Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Knowledge (XXG)

2043: 2022: 2053: 1849: 1828: 1622: 3149:: Insofar as I can tell having just now read the article from top to bottom, Ali has many critics, and had a very sad early life. Overwhelmingly the contents of the article seems to focus on the statements of uninvolved observers, who note that Ali's methods are controversial, and will not easily sway many people because of their directness. That being said it does not appear that there is disproportionate weight given to her critics- though you might argue there is simply not enough weight given to her achievements. So right now the article reads 2773: 2752: 2342: 2321: 1030: 515: 1727: 1938: 1100: 1917: 1082: 258: 1191: 1170: 1110: 2352: 2148: 2127: 1006: 2474: 1748: 2453: 2158: 2910: 667: 2841: 2684: 2663: 2484: 575: 585: 548: 1050: 944: 909: 2253: 825: 2232: 1948: 804: 3761:

this extraordinary claim with "she announced her conversion to Christianity in November 2023", again, out of the third paragraph where it is discussed. They then went on to rewrite other stable sections out of chronological order, duplicate material in the same section (female genital mutilation is now discussed twice in the lead) and remove in its entirety her opposition to male circumcision.

930: 835: 417: 300: 228: 2595: 2574: 506: 730: 720: 699: 1653: 954: 4135:

has been repeatedly adding content to the article over the objections of other editors. I see parts of these edits as clear BLP violations, including the unsourced assertion that Ali's "statement of conversion from atheism to Christianity only in November 2023 is questionable at best". IP pings don't

3857:

religion, explaining how Ali was a former Muslim who became an atheist, and who now identifies as Christian. We don't highlight this in the first paragraph, because the lead has a distinct structure. The first paragraph tells us what she is notable for, and she is not notable for being an atheist nor

3863:

Ali is notable as an activist, a politician, and as a critic of Islam, and for the subjects and topics related to that notability, none of which have to do with atheism or Christianity. Only right-wing news sources think Ali is notable for being an atheist and a Christian, and we aren't FOX news, we

3760:

Everything was fine until StardustToStardust arrived, changing the entire stability of the article, to now calling Ali "a central figure of New Atheism" in the first paragraph, which is completely out of the context of the third paragraph where her role is discussed, and then immediately juxtaposing

3113:

If I need to make it clearer... There's two positive lines of her in the reception and then there's an entire criticism section where a few specific biased users (checking the contributions of a few of the top editors) used it to pile on negative diatribes against her. She's polarizing but she's not

4465:

Hirsi Ali demonstrated a bias and prejudice directed towards Muslim faith schools, when she issued a call to Australian government to ban Muslim faith schools, whilst arguing at the same time that there are no similar arguments for banning of Christian and Jewish schools, which counteracted her own

4411:

Her statement of conversion from atheism to Christianity only in November 2023 is questionable at best due to at least two reasons: 1) Her attacks in the previous years against Muslim faith schools, whilst protecting Christian and Jewish schools, which is something an "atheist", such as her, should

3843:

in the lead, least of all FGM. If we take the WHO at their word, then 200 million girls and women have undergone the procedure, while 3 million are at risk per year. Why is this notable to mention in the lead? It's mentioned for POV reasons having to do with Staright's bias. Why do you think it

3754:

have been made to the article in the wake of the right-wing news blitz over Ali claiming to be a Christian (which I touched upon in the above thread). Previous to their tag-team distortions, other editors make a series of policy-compliant edits that properly added this information to correct parts

3898:

which, while conservative, are certainly not deprecated sources for this encyclopedia). In short, it's notable. By the way, I've ridden the notability rodeo before, and the principle only applies to whether the subject of the BLP is notable. Once that's established - and in the case of Ayaan Hirsi

4865:

It's not censorship or propaganda or whitewashing, it's making sure what we put in the article is verifiable and neutrally worded. If we have reliable secondary sources that state that he left his wife for Ali (in their own voice, not just that someone said so), we can state that in Wiki-voice.

