Talk:Ali Sina (activist): Difference between revisions

Third opinion

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by {{{1}}}

....

Request for Third Opinion – Clarification on Talk Page Use and Policy Application

Hello,

I am seeking a neutral third-party opinion in accordance with WP:3O, as discussion with another editor has reached an impasse.

I made substantive contributions to this article, which were fully removed by editor Snuish2. He stated they were AI-generated, and on that basis declined discussion of the content. After this, I did not re-edit the article but instead began asking questions on the talk page, requesting guidance on how to revise my contributions to comply with policy. In response, I received two warnings that I would be blocked if I continued to post.

I stated clearly that I am the author of my writing and not using AI, but I was told simply to “stop,” with the threat of blockage.

Because I do not want to be blocked and wish to proceed in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, I am requesting clarification from uninvolved editors preferably those not vested in religious topics, so that discussion can remain focused on policy rather than conjecture.

I would greatly appreciate guidance on the following: Is it not permissible to discuss draft content on a talk page before proposing edits to the article itself? Can entire contributions be removed solely on the basis of a belief that they may be AI-generated—without evidence?

Can an editor position themselves as the sole gatekeeper of an article and reject proposed improvements based on personal objection to the topic?

Can posting policy-based questions on a talk page be grounds for a block warning? – Is not policy-based discussion the very reason talk pages exist?

I may be mistaken, but based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy: Repeated threats of block without policy citation may be against WP:CIVIL / WP:AGF.

Refusal to answer specific policy questions may be against WP:ADMINACCT.

Collapsing comments without prior discussion may be against WP:TALKPAGEGUIDE.

Removal of all contributions of another editor, rather than addressing specific concerns maybe against WP:OWN

Declaring someone’s comments “AI-generated” without evidence and removing them on that basis, may be against WP:BURDEN / WP:AGF.

I want to be absolutely clear: I am not asserting these policies were violated. I am mentioning them only to explain why I am seeking neutral guidance and clarification before proceeding further. My hope is to contribute constructively, follow policy, avoid conflict, and improve the article’s accuracy and neutrality.

I respectfully request input from uninvolved editors. Thank you for your time. — James

---

The Jerusalem Post feature

The piece "Muslim Mindset: 'The hatred is in Muhammad himself'" appears under the Magazine › Features section of the Jerusalem Post and not in the Opinion section. It is an interview-style feature authored by Sam Ser, not an editorial or unsigned opinion piece reflecting the publication’s stance.

Even if it were considered an editorial (which it is not), per WP:RSEDITORIAL, such sources remain usable as primary sources for attributed opinions. In this case, it can be cited only for statements attributed directly to Ali Sina, which is how it has been used in the article.

Therefore, removing all content sourced to this article, even under the mistaken assumption that it is an editorial, misrepresents Wikipedia’s sourcing policy and disregards its limited but valid use as a primary source for Sina’s own views. Rackaballa (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at the source, and I mostly agree with your assessment. It does not have the same editorial standards as an opinion piece; I was mistaken about that. However, as you noted, much of this is a primary source, and it should be used with caution. WP:BLPPRIMARY urges extreme caution when using such sources. I will revise the material from the article to remove the more self-serving and sensational claims. Snuish (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I also wanted to note that, as a primary source, the article's use of the JPost feature should be done sparingly. It should not dominate the Wikipedia text. Snuish (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Your revisions seem good to me. You should add back why he chooses to shield his true identity. That's important for BLPs where the subject uses a pseudonym. Rackaballa (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Snuish (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. 174.89.177.201 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

OceanSplash's Edits | November 2025

@OceanSplash: I have reverted your recent edits to the article. Your revision (1324371459) violates WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSELFPUB which prohibits such extensive use of the subject's own writing. The restored version (1300860263) relies mainly on independent secondary sources.

WP:BLPSELFPUB allows some use of self published material about a living person only if the article is not based primarily on such sources, and if the material is not unduly self-serving or used to support claims about third parties or broad events. In your edits, Sina’s books were used as the main basis for long summaries of his views and for many quotes, including claims about Islam, Muslims, demographics, and geopolitical conflicts.

Moreover, you removed information that was cited to reliable secondary sources in these edits: 1324137292, 1324145589, 1324145846, 1324198131, 1324367200. Your edit summary in diff 1324198131 is not accurate, since it states that "No verifiable source was provided" while deleting a citation to a book with both a page number and a quote. Snuish (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)