Talk:WikiIslam

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit Request Hello, I would like to request a small but important clarification in the description of Wikislam. The current article refers to the site as “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.” I suggest replacing “anti-Muslim” with “critical of Islamic doctrine” or simply “anti-Islam.” This is because the site critiques Islamic theology and scripture (Qur’an and Sahih Hadiths), but does not promote hatred or persecution of Muslims as individuals or groups. The current wording could imply that the site incites hostility toward Muslims, which does not accurately reflect its content. The articles on WikiIslam focus on theological, cultural, and social critiques. While these critiques are often polemical, they do not include explicit calls for violence, harassment, or dehumanization of Muslims. For the sake of neutrality, I recommend using language that distinguishes criticism of religious ideas from animus toward religious adherents. I come from a Muslim background and have personally engaged with the sources cited by WikiIslam. I admit, as a Muslim, that their critique of Islam is in many cases more textually honest about controversial subjects than many Islamic scholars. Their arguments are based on mainstream sources and are scholarly in nature — not irrational rants against Muslims. As long as a site does not: 1) Essentialize all Muslims (e.g., “all Muslims are violent”), 2) Deny Muslim individuality or diversity, 3) Dehumanize Muslims, 4) Encourage violence or discrimination against Muslims, then labeling it “anti-Muslim” may be misleading. Moreover, WikiIslam does not cite only negative material. While its primary focus is critical, the site often includes positive verses, hadiths, and interpretations as well. This imbalance is understandable — the site is polemical, not apologetic. Just as apologetic websites emphasize the positives, WikiIslam emphasizes the negatives. That alone should not warrant the “anti-Muslim” label. Thank you!

Johan Liebert 0123 (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Johan Liebert 0123, please do not post LLM-generated comments (from an AI chatbot or other tool) on Wikipedia, especially without proper disclosure. LLM-generated edit requests can be summarily rejected. You are welcome to write an edit request in your own words. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding my reasoning behind my recent rewrite of the lede, to make sure my thinking is transparent. My main goal was to better align the intro with WP:NPOV by incorporating the most up-to-date reliable sources, specifically the 2023 Kozaric & Brekke study. This new source adds critical nuance that the old lede was missing. While earlier scholarship characterized the site as "anti-Muslim", which is still noted. The 2023 study analyzes the site's post-revision state. It cautions against labeling the entire site as simply "Islamophobic" (Direct quote: "Still, it would be wrong to claim that WikiIslam in its entirety is an Islamophobic platform, given that some of the articles do indeed present conflicting views and interpretations of controversial issues, while others simply criticize Islamic beliefs and practices through comparison with contemporary scientific knowledge.") and instead introduces the concept of the "scientification of Islamophobia." Because this new analysis directly addresses the site's recent changes, it was important to move from a simple Wikivoice to one that attributes the characterizations to scholars and accurately summarizes this more current, nuanced view. This version now tells a more complete story that is faithful to the evolution of the scholarship on this topic.

Pinging @User:Snuish2

Rackaballa (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes in Special:Diff/1304804696, as they give undue weight to Kozaric (2023) when the article cites many other academic publications. Per WP:BRD, please do not force your changes into the article after they have been disputed by another editor. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to follow up on Newslinger's revert and provide analysis of the problems with your revision, which was not aligned with Wikipedia policies. Your change from "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki" to "has been characterized by scholars as" inappropriately treats established academic consensus as something we should merely attribute, violating WP:NPOV by suggesting this is just one opinion among others.

Regarding the 2023 Kozaric & Brekke study, you emphasized their statement about not labeling the "entire" site Islamophobic while minimizing their critical conclusions: that WikiIslam is "far from neutral," is "used to give legitimacy to arguments made on other websites, many of which contain Islamophobic messaging," and their main concern that it "presents itself as an encyclopedic and scientific site without a political agenda." The "scientification of Islamophobia" concept you highlighted is actually their criticism of how harmful content gains legitimacy, not validation of WikiIslam's approach. You also deleted critical material, including, for example, how the study noted the lack of material that presents Muslims "in a positive or neutral way" despite the website portraying itself as neutral.

The new "Content" and "Traffic and Impact" sections you added read like promotional material rather than neutral encyclopedia content (clear WP:PROMO violation). They're framed and emphasized in ways that serve to legitimize the site, i.e., legitimacy through popular usage and scholarly appearance via its references, rather than neutrally documenting what sources actually say about the site's content and impact. For example, the 2023 study noted WikiIslam's use of references but also noted that it is to some extent "selective in choice of references."

Finally, splitting the reception section into "Initial Analysis" vs "Post-Revision Analysis" creates a false narrative suggesting scholarly assessment fundamentally changed after 2020, when the 2023 study remains highly critical (potential WP:SYNTH). This frames the article around WikiIslam's own reform narrative rather than the actual continuity of scholarly criticism.

The revision systematically cherry-picks supportive elements while minimizing criticism, gives undue weight to the site's reform claims, and shifts focus from documenting scholarly criticism to rehabilitating the website's reputation. Snuish (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)