Anti-Muslim/Islam bias on Wikipedia- You can do something about it!

Hmm Im not gonna do that for the simple fact I dont like lying

format_quote Originally Posted by kahmed

There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand.

Oh come on. This is needless paranoia. Muslims do get short shrift some times but mainly because their English is too poor and their rage too strong to make a case for what they want. Be yourself. Be open about what you think is wrong. Make whatever changes you like. But be prepared to defend them. If you can't then it doesn't matter what your ID is.

So please..Participate. Think of it as an alternative to playing a video game. A real life RTS game with actual implications.

It can be corrected.

By all means, take part and correct article if you like.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah

Hmm Im not gonna do that for the simple fact I dont like lying

I have to agree. Lying is wrong and it is far better that we be have bad things said about us, while we are truthfull, then for us to have good things said because we deceive.

This is the paragraph in the OP I feel is wrong.

"There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand"

That is not being tactfull, that is deceit.

A better more honest approach would be to edit with our true identity. Post the edit in a truthfull manner.

Using a falsehood to say the truth, is still a lie. In my opinion. Astragfirullah

format_quote Originally Posted by kahmed

Please don't allow the deliberate spread of misinformation to go unanswered.

Bugger that,forget about a website spreading lies,..who is going to stop all the muslims out there that continously twist the words of Allah s.w.t ?

At the end of the day,we need to fix our OWN people before we expect the rest of the world to smarten up.

wa'salaam

Yea man think about it, if words spreads that Muslims tried to change it but then were banned

Then a honest truth seeker would try find out why and would inevitebly see something was wrong with what happend, and would delve into the truth more.

But if you lie and that comes out.

A non-muslim would be like, some muslims used fake names to try change some information, hmm, and then would check the info and see a bad side and put it together with the fact the muslim lied.

Personally, I dont see how one can propugate the message that the Truth is Here and Falsehood shall perish.

Through lieing, in this manner.

This is silly. An ID isn't a name, and virtually nobody uses their own name as their ID. You can choose "Banana Split". The only reason I suggest an ID that's not obviously Islamic is because obviously Muslims ARE targets for bans by some admins. As I said, I know this first hand. Exposing your religious identity has never been a requirement on Wikipedia, and as such choosing a non-muslim-related ID is not deception at all.

Beyond that, I'm certainly not asking anyone here to be dishonest in their editing. Wikipedia has its sets of rules and guidelines regarding verifiability of information, citations, and what not. The existence of rules doesnt guarantee their enforcement though. Cited, verified corrections get deleted only because they imply something positive of the Muslim perspective.Uncited personal opinions remain because they reflect a negative image of Muslims. Here's the kind of disinformation being spread: that Muhammad was a pedophile, that the Qur'an is anti-semetic because it describes Abraham and a Muslim and that he was not a Jew, that in Islam it is permissible to rape one's slave (yes, the word rape is used). I'm not asking anyone to take part in deception, I'm asking them to set the record straight. The "Dhimmi" article makes no mention of the freedoms and rights Jews enjoyed, particularly relative to their experiences in Europe. It only portrays them as victims to Muslim victimization. If you have any knowlege and if you can write, use your ability, in your spare time, to correct such misinformation. Don't lie. Don't portray yourself as a one-sided biased editor. Use sources.

Now my response to your responses.

IsaAbdullah and Woodrow, you play your holier than thou card and insist on playing it light when it comes to the actions of people you haven't even observed yet. You had no reservations in assuming that I was encouraging you to lie, and that I was encouraging you to spread lies on Wikipedia.

SirZubair, can one not assume responsibility for the actions of his own people while protecting them from attackers at the same time? I'm a vocal activist against Islamists and exploitation of Muslims from within. I'm a vocal critic of the so-called Islamic countries. Why do you assume that one who speaks up against a non-muslim aggressor is automatically defensive when it comes to the offenses within? What makes you think one problem needs to be tackled before the other?

HeiGou, make the effort to understand the situation before commenting. It's easy enough to click a link. Go there are read first, then respond back to me. On Wikipedia, numbers matter. Consensus matters. The majority of editors on Islamic and Muslim-related topics are Americans and Jews (not that I have anything against Jews, they identify themselves as that on their pages).


Don't give me your holier than thou "its better to be persecuted than to be dishonest". Muslims are being subject to persecution in this country for no other reason than that so-called Muslims such as yourself refuse to stand up for anything. A silent minority that takes whatever treatment is given to them. The best response to a bully is always to fight back. Sit back and take it, and the bully recognizes that you're a target he can continually harrass without ever being held responsible. What persecution Muslims face, be it as subject to foreigners or from Islamists within, is MUCH to be blamed on the apathy of Muslims such as yourselves. It's clear none of you tried to read what's actually on Wikipedia before responding to me. You took the easy route of assuming that I want you to 'decieve' and 'lie'.

format_quote Originally Posted by kahmed

This is silly. An ID isn't a name. You can choose "Banana Split". The only reason I suggest an ID that's not obviously Islamic is because Muslims ARE targets for bans by some admins. As I said, I know this first hand.

I some how doubt that, but what does it matter? Think anyone will be fooled for long?

Beyond that, I'm certainly not asking anyone here to be dishonest in their editing. Here's the kind of disinformation being spread: that Muhammad was a pedophile,

Where does it say that? What I can find this is,

Family life

Main article: Muhammad's marriages

From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only one wife, Khadijah. After her death, he married Sawda bint Zama and Aisha (which marriage came first is disputed), then Hafsa. Later he was to marry more wives, for a total of eleven (nine or ten living at the time of his death). (The status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is also disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife.)

Muhammad had children by only two of these unions. Khadijah is said to have born him four daughters and a son; only one daughter, Fatima, survived her father. Shi'a Muslims dispute the number of Muhammad's children, claiming that he had only one daughter, and that the other "daughters" were step-daughters. Maria al-Qibtiyya bore him a son, but the child died when he was ten months old.

Muhammad's marriages have been the subject of much criticism. Some consider it wrong that he had more wives than the four generally allowed by the Qur'an (although one Quranic verse makes an exception for Muhammad). They question the circumstances of some of his marriages, such as his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adopted son's ex-wife, who according to hadith was nine years old when the marriage was consummated.

That sounds eminently reasonable to me and I think it contains nothing a Muslim would find objectionable - look I am even prepared to post it where it will get me a ban. Am I wrong? I don't see the "p" word at any rate.

that the Qur'an is anti-semetic because it describes Abraham and a Muslim and that he was not a Jew,

Well I can't find that but what is the objection? It does describe Abraham. It does claim he was a Muslim. It does claim he was not a Jew. You don't think Jews have a right to be offended by that claim? Who is to judge the insult apart from the person on the other end?

that in Islam it is permissible to rape one's slave (yes, the word rape is used).

Well there is an obvious response but I'll pass.

The "Dhimmi" article makes no mention of the freedoms and rights Jews enjoyed, particularly relative to their experiences in Europe.

What do you think is missing from that article?

"IsaAbdullah and Woodrow, you play your holier than thou card and insist on playing it light when it comes to the actions of people you haven't even observed yet. You had no reservations in assuming that I was encouraging you to lie, and that I was encouraging you to spread lies on Wikipedia."

I have no doubt that your intentions are good. Perhaps it is in the manner they were presented. This is what I took issue with:

"There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand"

I may be misunderstanding, but does that not sound like you were requesting us to evade something? Looking at your later post, I doubt now that was your intent. Perhaps, because of our age differences we perceive words differently.

Well wikepedia, is not much of a scholarly site. One must have to be literally dum, to take wikpedia as a seriouse source. If I reference wikpedia in my essay I will probably end up getting a lower score than normal.

Some of this article, do however do show the much of the author's own opinion by circumventing it by using constant quote's from other people's statement. Which is not much scholarly in the first place.

format_quote Originally Posted by kahmed

Skill, the majority of Americans thought Saddam was directly responsible for 911, up through 2005. Most can't locate India on a world map. Do you think they'd have qualms using Wikipedia as if it were a real encyclopedia? Most Americans think Fox News is a reliable source of news. Wikipedia is free, it's popular. The fact that it's not credible doesn't make much of a difference. Media is a powerful means of controlling public opinion, and it's the weapon of choice of those who'd love to curtail our rights. American Muslims in particular should feel ashamed that they chose to do nothing to shift public opinion away from supporting this war. The American Muslim is an embarrasment. To Islam, to the Ummah, to God.

Anyway, I just came looking to see if my post got any more responses. Apparently this board is populated by the Daniel-Pipes-approved variety of Muslims. I want nothing to do with you people...Adios.

Perhaps if you have the perseverence and strength to stick around, we could all learn from you. Please keep in mind many of us here are recent reverts to Islam and there are also quite a few non-Muslims seeking to learn more about us.

You probably have much to offer. Perhaps all of us may not agree with you, but we are willing to listen and if we disagree it can be with respect.