Talk:Wafa Sultan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 125.22.32.124 (talk) at 00:29, 27 September 2006 (→‎Link to a Muslim View). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think Wafa Sultan's opponents made their worldview abundantly clear when they defaced this article by calling her "Satan." I think it's also worth noting that when an individual Syrian woman expresses negative opinions about Islam on television, we get a firestorm of vile personal attacks in response. It's so hard to have respect for people who attack even the most benign and insignificant of their critics and threaten an innocent woman's life for having an opinion.

Fame due to MEMRI

The raise to fame of Wafa Sultan was due entirely to MEMRI, and therefore an important propaganda victory for this organisation. I believe that this should be included in wikipedia article, and so should be information that the video that made her famous was edited before being furnished with subtitles and sent out to the list of MEMRI target receipients. Eva Jlassi

See the New York Observer on: http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/07/a-denunciation-of-the-muslim-world-apparently-on-aljazeera.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Jlassi (talk • contribs)

That article simply says that what she says isn't a justification Israel in Lebanon. Her appearance on Al-Jazeera is dated from February isn't it? It predates that situation. Tying the two together isn't her fault, it's the New York Observer's. If you have links to articles from reputable sources criticising MEMRI for censoring the video, then provide them. But the article doesn't need "it was therefore an important propaganda victory" ...

Complete transcript of the program "the oposite direction 26/02/2006" can be found here http://aqoul.com/images/wafa_sultan.pdf and should be included in the article - the difference between the transcript and the video is of major importance - it shows Ms Sultan has been entangled in the propaganda exercise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Jlassi (talk • contribs) I'm sorry I didn't sign my postings - I'm new to Wikipedia Eva Jlassi 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sources

Add relevant, reliable sources here so we can talk about starting a criticism section. - Kriskhaira 20:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seductive and blinkered belligerence of Wafa Sultan - LA Times

  • Quote: "My disappointment in and disagreement with Sultan turned into dismay. She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative."
  • It's worth nothing that this article was written by a rabbi at the Wilshire Boulevard Temple - Kriskhaira 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted - Answering-christianity.com

  • Hi JJay, I really don’t know what your problem is. We should not be biased and let people see the arguments on both sides. Then we can let people determine, which side is the truth. If Wafa Sultan is the truth then you have nothing to worry about. Now please stop being biased and allow the link to be there.
  • This link doesn't really seem credible. See the arguments below. Is answering-christianity.com a reliable source of info? - Kriskhaira 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through this info, he accuses Sultan of quoting verses from the Koran out of context, but then does the same against the bible. At one point, quoting Numbers 31:17-18, but not 16 to put a little bit of context to the passage (in this case, it's almost the exact same scenario as the one he is attacking Sultan on).--206.186.109.62 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a note regarding accuracy of the source in the section below about the answering christianity site.

Bias

This article refers to her claims as if they were fact, it's her OPINION and not fact.

I don't see quite why you take this view, unless you are referring to the massacres by the Muslim Brotherhood, which I think are quite well-attested. Palmiro | Talk 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
maybe because of a section like this "scolding Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not recognizing the accomplishments of non-Muslim society, while using its wealth and technology." where the wording signifies what she says as fact, and not opinion?Elazul yagami 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, I think it's clear enough that this is simply what she was criticising Muslims for, whether rightly or wrongly is another question. I'd hate to see this article be disfigured with Wikipedia's "allegedly" blight like so many others. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i and many others will think so. There's already a problem with Memri's translations as is apparent in this link : http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php#more and furthermore, no one in the western world questions what she says. It should be made obvious that her claims are HER opinions and not facts. That's all i'm saying, leave her claims, leave her words and scoldings, just make it obvious that it's her opinion and that there are and have been counters to her claims.Elazul yagami 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence makes it painfully obvious that it is her "opinions" since it starts by saying that she "spoke" and "argued". The article makes no claim that these are facts. -- JJay 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Wafa Sultan's points are innacurate and misleading, which this article does not refer to. She does argue some her points as if they are fact and this article does not. This article should explain that many of her points are innacurate and based upon her opinion and not fact. I previously added two articles to the 'further reading' section, which were deleted. Why is Wikipedia afraid to list Wafa Sultan as a figured with a flawed speech? Please read and consider inclusion of the first article of which I wrote myself, and the second which clearly refutes her major points; Wafa Sultan and Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted.
  • Linking "only" to major media or academic sources is not a wikipedia policy in subjects related to point of views. We should link to sites that present the other POV. Plus I see you permit a link (of Alt.muslim)that support her POV although it is not matching this criteria you put. / Dy yol 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the alt.muslim site was a blog. I've removed that as well. There are thousands of blog articles on Ms. Sultan. We need to avoid linking to articles that people have just posted to their blogs as a previous poster admitted above. Just link to the equally comprehensive coverage found through the major media. -- JJay 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mainstream sites are taking a "mainstream" view, the inaccruracies in her words are not being focused upon. In Europe where I am it has already been documented that the media is Islamophobic, therefore this suggests that not only "mainstream" views should be used if we are to attain accruracy. I assume that in Nazi germany, "mainstream" news sources supported Hitler's regime, and therefore if the rest of the world had based their information on these sources alone then I would probably be typing in German. This article fails to portray a true account of Wafa Sultan, as it does not include that her views are innacurate then it should at least link to sites that detail this.
  • I have no idea what you mean when you say that "it has already been documented that the media is Islamophobic". If you have some proof in that regard, take it up on the talk page of WP:RS. Otherwise, your point about NAZI Germany is not relevant. AT the time, there were plenty of other news sources worldwide- like the NY Times. This is an international encyclopedia. If you have mainstream sources to add to the article then please do so. Nothing says you have to be limited to the Western media. However, self-published blog articles by unknown blog sites are not valid. -- JJay 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proof is available as documented in various articles. The problem with this "mainstream" issue, is that many available sites will support her work. I previously added this site which is not a blog and it was deleted: Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted. The Wikipedia article here is selective in the quotes it uses. While quoting her in saying; "we have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant", it is ignored that she also said in the same excerpt; “The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling…. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.” This ignores the existence and actions of Israeli terror groups and particular incidents in the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Was Yitzhak Rabin not murdered by a Jewish person? Has Arial Sharon not been linked to massacres? This is but one point of the speech the article ignores, and many more of Wafa Sultan's points are also significantly one-sided, pro-Israeli and attempt to bring Islam into disrepute. Should she not be portrayed in this light? I noticed you failed to report on the rest of what I said, attempting to denote it as "not relevant" when it is evident that her arguement is flawed and any reporting on it without mentioning this is effectively assisting in promoting her propaganda against Islam. Read the article. The link is above, and I posted another from my blog in an earlier comment.
  • I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just find some valid sources that make whatever points you want to make and add them to the article. If you can't find any newspaper that has discussed these ideas then we should not be putting them in our articles. This is a reference work. It is not a blog. It is not a forum for debate. I have no interest in debating you. Why? Because I don't care. For better or worse, Ms. Sultan has received major international attention. Therefore she qualifies for an article. If she has been criticized by sources that qualify under WP:RS then all the better. Add them to the article pronto. But your link is ridiculous. It is a page that some unknown person set up. We do not use links or sources of that type. And we are not here to promote your blog. -- JJay 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well said.--CltFn 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that the points made in the article I provided are valid.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wafa_sultan.htm

This is one of the worst proposed links I have seen in a long time. If what Wafa Sultan says is all that outrageous then surely there must be some better alternative. Not in your wildest dreams are we linking to this website. Palmiro | Talk 16:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


answering christianity is a racist and anti-semitic website

Why does the article on Wafa Sultan have a link to a radical Islamist website that preaches anti-semitism?

This one?
The website has several racist and anti-semitic articles:

here

quote fom article:

"Also, according to the Noble Quran, MOST Jews are evil doers"

This is an anti-semitic statement. In many countries in Europe , anti-semitic statements are legally classified as hate-speech and are against the law.

here

Makes blood libel against Jewish people.

here

Anti-semitic canard
There is much more nauseatingly hateful propaganda on this site. It does not have any scholarly merit or value. Why is this linked in the Wafa Sultan article? At best, it should be qualified as a link to a biased site known for making anti-semitic statements.Netaji 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • As an example for the accuracy of the source, compare:

from http://www.answering-christianity.com/nonjews_in_talmud.htm

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." TALMUD: Sanhedrin 74b.

I don't see any evident connection to the content of 74b as listed here:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_74.html

I have removed that link to answering-christianity.com as it doesn't advance the Encyclopedia nature of Wikipedia as it's not even a clear criticism. The target link page even says "She does not even deserve my time to refute her." so it's not exactly very focused criticism of her anyway !. That site is basically a anti-Christian, anti-Islam apologetics site which kind of rambles on a bit. Ttiotsw 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text

There was a lot of text here which was copied from another web site. I have removed that text as it is unclear what the copyright is and it is not relevant to the Talk page. Please don't copy stuff like that unless you wrote the original transscript. Ttiotsw 00:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred?

It is this personal event that is thought to be the catalyst of her hatred towards Islam.

Has she said she hates Islam? There's not enough in the article for me to determine if it's as passionate as that, and not just a deep critical eye from being so familiar and disappointed with it. --4.254.118.214 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up Talk Page

I had to revert the talk page as someone cut+paste the article into it. I also removed a large block of copyright text which was a transcript. I think you can do little bits to prove a point but pasting the whole lot simply makes no point. Also in the main article I've removed that link to answering-christianity.com as the general consensus is that its a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan (it may be an "OK" criticism of Christianity, Israel, Jews etc and whatever turns that guy on but from the first paragraph he calls her "ignorant" and "foolish", "She does not even deserve my time to refute her", and "she is becoming too famous for her own good" and then spends pages (and some time) on what truthfully is a very unfocused criticism of this Doctor. Ttiotsw 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why the Muslim point of view cannot be put there, the link to answering - xtianity was removed because it was so called racist etc, but this has no such problem and the link deserves to be there to give both sites of the story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.216.98 (talk • contribs) .

There are millions of Muslims in the world, why is that website notable? Who is the author? I suggested you explain why he was notable, or why that website is notable, and you haven't. If we don't link to NOTABLE responses to Sultan, then we'll have to link to every response on the internet. - BalthCat 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes if we start removing all not so notable responses then we have to remove half the responses on the net. There is no muslims side of the story at all in the entire page.
All those non-notable responses on the net are still there, out on the net. And can easily be found. They are, however, not in here, cluttering up a relatively small article. If notable responses can be found, some one could write a small "Criticisms" section, explaining how the notable response replied to her criticisms (and not how the editor responds to her, or how some blogger responsds to her). So far no one has yet found a notable response, and no one has yet written a small criticisms section. (Aside from calling her Satan, which was fairly small.) I'm surprised no one has found a notable response yet, to be honest, and I expect that eventually some one will, and some one will add a reasonably sized Criticisms section. - BalthCat 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a link given to a review of her interview by a Muslim, we are not cluttering it with millions of links, you guys seem to have removed other links on one pretext or the other giving lame excuses , hence that link deserves to stay.we need the Muslim side of the story as well. anyway it was a typo in the last post, i mean there are many such links in wikipedia, its the view that matters not the notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.37.91 (talk • contribs) .
I have quite a bit of trouble imagining you can't find a notable muslim scholar, imam or political personality responding to Sultan who isn't a nobody blogger. As it stands now, I can't remove the link (which I would remove) without breaking the WP:3RR rule. It isn't a "muslim view point" it's a link to a non-notable blog. If I write a blog post about how Sultan is wrong, should *I* get to link to myself because I need to add a Canadian viewpoint? - BalthCat 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it the site is not a Blog as you claim it to be. It is a view from the other side, you asking for notability is like asking all Wikipedia authors to be "notable" which is defenitely NOT the case. and according to your very own logic, it makes Wikipedia less notable due to the notability factors of the authors here. hence your view does not stand. 125.22.32.124 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wafa_Sultan&oldid=78011055"