Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pundit.svg

This Political pundits related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png


Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Stop trying to make her look more reasonable than she is[edit]

Seriously she's sympathized with parts of Ander Breiviks manifesto and believes we are literally at war with Islam. She may occasionally make good points but she is not reasonable on the subject of Islam by any stretch of the imagination and there are plenty of more reasonable critics of Islam. ClothCoat (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop injecting your personal feelings against her into the article. She is very consistent and reasonable, she explains her points well, her ideas are given a lot of credence by many respected persons. I've read all of her books and followed her doings for many years. I'd go with my edits over yours, as I've been here at Rationalwiki since it's inception, and have many years of uncontested, useful edits or a very reasonable and rational nature. On the other hand, your edits are suspect because you often inject articles with your own personal feelings against someone, feelings which are largely not held by others nor backed up by facts. Case in point, your prior removal of information about her family life, marriage and child, for no reason other than your dislike for her and refusal to treat her like a human being who has a personal life just like everyone else. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not considered an "islamaphobic" (non-standard) by people in the mainstream media, or in business and political circles. She also has many family members who are still devout followers of Islam, virtually her entire family, and she respects their beliefs and follows the customs when visiting her country of birth (Somalia) and other Muslim-majority areas of the world. The constant edits you make are from your personal bias, as is this one, as usual. I've left categories and comments on the page that I don't believe are totally valid, including your commentary, for the sake of compromise, but you need to chill out, and stop adding the same tired unsubstantiated category into this page. Refugeetalk page 20:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Way to have the most extreme interpretation of my actions as possible. I didn't remove refernces to her family because I hate the idea she's a "human" (WTF?) it was actually an editing mistake since I was undoing your edit that deleted MY edits, I was only trying to restore my edit I actually thought that part wqas still there. Now that you bring it up though that seems more like Wikipedia's area than Rationalwikis as its just general information but whatever I honestly don't care. And yes I can be snarky, as is this wikis point of view. You being here longer, er, means nothing to me I'll be honest. You have not actually refuted any claims that she is an "Islamophobe" (yeah it's a dumb name but I don't have a better one for "goes overboard on the Muslims").
"“Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?” Hirsi Ali replied bluntly: “No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”"
Your "she has many family members" argument is just... bad. ClothCoat (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit: Also you having a new paragraph about her family looked weird since we brought up her marriage earlier so it read kind of funny. ClothCoat (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with ClothCoat here. Ali's position on human rights abuses in countries using Islam as state law was perfectly valid and the vitriolic response to her was shameful. However, Ali's experience has blinded her (perhaps understandably) to castigate anything with Islam as immoral and an enemy that needs to be defeated at all costs. Her shameful apologetic-nature for Israel's war crimes (saying Netanyahu should be given the Nobel Peace Prize) is outright monstrous. For her to say that Israel was defending itself despite the fact that it is occupying someone's land, demolishing Palestinians' homes, humiliating and beating them at checkpoints/refugee camps, uses the Palestinian Authority as a lackey (South African puppet-like government) to control the Palestinians is just so far beyond the pale. Any legitimate resistance that couches itself in Islamic language to military occupation (which all resistance groups have a right to) is castigated as being representative of the clash of civilizations. Again, whatever you may think of Hamas, Israel's own leaders (Yuval Diskin, Ephraim Halevy, Israeli Terrorism Information Center, etc.) have said Hamas has respected cease-fires which Israel has broken repeatedly (trying to assassinate Khaleed Meshall in 1997, having Shimon Peres provocatively keep Israeli settlers in Hebron after the 1994 massacre, cross-border raids that broke the 2008 five-month cease-fire, rejecting the international consensus for resolving the conflict that Hamas has agreed to). Hamas, because of the political assassinations and lack of good-faith negotiations on Israel's part (removing the blockade which, as Wikileaks confirmed, was designed to punish people in Gaza as a tool for regime change), had to respond with rocket attacks whether you agree with their tactics or not. And to say that Israel, after enforcing a blockade, destroying the chicken-farms in 2008-09, destroying a powerplant, the green-houses that were still in place, shelling hospitals, killing hundreds of children and women, etc. is deserving of a Peace Prize? Ali has become a monster. Shame on her. Her liberal-esque appeal is couched in terms supportive of state terrorism, which is hardly liberal or reasonable at all, similar to other pro-Israel liberals like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Alan Dershowitz or people who can be said to be of the Bush variety who support the War on Terror
For more on Israel's human rights abuses and lack of abiding by the international consensus for resolving the IP conflict (164 countries in favor of two states on June 1967 borders while Israel, US, Canada and South Pacific islands are only countries voting against), see Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah", "Image and Reality" and "This Time We Went Too Far" {unsigned 198.7.241.85}
Well calm yourself down... this is merely a wiki page describing a person: Ayaan Hirsi Ali - an author, politician, refugee, atheist, former Muslim, a wife, daughter, mother, public speaker, and etc. You may or may not agree with her stance on politics and religion, you may not like what she says, but you are going waaaay overboard on all this 'shame on her' and 'she's a monster' comments and such, that's just ridiculous. She's not a 'monster', a killer, or anything similar, she's just an interesting person, with her own opinions, stated quite clearly and reasonably, that don't happen to match yours, and if anyone is fanatical, it's you, not Ms. Hirsi Ali. Leave your personal rantings off the page, and just allow people to simply be informed of who she is without all this crazy junk inserted into the article. People are capable of making up their own minds, and able to form their own opinions, and if anything, they are less likely to be 'persuaded' to your side by your hysterical ravings about her, and will be more likely to look into her opinions and actions by themselves. This wiki is not meant to push anyone's biased political points, we get it, you don't like her, but just leave your personal rants out of the article, it's not yours to define, and it's already become too one-sided.
Why is that overboard to describe someone as a monster who supported Israel's recent war that killed over 500 children? Am I going overboard when I say that a Islamist-activist defends the misogynistic practices of Islam as a state religion is a monster? If my arguments are personal rantings, then please dispute the points I raised other than going through a slew of ad-hominem attacks by describing it as "crazy junk". If my arguments are hysterical ravings, then please dispute them rather than castigate it as "biased" and "personally driven". I must have struck an unsettling chord in you because I introduced a reasonable (key word here) criticism of her position as a human rights activist rather than salivate over her, as you seem to do. Why can't we criticize political authors? Are some people off-limits? Because that seems to be what you're doing and you're no better than Islamic sympathizers who decry any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia. If anything, the only person who's espousing personal rants is you rather than argue the points I raised. If my points are not reasonable or fair, then debate them. Because all you did was type a paragraph without even addressing anything I said.
Of course, because you brought up a lot of things that have nothing to do with her personally. If you want to debate other subjects in detail, find the proper page. Seriously, chill out. Not everyone is going to agree with your opinions, that does not make them monsters. You are not the final judge of what is "right". Again, it's a simple page describing a public figure, not a place to rehash a lot of your personal biases. Refugeetalk page 18:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care what you guys are talking about but there are several quotes now (including the page quote) that prove Ayaan goes to extremes to oppose ALL Islam and Refugee you're the ONLY one talking about how she's a mother and so on nobody else here gives a shit we're mainly here to analyze her political career and viewpoints you're the only one dragging out her family to bizarrely dismiss everybody that seems to disagree with her. Could you at least refute the page quote where she's conspiracy theorizing about Islam in universities or my quote where she basically says we must defeat ALL Islam and that she thinks we're at war with Islam? To the BoN focus more on Ayaan not Israel don't go off topic please. ClothCoat (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey "ClothCoat" when you start your talk page comment with "I don't really care what you guys are talking about" then there is obviously no reason for you to comment, and it is beyond comprehension why you did so. 2. Don't use vulgar language towards me, if I haven't used it with you - which I haven't - it's offensive and shows your lack of manners. 3. It's ridiculous how you presume to know what everyone else thinks and then make a blanket statement on their behalf about what they care about. 4. No, I won't "refute the page quote" as you commanded - I will respond to the comments that I choose to give my attention to, and furthermore, it's annoying that you assume you have the right to instruct me on what to respond to. You've got to be kidding. This is a small wiki, with scattered articles on random topics, and while it was fun when I started here in 2007 (when it was created as a response to Conservapedia), it's been quite a while since I was very active here or had enough time to try to keep articles informative and unbiased. This page was a good starting point on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but it can go in whatever direction anyone likes, I don't really care. I am not the designated defender of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and I am not going to debate her opinions on politics or religion, or any subject for that matter. In conclusion, don't direct another remark to me, as I have absolutely no intention of replying to further comments from some random internet idiot. Refugeetalk page 04:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
To Refugee: you're not understanding what I'm saying. She is an author, and her comments are on subjects have nothing to do with her personally, but her stance on that specific subject. Pundits with political stances (whether it be Bill O'Reilly or Bill Maher) are fair game for criticism in RationalWiki when they make comments on subjects they are ill-informed of what they're saying. For example, criticizing Bill Maher for his stance on GMOs and anti-vaccine woo is not an attack on him, but a legitimate critique of his stances. Similarly, I don't know why I can't make criticisms of Hirsi Ali on Israel. Hirsi Ali is listed as a pundit, so to say that criticism of her on the basis of her support of Israel is very much on-topic. That is not a personal bias, but the very essence of criticism. The reason why I shared the information on Israel in relation to Hirsi Ali was answering the concern whether she was a reasonable person or a wingnut. And my point was, based on the evidence I accumulated concerning the IP conflict and her flawed stance on it, she is not as reasonable as one says she is. You can disagree with me, but you're going to have to find where I erred.
To Refugee. 1) I was trying to be polite and stay out of that discussion and instead focus on the original claim, that she's an "Islamophobe". 2) I wasn't aware I was speaking to a nun my apologies I won't do it again. 3) ? I was going by your actions. You constantly bring up her family and it was YOU who originally made extreme statements based on very minor actions, such as claiming I didn't think of her as a "human" because I deleted a second reference to her family. What am I supposed to think? 4) "I have evidence she is an Islamophobe" "NO SHE'S NOT YOU'RE JUST BIASED" "Well here's my evidence" "IT'S NOT MY JOB TO REFUTE YOUR EVIDENCE". How am I suppose to "win" this debate, exactly? Also Rationalwiki outright states it is not without "bias", it's just snarky and attacks obvious crackpots. I think this page IS fair to her, sometimes she makes good points and sometimes she goes too far. The BoN is correct in that not every criticism of her ideas is an attack against her. Your last part is just you insulting me and putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, I'm adding her to the category now since you haven't proved anything. And don't say you don't care you obviously do and your argument was pretty clearly that she is not an "Islamophobe", but then you just didn't do anything to prove it. ClothCoat (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The term "Islamophobia" is controversial, so well ... In any case, I don't see a lot of information/examples in the article right now, except for the quote at the top of the page (I removed the remark about Breivik, because I wasn't able to find the claim in the article in the source text, she just tried to explained some of his motives, which is always a valid thing to do) ... Perhaps you should first focus on making the article better, rather than fighting over what category belongs here (it's not that important) ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the quote at the top is enough to make my point anyways. Besides I have several quotes by her that she believes we are at war with ALL Islam (see above). ClothCoat (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Rand[edit]

Beautiful, intelligent young woman flees to safety in the Western world and warns people about the dangers of the oppressive ideology she escaped. Tolerant Western liberals react by screaming "SHUT UP YOU BITCH!" Am I talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ayn Rand? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between "SHUT UP YOU BITCH!" and "You're wrong, your ideology is wrong, and I will argue against you". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or support. It's not complete acceptance or the most extreme of vicious and cruel assaults. Nor does physical appearance or age have any real bearing on accuracy. Fictional hyperbolic examples also doesn't help. It's like more than one fallacy per sentence and I feel ashamed that anyone feels another human being is stupid enough to be swayed by this. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You're disgusting and every girl who is subjected to a clitorectomy by her family can thank people like you. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ayn Rand, beautiful?! StickySock (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, demeaning people based on their looks alone, classy. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me? You are the one claiming Rand was beautiful, I question that statement. She wasn't Quasimodo, but she wasn't exactly Mila Kunis either. You are the one implying that I'm demeaning her as a result. Sorry, but she was no beauty queen, and that has no bearing on the validity of her viewpoints. She's intelligent and well spoken, which helps, but she was such an unempathetic narcissist that she thought it was perfectly logical to fuck a married man (20 years younger than her, oddly) but threw a Trump sized hissy fit when he in turn cheated on her with someone his own age. Because in her twisted mind, only her opinion mattered and anyone that was attracted to anything other than "agrees with Ayn Rand" was basically the objectivist Satan. So yeah, uglier on the inside. StickySock (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't agree with you but your reply is intelligent, I'll grant you. I personally think Ayn was beautiful, both inside and out. Admittedly externally she was no Mia Kunis but I still think she had an icy prettiness. Nor do I think she was lacking in empathy as she was charitable herself and took in a Japanese family after WWII when racism against the Japanese was high. She may have been a narcissist but then I'd say it was justified. She asked her husband for permission to sleep with Nathaniel Branden and he (reluctantly) gave it. Nathaniel saw fit to pursue a third affair without asking or telling Ayn. I personally don't think she should have had an affair because she was giving in to whim-worship and therefore going against her own philosophy and she reaped the consequences. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Nobody outside of the US takes Ayn Rand seriously. And at the end of the life she was a bloody welfare queen. Way to stay true to your supposed convictions... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I live in the UK and I can assure you that there many of us here who take her very seriously and her influence is thankfully expanding. She accepted welfare when she had Cancer and she was perfectly willing to let herself die in the grip of the disease until a friend of hers pointed out that as she had been paying taxes her entire life, it was perfectly reasonable of her to accept some of her stolen cash back. I suppose next you'll point out that she once considered using a murderer as an inspiration for a character in a book she never finished writing or that she smoked which is very unhealthy and therefore anything she said must be wrong. When all else fails, you'll probably use that tiresome and clichéd Lord of the Rings quote. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, how is free will still a thing in our Utopian Progressive Postmodern society? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait I don't have free will if I don't believe in Ayn Rand's Bullpucky? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well actually yeah, due to being an individual with free will which was what she defended. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please learn to indent your posts.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I just mentioned Rand once and this talk page, despite being about the equally inspiring Ayaan Hirsi Ali and it seems that this entire talkpage has descended into Rand-bashing, I must have hit a raw nerve it seems. So I'll just leave you with this.

Argument with average Ayn Rand critic:

’’’Average Ayn Rand critic’’’: (Eric Cartman voice) Ahem.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Rand apologist: Well personally I’ve read Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged and enjoyed both of them. There are many successful people today who cite Ayn Rand as a personal inspiration and Atlas Shrugged is currently the world’s best-selling novel.
Rand critic: Er, Ayn Rand had an affair!
RA: With her husband’s permission.
RC: Uh-huh! She got all pissed when her lover had a third affair!
RA: Yes, without asking or telling her. Most Objectivists today agree that she shouldn’t really have had the affair, even with her husband’s permission as this was giving in to whim worship, thereby going against her own philosophy and of course she reaped the consequences of this, thereby showing the validity of Objectivism. Obviously it’s a work in progress. We all err in judgement sometimes and suffer the consequences. You just need to learn from your mistakes.
RC: Erm, Ayn Rand collected social security.
RA: Yes, when she was suffering from Cancer. A friend of hers pointed out that as Ayn had paid taxes all of her life, there was nothing wrong with accepting some of her stolen money back from the state. Until her friend pointed that out, Ayn was willing to let herself die in the grip of the disease.
RC: Er, Ayn Rand thought that the child-murderer William Edward Hickman was an ideal man.
RA: No, she called him a purposeless degenerate and planned on using him as the basis for the main protagonist in a book that she abandoned writing. She intended her hero to be a fictional representation of what Hickman could have been had he made the right choices.
RC: Er, Ayn Rand, er, was ugly and er looked like a man!
RA: Really? I think she was quite pretty. Besides, why are you demeaning a woman based on her looks? Isn’t that sexist by your definition?
RC: ERRRRRRR! The fact that you are standing up for Ayn Rand so passionately just shows that you are a childish person who needs to grow up!
RA: Not at all, I care about my friends and family and those who are of value to me.
RC: WELL AYN RAND WAS A BIG, MEAN OLD POOPY-HEAD AND SO ARE YOU FOR SUPPORTING HER!
RA: … Finished?
RC: STOP STRAW-MANNING ME!
RA: I don’t need to, you are a strawman.
RC: Whuh-whuh-whuh, There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy ...

--Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice Strawmanning. You also blatantly missed the point I brought up with her sleeping with the married man. She was a self absorbed narcissist who had no empathy for others. She thought it only logical that everyone would want to fuck her and only her because she's Ayn Rand, so it was perfectly logical for her to steal a married man away from his wife, and it was his wife that was being the unreasonable bitch here. When her new husband eventually cheated on her with a woman his own age, she basically had a meltdown and disowned him in spite of how "brilliant" she used to think he was, and was mentally incapable of having any sort of revelation about relationships or how his first wife felt. That's just one thing about Rand, and it shows up in her works. I mean seriously, Rearden and Kierkegagaard are supposed to just be happy that Rand is fucking Galt instead of them? And that's not getting into the rape in Fountainhead, where it's implied that an objectivist can force himself on whomever he wants because of the logic above. CorruptUser (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I rest my case. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you are arguing about Ayn Rand the person and not Ayn Rand's philosophy. Nearly everyone who has ever done anything important is a self absorbed bastard; that's why they do things in the first place. The people who don't do things at all are also self absorbed bastards but without the internal drive to do things. It's just human nature. Some are more self absorbed than others. In Rands case, she was definitely more self absorbed than most and created a philosophy to justify it. If you a point by point analysis of objectivism, well, take it to the objectivism page.
(FYI, I'm CU if you hadn't guessed) StickySock (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate place to be arguing about Ayn Rand?? Rottinginthemidwest (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ayaan & Anders[edit]

I see the support for Breivik bit was removed, and I agree about it being way too ambiguous to remain in its former guise. However, I considered adding a variant of it on the lines of this (the problem is whether it becomes overly long):
She has also, while condemning his neofascism, accepted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik's claim that he was driven to kill due to his Islamophobia being stifled in Norwegian public discourse.
REF: Conservative Think Tank Scholar Promotes Claim That Norway Terrorist Attacked Because He Was Censored, Think Progress (and specifically the embedded YouTube clip: AEI Scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali Gives Voice To Norwegian Anti-Muslim Terrorist's Justification). Even a sympathetic review on Freethought Blogs (Silence empowers the Neo-Nazis) supports this interpretation by buying into Ali's claim that "Decades of informal censorship in Europe have led not to the promised integration of Muslim immigrants but to a culture of evasion and avoidance which has allowed extremism – both Jihadism and neo-Nazism – to flourish amid a general impotence of the established parties." ENDREF

