This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Strausszek (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 5 February 2010 (→Question/s by Hirsi Ali and Wilders - which questions?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:09, 5 February 2010 by Strausszek (talk | contribs) (→Question/s by Hirsi Ali and Wilders - which questions?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 | Ayaan Hirsi Ali was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Awards in Introduction
We are again seeing biased editing from Tomixdf, quite often vandalising in the process. During the process of last editing, I had explained my rationale for including the sentence "mostly from right wing parties...". Without providing any alternative arguments, this user keeps on reverting my edits. Readers digest did not give her any awards, it was that a group of readers who took part in the poll selected her for a particular title. Other names listed , which really gave her the award are mostly right wing parties in Europe and hence the sentence. Stop warring now. Zencv (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your contribution is unreferenced. Where is it stated that her prizes come "mostly from right wing parties..."? That's just your personal irrelevant opinion, unless you provide a reference for this. And she DID get a reward from Reader's Digest in 2006 (see http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/rd-european-of-the-year-2006-i-52.html). Do Time, Reader's Digest, Government of Madrid's Tolerance Award, Swedish Democracy Prize ... all fall under "mostly from right wing parties"???? Tomixdf (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What she got from Time was NOT an award. Even if you argue that the one from Readers digest was an award, most of the other awards are from right wing parties. Thats why I wrote "many of them", and in any case, I did not write "all of them". If you are exactly looking for the word "mostly from right wing parties..." in the reference, then first you have to provide a reference which says that "she got several awards for her work" and then we can talk.Where does it says that she received several awards for her work? This was your POV based on what was provided in the reference. Zencv (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Changed "for her work" to "for her positions" and explained the circumstances, with a sourcing note, about one of them, the "Freedom Prize" of the Swedish Liberal People's Party. Calling it "awards for her work" is POV too, and it was really about the positions she took up and defended. Setting up an award like that and giving it to the people who champion your own issues is an easy way to generate media attention.
- And Zencv is right, most of those awards are from right-wing parties promoting very strict migration laws and persistent struggle against islamic law etc, that's easy to see if you check each of the parties in question. Of course they don't present themselves as "more right-wing than most" or "nationalist" in just those written words but then why should they? Sourcing something like that can't include that you must demonstrate 1) that the parties in question are active, 2) that they have such and such an outlook (give me the WP definition of "right-wing" translated into an exact list of political measures that miust be present??) and 3) that they picked Hirsi Ali because of her views and not for her courage and for her being in that film, all of this in Swedish, Danish or Dutch which most of you can't read. Reading a selection of news coverage from that time and campaign materials from those parties will make the matter clear. Please notice that I didn't reinstate "mostly from right-wing parties" because I didn't want a fresh edit war with some guy denying the obvious, but the fact is those awards are from minor parties that run on these issues. /Strausszek (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Request for Additional Text
Hi,
I wonder if you would be interested to add the following two paragraphs to the Wiki. References are provided, I have put the text between -start here-- -stop here-- lines. Thanks in advance !
In section Circumcision add
It is not "circumcision. It is correctly called "CLITORECTOMY".
-start here ---------
When in Dutch parliament, she has proposed obligatory yearly medical checks for all girls who have nor been subjected to clitorectomies in the country, who originate from any country where such female mutilation is practiced. If a girl turned out to have had a clitotorectomy, the state would report this to the police. The girl's protection would prevail over respect for the girl's privacy <ref>{{nl}}"VVD: extra inspectie tegen besnijdenis", ''de Volkskrant'' newspaper, January 22, 2004, frontpage</ref>.
- stop here --------
In section
Immigration
add:
-start here -----------
In an article in the LA Times<ref>"Europe's Immigration Quagmire", Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2006, M.1, also . There is a revision available online at . The original was published in the Canadian "Toronto Star" October 15, 2006.</ref>, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has expounded her view on immigration in Europe. Noting first that immigrants are overrepresented "in all the wrong statistics", she sees the following possible consequences of Europe's current immigration policy: trade in women and illegal arms, exploitation of poor migrants by "cruel employers", and Muslim immigrants who are receptive to Islamist ideas. She draws the attention to the numbers of illegal immigrants already there. Current immigration policy will lead to ethnic and religious division, states will lose their monopoly of force, the islamic law, or ], will, in actual fact, be introduced at the level of neighborhoods and cities, and exploitation of women and children will be "commonplace". To avoid this situation, she proposes three general principles for a new policy: * Admission of immigrants on the basis of their contribution to the economy. In her view the current system "is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories". * Diplomatic, economic and military interventions in countries which risk causing large migrant flows. * Introduction of assimilation programs which acknowledge that "the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration".
-stop here -----------------
Thanks Tcherkoff (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- done with slight changes. Corailrouge-eng (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Criticism
The gratuitous name-calling in this section has been removed in accordance with the Misplaced Pages policy of rapidly removing content in violation of the policy regarding biographies of living persons (BLP).
The remarks were inappropriate because they merely call Ms. Ali unflattering names, without adding any substance. One gratuitous comment called her a liar yet her misrepresentation, on an application for asylum in her attempt to escape oppression, have already been covered at length redundantly in a previous section. That section also gives an explanation to counter such claims. That is a fair presentation; what appears redundantly under "criticism" is not.
Another comment called her a "chameleon" without providing explanation. This type of baseless characterization does not belong in a respectable encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages.
Ms. Ali may be a controversial figure, but she should be given the same treatment on Misplaced Pages as any other living person. The fact that these comments have appeared in this article for some period of time do not change the fact that they are in appropriate.
This section clearly violates the BLP principle. If someone has some additional criticism of substance, sure bring it. But let's lose the pointless name calling. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- How can criticising someone's hypocrisy based on solid facts(like launching a crusade against illegal immigrants while being one herself) be name calling? To comply with NPV, one has to present all point of views in a BLP. This article clearly has an undue weight, as a result of frequent removal of any criticism by fan editors and heaping praise on the subject.
- Also just stating the opinion of a highly respected source like Economist magazine is not name calling.BLP of well known public figures clearly state :
- If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out Suigeneris (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. After further research,I have replaced the terms "fraud" and "hypocrisy" with "inconsistency" in order to better balance this article. The inappropriate word "fraud" highly charged. Under U.S. law, "fraud" is a criminal felony; simply lying on an application seeking asylum hardly qualifies. Also "inconsistency" is a more neutral term than highly charged word "hypocrisy". Furthermore, neither of these terms appears in the reliably sourced article in the U.K. Guardian.
The other source, which calls her a "fraud", is not a reliable published source; it is an activist website of the UK Muslim Public Affairs council, which has as its principle purpose "to defend Muslim interests and Islam". Note on its website that its enemies are routinely skewered with epithets such as "Islamophobe" and the site even misspells the word "Opression" (sic).
Because this source is not reliable, it fails the high bar set for source inclusion in articles about living persons. See WP:BLP which states:
Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Furthermore, this source fails the test for reliability. See WP:QS which cautions against using such sources:
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Freedom Fan, are you a big fan of freedom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.148.36 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." - sounds like it would exclude most editorial pages, many tv discussions and all manner of polemical writing. Editorials and rouser pieces aren't written the way they perhaps used to be. When the article is about someone who is acknowledged to be very controversial, and who's made her name through controversy, it's really problematic to rule out sourcing for statements - not for agreeing with those views! - from any site or any publication that could be called "extremist" in some respect. With the right bigot mentality, almost anything can be called extremist!
- She's not controversial only with muslims, actually. /Strausszek (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Dubious tag should be removed
There is a single dubious - discuss tag in the article, in the section on Social and political views > Muhammad, and the tag should be dealt with and removed. At the moment the tag marks a run-on from a quote, and it is not clear whether the unquoted statement can be attributed to Hirst Ali or not. If Hirsi Ali actually ever gave reasons for her statement on perversion, those reasons should be quoted, or paraphrased and explicitly attributed to her. Anything else is speculation as to her reasons for her statement, which I think has to be classified as original research, and therefore removed from the article. On the other hand, if someone else of repute has attributed those reasons to her statement (even if she didn't), that could be referred to. Another possibility is that she did use those reasons for her statement but the facts of what she said (for example the ages) are not consistent with the views of most religious scholars, in which case this inconsistency/controversy should be stated (and the reasons attributed to her explicitly, as I already said). If she didn't say this at all (the presently unquoted text), and the statement about Muhammad (for example the ages) are not consistent with the views of most religious scholars, the rest of the sentence after her quote should be removed immediately since it would be non-factual and POV. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I found the article in question, and she does not say exactly that, but it is close. http://www.trouw.nl/achtergrond/Dossiers/article1431856.ece Article is in Dutch, the translated text goes as follows: "And worse still: he fell in love with Aisha, the nine-year-old daughter of his best friend. Her father said: 'Please wait until she reaches puberty,' but Mohammed didn't want to wait that long. He gets a message from Allah that Aisha has to be prepared for him. That is apparently the teachings of Mohammed: It is permissible to be with the child of your best friend. Mohammed is measured by our Western standards as a perverse man." Buhgoil (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
kid's is slang
The last paragraph in the section on Social and political views > Circumcision is sloppy and needs to be written. It has problems with tense, grammar, and use of slang. Since the article is semi-locked I can't make any changes to the article myself, so could someone else fix it? 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
TIME award
The article lists "100 Most Influential Persons of the World" as an "award".[ http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2005/time100/leaders/100ali.html] But that list only notes notable persons, not great ones, and as such it also lists Al-Qaeda's Zarqawi. The TIME's list can hardly be considered an award.Bless sins (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Capital City Clarification
Change #1: Section: Biography - Youth (The implied reference nation is still Somalia. One might think the the article states that Nairobi is the capital of Somalia)
{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "They settled in the capital, Nairobi" to "They settled in the capital of Kenya, Nairobi"
The context of the sentence is still Somalia, so it is insufficient to state only that they settled in the capitol when the city specified is Nairobi (because the capitol of the nation in context is Mogadishu). The context change must be stated explicitly.
- Changed it to "They settled in Nairobi, Kenya," as I think it sounds better, and the fact that it is the capitol adds nothing relevant. —Jomasecu (t•c) 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
External links
In order to clean up the external links with this article, I suggest to remove all links except these three:
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the battle against the radical Islam, personal weblog
- The AHA Foundation, organization fighting the abuses of women's rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali, profile at the American Enterprise Institute
Rubenescio (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed all other external links and removed the clean up template. Rubenescio (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is "chameleon" a criticism?
"In its critique of Ali's autobiography, The Economist called her a "chameleon of a woman", referring to her "talent for reinvention"."
Having a chameleon quality is not necessarily a criticism. --Roastporkbun (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, but because the thrust of what she says ties in so heavily with her coming from a Muslim background (a very backward one too, and one that most westerners who follow the news identify with militancy/terrorism and sharia law barbarism) and she is defined in the media by that very background - if a white, christian male had been saying the same things in the same uncompromising, hectoring voice, it would have been dismissed as neo-conservative and likely colonial put-downs - the point that she has changed her outlook and thinking, several times, carries some negative weight. Plus, the words could hint on a view that she tailors her main talking points to the audience at a given time. She has been accused sometimes of being scripted, and Infidel actually was produced with the help of a co-author./Strausszek (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ayaan's next book will not be "Short Cuts to Enlightenment." It is called "Nomad" (1439157316) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.242.194 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think her remarks in an interview a month after she left the Netherlands that she had "privately" not been at ease with the zero-tolerance stance of Verdonk's cabinet against immigrants and muslims, those remarks smack of opportunism and weaseling. With a politician, what counts is what you do and submit in public and during the processes of decision-making, and Ayaan was very much a spokesman and symbol of the repelment of immigrants and the efforts to brand muslims as un-Dutch. As an (ex-)Muslim herself, she could voice talking points that would have cost others too much goodwill. If she had second thoughts about the efforts to push out clandestine and paperless immigrants and (implicitly, because of the Dublin/Schengen treaties) force them to return to the Middle East or Africa, she should have told Verdonk or told journalists, and if she didn't then those second thoughts are null and void and do not count in judging her political career. My personal opinion, of course, but it's shared by many people.Strausszek (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Semiprotection review
- 18:16, 31 January 2008 AzaToth changed protection level for "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" (target of a blocked sockpuppeteer )
As over 18 months have passed, and the article was removed from the BLP watchlist by BLPWatchBot back in September, I'm reviewing whether semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming the opinions of regular editors, I've contacted the protecting admin, AzaToth. --TS 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it was just removed from the watchlist, I would agree we can lift the protection, though if the sock decides to return, we'll need to protect it again (unless we can get flagged revs up and running first :)) →AzaToth 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we unprotect I'll be watching vigilantly and will revert any problematic edits, and ask a sysop to restore protection if necessary. --TS 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- unprotected. →AzaToth 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we unprotect I'll be watching vigilantly and will revert any problematic edits, and ask a sysop to restore protection if necessary. --TS 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
NPOV - December 2009: "Awards"
Most of the awards mentioned in the intro are from anti-Muslim small organizations in Norway and Denmark. If necessery I can provide evidence. --Walk&Talk (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, and indicated that the Swedish liberal party, when they gave her an award, were obviously highlighting their own positions on immigration and assimilation by giving a plaque to a hero of theirs. Dansk Folkeparti and the current Danish government see her as an ally too. It should be made clear that those awards represent a manner of political horsetrading. Strausszek (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- This section here was probably written to give some justification behind the placing the NPOV tag to the article, the tag which was introduced to the article at the same day by Walk&Talk. I would like to more clearly understand what is actually the statement in conflict to Neutral point of view. I can guess that by pointing to that the awards were given by reportedly minor or anti-Muslim organization, it is probably argued that the "awards" does not deserve to be mentioned in chapter "awards" (and should be removed or differently labeled). Is it so? Or what actually is the objection? Any suggestion to the action which should be done? Please if possible verbalize it somehow that it could be solved, (if possible and if agreed by others of course) Reo | +++ 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those awards were essentially publicity stunts intended to highlight the policies on immigration and "culture conflict" relating to the West vs Muslims; talking points which the awarding parties share with Hirsi Ali. That's a not quite uncommon function of prizes and honorifics of this kind (you could say Obama's Nobel Peace prize had some of the same flavour: it was a way of sending a message and trying to highlight both Obama and a certain outlook on international relations, I'm saying that although I strongly support him, and so did many established journalists and writers who are also sympathetic to him).
- The parties that awarded those "freedom prizes" to AHA are generally small, though established in their national parliaments, and in the past decade they have consistently emphasized the contrariness of "muslim culture" to the West, to Democracy and Security, just like Hirsi Ali. They are right-wing, sometimes ultra right-wing, and the "protection against muslims" and "place proper demands on muslims, so they don't become terrorists or leechers on public money" thing is a keystone of their agenda, though obviously they would not overtly label themselves as combative against muslims in general. I can vouch for this, I live in Sweden and have been following the political scene here and in the countries next door for a long time, more than twenty years. So, those prizes, in my opinion and that of mainstream opinion here, were means of self-publicizing and of using Ayaan's supposed 'struggle against muslims and against PC thinking' as a mirror for their own efforts to rally people around a culture war against "muslim terrorism" or islamofascism, as Norman Podhoretz and others have called it.
- I'm okay with mentioning those awards but it should be pointed out - as it is now for the Swedish award; that's my wording in the text at present - that they are heavily politically weighted. That much is obvious to anyone living in the countries concerned who doesn't have a big hood to wall off their eyesight.
- AHA herself has received generally very favourable comment in the mainstream media in Sweden and Denmark. In mainstream terms, she's as admired here as in the Netherlands or in Britain, I would say, though there's been widespread resistance to the most blunt of her statements on what muslims are and what they do, her way of rolling all muslims into the same blanket unless they somehow confess or convert to a strict, western liberal outlook and lifestyle. That's hardly the first priority if one is grappling with the big and small conflicts of life in a refugee camp or a city like Beyrouth, Nairobi or Rawalpindi. Her'person - her life story - is more admired than the full range of her politics, though some influential mainstream papers and politicians will conflate the two of course and hold Ayaan up as her own No.1 example of the cultural/political/religious rift she is talking about. Strausszek (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You very much for that long response and action. (And well, I do agree with the move of the ChildofMidnight as well). That is in my opinion very much needed to put the article forward. I understand your position. Now there is not already the nead to talk much about it (when it is probably resolved), so I only conclude, that I dont like, when people put the POV header to article without rationalle, or with such an minimal one, that none is bold enaugh to guess how to work upon improvements. (actually that might be often intended by the one brought the POVtag). So the NPOV warning can endure at the TOP of the article for very long time and make an impression upon the readers.
- As with the AHA, I admire her too. Why flying through Paris I bought there her book Infidel. In light of that book, in light of what she had lived through - it makes pretty good sense everything what she says and everything what she does. As with potentiall criticism of some traits of muslim culture of the imigrants - we are in need of mature discussion without hate or prejudices on one side or the wish based apologetics on the other side. Unfortunatelly, most recent critics/debaters have some hidden agenda behind as the main aim, and do not help to solve it or help. AHA when critisizing is genuine. That is the uniqe feature. Reo | +++ 01:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Question/s by Hirsi Ali and Wilders - which questions?
Under "Public Statements" one can read:
"In 2003 Hirsi Ali worked together with fellow VVD MP Geert Wilders for several months. They questioned the government about immigration policy. In reaction to the UNDP Arab Human Development Report Hirsi Ali asked the following question of Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and the Minister without Portfolio for Development Cooperation Agnes van Ardenne. Together with parliamentarian Geert Wilders she asked the government to pay attention to the consequences for Dutch policy concerning the limitation of immigration from the Arab world to Europe, and in particular The Netherlands."
Obviously something's been lost here between edits by different people. We never get to hear what questions or criticisms Hirsi Ali and Wilders put, nor if it's the same hearing as the one referred to with the two ministers, Scheffer and van Ardenne. Is all of this section about one event, when they urged the cabinet to pay attention to the immigration of muslims (as at the end of the quoted pasage)? Could be, but there's no certainty and anyway all of this should be sourced. Strausszek (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories:- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- Old requests for Biography peer review
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Netherlands articles
- All WikiProject Netherlands pages
- B-Class Atheism articles
- Low-importance Atheism articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists