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms is not as an acceptable a source as the two prior ones which denotes editorial bias by Drmies", is not credible. I have no opinion on http://www.rightwingwatch.org, but the SPLC is not just some club of opinionators. In other words, if you wish to equate your non-notable club to the SPLC, it's clear that the editorial bias is all yours. Here's the thing: you can't find a reliable secondary source to prove your subject's value? Drmies (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller(talk) 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)https://www.canadiancitizens.org/conference-speakers You suggest these are "not notable" sources and www.canadiancitizens.org is a "poor source" based on WHAT criteria? " the SPLC is not just some club of opinionators."? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_over_hate_group_and_extremist_listings states: n October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC said that Nawaz appeared to be "more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute", identified what it said were gaps and inconsistencies in his backstory, rebuking his assertion that British universities had been infiltrated by radical Islamists.[114] Nawaz, who identifies as a "liberal, reform Muslim", denounced the listing as a "smear", saying that the SPLC listing had made him a target of jihadists.[reply]

David Bukay is a lecturer in the school of political science at the University of Haifa. Bukay cites warner in several places in the following : Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim by David Bukay Middle East Quarterly Summer 2013, pp. 11-20 http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim as far as I know the MEQ has been peer reviewed since 2009 Bukay's references to Warner are specifically about the subject of Political Islam and how Islam relates to those outside islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He cites Warner twice. But then Bukay is another Muslim hater - revising this, he's anti-Muslim and anti-Arab, eg his statement " There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position. For the most part, there is total support without reservations."http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/issue1/bukay-1.htm In any case, the fact that he cites Warner isn't relevant here. We can use the SPLC so long as we attribute it, you can always go to

WP:RSN and complain but everytime someone does that they get told it's ok to use. It's used by many mainstream sources. Drmies is right about the Canadian citizens group. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Isaw (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "He cites Warner twice." So you agree he cites Warner several times and I was correct in that ?[reply]

"But then Bukay is another Muslim hater."

that is OPINION! Where has Bukay been convicted of a hate crime? " In any case, the fact that he cites Warner isn't relevant here. " Yes it IS relevant not because it is Bukay but because Bukays publication wher he cites Warner ins in a Peer Review Journal specifically devoted to academic disciplines such as media and warfare, information technology, psychology of human behaviour, political science, international politics, intelligence, propaganda, public diplomacy, peace and civil security studies. And he cites Warner specifically under that remit. We can go through the citations. Also the SPLC is being cited in this Wikipedia Article on warner and they are being critiqued by me under similar areas of interest covered by this journal. I would submit an academic peer review Journal is a more reliable academic source on the same subject.

Isaw (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC) More on " the SPLC is not just some club of opinionators. "[reply]

The FBI and the U.S. Army have removed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a “hate crimes” resource on their websites. 

As of October 2017, the SPLC boasts 291 employees, 640 contractors,2 six national offices, and an endowment fund of more than $319 million. SPLC’s founder, Alabama Attorney Morris Dees, made a fortune in direct mail marketing (and at 80, still collects a $360,000 salary from the SPLC. By using those same skills at SPLC, Dees has turned it into a powerful fundraising machine. In 2016, it received $45.8 million in donations, and has a massive “endowment” of $319 million, including $69 million in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and Bermuda. In August 2017, the SPLC received an additional $2.5 million in donations from George Clooney, Apple, and J.P. Morgan Chase, expert on political extremism Laird Wilcox summed up the SPLC this way: “What they [the SPLC] do is a kind of bullying and stalking. They pick people who are vulnerable in terms of public opinion and simply destroy them. Their victims are usually ordinary people expressing their values, opinions, and beliefs—and they’re up against a very talented and articulate defamation machine.^[1] Philanthropy Roundtable’s Karl Zinsmeister has rebuked the SPLC, saying “Though it styles itself as a public-interest law firm, the Southern Poverty Law Center does shockingly little litigation, and only small amounts of that on behalf of any aggrieved individuals. Its two largest expenses are propaganda operations: creating its annual lists of ‘haters’ and ‘extremists,’ and running a big effort that pushes ‘tolerance education.’”^[2] More information at http://splcexposed.com/ I would like an editor to look at this and consider if SPLC should be removed as a reference.

According to the SPLC, the “nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.” Each year, the spring edition of the Intelligence Report features annual totals for SPLC’s infamous “Hate List” and corresponding “Hate Map.” Among the 917 “Hate List” designees for 2016: Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Center for Security Policy, D. James Kennedy Ministries, Center for Immigration Studies, the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM), and Family Research Council. In August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the Family Research Council’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. intent on mass murder. He shot and badly wounded building manager Leo Johnson, who stopped his intended killing spree. Corkins admitted to investigators that he selected FRC from the SPLC’s Hate Map, and subsequently pleaded guilty to three felonies. He was the first person found guilty of violating the District of Columbia’s Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002. “Hate Watch” blog: SPLC’s weekly “blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.” “Hate Watch” targets include: FRC President Tony Perkins, Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Ed Wheelan, Federalist Society Vice President Leonard Leo, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Vice President Mike Pence, Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Ben Carson, Oklahoma Weslyan University President Dr. Everett Piper, and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). In June 2017, Rep. Scalise survived an assassination attempt by James T. Hodgkinson, who had “liked” the SPLC’s Facebook page. SPLC’s database of “[Va]rious prominent extremists and extremist organizations;” there is overlap between it and some of the SPLC’s “Hate List.” “Extremists” include: FRC Executive Vice President Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, former Dutch Parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Quilliam Foundation founder Maajid Nawaz, historian David Barton, former Senator and Governor George Allen, former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, and AEI scholar and social scientist Charles Murray. In March 2017, Charles Murray’s visit to Middlebury College for a lecture was cut violently short when a near-riot broke out, resulting in Murray and hosting professor Allison Stanger being physically assaulted by an angry group of protestors. Professors and students who protested his appearance cited the SPLC as their sole source for various slanders against Murray, claiming he was a “racist” and a “white nationalist.”

• I apologise as this above is the first time I have edited a talk page. I am not experienced in Wikipedia edits formatting or terminoloogy and would hope you assist me and show some tolerance in that regard. I am aware of the academic process of peer review.

Why do you believe that the Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms is not an acceptable source? you claim " you can't find a reliable secondary source to prove your subject's value? " the SPLC is a large commercial concern. Bill warner is a single individual. The SPLC is not a peer review source. I posted a Peer Review source that agrees with and cites Warner. You then claim this peer review source is not reliable wbecause in your OPINION the author David Bukay is "another Muslims hater". This is an "ad hoiminem" remark attacking the person instead of the material presented by the person. Bukay is a supporter of the controversial Huntington thesis of the Clash of Civilisations. You dont have to agree with that theory but it is a valid theory. Huntington spent more than half a century at Harvard University, where he was director of Harvard's Center for International Affairs and the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor. During the Carter administration, Huntington was the White House Coordinator of Security Planning for the National Security Council. The fact that Bill Warner or David Bukay may subscribe to this theory and you not subscribe to it does not make it invalid! Isaw (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that The Daily Caller is a right-wing opinion/news outlet, and the article cited is an opinion piece. Given the biased nature of that source, it can only be expected to position itself against the SPLC, as would other sources with a similar ideology. The article by Philanthropy Roundtable is also an opinion piece. Do they carry any weight? I don't know, but also I don't see either one as a reason to stop considering SPLC a citable source. The splcexposed site simply shows that SPLC is a controversial organization, so what? (And characterizing mainstream news sources as "left" and Fox News as "mainstream" says something about splcexposed's ideology too). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist Does Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim by David Bukay Middle East Quarterly Summer 2013, pp. 11-20 http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim have any weight? If that article makes the same argument as warner is it a citable source on Warner's argument? Isaw (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist says "The Daily Caller is a right-wing opinion/news outlet" Well so what? Iti s still a news ouotlet according to you. Maybe a non right wing source saying the same thing might be acceptable? Is Counterpunch Right Wing? Is the Nation right wing? https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/ https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/

Anachronist Ill agree with your comment on 'characterizing mainstream news sources as "left" and Fox News as "mainstream" I found that funny too but that still doesnt address the content of what those sources saying nor that Counterpunch or the Nation ( no matter what stream they are in) also critique SPLC. Note at no stage did I edit out SPLC as a source. I just point to the fact that the same reasons can be given as those given for editing out other sources. Having the opinion that others sources are "right wing" or that other sources are written by people who hate muslims isn't sufficient reason to drop that source. I could claim SPLC "hates nazis" and based on that start censoring Richard Wagner's music. Calling Warner a muslim hater isnt sufficient to gag anyone that agrees with any opinion Warner has or to delete any references to Warner's works. I really wouldn't have bothered so much with this article except for the name calling and the fact that editors are personally saying I am anti Islam. I suppose that betrays my own personal bias. But at least it is a bias for free expression and not against gagging people that dont agree with me. Im happy to tolerate anti Warner elements . They are not happy to tolerate anything positive or verifiable I might say about Warner.Isaw (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To argue that "it can only be expected to position itself against the SPLC" is an specious argument. The SPLC is being cited as representing a fair and independent source on Bill Warner. Obviously ANY SOURCE which thakes a different view to the SPLC are by definition 'positioning themselves against the SPLC'. In addition what is important here is the FACTS on which any argument is based not the political religious or social positioning of the person or website making the argument. The SPLC itself can be regardes as a group which concentrates on anti right wing extremism https://www.splcenter.org/issues/hate-and-extremism opens its self definition with " The SPLC is the premier U.S. organization monitoring the activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists – including the Ku Klux Klan, white nationalists, the neo-Nazi movement, antigovernment militias and others." Highlighting its interest in right wing extremism. It continues "Over the years, we’ve crippled or destroyed some of the country’s most notorious hate groups – including the United Klans of America, the Aryan Nations and the White Aryan Resistance – by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members or by exposing their activities." ( again all right wing ) and goes on to list https://www.splcenter.org/20151101/terror-right " A synopsis of radical-right terrorist plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. " It is only reasonable to assume that anyone critical of the SPLC is more likely to be right wing whether Moderate Liberal or Conservative Right. So the suggestin of "given the biased nature of that source" ( as a RIGHT WING source) isnt a valid argument.Isaw (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some more sources: Between 2007 and 2009 Warner wrote some articles for the New English Review www.newenglishreview.org

Waging Ideological War (June 2009) Statistics And The Meaning Of Islam (Nov. 2008) Understanding The Koran (June 2008) Weapon Of Mass Instruction (May 2008) The Submission of Women in Islam (Oct. 2007) Duality and Political Islam (Sept. 2007) The Dhimmi Revolution (March 2007) An Ethical Basis For War (Jan. 2007)

Here is the editorial board of the NER. I submit while some ore critical of Islam they are not "muslim haters" as those who accept Waener have been described and such a description used to justify ignoring a publication as a source (see abover where Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim by David Bukay in Middle East Quarterly Summer 2013, pp. 11-20 was described as "another muslim hater" ) http://www.newenglishreview.org/Editorial%5FStaff/ Isaw (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be tolerating or not tolerating, or gagging. We should be using what reliably published sources say about a subject in a way that meets

WP:NPOV, ie reliability isn't necessarily enough. Bukay isn't a source because he doesn't say anything about Warner. We try to use independent sources as much as we can, not the source's publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As for Isaw's contention that the ideology of the source shouldn't matter as long as it's a news source, I disagree. Preferred sources are neutral and independent with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Sources that have an explicit ideology, left or right, cannot be trusted to report dispassionately on a topic, and tend to cherry-pick their facts. That isn't to say they shouldn't be used, but need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. The two articles Isaw presented in this section are opinion pieces, not journalism, and carry zero weight. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist I agree. PREFERRED or weightier sources should reputable and neutral. But that does not mean weaker sources are not a source. As such the Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms and The Daily Caller I would accept as weaker to the degree that they have a political slant but so does SPLC. I disagree that David Bukay isnt a source because he doesnt say anything about Warner. The point isnt about Warner as a person but about warners Work and whether his work is respected. David Bukay cites Warners work! Bukay makes the following claim

'The issue of the Muslim’s relationship with the infidel is one of the most important in Islam. The amount of attention devoted to the infidel is huge: 64 percent of the total Qur’an addresses that relationship while 81 percent of the Sira (chronological biographies of Muhammad) and 37 percent of the Hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) focus on this as well. In sum, nearly two thirds of Shari‘a (Islamic law) is devoted to the infidel.'

The claim is based on Warners work. In fact it is a restaytement of what Warnr defines as political Islam.

Bukay later states 'There are approximately seven hundred verses in more than fifty Qur’anic suras that have direct and explicit negative references to the Jews; together with the other major books of Islam, they comprise in total 9 percent of the total Shari‘a' again based on warners statistics. so if it has nothing to do with Warner is Bukay an independent source nothing to do with Warner and therefore this independent peer reviewed source says exactly what Warner claims on more than one occasion OR does it have something to do with Warner after all? Are you saying Middle East Quarterly (which is a peer review Journal) is a bad source? If it isd a reliable source and it makes exactly the same points Warner makes then is the point Warner makes supported by this peer review Journal or not? Isaw (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following an acceptable source? https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslamIsaw (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be directly related to the topic of the article and as the subject of this article is the person Bill Warner, not "political Islam", I'd say no. As for Wikiislam, it states that "WikiIslam is a community edited website" and

WP:SPS says that open wikis are not acceptable sources - for the same exact reason that our articles are not acceptable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a comment on this. The fact that Warner publishes so much in it was a clue. It's hard to find good sources discussing it, which is itself a comment on its impact. The NYT has this brief note: "The conservative New English Review stated the fundamental question as “whether Islam is a religion or a political doctrine seeking domination with a thin veneer of religious practices.” An outfit called Powerbase says "New English Review is a conservative monthly magazine that has been closely involved in the Counterjihad movement, being involved in setting up Stop Islamization of America in September 2009" with this as a source. Its editorial staff is here. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the SPLC is a source involved mainly in the past in countering right wing groups. I have no problem accepting Warner might have or support right wing or conservative views. But equating Warner with KKK Nazis and Muslim haters is not supported by the evidence. I al;ready posted the editorial staff of the NER above. Are you really suggesting Ibn Warraq hates Muslims? I accept Rebecca Bynum wants Islam redifined legally as a political Philosophy but Warner has himself said he regards Political Islam as separate from the Religoipn of Islam that muslims practice among themselves. the barthsnotes.com link you supplied doesnt mention any other members of NER board. and "Warner publishes so much in it" is an opinion . Others publish far more. He published a half dozen articles over several years. Isaw (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested somewhere or the suggestion in the article has been deleted that Warner has not published best sellers. It is above in the section 3 above on edit warring by SPLC user1 as far as I am aware I offer the following and wish to assess it as support for including such a claim in the article.

       "His books about Political Islam have been translated to many languages. He has written dozen of books on Political Islam and his book Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is a bestseller in the field of Islamic law.[4]"

      SPLC user1 said  This makes an unsubstantiated claim, and then sources to his amazon page to sell his book. Nor can I find any sources saying his book were a best seller in "Islamic law" or any of his works in any university library about Islamic law.

Best sellers list number 14 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Hadith/zgbs/books/15755511/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_3_12522 The Hadith (A Taste of Islam) (Volume 5) Paperback – December 1, 2010 Number 59 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Quran/zgbs/books/12527/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_12532#3 The Life of Mohammed (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – September 17, 2010 Number 30 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Islamic-Theology/zgbs/books/15755551/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_15755541#2 Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (A Taste of Islam Book 3)Kindle Edition Number 55 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Islamic-Theology/zgbs/books/15755551/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_15755541#3 A Two Hour Koran (A Taste of Islam Book 1) Kindle Edition Thats FOUR books on teh best seller list i found after a five minute trawl. I note as some very notable names such as Ahmad Deedat or Syed Qutb were lower down the list than Warner.Isaw (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As to no trace of Bill Warners Work in Libraries

Here is the Library of congerss references to some of his works

Main title The political traditions of Mohammed : the Hadith for the unbelievers / Bill Warner, editor.

Published/Created [Nashville, Tenn.] : Center for the Study of Political Islam, c2006. https://lccn.loc.gov/2015460834

A simple Koran : the reconstructed historical Koran / Bill Warner, editor.

Nashville, Tenn.] : Center for the Study of Political Islam, c2006. https://lccn.loc.gov/2012456169

Factual persuasion : changing the minds of Islam's supporters Center for the Study of Political Islam, [2011] https://lccn.loc.gov/2015460834

Can we also include them as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must be misunderstanding something. Why do we care that his books are in the Library of Congress? I really would like to know, because it puzzles me that anyone would care. Also, A Two Hour Koran:"Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #321,959 Paid in Kindle Store". Of course, in tiny categories it ranks higher. That's the same for all of them. As for "his book Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is a bestseller in the field of Islamic law.", that's not quite true. The category is " Religion & Spirituality > Islam > Law" rather than " Books > Law > Foreign & International Law". But what we should of course mention is that he self-publishes all his books, not are reliably published (see

WP:VERIFY Doug Weller talk 14:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

On Warner's books. My main main point here was are they acceptable to use as sources. It woudl seem SPLCuser1 claimed they were not aware of these books being in any UNIVERSITY Library. I have problems with the issue of claims like "I am not aware Warners books being in any university Library" made by SPLCuser1.

Aside from the standard proposed by SPLCuser1 not being applied to SPLC which are a fallacy of weasle words, there are also the specious issues of proving a negative, shifting the burden and argument from ignorance. It isn't for me or anyone else to prove a negative - that warners books are not in any library. Aside from whether this is an acceptable criteris at all, let SPLC Claim they are not and a single positive case of one book in one University Library disproves the claim. It is unfair to shift the burden of proof to others to go through every university library to see if Warners books are or are not there. Let SPLC make that claim and defend it themselves! Also the very argument in itself "I am not aware..." is argument from ignorance. Again I return to the main issue here. Are Warner's books acceptable as a source? If not why not?Isaw (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller asks why the Library of Congress is importasn't? I would have thought the LoC is at least equal to if not better than any University Library. Apparently Doug disagrees with this?

Doug aslo says "Also, A Two Hour Koran:"Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #321,959". Where is the SOURCE for this ranking? We should be aware that while popular books with no academic value e.g. fifty Shades of Grey may sell millions academic books of high academic value might sell just a few hundred. Also as I mentioned Achmad Deedat and Syed Qutb sell LESS than Warner. Also, the fact that something is in a more specialised categotry can be viewed as evidence of expertise rather than popular appeal.Isaw (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the point about "Self Published" so was deedat but I sdont see anyone saying arguments from " Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction" are invalid. Maybe you should go to the Deedat Wikipedia page and edit out that reference as it is self published? I on the other hand might criticise the contents of Deedats work but I will not try to gag or censor reference to itIsaw (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

good faith. However, we don't always list every book someone has written, nor should our articles rely about what the subject says about themselves or their works. This is an encyclopedia, not Warner's website. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

good faith" coming from someone who said to me personally they regard me as a "muslim hater" and regard Bill warner as a muslim hater and would not read any sources who supported anything Bill Warner said and vice versa I don't think you are in a position to dictate what good faith is. Deedat was self pubnlished for the book I mentioned as far as I knoiw. Look at it and see if any of his books have a publisher. Also when it does have a publisher it is probably Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI) was a later published which was set up by Deedat himself. No different to what you accuse Warner of. Isaw (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not "accusing" Warner of self-publishing his books, it's just a fact. I'm certainly not going to defend Deedat. As for good faith, I'm treating you as a good faith editor right now by taking you seriously. I said I wouldn't trust sources that agree with Warner's unscientific approach, just as I wouldn't trust Creationist sources. As for me calling you a Muslim hater, you need to show where I said that or retract it. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug weller Doug Weller said 'I said I wouldn't trust sources that agree with Warner's unscientific approach' That isn't what you said at all! You clearly said you didn't trust sources because NOT BECAUSE of any scientific argument (and to date youy have offered no scientific or statistical argument at all on Warners work) but because someone else you follow called that source names. For example you rejected a book about the history of Spain saying "The book you mention is praised by, for instance FrontPage Magazine (described as Islamophobic), " So a source A which you follow describes another source B as islamophobic. You therefore reject any source C quoted by B. It makes no difference if B refers to Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein as C you dismiss C because A says B is Islamophobic. Guilt by association and argument ad hitlerium! Isaw (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree now that being in the Library of Congress is meaningless? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is meaningless but I accept it does not denote a particular standard of work just by being in that Library. Isaw (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is Warners approach "unscientific" as you claim?Isaw (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a serious error in responding to you here about discussion on your talk page. This page is for discussion of the article, not the editors. And so long as you maintain here that I said something about you I never said, I see no reason to respond to you at all. Retract that and stick to discussion of the article itself and I may respond. I might not, I have a lot of other things to do. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug WellerI believe you refer to calling me a "muslim hater". I think I see how I got thatidea . You called a refernce i supplied "another muslims hater" and you equated people who support warners views aor vice versa as being of the same mindset so I assumed you were indirectly referring to me. To be entirely honest I still do . so I accept you did not use the words "muslim hater" to me directly but I believe thatyou think I am one. I believe you believe I am a muslim hater. That is not a lie. It is what I currently believe. It may change. It would be very easy to convince me you do not believe i am a muslim hater. all you need do is say you do not believe i am a muslim hater. I look forward to you sauying than and i will be happy to say you do not believe i am a muslim hater. As for you actually stating it. I cant find wher you did and several people have been messaging me using the word "hater" on this subject of Warner. But Im happy to accept any mistake by me if you didnt post those words. I still however believe although you didn't post them that you think I am a muslim hater. Do you? You refusal to answer that will convince me all the more that you believe I am a muslim hater. Your honest reply that you don't believe I am a muslim hater will be accepted immediately by me so it is very easy for you to clear up this issue of my belief and prove me wrong. I only brought up this issue because you posted that my interlocution was not being done in "good faith" so I am being honest with you in good faith.and In good faith I also accept you did not directly state I am a "muslim hater". Isaw (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you called me as liar. when I said you called me muslim hater it was partly influenced by you saying " Bukay is another Muslim hater" I may have taken that up wrong. I either means I am also anopther one or Warner is or both Warner and I am. I will accept if you say you meant to say Warner ios another muslim hater and you didnt mean me. But I think it is understandable that I took it that way even if it was moistaken. so I was not lying. And to be honest I still believe you believe it even if you did not directly say it. But you called me a liar when this is wht I believed you had stated so I didnt lie. It would be against my academic integrity to lie. So please dont call me a liar againIsaw (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is terrible. It has a huge section criticising the subjects views...but zero - zilch on the subject's opinions.

WHY? Rustygecko (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rustygecko: "Views' and "opinions" mean the same thing, And we make it clear that he is an "anti-Islam hardliner". That describes his views/opinions and there's no need to give him any more coverage. Interesting that you see this article about a hater as the worst page on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remind ourselves that Wikipedia requires its editors to edit from a Neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)?

It seems odd that this article has a section criticising Dr Warner's views, whilst nowhere actually presenting those views. This suggests that the article is not written from a NPOV.

This page should have a section which accurately represents Dr Warner's views.

Also, the use of the accusation of 'hater' (primarily leveled against Bill Warner, but also against other editors) is problematic - even in a Talk page: it betrays a strong bias against the subject of the article. Of course, we all have opinions, but we must set these aside when working on Wikipedia. JeddBham64 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dr Bill Warner Headshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the 'file description page linked above' and have find no reason for 'speedy deletion'.

Could you explain why it should be 'speedily deleted'? JeddBham64 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for speedy deletion was there until commons:User:JeddBham64, whom I presume is you, removed the tag in this edit. The reason was "Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source." Commons user JeddBham64 swapped in a different template saying that an email with permissions from the copyright holder had been sent to the relevant team at Commons. That team will either confirm the permissions or delete the image. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller

Doug - the page you reference is a truncated version of the article - and does not support the claim. JeddBham64 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it doesn’t support the fact that there was such a lawsuit? If you think that’s wrong, go argue it at the page covering the protests. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Apologies. JeddBham64 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, there are the “Islam bashers” that make up the so-called “counter-jihad” movement, who generally (and foolishly) fail to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and sometimes even argue, preposterously, that there is no such thing as Islamism. See, e.g., Robert Spencer, “Islam and Islamists,” Jihad Watch website, 21 October 2011, available at www.iihadwatch.org/2011/10/islam-and-islamists.html. That is the equivalent of arguing, equally absurdly, that there is no difference between Christianity in general and literalist, extremist, and theocratic interpretations of Christianity, e.g., Christian Reconstructionism. This “counter-" Doug Weller talk 10:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be a stickler - there are two problems -

i/ the link in the reference does not contain the text cited (I guess this can be fixed by removing the link from the reference)

ii/ the quote above contains no reference to Warner. JeddBham64 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's just occurred to me that I might be getting a different google book results to you as (I suspect) I live in a different country to you and may get differnt results for copyright reasons. I get text, starting with "State Terrorism" and ending with "by Dr. Bale" - 96 times. JeddBham64 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book contains the cited text. It discusses Warner and the counter-Jihad movement of which he is a part (see also Nissen). I can't see an issue. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK. Yes, you can get different results in different countries. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text says "Jeffrey M. Bale refers to Warner as an example" - the reference should have Jeffrey Bale doing that - giving Warner as an example. For whatever reason, google books is giving me nothing useful when I click on the link. Could you screen-shot whatever google books is giving you and get it to me? JeddBham64 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you screenshots as there would be too much text and thus I'd be violating our rule on copyright. But there is an article by Bale[13] that discusses the same issues on p. 86. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll remove the 'needs verification' tag. JeddBham64 (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "promotional in tone"

As far as I can tell I have merely listed the same kinds of facts about the article's subject as are found in thousands of other biographies on Wikipedia. Please point out some sentences that I've phrased in a promotional tone and I will happily rephrase them in a neutral tone.

Re "LinkedIn"

"As a reliable source:Sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn

Is there any reason to doubt that Warner's LinkedIn page belongs to him?

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, UNLESS WRITTEN OR PUBLISHED BY THE SUBJECT OF THE BIOGRAPHICAL MATERIAL" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

Moreover, I have used LinkedIn only for biographical details, not for Warner's research or claims. JeddBham64 (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People lie. People who hate other groups because of their religion usually lie. That's why we avoid using people's statements about themselves. And he's known for being anti-Muslim, not for his work in science. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I the current version[14] does not say enough about Warner before getting into criticism. More is needed. Probably the sourcing should be a combination of

WP:ABOUTSELF is a legitimate policy, but does contain a list of constraints that need to be followed. In particular, the material should not be about third parties. I would not suggest using LinkedIn. It's too non-notable. Lastly, I would not suggest basing sourcing decisions on the statement People who hate other groups because of their religion usually lie. That's too broad of a brush. Rather, one should evaluate individual statements. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you Adoring nanny.

I accept that sourcing should partly be limited to WP:ABOUTSELF.

But I need clarification about "and sourcing to critics". Does this mean that neutral or sympathetic sources shouldn't be used? Won't this risk introducing POV and bias into the article? JeddBham64 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We can use self-published sources only for the most basic, non-self-serving, and non-contentious biographic detail; material posted on linkedin usually fails multiple criteria listed at ABOUTSELF. This is fairly basic; I'm not sure why it's being contested. Certainly positive material can be used, but it needs to come from sources as reliable as the ones used for negative material (and vice versa, of course). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Vanamonde.

  Just to be clear, are the multiple criteria listed at Aboutself you mention the following?

  - the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

  - it does not involve claims about third parties;

  - it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

  - there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

  - the article is not based primarily on such sources. JeddBham64 (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not currently, but the version you wrote [15], and which you appear to be advocating for, was. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't understand your reply. I was only wanting to confirm that we were talking about the same criteria.

  If these are the criteria you meant, then I can't see where or how my use of LinkedIn violated them - other than, at a stretch, the fifth one. JeddBham64 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a link to the full text of [16]? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that matters as it's old. Later news about the issue here from 2012[17] and from 2014 [18]. Even later [19]. I'm not sure what you'd need the original for. Some of those mention the argument that Islam is not a religion, as does [20]. Other sources exist for that. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be very active, particularly in the Slovak Republic and in the Czech Republic where it has a base. I've got some articles from an organisation that is part of the European Network Against Racism,[21] which itself is funded by the European Union, the Open Society Foundations, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Sigrid Rausing Trust. So I think that establishes it as a reliable source.

The first is Does Bill Warner understand Islam? We asked Islamologists in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (an interesting comment which I doubt we can use says he calls himself Warner because he sees himself as warning people).

This The Oxford Graduate: Islam According to Bill Warner is a 2011 refutation of some of Warner's writings.

And finally this https://www.islamonline.sk/2016/11/slovenski-poslanci-dostali-jeho-knihu-cituje-ho-aj-sulik-kto-je-a-co-hlasa-bill-warner/ The supposed "expert on political Islam" is just a commercial Islamophobe with a hint of anti-Semitism.] Doug Weller talk 07:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Council on American–Islamic Relations has a page on the CSPI (as opposed to the CSPII} which calls it an Islamophobic organisation.[22] Doug Weller talk 07:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The_Mainstreaming_of_Islamophobia_in_the_Czech_Republic Doug Weller talk 08:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found the time to look at these pages today—good stuff—scholarly commentary from academics, i.e., actual experts in the field of Islamic studies as opposed to money-grubbing phonies like Warner. As the lede of 'Does Bill Warner understand Islam?' says, "Anyone can call themselves an expert, but whether they really are is determined by the level of their knowledge, which is best judged by those who work professionally in the given field." I'll see if I can get something together when I get a chance. I customized my copy of the Vivaldi browser today to use for this purpose, but I must say that Vivaldi Translate, powered by Lingvanex, yields crap translations of Slovak, mostly unintelligible and useless. I downloaded the Google Translate extension for this browser, and it does a fairly good job with the language, rather surprisingly. DeepL Translator's version is better yet. Carlstak (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak The problem is distinguishing the CSPI from the CSPII - right now looking at their websites, it appears the CSPI is the American branch of the CSPII and the publisher of Warner's course books - a nice money earner. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has an article on him.[23] and his Islamaphobia (their words, not mine). Doug Weller talk 07:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[24] Warner to talk to the Mission Viejo Chapter of ACT! for America.

In 2012 Warner planned to speak to a Knoxville high school "WATE-TV reported that on Thursday, April 10, 2014, Knox County Schools Superintendent Dr. Jim McIntyre rescinded approval for the event, hosted by ACT! For America's Knoxville chapter. The evening would have brought Bill French and Matt Bonner to Farragut High School". This was cancelled.[25] Doug Weller talk 08:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Journalists from 22 different media outlets ranging from The Miami Herald to the Associated Press joined in on the conference, which featured presentations on topics such as how to “Acknowledge Your Bias and Improve Your Coverage” given by Butch Ward, managing director of the Poynter Institute; and the “First Amendment, Religious Freedom and National Security” given by Asma Uddin, founder of AltMuslima.com and an international law attorney."[26]

Also[27] Doug Weller talk 08:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak

I've been searching Wikipedia's policy pages without success for something that addresses the issue you raise (i.e. that the academic qualifications of a source must align perfectly with the nature of the claim being made).

Could you please give a link to a policy page which addresses this specific issue?

JeddBham64 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem determined to add content to this article that other editors have deprecated. You wrote, "Warner's analysis of Islam's fundamental texts draws on both his scientific background and his interest in theology". His scientific background is in physics and mathematics, and, as the article says, he does not have an academic background in religious studies. So his "analysis" supposedly draws on a scientific background completely unrelated to the subjects of his controversial (to say the least) commentary on a religion and its followers, along with its social and political implications, also subjects in which he has no credentialed expertise. Moreover, you want to support this dubious information by citing a source, Muthuswamy, whose scientific background (nuclear physics) also has nothing to with his own commentary on Islam, a subject in which he does not have any credentialed expertise, or on Bill Warner. His personal opinion of Bill Warner and Warner's hate speech has no bearing on the article, could hardly be more dubious, and should not be used to support information stated in Wikipedia's voice. Carlstak (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>"You seem determined to add content to this article that other editors have deprecated."

I requested that you cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that allows editors to deprecate sources on grounds that you gave - i.e. that a source's qualifications must aligned with the nature of the claim being made.

You have not done so.

Until you do I will consider that your attempt at 'deprecation' not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

>"His scientific background is in physics and mathematics...."

from the first page I studied when learning to be a Wikipedia editor: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia" [Wikipedia:Five pillars]

Moreover, what you are doing is synthesis. It is not for editors to evaluate the truth of claims made by the article subjects and sources, but to evaluate the sources and ensure that an article is informative, balanced and complete. As it currently stands this article is none of these. JeddBham64 (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting my edits to the article. I haven't added any text to it, so it is impossible that I've added "interpretations" or "opinions" of my own, or that I've engaged in "synthesis". You should know by now that the rules you cite refer to content in the text of articles, not to comments I make on their talk pages or in edit summaries, so your are misrepresenting WP policies as well. Editors are free to "evaluate the truth of claims made by the article subjects and sources" on talk pages or in edit summary comments. As Doug Weller and I have pointed out, we should not repeat in Wikipedia voice the claim that "Warner's analysis of Islam's fundamental texts draws on his scientific background", which is in physics and mathematics. We can say that the given source makes such claims, but we cannot present them as verifiable encyclopedic facts. Carlstak (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What we do have to do is ensure that sources used are reliable and appropriate for the context in which they are used. That assessment is indeed determined by a consensus of editors. The first paragraph of the policy at Wikipedia:Consensus states,

Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Donald Albury 14:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are my attempts to present Warner's research in this article not legitimate? Note that I have no problem with the criticism section - I just believe the article should be balanced. JeddBham64 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content guideline for sourcing, notability, and suitability for inclusion of fringe theories in a Wikipedia article is at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. There are several hoops a fringe theory must pass through to be included, and whether it meets the requirements is decided by a (rough) consensus of the Wikipedia community. You have so far failed to convince the community that Warner's theories meet the requirements for inclusion.. Donald Albury 17:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject:

1. people can be 'notable' or 'expert' in fields that don't coincide with their academic qualifications - the basketball player

Conan Doyle's is in medicine, Brian May's is in astrophysics. By your rule we cannot use O'Neal as a source for Basketball, or Conan Doyle a source for Literature, or Brian May as a source for Rock music

.

2. Concerning a claim about the appropriateness of using scientific tools for analysing religious texts - I suggest that a scientist's evaluation is as relevant as that of a theologian.

3. If it is true that we can only use sources whose academic qualifications strictly correspond to the issue addressed, then note that none of the sources used in the 'criticism' section have academic qualifications that align with the nature of the claims they are making: Zafar Iqbal's Doctorate is in Mass Media, Asma Uddin's is in law, Anita Nissen's is in Philosophy and Christian Bale's PhD is in contemporary European history.

4. I do not consider you have a 'consensus'. DougWeller gave no coherent grounds for his objection. Therefore his intervention was merely a 'deletion', not an 'objection'. JeddBham64 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to your 1, that someone is an "expert" outside of the field in which they have trained requires independent, reliable sources establishing their expertise. It is easy to establish that someone holds opinions about subjects outside the field in which they were trained and about which they have published in reliable sources. The inclusion of such views in an article is governed by the policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly as stated in the section on Due and undue weight. Donald Albury 14:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Council on American–Islamic Relations has a page on Muthuswamy.[28] Doug Weller talk 13:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the desire if you agree with them, but besides the fact that the edit failed verification/was pov, they weren't identified and others might assume they weren't supporters of Warner's ideas. Bill Siegel is trickier as his article makes him look innocuous. In fact he "argued that Obama was an"Islamic community organizer" who is "conforming US policy to Islam and Sharia."[29] The article where he said this is here. The website's article redirects to Ali Sina (activist). An interesting quote by him: "I find the word 'Muslim' very derogatory and insulting. It is synonymous to stupid, barbarian, thug, arrogant, brain dead, zombie, hooligan, goon, shameless, savage and many other ignoble things. I don't know whether this most disgusting word elicits the same meanings in you or not. So when I want to show my despise [sic] of someone I call him 'Muslim'. But because Muslims are stupid, they don't know all these things and they are proud of this name. This is a win/win situation because I insult them and they are happy and thank me for it. Isn't that smart?"

Nonie Darwish is another bigot. I note that both authors lied about Obama. Not the only things they've lied about. Hardly reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verification is not required - these sources meet the requirements outlined at Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Or maybe I've missed something - is there a policy which says an editor can block a valid source simply because he disagrees with an opinion expressed therein?

If there is, could you link to the page which outlines it, please?

I can't make head nor tail of your mention of 'Ali Sina'. Are you saying it's a pseudonym of Siegel? Or of Warner?

If not, then I don't see how it is relevant. JeddBham64 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CONSENSUS for the edit - it's now been reverted by two editors (me and User:Donald Albury). Verification is a minimum requirement, it's not a sufficient requirement. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

" I also showed that you added original research to your text when you posted it,"

I corrected that (see edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Warner_(writer)&oldid=1151655272

"Verification is a minimum requirement, it's not a sufficient requirement."

Yes, but the verification must not violate Wikipedia's policies. I requested that you cite or link to the policy that allows an editor to block a valid source simply because he disagrees with an opinion expressed therein.

You haven't.

This may be an oversight on your part. Or you may prefer to not address my request because you know that no such policy exists and that indeed your action actually violates Wikipedia's policies on POV and balance. Note in particular:

"Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo) – and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists." [from: Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling]

So, Doug Weller, please let's not waste each other's precious time - cite/ link to the policy which justifies an editor in rejecting a valid source because he disagrees with an opinion expressed therein. And if you won't or can't, then let's consider this discussion resolved and move on. JeddBham64 (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is

WP:ONUS; the burden of obtaining consensus for disputed content lies with the person seeking to include it. In this case, you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]