Here, Ali clearly accepts the bullshit being pushed by Breivik and other Islamophobes that there has been some sort of decade-long "conspiracy of silence" to exclude any criticism of Islam from public discourse. Having spent most of my thirty-odd years of life in Scandinavia, I can say that this is absolutely BS. Indeed, the (Norwegian) Progress Party has flourished by appealing to xenophobia primarily targeting Islam, as has the Danish People's Party (and before it the (Danish) Progress Party) since at least the mid-1990s.
My guess is that Ali conflates Islamophobia á la her own and Breivik's with "criticism of Islam" and if their arguments are rejected and not actively promoted by others, this constitutes "silencing". I'd actually argue that not since before the Enlightenment has Islam been criticised so much (and not without reason, mind you) as it was when Breivik started killing people and it still is today (very apropos of the recent Islamic terrorist shootings in Copenhagen, btw).
Furthermore, Ali's (and Breivik's) scapegoating of "the established parties" is essentially coded victim blaming, considering that most of Breivik's victims were members of the youth wing of one of the largest of these parties, the (Norwegian) Labour Party. This victim blaming is also an almost perfect mirror image of some Christian fundies who, while disavowing the Islamist ideology (duh) of the Charlie Hebdo mass murderers, still accepted the murderers' premise: That media shouldn't "provoke" or "insult" people's religious sentiments. The difference is that while Ali/Breivik think they're the victims of "informal censorship", the complaint against Charlie Hebdo is that it's not exercising "informal censorship". ScepticWombat (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your points as such are valid, but I'm not big on "she supports part of what Breivik supports!"-type of arguments. You can be a mass-murderer *and* still be correct on some issues. Indeed, you can even be a mass-murderer and be correct on *all* of your points... You point out Ayaan's bullshit without involving Anders. She did the same blah-blah about not being able to criticise Islam while in Dutch parliament, long before anyone knew who Breivik was... Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty big gap between saying that "informal censorship" is bad and absolving yourself of blame by rehashing Breivik's argument which essentially links this BS claim to the (Norwegian) Labour Party (along with the other "established parties") and thus strongly implying that they're ultimately responsible for the massacre. That crosses the line from mere association to endorsement of victim blaming. Considering the (I think wholly appropriate) indignation over Pope Francis' comments about insulting someone's mother and the Charlie Hebdo massacre, not to mention the outright victim blaming by William Donohue, I don't see why it's somehow less fitting to include Ali's appropriation of a mass murderer's justification. The rejections of the religious or political motives are also commonalities between Donohue and Ali.
It was of course not me who decided on "involving Anders", but Ali herself. Not to mention that she did it in an acceptance speech after having received a journalistic prize "for her courage and her commitment to freedom". She could easily have made the same points by using the example of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons instead, since the argument (or at least the loudest proclaimed one) for publishing those was also a worry over creeping "informal censorship", particularly self-censorship. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Mccarthy=Ayaan Hirsi Ali?[edit]

Okay, so there was a debate among intelligent people, some of whom thought communism could be reformed, and those who said that communism itself was a discredited ideology. To say we are against an ideology in principle and we are against all of it, is not insane or bigoted or mean spirited. If Islam is a flawed ideology in itself, and vast amounts of it advocate disgusting things. That is the case, so therefore one should be against all of Islam. That doesn't imply racism or hurting people. Other people have said the same here. Other people, get the fuck over yourself. Burkean (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest edits[edit]

They are true, and I don't see why we should not accept what her family says because it is "self-serving." Hirsi Ali is a documented liar several times over, and her version of events is also self-serving. So, what are the objections to the current version? It's true is near as I can tell, and the snark is good.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of it seems based on an episode from this Zembla TV program, though. A couple more sources to back up the claims from said TV program would be awesome. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Again, I don't like her political views. I find her apologetics for Israel and Henry Kissinger to be disgusting, and her stance on immigration to be far right/laced with xenophobia, but she did provide emails to the NYT that she was leaving under duress. Here's an example.
Quote - Dear Deceitful Fox, her father replied. You do not need me and I do not need you. I just invoked Allah to disgrace you, as you have disgraced me. Amen!
This is the last message you will receive from me, as your letter was the last message I will accept from you. Go to hell! And the devil be with you.
May Allah punish you for your deception, his letter ended.
Amen! Yours, The Fool. - End quote. Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9501E7D7103EF937A15756C0A9609C8B63. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Even if she did lie, that wouldn't negate her view that FGM is a horrendous thing to go through, regardless of cultural practices. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree on that point, but did anyone suggest it would? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think anyone takes issue with her fighting against FGM. Chris, did NYT do an investigation and find that her family's claims were not credible? Or do they leave it at a she said/they said situation? Anyway, I don't have a strong view about any of this and if Chris ultimately wants to do some reversions I'd leave them be. I just also don't like the idea of being too nice to this awful woman in the article.---Mona- (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they just took her word for it, also in the other sources it seems like they just keep taking Ali's word, rather than investigate on their own, and I'm not sure why that is. Zembla, as far as I can tell, is the only program that actually bothered to track down relatives rather than just trust some letters Ali has. 98.165.44.79 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll make some compromise edits eventually. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There's also the thing that she lived with her Aunt in Germany, and that honestly we only have her word that her father sent that letter. It seems like her family was fairly ah... 'moderate' (notice the quotes surrounding that word). And according to the article on AlterNet, she kept up with relatives even after gaining refugee status. Prior to me coming in, the article only made some really token attempts at pointing out her faults. Also, she even admitted on Zembla that she lied for refugee status, so is it really that horrible to doubt the other things she says? 98.165.44.79 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You add some worthwhile points, but do get a bit carried away. (Her husband's fidelity is not appropriate.) But the writing is a bit clumsy. I don't have time now but I hope to get to some copy- and line-editing.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding facts[edit]

I'm going to state it plainly. I don't care much about, or really for, Ali. I haven't read her, and she is not important to my views in any way. Still, using the article for Glenn Greenwald as the example (to pick one article on a living person that has now been sourced properly due to massive rewrites), this article needs a lot more help. I've been following the recent discussions on the liability to get sued and what not, and I am also aware that the mob has made it clear that we can't rely too overtly on sources that aren't in english. At the same time, this article is poorly written and - for a topic of this size - relatively stub. It needs work, good proper work, and I have no doubt that sources can be found for all the statements in it. The fact template is not to be mistaken as "doubt" - it is a signal to the editors of this site and any legal counsels visiting the page that we are not tempting slander laws and the likes. This article needs to be brought up to speed. It is a legal and formatting issue, and is not a complaint on the tone of the article. I really don't mind, but it can't stay this way as an article on a living person that flies in the face with the standard we rightfully hold other articles to. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you point me to which sources aren't in English? Because while some are from Dutch sites, the content in all seems to be in English, even the Zembla video (at least the subtitles are; I'm not getting any audio from it). Many of the claims which you added {{fact}} templates to are actually sourced; the ref is simply at the end of the paragraph. Also, adjectives relating to religions like Muslim and Christian are typically capitalized in English. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
As it is currently 06:30AM in Sweden, I will be forced to return to this discussion in the following evening. I am operating on the assumption that I will indeed be able to reference such places, besides the fact that this article is currently very poorly written (as is also pointed out with clarity by Mona). As I phrased myself to ClothCoat, "The goal - a better article on this woman, with no inherent change in tone being necessary whatsoever, on the assumption on sources in english that are not contested by other sources of equal or greater respectability to us.". Regardless, I'll be back. While the {{fact}} insertions seem to be reverted by a consensus (fine with me) I would appreciate that the {{Sources Needed}} template be left at the top of the article for now. I will reinsert it for the time being, though I won't rollback the latest improvements made by ClothCoat to reduce the apparent acidity of some of the claims. I think that it is important that we do not fail to remember the site policy on this type of article, as it is one spoken to us out of necessity and not comfort in claim-making. A proverbial sour apple that may be healthy. To quote the policy literally, "Feel free to pepper living bios with obnoxious {{fact}} tags." which I did. I am maintaining that a large portion of that will need reinstatement into the article unless the sources are more properly utilized and/or expanded upon. Regardless - all the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Beware beware the rains of apologetics! Part of the reason this article has changed in tone so much was because the original outright disregarded every negative fact about Ayaan. It was ridiculously positive, despite the fact that she's at best an example of YMMV and at worst an example of someone who knows how to capitalize on popular sentiment to the detriment of others. Just because she's an atheist doesn't mean she should get a free pass. Just like Harris or Dawkins!

Hirsi Ali's comments abt converting, her being touted by State Dept[edit]

Are supremely relevant to this article! This is so self-evident I'm not sure how to approach explaining it. About the atheism nav bar I have no strong opinion.---Mona- (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The source itself says "it was difficult to tell whether or not she was serious". In other words, it may just have been a joke, and we have no further context to judge this. I also rewrote the entire section to come off much neutral because as it stood, it came off way too anti-Zionist IMHO. Zionism (even militant Zionism) is a perfectly valid opinion, IMHO. Not sure why you also undid this? The "think again" is just a somewhat misguided propaganda campaign against ISIS/IS/DAESH/etc. and doesn't even relate to Zionism... (and lets not even mention how this paragraph is written...) Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I tied it up. AS the article I link says, it's "all of the above" with Ali's unfitness for this State Dept usage. And the fact just is that many Muslims detest the U.S.'s support for Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, it's entirely possible her "conversion" bullshit was mere pandering to Israel. That's really worse, if she was insincere.---Mona- (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Many things are possible. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Why trafic in truisms? She either was sincere or pandering. Those are the only two probable motives.---Mona- (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, suggesting Netanyahu for the Nobel Peace Prize might not be so crazy when taking into consideration some of the past laureates (How many Muslim deaths does Obama have on his conscience by now?). Though, of course, I very much doubt that she meant it laconically. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Also, I can't believe you wrote "Ali endorses exactly the global war ISIS does" (with emphasis on "exactly"). I am no fan of Ali, but exactly the same war where DAESH systematically beheads and rapes people, casually terrorizes and kills innocent civilians, and destroys a pretty much any cultural icon that's not "Islamic" enough? Is that really "exactly" what Ali endorses? Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I meant her notions of a global war. They want a caliphate, and she thinks that kind of thing needs to be taken seriously and the West needs to engage in a global war against Islam. They agree on that war already existing.---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the Zionism and the media campaign content should both be in the article, but I think it's a bit weird to have both subjects lumped together in this single awkwardly titled section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I really struggled with that combination. My original goal was just to have a sub-header to break up the big chunk of text. It prolly should be reorganized.---Mona- (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Judaism[edit]

"has since said she never intended to convert" -> [citation needed]. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find it, except for this: "But no, she says, she is not converting to Judaism, despite a false report in the US media." She's claimed it was a "mistake" in reporting, which is not credible (and the Jerusalem Post is not the American media, nor am I aware they issued a correction). That she didn't intend to convert was linked to several times in my Twitter feed, but I can't recall where these stories were.---Mona- (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to get this sort of stuff well-sourced (the quality of the source is really what we've been disagreeing about) as the page will look like an unfair hitpiece if we don't... In fact, it may be an unfair hitpiece, as we don't know exactly what she meant! Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact you like her doesn't change the fact she's a fraud with a habit of stretching the truth to evoke sympathy for herself. Hollow (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say we know exactly what she meant. That blog, btw, is apparently a reprint from the same column in an Israeli paper. But it was paywalled. You extend her the benefit of the doubt, far too much in my view. She is a demonstrated liar about her past. And, she uses statistics in a manner so misleading as to constitute a lie. She has said wretched things about Muslims, all of them. She is not a person who speaks in good faith, and I treat her that way, with the snark this wiki hurls at many people who deserve it. She deserves it.---Mona- (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Here we can ask, "what exactly is a lie?" In the case of lying about her past, I personally see that as a "white lie" and dislike her (in spite of what Hollow claims) for it only because of the extreme hypocrisy of it all (ie. her VVD stint). The statistics thing is probably more a case of confirmation bias or erroneously jumping to conclusions; given her world view, I don't think that's too far fetched... Being wrong (even about statistics) is not the same as lying or acting in bad faith...
As for snark, I should really write an essay about it, but I think the best thing an RW page could do is convince someone about one or more points. Some snark is good, as it makes articles funnier and easier to read, but excessive snark is only off-putting, and makes people dismiss points, entire pages, or even the entire site out of hand... I think that would be a damn shame... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What this reminds me of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gEfAQFgrpM --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me[edit]

...or does our article on Ali read like the work of some crank with an axe to grind, compared to the vast majority of our other articles? This impression was clearly left on me as I cross-checked the facts with her TOWWikipedia's W.svg article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, I just answered my own question. Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Why did we let that crank hang around as long as we did? CorruptUser (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Because in fighting the monster, we try our darndest not to become the monster ourselves. If we had tried to "keep her out", then there would've actually been something to her wild accusations of basically being the target of some kind of "coup". Turns out, all she did was knock herself senseless against the walls — and sure, while some egged her on in self-destructing, the primary takeaway for myself and others was the disheartening realization that we were powerless to help (i.e., talk some sense into her). At the end of the day, I'm proud to say that we openly invite emotionally hypercharged dissenters — willing in earnest to face the sometimes massive overhead resulting from dealing with overdetermined people who consider themselves "on a mission". A bit like a mental institution does. Regardless, in my view, there's several articles which she brought over the brink (this one and the Sam Harris one being prime examples) which really need a community effort to bring back to some kind of a sane level. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that we need to overhaul the Glenn Greenwald article as well, as it's nothing more than a puff piece at this point. Then there's Maajid Nawaz, which is another hitpiece trying to discredit him. And I don't know where to begin with the I-P stuff, including her hijacking of the BLM and Apartheid articles for something irrelevant. But touching anything relating to I-P would probably break the wiki's community again. CorruptUser (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not advocating that we touch the I-P article(s). I haven't touched them since joining and I don't plan to, ever. But you're right about the Greenwald piece and the Nawaz piece. Same goes for the article on Michael Shermer and the one(s) that touch upon New Atheism, generally. Also, as I've noted on its talkpage, the article on PZ Myers is poorly written and needs to be better written (we don't really treat our fellow skeptics well enough, clearly). Too short an article on Richard Carrier, too short an article on Carl Sagan, too short an article on Joe Nickell, too short an article on Jerry Coyne... I also think that — as skeptics — maybe we don't need to fan the flames of stupid internet drama all that much (when it comes to the atheist community), but focus on the issues? E.g., theism being factually incorrect? Atheists are already a minority, one known to take too many cheap shots at that — must we excommunicate every skeptic who isn't impossibly blemish-free, and must we take cheap shots at each other as well? Maybe the answer to those questions are "yes" for reasons I haven't thought of, but what I do know is that we need to purge the articles that reek way too much of righting great wrongsWikipedia's W.svg the way the Mona articles do. I'm not saying that we're suddenly TOW, believe me. I'm saying, the above discussed articles are fucking disasters. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it would be nice if LANCB'd zealots didn't also get the last word on article content. I mean, you can be a dick and you can take off, but you can't also have borderline crank views set in stone in mainspace. Now, I'm not saying we should whitewash any of this stuff; we don't even have to conclude good things about these guys, per se (obviously; I'm not arguing for any particular conclusion on their respective merits just because they happen to be atheists). But I think that most adults will agree that inter-Atheist drama (especially centered on YouTube) is the most pointless and divisive shit ever, and those who want that stuff already go to ED, not RW. If you ask me, as far as our articles on the topic of religion and the criticism of it are concerned, we should primarily be a resource for introducing would-be atheists and skeptics to not becoming/staying effing creationists, rather than inviting ED-derived editorial practices and (while we're at it) doing Conservapedia's work of spitefully slamming atheism for them. Now, I'm not arguing against our beloved bias (or our SPOV); I'm arguing that an article which literally amounts to nothing but splittingWikipedia's W.svg on any given topic is automatically worthless trash. We openly endorse bias, not cognitive bias (or we're not skeptics in any sense of the word). Besides, we can heal many pointless divides (and perhaps gain a reader or two) by more consistently sticking to the issues, as opposed to giving mainspace split personality disorder by letting jonanists use select hobbyhorse segments of it to right great wrongsWikipedia's W.svg with. Facepalm.png Just my two cents, and I'm hungry. That's my rant for now, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
+1 my brother from another (possibly Swedish) mother. There are harmful cranks for whom the full power of SPOV is deserved, but Ali is not one of them. Leuders (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorists and Muslim religion[edit]

@James Earl Cash This implied criticism you have added appears specious. You can't assume deaths caused by terrorists is the same as deaths caused by the Islamic religion (say through sectarian violence).Ariel31459 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation, but for anyone who's remotely familiar with Ali let alone the current political climate, when she (or anyone critical of Islam) says Islam is responsible for murder, the meaning taken is most likely to be terrorists. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
So you are saying you are just assuming something stupid? I don't mind if you look like an idiot, but these articles represent the wiki as a whole. @Bongolian Are we to look like fools here?Ariel31459 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 I didn't notice you have already pointed out at problems in the section "Inverse stopped clock", I also write my objection to it. Summarizing, Ali spoke of a 70% figure of "bloodshed in the world" so an FBI report about "terrorist attacks in USA" does not confute such figure. This doesn't mean that the 70% is correct, I don't know, but surely the argument made by James is fallacious. If nobody comes up with an appropriate source disputing the 70% figure of bloodshed in the world, then the section "Inverse stopped clock" should be deleted. --Lankaster (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
No, when the majority of terror attacks in the strongest country in the world, when America was currently doing it's War on Terror, only amount to 10% by extremist Islam, then yeah, that throws a wrench in her claims. And lawl@Ariel claiming that anyone else looks stupid. James Earl Cash (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash make peace with logic. The claim is: "Islam, as a religion, is responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world", hence, in order to confute it, you should provide data showing that "Islam, as a religion, is not responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world", not data showing that "Islam, as a religion, is not responsible for 70 percent of the terrorist attacks in USA" --Lankaster (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I love it when dweebs like you try and claim that you're logical. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, you have not been able to make a better argument, the section can be deleted. --Lankaster (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
How about you drop your act and actually address my arguments instead of pontificating from the stool under your ass? James Earl Cash (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You have no argument, your FBI report simply does not address Ali's claim. Check Inverse stopped clock where also @DuceMoosolini explains that. -Lankaster (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure it does, especially when the US had just endured 9/11 and was doing it's War on Terror. You don't have to thoroughly debunk every part of an argument, if something seems fishy, then that's enough reason to cast doubt. You're doing some weird gish gallop thing akin to how juries will let off murderers even with all the evidence mounted against them on the basis of "reasonable doubt." James Earl Cash (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Uh, dude, reasonable doubt is a good thing, and if more juries actually took it into account, we'd probably have fewer innocent black men rotting in prison for decades. Anyway, my point was also that you want to have a more ironclad source/argument due to the sensitive nature of this topic. It doesn't make sense to leave doors open for bad-faith criticism when it's so simple to close them. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable doubt can also be used as a weasel phrase when you don't have direct evidence that someone committed a crime, but everything else is screaming that something is up. As far as black guys getting the short end of the stick, I'd say that's more a problem of an extremely corrupt judicial system and police that are known to distort evidence. That is if the popo aren't shooting them dead for doing nothing to start with.
That being said, it's more prudent to identify her words for what they are, especially when made in a certain historical context, so even if you can't 100% label them as false, there's more than enough red flags to assume that something ain't right and say as such. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. And this is the last time I will address you in this thread. What you have done looks stupid.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Kay. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Inverse stopped clock[edit]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali claimed in a debate (according to middleeasteye.net) that "Islam, as a religion, [is] responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world". However, between 2002 and 2005, according to a FBI report, only 10% of the terrorist attacks were committed by radical Muslims. ref:https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005#terror_05sum

I don't know if the 70% figure is correct, anyway, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke of bloodshed in the world, so a FBI report about terrorism in USA does not confute anything. If a better argument is not proposed, then I think that the section should be deleted. --Lankaster (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. For this to be an effective refutation, the statistic needs to be about the world, not about the United States. On a touchy subject like this, it's always best to be as thorough as possible. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
sure are a lot of nominally "christian" nations in the top of this list, and a lot of nominally Muslim nations towards the bottom, though ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Obviously there is a sentiment to condemn this person whenever possible. I don't object to mean things being said. I haven't the foggiest about the truth of the statement, and don't care much. I just would like folks to know we realize there may be a difference between group generated violence and so-called terrorist violence. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You don't know if it's true, and you stepped over my link that certainly suggested it isn't to make your own point that you think it's true regardless of the facts, because of some unspecified distinction between "group generated violence"(a term it seems you just made up) and "terrorism"? Huh? What? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Looking at those kind of data might be a better start. If I had to bet, I would say that 70% is too high, simply because a lot of murders are not related to religions. --Lankaster (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, it's "65% of statistics are made up on the spot" bullshit, and the attempt at a call-out made an unreasonable comparison. I get what the original version was going for, but it's not great at answer the actual charge. But Ayaan is just totally full of it, and is could very reasonably be accused of being engaged in hate-speech with that claim. It won't do to let that kind of thing slide. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't let it slide. But does it have to always be amateur hour?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster Don't edit war over this. I have already pinged a moderator.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed "But Ayaan is just totally full of it, and is could very reasonably be accused of being engaged in hate-speech with that claim. It won't do to let that kind of thing slide." A solution could be something like: "But the 70% figure cannot be true because most of the murders worldwide are not related to religions (reference to statistics showing data, if they exists, if it is true, which I guess)" @Ariel31459 OK. -Lankaster (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Works, it needs work, but not as much as the status quo does. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, someone needs to put the bell on the cat, don't they? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash Three users have agree that the FBI report does not confute Ali's claim, but you keep reverting. Learn to think, make a valid argument. The claim to confute is: "Islam, as a religion, is responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world." so find information which show that "Islam, as a religion, is NOT responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world.", or shut up. -Lankaster (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
That's like saying if someone accuses Obama that he's a prophet for the Illuminati/NWO, we need to find a source that says he's not that. Get a load of this guy amirite? The claim is laughable on it's face as is Ali's, again you don't need to address every claim in an argument, you just need to get to the heart of the matter. And while I'd normally be willing to cut the section out entirely, no way in hell I'm letting your asshole shit slide either. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ayaan's statement is ridiculous on its face, both in the totality of history and in terms of modern history, Islam has been tied to a lot of bloodshed, but nowhere close to 70%. Lankaster has a point though that citing terrorist attacks in the US is mostly irrelevant to her statement since most terrorist attacks, Muslim or otherwise, happen outside of America. Not to mention that since she was born in Somalia, has lived in a number of countries and traveled all over the world, it'd be really weird if she'd suddenly started suffering from America-is-the-whole-world syndrome. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "That's like saying if someone accuses Obama that he's a prophet for the Illuminati/NWO, we need to find a source that says he's not that." You are confusing "burden of proof" which, I agree, is on Ali and not on you, with giving a wrong refutation. Ali did not give evidences for her claim (and I would bet that her claim is indeed false) however your appeal to an FBI report on terrorist attacks in US still does not refute Ali's claim. It has been repeated many times that a 10% of terrorist attacks in US does not refute the claim of 70% of bloodshed caused by Islamic religion in the world. Four users agree on that (1, 2, 3, 4), plus @GrammarCommie reverted the page to the version without the FBI report after I made him notice the issue. But you keep ignoring everybody and putting back your version. For the nth times I have to ask moderators intervention. @Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario -Lankaster (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe she's not completely wrong after all. From Wikipedia:Wikipedia's W.svg

In 2015 four Islamic extremist groups were responsible for 74% of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2016.

And since James Earl proposes that religious bloodshed was intended to refer to terrorism, well... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@141.134.75.236 By the way, this is the original source of Ali's claim about 70%, since it was missing. -Lankaster (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"70% of all the bloodshed in the world today", said in the context of a book published in 2015. Hmm... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that Global Terrorism Index IS something we should be using and has far more clout to it. Still, I think we should include a caveat that 74% of all terrorism related deaths doesn't account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world, period. When I think of all the shit that developed nations have pulled, to say nothing of Russia's antics and the US casually pardoning it after Trump's election, then it's still a big claim to make even with the legit data that appears to support her. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a fair comment to make. But if the goal is to point out an instance where she's being an "inverse stopped clock", we can probably find more blatant statements she made, with criticisms that seem less like nitpicking. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "I think we should include a caveat that 74% of all terrorism related deaths doesn't account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world" So... when people were pointing out to you that 10% of terrorist attacks in US do not account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world, you disagreed strongly... but now you think that it should be explained that 74% of all terrorism related deaths doesn't account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world... you don't give a fuck about any data, you are just an ideologue, not even good at hiding it. -Lankaster (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh look, the whiny little conservashit is accusing others of being biased and motivated by ideology. Get a load of this guy. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Moderating[edit]

@James Earl Cash and Lankaster
The consensus appears to be that we should not use US statistics as if they are representative of the world. I also agree with this. Her comment is incorrect, and appears to have been made up on the spot, but using statistics from a single country is a poor attempt at refutation, especially when 24% of the world's population are Muslim compared to 1% in the United States. The consensus is that this part should be removed: However, between 2002 and 2005, according to a FBI report, only 10% of the terrorist attacks were committed by radical Muslims, which is a little more than eye opening in an era just after 9/11 and when America had begun it's[sic] War on Terror, her unsourced statement and the random exaggerated number besides. Also, in 2015, toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists. This assumes she is talking about the United States (she said the "world"), terrorism specifically (she said "bloodshed") and also assumes statistics from 2002-2005 are relevant (she said "today" and her comment was in 2015). After a quick read of the source I also found no mention that 10% of terrorist attacks were committed by radical Muslims in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The source for her comment also needs to be added (here is the video, quote begins at 0:38) with her quote in the reference: "I say it's not a religion of peace now because if, as a religion, you're responsible for 70% of all the bloodshed in the world today then you possibly cannot be a religion of peace but it could become a religion of peace if we make some changes." It's worth noting that we have cited the 2016 Global Terrorism Index and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's comments were made in March 2015. Even if we assume she misspoke by saying "bloodshed" and meant "terrorism-related deaths", it is still impossible that this is what she was referring to with the 70% figure. CowHouse (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done some searching, and I think I have some good worldwide debunking material. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added it all. If anybody has a problem with what I've written, please ping me on this talkpage. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 08:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse@DuceMoosolini Very good. I just wish to say that I would like these things to be easier... instead of having to call moderators each time. Anyway, as a last note, during the FoxNews interview Ayaan Hirsi Ali was speaking about her book "Heretic", so maybe it is worth checking if in the book the 70% figure is somehow justified. -Lankaster (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse@DuceMoosolini I checked Ali's book "Heretic", and I did not find the 70% figure. However, I looked at the "Global Terrorism Index Report 2014", which was released in November 2014 before Ali's claim on Foxnews, and I found that "The majority of claimed deaths from terrorist attacks, 66 per cent in 2013, are claimed by only four terrorist organisations; ISIL, Boko Haram, the Taliban and al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Variations of religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam are the key commonality for all four groups." Moreover, from the data of pages 49-50, one can deduce that the jihadist terrorist group Al-ShabaabWikipedia's W.svg is responsible for at least another 4.7% (from page 50, the 66% of the deaths is 8585+8763+3440+3111=23899, so the total number of deaths is 36210; from page 49, comparing Al-Shabaab and ISIL one gets that Al-Shabaab is responsible for at least 1730 deaths; finally 1730/36210=4.7%). I added these things to the section "Statement on Islamic bloodshed" to make clear how Ali could have come to the 70% figure and that this is plausible only if referring to terrorists attacks in a certain way. Let me know your opinions. -Lankaster (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a whole lot of speculation and you are giving too much effort to justify some random assed statement made on fucking Fox News. Moreover I take issue with your inflammatory language when the section is made solely to debunk her Islamophobia. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "That is a whole lot of speculation" The only speculation is "It might be that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was actually thinking more specifically about terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremist organizations", the rest of the section is well supported by data.
"you are giving too much effort" There's no rule that prevent me to dedicate as much time and effort as a like to write on RW, this is really not an argument.
"statement made on fucking Fox News" The section address Ali's 70% statement, it doesn't matter if she said it on Fox News, on another network, or shouting from her own window.
"I take issue with your inflammatory language" Please point to the parts of what I wrote that you consider inflammatory language. -Lankaster (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently anything that doesn't debunk Ayaan's statement is "inflammatory". *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
1. Right, and that's the whole reason for including the damn thing to begin with. If your main reason for including it is speculation, then yeah, we have a serious problem. Almost as legit as whenever Glenn Beck says he's just asking questions.
2. No, we don't have to devote much time to take garbage seriously, especially and especially when it's only just speculation. You open up the door to all kinds of conspiracy theory thinking that way.
3. Fox News is inherently awful. Anything they say and peddle can't be trusted and doesn't deserve the time of day. Her statement being a completely random figure that we don't even know comes from having read the report makes it even more dubious.
4. You already admitted you share views similar to Sam Harris, and in a section devoted to debunking her statement, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that saying these terror groups all being Islamic in common looks inflammatory in the section you're putting it in. This is literally legitimizing hate rhetoric. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
"saying these terror groups all being Islamic in common looks inflammatory" So saying the true looks inflammatory. I don't really know how to reasonably arguing with that... If 141.134.75.236 is interested he can continue, I give up. -Lankaster (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure it's inflammatory. It's like JAQing off about black guys being criminals, which, oh that's right, is something you have actually fucking done, nevermind that the whole point of the section is to dispute what she's saying, the poor style choice of putting your input in after everything that's been said in the section notwithstanding. I seriously can't believe anyone is willing to entertain your notions with an uncritical eye after that, and that's not even getting into how you started on this site. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I protected the page for one hour. Do not edit war, @James Earl Cash, 141.134.75.236, and @Lankaster, especially James Earl Cash. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yo, can a mod add this link for me?[edit]

@Bongolian @LeftyGreenMario The section I added to this article not too long ago contains a reference to the Iran-Iraq War. I was going to link it to the article I recently created, but I've been locked out of this article by presumably a mod. Can someone add it for me? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, kids. It's Duce again. With my added months of experience, I can say conclusively that if you want something done, sometimes you can only rely on yourself. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Sad truth. — Dysk (contribs) 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Rewrite[edit]

This article needs to be rewritten. It reads like the you tube comments from an Islam apologist on an Ayaan Hirsi Ali video. The writer obviously hates Ayaan and represents all of her life in the most unfavorable interpretations possible. I get the distinct impression that the author holds Islam and Muslims in general as particularly sacred or in need of special protection against criticism. The wording and talking points used by the author are identical to ones used by her worst critics.

Quite frankly, this article is a disgrace to Rational Wiki, and I think it should be rewritten entirely. Compare this article to the one written about Linda Sarsour and I think you will find that religious apologists have infiltrated Rational Wiki, and are using it to spread their agenda. If you care about Rational Wiki being objective and reasonable, you should flag this article for a complete rewrite. — Unsigned, by: Criticism Matters / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately for yourself, RationalWiki does not care about being objective and reasonable. Please see the point of view from the Community Standards page.--Castaigne2 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say, Unfortunately for RationalWiki... Thanks for the link. Now I know not to bother with this site. — Unsigned, by: Criticism Matters / talk / contribs