3656:

itself (the whole shebang, ball of wax, enchilada, or megillah) is the driving force for the values of progressivism and modernity. It's an interesting idea, and it's one I've been investigating for a long time, but there's a lot of counterarguments that she should have been aware of or at least

4222:

1) You justify removal by saying that there was a BLP violation. However, above you mentioned that this is only your opinion, so it's not an objective truth or fact. I don't see a BLP violation. It's a matter of discussion whether there is a violation or not. You should have started a discussion

3413:

Her multiple awards alone from feminist and human rights organizations alone are an indication that she is not someone who is generally viewed with the overwhelming level of disdain that a few specific editors would like to suggest when they dogpiled on people who are opposed to her criticism of

3219:

put in because they were spurious. A tag attached to the name of a person who provides the referenced statement noted at the end of the same sentence? It's an attribution so as not to be in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. And Hirsi Ali's religious viewpoint attracts a lot of negative attention in part

3098:

Could you be more specific and give us some ideas about the kind of modifications you want to do to improve the neutrality of the article? Whining is not enough, you have to propose specific changes (add something, remove something, replace something, trim something, etc... this is how Knowledge

4200:

At the IP's user talk page, they questioned my removal of the content they added about Muslim schools. I'll start with just one of many objections: the line "Her attacks in the previous years against Muslim faith schools, whilst protecting Christian and Jewish schools, which is something an

3651:

I read the entire essay, but it isn't really clear if she is more than a "cultural Christian", and that's what I took away from it. For what it is worth, Dawkins also describes himself as a cultural Christian. I also think that was the primary thesis of her essay, that the reformation of

3158:. Yes the first half of the article is overwhelmingly negative and sad feeling, but that's just how her life has gone, there is little that can be done about that. It's an encyclopedia article,sometimes it will be sad, you wouldn't for example expect the article about the 519: 4572:

Please also explain why have you removed the properly referenced sentence about Niall Ferguson divorcing his wife of 16 years Sue Douglas to marry Hirsi Ali? This is well-known fact and there are multiple publications in the both American and British press about this.

3176:

I don’t get what point you are trying to make. The issue isn’t about her early life in regards to her mutilation, the issue is in regards to one viewpoint being over-represented. She is a controversial figure but not to the extent that a majority-negative reception is

4888:

Should certainly be mentioned on article about Niall Ferguson, as he is the person who took a particular action. I would caution against it appearing on the article about this subject. Feels a bit blaming-the-other woman, which ain't encyclopaedic, in my view.

3082:

The article is overwhelmingly biased against Ayaan with the bulk of the reception being negative. Looking at the contributions it appears a lot of these edits come from users who are opposed to her views on Islam and not approaching the article in a neutral

4412:

not technically have done 2) Very convenient timing of the conversion which was shortly after a start of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which began on 7 October 2023 - she extensively discussed this conflict in her article about the conversion.

4387:

Before I resort to them - can you clarify where exactly Knowledge (XXG) forces editors to use the approach you described in your comment - "Using one small part of the source to make a much larger unsourced contentious point about a living person is a BLP

3882:- I agree with you about mentions. Certainly something like FGM could be mentioned in the intro, then developed in the body of the article. With regards to Atheism and Christianity, I assure you that, given this topic has been reported and discussed in 4447:

P.S. The argument about conversion however stands - I found other reputable sources that question her conversion into Christianity to be one of convenience, but I am not willing to explore this avenue for now - let it be on her consciousness....

3234:

She’s a controversial figure but has received lots of positive acclaim as well. To suggest that the overwhelming majority of reception she has received is negative is simply untrue and presenting that viewpoint as being the case is a sign of

2925: 4009:

is pretty well established; the book by M H Khalil provides the substance, and a recent piece from New York Magazine called here "a face of New Atheism" which roughly means she was a central figure. (And, yes, I've added that source

3966:

There's an excellent interview done by the former YouGov Editor-in-Chief, Freddie Sayers, where Hirsi Ali directly engages with this question. (It can also be found on Youtube.) But as of this moment, there's no secondary source

4820:

Thanks EAP. Speaking of additions, I would be fine with adding some content about Ferguson's prior marriage and his affair with Ali. The proposal on the table, even without the "string of adulterous affairs" bit, is non-neutral

4161:

The way I see it, the page should be reverted back to the way I edited it, and then we can discuss and come to a consensus and only AFTER the new edits can stay or be removed... On what grounds your edits PREVAIL over my edits?

4070:

Are people with Dutch heritage. If I move to Somalia, live there for 10 years and then move to the USA, I do not become an Afro American. My (recent) ancestors did not live in Africa and hers did not live in the Netherlands.

3294:

It’s an example of the inherent bias in this article. You have someone with a clear bias steamrolling the article with negative views on the subject. I don’t see how that’s acceptable with Knowledge (XXG)’s policies on bias.

4107:

It really comes down to whether she's reported, by a reliable source, to be "Somali-American" or what-have-you. If there are enough news pieces and such that describe her in those terms, then that's what we could use in the

3661:

who believed in the primacy and importance of a noble lie (or story) to drive civilization. My guess is that this essay places her in the neoconservative camp, along with the rest of the so-called "liberals" on the right.

4609:

Ok, below are TEN more sources that support this edit - that Ferguson divorced his wife of 16 years for Ali (some of the sources also discuss Ferguson's overall conduct in this matter and tell about the existence of other

3864:

are an encyclopedia that has strict standards regarding article structure, content, and lead sections. It's weird to me that you can't see how the article has completely degraded and destabilized with Starlight's edits.

4229:

3) The phrase "Questionable at best" is further explained by giving two arguments. If you don't like the phrase "Questionable at best" you can edit it, to say "Controversial" or smth else. Why remove the whole section??

5076: 3358:

I’m not an experienced editor which was why I brought the issues of bias here. I think what needs to happen is for the article to be trimmed at minimum for balance but if I were to do that my edits would be reverted

4493:

Again, don't delete the whole paragraph, but remove only parts you are not happy about or need additional references for (which you can request in the comment). Otherwise, it looks like you are abusing your powers.

4201:"atheist", such as her, should not technically have done" is not supported by the cited source. Contentious claims about living people always need to be cited to reliable sources that explicitly support the claims. 4775:

Also, we don't add things and then decide what to remove when something is controversial, we remove them and then come to a consensus over what the additions should be. It isn't holding things to ransom, it's the

166: 5061: 1020: 2784:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. 1339: 3769:

but that's not how we edit Knowledge (XXG), and I think StardustToStardust knows that. A quick search shows that Ali's comments about male circumcision were recorded on video with an English transcription

3061:. The text already says that the SPLC removed the list. So half this sentence is redundant. The other half is about the apology to Nawaz. So since this article is about Hirsi Ali, not Nawaz, it's off topic. 3652:

Christianity allowed for secularism and atheism to co-exist without the call to destroy them found in political Islam today. Obviously, she goes one step beyond this simple argument by asserting that the

3506:

numerous times. That doesn’t apply to “notaforum” which is just discussing the subject itself. And you’ve been an active participant in this discussion so trying to close it goes against what the template

4391:

This is how referencing works - you look at the sources, you read them and you reference them. The paper could be 100 pages long, but you only need the part which is maybe 1 paragraph or 1 sentence long.

3398:- because your assertion that the current weight of the article doesn't reflect the reality of her reception hinges largely on whether positive responses to her can be found that have not been included. 3197:

that the article over-represents the rather obvious Islamist and pro-Islamic views on Ali - their criticism of an Islam critic is simply not needed, and the article repeats this sky is blue information.

2645: 3309:

As I said before, I would suggest you would have better luck in adding additional reliable sources into the article than in complaining that a specific editor made edits to it whose POV you dislike.

1063: 328: 5056: 4866:

Otherwise, we have to phrase it conditionally. Maybe something about widespread media speculation about them having an affair, or that his divorce was a result of their affair? If there's enough

3853:

notable for being an atheist or a Christian, but that's where Starlight added it. The previous version was correct, the current version is not. The previous version follows up with a paragraph

3114:

overwhelmingly reviled and the article clearly favors the views of one argument. Either the criticism section needs to be trimmed significantly or the positive comments need to be expanded on.--

4354:

Using one small part of the source to make a much larger unsourced contentious point about a living person is a BLP violation. If you disagree, there are multiple avenues for escalation. Among

4226:

2) Her attacks on Muslim schools were references by an article from The Guardian and AU Daily Telegraph. The Guardian source is a very good article, indeed. Why have you ignored this reference?

4078: 3613: 3824:

There are a lot of problems with Starlight's edits. I've removed most of the issues you pointed out of. But I see nothing objectionable in the remaining changes. What's the POV being pushed?

5071: 4283:

2) The one in lead section and the one in the one of the sections below. Do you confirm then that there was AU Daily Telegraph reference indeed? Since you only mentioned not seeing Guardian.

2815: 1015: 919: 5236: 4917:

Why is there nothing in her wiki article about her conversion to Chistianity at all, let alone theresulting controversy particularly from atheists? Implicit leftist, anti Christian bias?

