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

[wilberhum]

I find it strange many say how bad Wikipedia is but when you ask for an example no one ever responds.

 

[Immunity]

I find it strange many say how bad Wikipedia is but when you ask for an example no one ever responds.

The OP posted a link. I find it strange that you cant read from it.

 

[wilberhum]

Immunity
I did read. So please point out where Wikipedia is wrong and say what would be correct. Otherwise I just see empty complaints.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Actually, the fact that wikipedia is not a good source on Islam isn't disputed - several of their articles are headed with warnings that the neutrality and factuality of the article is disputed, such as the one on anti-semitism, politics, islamism, science, etc.
Meanwhile, others request a complete re-write or attention from experts, such as the article on jurisprudence, "islamic extremist terrorism", or women in islam.

The latter is a perfect example of the massive distortions as the majority of the article is devoted to domestic violence, war captives and honor killings, as if this is somehow a good representation of Islam's teachings on women! And it gets worse - if you say anything that reflects positively on Islam in even the slightest way, they remove your edition and claim that it wasn't 'neutral'; I tried to fix up their articles a long time ago, but they didn't allow it. And so their articles on Islam will never improve because they are governed by bigots who have no education in Islamic teahcings, while those who do are silenced. They give the most attention not to the central issues of Islam, but to whatever the latest anti-islamic allegations are in the west. So it is not so simple as just "go edit it" if there is a problem in the article - your edition must be approved by a hundred ignorant bigots in order to survive.

 

[Syed Nizam]

[BANANA]Way to go, bro Ansar[/BANANA]

 

[syilla]

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.

oh i never know that.

Next time I won't put wikpedia ref. Don't want to get low score.

 

[north_malaysian]

oh i never know that.

Next time I won't put wikpedia ref. Don't want to get low score.

The reason why I dont like wikipedia .. because it can be edited by like everyone.

I could even write an article like "Germany is the World Cup 2006 winner" in wikipedia.

 

[HeiGou]

Actually, the fact that wikipedia is not a good source on Islam isn't disputed - several of their articles are headed with warnings that the neutrality and factuality of the article is disputed, such as the one on anti-semitism, politics, islamism, science, etc.
Meanwhile, others request a complete re-write or attention from experts, such as the article on jurisprudence, "islamic extremist terrorism", or women in islam.

Well it is a little more complex than that. Anyone can add a tag saying that the neutrality and factuality of an article is disputed. In effect what that means is not that the article is not a good source, but that the contents are disputed among editors. In this case it is likely that the dispute is between Muslims who want to give an article an acceptable spin and people who do not like what the Muslims have to say. Wikipedia has some angry Dhimmis.

The complete re-write is usually a sign that someone whose first language is not English (or even second) has written the article.

The latter is a perfect example of the massive distortions as the majority of the article is devoted to domestic violence, war captives and honor killings, as if this is somehow a good representation of Islam's teachings on women!

Well they are the ones that catch the attention of Western editors.

And it gets worse - if you say anything that reflects positively on Islam in even the slightest way, they remove your edition and claim that it wasn't 'neutral'; I tried to fix up their articles a long time ago, but they didn't allow it. And so their articles on Islam will never improve because they are governed by bigots who have no education in Islamic teahcings, while those who do are silenced.

I am sorry you stopped trying. There is usually a process where articles get reverted - after all anyone can make a change - and then the process is argued about on the talk page. If no consensus is reached usually people appeal to the administrators. So articles do improve, even ones that are hotly contested, over time.

They give the most attention not to the central issues of Islam, but to whatever the latest anti-islamic allegations are in the west. So it is not so simple as just "go edit it" if there is a problem in the article - your edition must be approved by a hundred ignorant bigots in order to survive.

Well it is true that whatever is reflected in the Western press tends to catch the eye of Western editors. But the solution to that is more Muslims doing more editing. Your edit has to convince a few dozen people and you have to be able to defend your claims with sources. It is simply a struggle by the most bigoted although obviously a few of them end up that way if one side gives up or refuses to make a sensible case.

 

[Hijrah]

I have a problem with all EXTREMIST muslims, by extremists I don't just man unnecessariy violent, I also don't like the modernists and apologists..we have to be dead honet on some things...For example, it is compulsory for women to expose no more than their face and hands. It is compulsory that a man does not shave the beard etc. etc. Some muslims are so pathetic to avoid the fact it is true and try to fit in with the kuffar..

As far as sites like these the bias is blatant but I wouldn't bother, when someone comes up to me and asks me, they usually understand. An example is the matter of apostasy. They quote the hadiths where it says to kill apostates, disregard 4:89-90 where it says to leave the peaceful apostate alone but when it comes to the matter of apostasy in Christianity they disregard that in the Bible it says to kill the apostate and the blasphemer..I really couldn't believe it when I read it but from there on I knew the bias was blatant...

 

[Bittersteel]

fortunately wikipedia isn't used for info on Islam and its rejected by most people I know.everyone knows it can be edited.

 

[HeiGou]

I have a problem with all EXTREMIST muslims, by extremists I don't just man unnecessariy violent, I also don't like the modernists and apologists..we have to be dead honet on some things...For example, it is compulsory for women to expose no more than their face and hands. It is compulsory that a man does not shave the beard etc. etc. Some muslims are so pathetic to avoid the fact it is true and try to fit in with the kuffar..

I have a problem with Muslims who think it is worse for a woman to show a strand of hair than for a young man to blow up 52 people in London. If you all put one hundredth of the energy into doing something about terrorism that you do into hijab the world would be a lot safer.

As far as sites like these the bias is blatant but I wouldn't bother, when someone comes up to me and asks me, they usually understand. An example is the matter of apostasy. They quote the hadiths where it says to kill apostates, disregard 4:89-90 where it says to leave the peaceful apostate alone but when it comes to the matter of apostasy in Christianity they disregard that in the Bible it says to kill the apostate and the blasphemer..I really couldn't believe it when I read it but from there on I knew the bias was blatant...

I think Ansar al-Adl has provided some pretty good evidence that the apostate should be killed. I expect that there is a page on Christianity and apostacy. Have you looked? When was the last European killed for apostacy?

 

[Hijrah]

I have a problem with Muslims who think it is worse for a woman to show a strand of hair than for a young man to blow up 52 people in London. If you all put one hundredth of the energy into doing something about terrorism that you do into hijab the world would be a lot safer.



I think Ansar al-Adl has provided some pretty good evidence that the apostate should be killed. I expect that there is a page on Christianity and apostacy. Have you looked? When was the last European killed for apostacy?

I don't think you read my post clearly, sorry stupid answer, I never said I supported a suicide bomber killing innocent people, that's why I said NOT JUST UNNECESSARILY VIOLENT, I never said one was verse than the other, I'm all about modest Islam

i think I'll post a thread later about it, in Islam it's debatable some scholars disagree...but in christianity apostasy is def. punishable by death...Christians punished apostates as well before Church and State were separated...andI'm not even gonna bother responding to things u see on the news..i read Ansars posts clearly, he had a good explanation of how stupid it is for the West to interer with tha Afghan beig killed yet ignore other atrocities they are committing...