Talk:Raymond Ibrahim

Keep all Informational Links

It seems that people that agree with the views espoused by Raymond Ibrahim are bent on eliminating any material that sheds light on his self-evident motives as well as his controversial background. If these links are going to removed, and the objective of the editors really isn't to simply hide the embarrassing information, than they should cite alternative sources that corroborate it (where applicable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.163.185 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are guidelines for this to read in the Biographies of living persons. Never use self-published sources. You can create a criticism section so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, but as the edits stands now is it not a Neutral point of view and should be removed. Davidelah (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And also, it will be much easier to to collaborate when assuming good faith, to read more on this go to this page. Thanks. Davidelah (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a big wiki editor clearly but I perused the link on Bios of living people. To be fair only one of those links seems to be self published:

http://www.mohammadmufti.com/2011/05/raymond-ibrahim-at-evcc.html

Even if this is removable on that basis, the other link:

http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/16452/135/

is very clearly not self-published. If you're making the edits in good faith and not just trying to censor critical comments, at the very least, you shouldn't be removing the second link...

However you clearly seem bent on removing them both and the comments drawn from them. If the comments aren't presented "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone", they can be edited and toned down. What you're doing though is just removing any material critical of this figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.144.118 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The referred article that the edits rely on is clearly biased and do not even pretend to be neutral, in my opinion it amounts to libel. It also makes a factual mistake when the writer assumes that Raymond Ibrahim is a convert to Christianity by writing, the newly Christened crusader, when he in fact is not. The source is also not very reliable because it's just a local newspaper oriented at a small religious group (Muslims). Davidelah (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an error in comprehension on your part and not a factual error on the part of the author. He/She is suggesting that Raymond Ibrahim has been newly Christened in the "Expert on Islam" front in the media, not that the man has just converted to Christianity. This is clear from the context of the piece and how it points out that he went from being a librarian living in obscurity to a famed "Islamic expert" on the gravy train that is Islamophobia in the media. Even better, the very quote you present shows that the author made the distinction of stating that man was a newly christened "Crusader" and not simply someone who was newly Christened. I don't see how an individual that can't grasp metaphor is justified in presiding over an article and it's contents as judge.

As far as the paper being small and locally distributed, this has absolutely no relevance to any of the Wikipedia rules/pages you quoted. The paper is actually well-read and distributed in SoCal and the particular piece has been featured on a number of much larger sites with much broader readership, Muslim and non-Muslim. But again, none of that has any relevance as InsideFocus isn't breaking any Wiki rules — it just conflicts with your own opinion and brings to light context that you don't like.

As far as any "bias" - the same purported "bias" would exist for any material produced from sites in support of Raymond Ibrahim or which featured his work. It doesn't show the other side of the coin, and his expertise in 'Arabic was questioned in one of the two links (probably just bias again, right?). What InsideFocus did was present the context that gave rise to who Raymond Ibrahim is and where he stands today, context you won't see in the other links which are essentially just quotes from HIS OWN articles. You're constantly trying to remove any source that depicts controversy surrounding the individual or isn't from his own lips. This isn't a matter of Negative POV, but concealing facts that are uncovered in any material you endorse, as well as the sources that present these facts. You can't ask someone to assume good faith when you're making changes to an article that depict a fairly clear agenda which rather than casting the same material more objectively, seek to completely remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.144.118 (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment the question of whether the two sources you added meet WP:RS, could you clarify which of them supports the assertion that Ibrahim was fired, because I haven't found it in either one using the browser "find" capability for words which should be there. A brief exact quote, and maybe a paragraph number would be helpful. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove passive voice

I propose changing the opening paragraph to remove the use of passive voice. This discussion started here but I'm moving it here to the article talk page instead of the user's talk page.

To me, it is reasonable to describe anyone as a scholar who a) has an advanced degree and b) makes a living as a writer on topics closely related to that degree. However, my case for calling him a scholar would be stronger if he had a Ph.D. instead of an M.A., or if he had a formal affiliation with a university, or if he published mainly in scholarly journals, instead of mainly in the popular press.

Perhaps we can form a consensus around a phrase such as: "Raymond Ibrahim (born in 1973) is an American research librarian, translator, author and columnist. His focus is Arab history and language, and current events." --E-hadj (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any major issue with your proposed sentences. I'd prefer "language and history" rather than "history and language", because my impression is that the language is his main area of training and expertise, with the history being an interest growing out of his translation and other language-related work, but I can't see that I'd start an RFC over the difference. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. He is most famous for The Al-Qaeda Reader which is a translation. But, his MA thesis was focused on interpreting historical events, and his PhD will be in history. So I think a case can be made either way. I kept "history and language" because that is how the source described it. --E-hadj (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about "hate mongering" section

Created this so folks can start talking about the inclusion (or not) of the section in the article about "hate mongering". Let the discussion begin. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We have 3 questions to answer; repeatedly, those questions have been adjured in favor of blanket redaction- both prejudicial and contrary to our mission and ethic.

The first question: Is the character of Ibrahim's writings on Islamic culture topical and noteworthy? Ibrahim has made his stance on Islam the defining aspect of his published and public life via essays widely disseminated within a distinctly anti-Islamic sphere; however, it is not for that association alone that his writings are remarkable, but the character of those writings themselves, reaction to them, and Ibrahim's reaction to that reaction: that is to say, his work has been embraced by anti-Islamic groups, denounced by others as hate mongering, and Ibrahim himself has spoken to being characterized as "Islamiphobic". The character of what Ibrahim proffers on Islam and Muslims is both topical and pertinent.

The second question: Is the referenced material accurate? No one should rely on another editor's assessment- test the references yourself. It may be that there is material that demands additional citations for your satisfaction- or not. If there are, listing perceived needs here would serve resolution of this conflict. I find the cited material generally sufficient, but would like additional references for Ibrahim's reaction to both his dismissal from the Library of Congress and characterization as Islamiphobic.

The third question: Is the "hate monger" label accurate? There is no question that Ibrahim's writings have been assessed as hate mongering and Islamiphobic. Are those characterizations accurate? It could be argued that the instances proffered in the section constitute an argument for a particular answer to that question; I do not believe so: they are common examples typical of Ibrahim's work. Moreover, the act itself is self evident in that very work- however, the characterization here does not depend entirely on self evidence, but also on specific reception. It might be argued that the the subject of the section should be recast to describe views of his work (such as "allegations of hate mongering" or "critical reception") rather than speaking directly to the nature of the work itself; I judge that a prejudicial equivocation, aimed at mitigating certainty by introducing a false question of doubt. The difference between "killing" and "murder" is significant- and, to a degree, objective; the difference between "critical scrutiny" and "hate mongering" are likewise significant and discernible. While the choice of word or phrase may speak to prejudice or advocacy of one sort or another, here I say the use of "hate mongering" is strictly accurate: Ibrahim's words specifically encourage enmity of a group by suggesting that all "smiling" Muslim activists in positions of power in America should be feared for possibly secretly harboring a murderous agenda. Could that be described differently than "hate mongering"? Yes. Should it? Only if another label is more accurate: it is not within our purview to mitigate negative reception by disdaining unflattering-yet-accurate words for less accurate sanitized verbiage.

The total redaction of this section is unwarranted. Contrary to User:Objectivity99's claim, no slander has been made- as there was neither misrepresentation nor defamation; the "point by point response" that user cites in the their edit note are nowhere to be found. As I wrote in the edit notes, I encourage collaboration in this space to resolve this edit conflict. No special insight was required to anticipate that unilateral and total redaction would spawn conflict- and does not serve our collective interest to develop the article.Mavigogun (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding to this per a request on my talk page. I am otherwise uninvolved in the edit conflict.

In response to the first question, the character of Ibrahim's writings on Islamic culture are noteworthy and worthy of inclusion into the article, although the prose used to include them in general to me seems inflammatory and not encyclopedic in nature. The material should be included in the article's main body and follow WP:NPOV.

In response to the second question, the accuracy of the material is mixed in my opinion. This source is a blog entry and to me does not meet WP:RS but other sources such as this easily meet WP:RS and should be included as legitimate concerns regarding a person involved with a controversial subject matter.

In response to the third question, the label hate monger may be accurate, but is inflammatory and does not adhere to WP:NPOV, especially for a living person. According to WP:BLP we need to ensure that even controversial content be presented in an encyclopedic and neutral way.

In summary, I feel that the total redaction of the content was warranted as it technically was in violation of WP:BLP, if the content is reorganized into the article, properly sourced and neutral, I don't see a problem with the inclusion of the most pertinent aspects of it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for alternative labels would be appreciated. "Anti-Islamic sentiment" seems accurate, if not less precise. I'm at a creative impasse, unable to reconcile a call for "neutrality" and accuracy. In a completely unrelated example, when is it permissible to use genocide to describe an attempt to exterminate an ethnic or cultural group? My understanding of author neutrality is to endeavor to edit free of bias. To that end, suggestions, please; I'd particularly like to hear from those who object to the "hate mongering" label.Mavigogun (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The "hate-mongering" section, which keeps creeping in, though under a different name violates Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

In fact, the whole section itself is hate-mongering against Mr. Ibrahim, a living person,and very libelous. I never see such biased texts on Wikipedia's other biographies.

Moreover, many of these hate-filled assertions are in fact "unsourced or poorly sourced":

ONE: In a March 29, 2013 essay on David Horowitz's webzine frontpagemag.com, Ibrahim's article "The Threat of Islamic Betrayal" argued that all politically outspoken Muslim Americans should be feared and suspected of planning to act on hidden bellicose agendas, writing:

Indeed, the true “lesson” is best captured by the following question: If some Muslims, including women, are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already ostracized and downtrodden non-Muslim minorities in their midst—attending churches and becoming like “family members” to those infidels they intend to kill—how much deceit and betrayal must some of the smiling Muslim activists of America, especially those in positions of power and influence, be engaging in to subvert and eliminate the most dangerous of all infidels, the original Great Satan?[8]

Very sloppy accusation, and proof that mavigogon is on a smear campaign and violating Wikipedia's terms. Note he writes that Ibrahim says "all" Muslims, when Ibrahim's quote clearly states "some." Moreover, the quote is the very last paragraph of Ibrahim's article, which has about a thousand words above it setting up the context of why he made that conclusion.

TWO: Ibrahim's August, 2012 report for The American Thinker that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had publicly crucified opponents of President Morsi in front of the presidential palace prompted the Thinker's blog editor, Rick Moran, to qualify the report as "at best, an exaggeration, and at worst, a hoax." [9]

This does not take into account Ibrahim's own response, which can be read here http://www.meforum.org/3330/egypt-crucifixions and which documents that Sky News itself admits to publishing a story about the Brotherhood crucifying people, but then took it down after he translated to English and disseminated it. Moreover, lots of other sources, especially Arabic ones, still have the story on the Net.

THREE: In July, 2012, a report by Ibrahim that a Muslim cleric proscribed sodomy as permissible if done to expand the anus, allowing the insertion of a suicide bomb, was demonstrated to be a hoax. [10][11]

Again, nothing was demonstrated as being a hoax. Ibrahim fully rebutted the hoax charges here : http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islamic-sodomy-or-%E2%80%98islamophobic-hoax%E2%80%99/ A video of an Arabic reporter saying exactly what Ibrahim translated about Islamic sodomy exists on the Internet, and was picked up by other reputable news organizations, including MEMRI, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik5GZap_-_A

FOUR: In May of 2012, Ibrahim propagated a video of a beheading in Syria deceptively mislabeled “Graphic Video: Muslims Behead Christian Convert in ‘Moderate’ Tunisia.” [12]

Wrong. Ibrahim linked to an Arabic news commentary video where the host who aired the clip clearly states it was in Tunisia here: http://schnellmann.org/beheading-tunesianconvert-to-quran.html Conversely, the sources saying it was in Syria do not have the same level of documentation.

FIVE: In his November, 2011 essay "Why Does the Crucifix ‘Provoke’ Muslims?",[13] Ibrahim propagated a report that falsely claimed Muslim students were party to a suit filed by a George Washington University Law Professor, John Banzhaf, aimed to provide relief to alleged religious discrimination by The Catholic University of America. No students, Muslim or otherwise, were actually party to the suit.

Fox News is the one to report that Muslims were involved -- and that report, and those charges are still up! According to Fox: "Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.” http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

SIX: To a 2007 essay accusing Ibrahim of capitalizing on "Islamophobia", he is reported to have responded:

...after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.[14]

This goes to the hate smearing site Loon Watch, and their link to Ibrahim's supposed comment doesn't even open!

I hope Wikipedia administrators watch the Ibrahim page carefully, as it is clear there are some who are trying to distort it -- not to mention violate Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons, which prohibits libelous accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity99 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)