4248:

that the edits included BLP violations, although I'm quite confident. If I'm wrong, others will surely join soon to tell me so. Until that happens, the content should not be restored, per

2382: 1643: 3020: 1039: 923: 675: 558: 4996: 4359: 485: 269: 2399: 2109: 5176: 5066: 3839:

I just finished explaining it on your talk page and I don't see how you've removed any of the major issues; they are still in the article. We don't need to talk about anything

3674:

Outside of listing her as a Christian in the article, this would predominately fall into original research territory, which is something that Wikipedians can't do on their own.

3476:, insulted a random editor who hasn't even weighed in here and suggested there's a conspiracy against Hirsi Ali rather than doing what at least two different editors suggested 1994: 2303: 1709: 5121: 4337:

It says in black and white about her call to ban Muslim schools in Australia, whilst at the same time saying that Christian and Jewish schools are fine, no problem with them.

4638: 4363: 5296: 5251: 5191: 4656: 3767: 2805: 2546: 2099: 219: 3963:

The one thing I think is missing is on this area of what the subject personally believes as being true as of late 2023. There is nothing in the secondary sources on this.

160: 5216: 5081: 2293: 1699: 2435: 1899: 366: 5131: 2734: 5266: 5086: 2635: 1563:

needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.

2075: 490: 5231: 5221: 5156: 5026: 2425: 1889: 776: 4986: 3104: 2389: 2269: 1810: 1675: 1058: 5281: 5171: 4093:

I would posit that if you get naturalized (become a citizen) then get elected to Parlament, it would be very legitimate for you to identify as Somali-American.

2724: 2556: 1508: 92: 5116: 5271: 5126: 4971: 1351: 5301: 4981: 2611: 2214: 891: 657: 611: 5291: 5246: 5241: 5186: 5166: 5141: 4417:

Knowledge (XXG) doesn't force editors to do anything, but our policies do not permit unsourced contentious info to remain in articles about living people.

1800: 473:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 4932:

Her conversion to Christianity has been mentioned in this article for more than a month. What reason do you have to make claims of anti-Christian bias? –

4444:

The one in the lead could be rewritten to not mention the Palestine and not mention questionability of her conversion, only the fact that she was against.

2394: 2004: 1865: 1483: 1282: 1241: 404: 385: 5286: 5211: 5101: 4591:

does not claim in its own voice that Ferguson divorced his former wife for Ali, though it does say that some of Ferguson's friends have made that claim.

3657:

addressed, but chose to ignore. I would like to see more critical discussion about it in the article. Her position sounds a lot like the philosophy of

4966: 3899:

Ali, it's well and truly established - then anything reported about the subject, given a decent secondary source - can legitimately be included. I say @

3128:

There are some issues with the Criticism section, such that critics are unnamed or it is not explained why these critics are important. I tagged a few,

2921: 2780: 2757: 2700: 2518: 2066: 2027: 1288: 972: 465: 3821:

What evidence do we have that she's not really Christian? Even from a conservative, traditionalist perspective? Does she deny a theistic view of God?

5201: 5041: 5011: 5001: 4836: 4710: 4600: 4529:

Here is one more source which establishes her opposition to Muslim schools. This time, there is even direct speech quotes from her (as in "she said"):

4517: 4478: 4426: 4375: 4325: 4271: 4210: 4189: 4145: 3100: 2204: 1666: 1627: 881: 647: 2260: 2237: 1501: 1415: 1136: 786: 5261: 5146: 5111: 3249:

I would suggest that users who aren't satisfied with the current condition of the reception section would find their time better served looking for

1231: 4870:

sources for that, it would probably pass BLP. We'd need to avoid using language that makes it sound like we're passing judgement, though, because

4777: 1776: 98: 5256: 5226: 5151: 5091: 5021: 4991: 57: 2602: 2579: 2522: 976: 619: 5276: 5206: 5046: 5016: 3939:

Claiming that her (significant) involvement with New Atheism is only noted by "conservatives" or "right-wing media outlets" isn't true at all.

4292: 2365: 2326: 2180: 1856: 1833: 1443: 1429: 1277: 857: 680: 284: 5181: 5096: 4961: 4918: 3508: 3444: 3415: 3360: 3296: 3236: 3178: 3084: 2691: 2668: 1970: 1272: 1207: 279: 5136: 4620: 3115: 43: 4644: 4639:

https://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-is-ditching-his-wife-for-a-young-hot-feminist-and-politcal-war-refugee-2010-2?r=US&IR=T

1132: 1123: 1087: 971:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 5161: 5051: 5031: 4852: 4807: 4747: 4729: 4684: 4673:

P.S. If you didn't like the words "adulterous affairs" then you could have removed only them rather than remove the whole sentence. See

4657:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8738679/Niall-Ferguson-The-real-point-of-me-isnt-that-Im-good-looking.-Its-that-Im-clever.html

4587:

Your content made a claim about a "string of adulterous affairs" by Ferguson, which was not supported by the cited source. The piece in

4574: 4535: 4495: 4449: 4395: 4341: 4295: 4231: 4163: 4132: 2042: 2021: 1344: 4017:

is settled as a basic statement, but there are contrasting views as to how personal the decision is, so I have included opposing views.

1755: 1732: 752: 615: 5196: 5036: 5006: 2980: 2377: 980: 437: 203: 4082: 3617: 2514: 2497: 2458: 967: 914: 275: 112: 5106: 4626: 433: 2171: 2132: 1316: 848: 809: 623: 599: 553: 117: 33: 2501:, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic 2373:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

4662: 1961: 1922: 1447: 1422: 1396: 1299: 1260: 1198: 1175: 87: 4976: 4956: 3766:

StardustToStardust claimed in the edit summary that they removed the content about male circumcision because the link was dead,

3394:

you'll probably find it hard-going. This is why I suggested that if you find there isn't enough positive coverage in reception

2944: 2917: 528: 181: 3953:

Okay, I think we've come a ways toward that being settled, haven't we? The material is widely reported and directly relevant.

1674:

and related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

215: 211: 207: 1451: 1321: 743: 704: 148: 78: 4136:

work, so I'll post a message at their talk page. I would love for them to come here and build consensus for their changes.

4832: 4706: 4596: 4513: 4474: 4422: 4371: 4321: 4267: 4206: 4185: 4141: 751:-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 4408:

Here's the text of the edit that you cited to the Daily Telegraph, and which you now claim is supported by The Guardian:

2940: 1775:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4532: 3722:: it's one small paragraph, which is fine. If there's more material out there, it would be excellent to see it included. 1458: 4743: 4698: 1293: 3705:. I believe we should give a one or two sentence summary. The reader can read the whole article if they want details. 3568: 1304: 4894: 4490:

If you think it's needed, a reference could be added where she is reported to be against all faith schools (as if).

4115: 4098: 4045: 4027: 3972: 3908: 3727: 3634: 3607: 227: 198: 4508:

If you're just looking for a neutral mention of her opposition to Muslim schools, then propose a neutral version.

3701:

Either way, the section on her conversion to Christianity is way to long given her long public life and smacks of

1848: 1827: 1310: 474: 257: 122: 3512: 3448: 3419: 3364: 3300: 3240: 3182: 3088: 3066: 142: 4158:

Also please indicate why have you removed the legitimate changes right away, instead of starting the talk first.

2932: 2924:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been 1642: 1621: 238: 4922: 4828: 4702: 4592: 4509: 4470: 4418: 4367: 4317: 4263: 4202: 4181: 4137: 3883: 2892: 2058: 4614: 4262:

3) Your arguments should not be included in the article, unless they are made explicitly by reliable sources.

3391: 3119: 534: 4176:

I did not feel that leaving the BLP violations in the article while discussion continued was appropriate per

3747: 4856: 4811: 4751: 4733: 4688: 4578: 4539: 4499: 4453: 4399: 4345: 4299: 4235: 4167: 3602: 138: 4848:

They did what they did, and this should be reflected in the Knowledge (XXG) and not hidden from the public.

4674: 4293:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-fighter-for-freedom-or-just-a-help-for-hanson

4249: 4074: 3537:

it's undue because you dislike some of the editors who have previously edited it, but that's not relevant.

2968: 2845: 274:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the 4937: 3598:

Ayaan has released a new book, this should be mentioned. Most sources appear to be commentaries however:

3502:

I’ve been solely discussing the article and it’s violation of NPOV. I’ve explained my issue with bias and

3044: 2976: 1546: 4803: 4677: 4177: 3465: 2943:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

2936: 1409: 68: 4890: 4621:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/romance-for-british-historian-niall-ferguson-1892263.html

4111: 4094: 4041: 4023: 3968: 3960:

should be observed, so I've removed the second mention of the topic in personal life section at the end.

3904: 3814:

This is uncontroversial. She's frequently listed as a top figures in the movement by reliable sources.

3723: 3630: 3167: 3024: 2699: