|
sandbox!!!!!!!!!
{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=A
|priority=high
|politician-work-group=yes
|old-peer-review=yes
}}
{{GA}}
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[/Archive 1|Before Feb 2007]]
My testpage! www.bbs.co.uk
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
[[Image:test.jpg]]
== Quality problem with article, indirect prediction based on time from "now" ==
The article contains the text "Hirsi Ali still has six weeks to react to this before any final decision about her citizenship is taken", which should probably be replaced by an actual date. But this wikipedia article is my only source of information about her, so I don't know what the true status is. Given that she wrote an article for the latimes, though, I guess that she already moved to the US and lost her Dutch citizenship. [[User:Rrenaud|Rrenaud]] 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
:This is indeed quite confusing. My guess is that the sentence should say she ''had'' six weeks, at that point in time, and is referring to the period from May 16 (the date given for the parliamentary debate), and June 27 (the date given for the announcement that she'd ''keep'' her citizenship). I'll make this change in due course if no-one asserts this is ''not'' what's meant. She's certainly now living in the US (there were multiples references to this in an interview she gave to the BBC), but I doubt she's lost Dutch citizenship. That would only happen if she's already been granted US citizenship (which I'd doubt), and that Dutch law recognises the disavowal of other citizenships in the US (which I wouldn't take as read: I know that the law in Ireland and the UK cheerfully ignores this as fanciful rhetoric...); or she's voluntarily renounced it (which may not even be possible). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
::She has Dutch citizenship, technically she never lost it. This is just a tense issue, as the article was expanded considerably during the 2006 crisis. I intend to radically review this article some time this year, because I believe it can become FA. Then I will look at these issues. [[User:C mon|C mon]] 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I've made that change, in the meantime. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
== AEI political orientation ==
This is a cross-post from the talk page of the anon editor who states that AEI is 'conservative'.
:Can you please provide a source for your assertion that AEI is a conservative organization? On their website, they present their agenda as essentially libertarian. The fact that Hirsi Ali is a pro-choice atheist doesn't really fit with the 'conservative' tag. RJASE1 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::It says right on [[American Enterprise Institute]], "a conservative think tank". They may not be paleoconservatives in the mold of Patrick Buchanan, but they maintain very close ties with the current administration, and have a history of uncritically lauding their moves. They're about as nonpartisan as Karl Rove. If you want to dispute the characterization of AEI as a conservative think tank, please take it over there. [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'll take it over there...my objection to this is that, in the U.S., the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are POV-loaded and I don't think either fits Hirsi Ali. But you're right, the adjective in this case applies to the organization, not the individual. [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::::You may be right; Hirsi Ali is quite a fixture among conservatives in the United States because she agrees with them on issues of importance here--which has absolutely nothing at all to do with her domestic politics on other issues. So while she may be conservative to Americans, she may be something else entirely to the Dutch. (AEI, however, is still conservative.) [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::It is very well established that the AEI is conservative, just as the Brookings Institution is liberal. Just look at [[think tanks]] in any [[political science]] textbook.
If ''only'' conservative think-tanks are are offering her a position that says something about the liberal community. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
==She is anti-Islamic==
Islam is backward, Muhammed was this, etc etc, what is the name for this? her entire career is about cursing islam, she is an apostate of the faith, associated with anti-Islamic content, what better example do you need. And then Netscott says no refence in article. Have you read this article? Critic is not the same as Anti-Islamic sentiment. I critic Muslims "Muslims need to be more involved in stamping out extreamism" but "Islam is a primative religion of pedophiles" is not a critic it is religious intolerance.--[[User:Halaqah|HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)]] 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:Halaqah, having that view is fine but if any particular individual is going to be labeled as having "anti-Islam sentiment" then there had better be reliable sources using wording along those lines relative to her (this per [[WP:BLP|policy]]). [[Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Criticism_of_Hirsi_Ali|This section]] is sparse with such citations. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::It's not up to us to go around labelling people. Just the facts, especially as this is a living person. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::So why is there an antisemitic, and holocaust denier cat?--[[User:Halaqah|HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ)]] 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think those categoties are inappropriate you can seek their deletion. The second one sounds to me as if it could be applied pretty objectively, not so sure about the first one. But we're here to discuss this article and how to improve it, not whether certain existing categories that don't relate to this article are subjective and POV. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
==Can you Anti-Islamic people stop deleting criticisms about this Ali.==
{{unsigned2|05:16, 25 February 2007|Xsp85}}
:As I explained on both your talk page and my talk page, the problem isn't with the criticism, it's with the [[WP:NPOV|point of view]] and the [[WP:RS|poor sources]]. [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] [[User talk:RJASE1| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Wikipedia is very sensitive to the harm that it can do to living people by publishing poorly sourced and damaging material about them. That applies Ms Hirsi Ali and anyone else. Hence the template on the top of this page. People removing such material are just doing their job, even if the material was added in good faith. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For such a controversial writer, the article includes very little criticism of her views. (There is plenty of discussion about the falsehoods she told to stay in the Netherlands.) For balance, it would be good to have such criticism, but it '''must''' be well-sourced and not libellous. So go ahead and add criticism, according to Wikipedia policy. [[User:BrainyBabe|BrainyBabe]] 09:10, 25
February 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. The only two reviews of Hirsi Ali's new book that I came across in the past couple weeks were in the Economist and the one by Lorainne Ali in Newsweek. Both were very critical of her and her work. For the Newsweek review, see here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17204802/site/newsweek/ --Mon.
==Minor: brackets/parentheses==
Oh dear. Twice in the past few hours, editors with good intentions have incorrectly changed something I had inserted with good reason. The first time, I changed it back, and wrote why in the edit summary (for which that editor thanked me). The second editor must not have read this, and made a good-faith edit. As I don't have time to keep reverting it to what is strictly correct, I will insert something half-way correct and hope it stays without causing trouble. If two people so quickly see and change something that they believe is a simple copy edit, I have no reason to doubt that many others in the future will do the same thing, out of good will, but erroneously.
This is the issue, from the bibliography, as it now stands:
: Forthcoming: ''Short Cuts to Englightenment'', a philosophical fantasy in which Muhammad wakes up in the New York Public Library and is "challenged by John Stuart Mill, Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper, (Hirsi Ali's) favourite liberal thinkers".
The problem is that this is a particular form of quotation. I took the words directly from the Evening Standard article, and in this passage Hirsi Ali is speaking in her own words, so of course she says "my favourite liberal thinkers". But the grammar of the entry requires the third person, so I changed the word "my" to "Hirsi Ali's" and put that phrase in single square brackets [ ] to show that I had changed the words -- but not the meaning -- of a direct quotation to fit the grammar, in this case from third to first person. This is standard citation practice. I guess a lot of well-meaning people don't know this, and assume it is a typo (of which I make many). So I have changed the square brackets to rounded parentheses, and hope this stops the confusion. [[User:BrainyBabe|BrainyBabe]] 14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, I see - I'm sorry! Will look closer at the edit summary next time, my bad. Nice work on the article, by the way. [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] [[User talk:RJASE1| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, I actually do know the convention of using square brackets in that way, and of course it is strictly correct. For some reason it wasn't transparent to me that that was what was meant the first time I read it, perhaps because it didn't seem like a quote from Hirsi Ali herself but from a journalist's words, so I thought it was a typo (hence my thanks when you corrected me). I'm really not sure what is best - I'd rather not use the less correct round brackets - but I'll leave it for now. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Could we try something like this? Forthcoming: ''Short Cuts to Enlightenment''. As described by Hirsi Ali, this will be a philosophical fantasy in which Muhammad wakes up in the New York Public Library and is "challenged by John Stuart Mill, Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper, my favourite liberal thinkers." [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I have had another idea -- do it correctly, and insert invisibly into the code the warning not to change the single square bracket. I'd prefer to avoid an unnecessary first person, especially in the non-narrative bibliography section. As follows:
:::::::The single square bracket is correct here. It is not a typo. It represents the changing of something within a direct quotation -- in this case, from first to third person. The article at bracket gives more examples of this standard citation convention.
:::::Only, bother, I can't remember the code to do this -- I tried and it didn't work. Can anyone help? Something like <! > which look like old-fashioned swearing symbols. [[User:BrainyBabe|BrainyBabe]] 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[Un-indent]: Okay, let's see how it goes. I still wouldn't mind some kind of hint that the words quoted are her own - I think that should be made more obvious to our readers somehow. But I'll leave you to think about that. It's not a big deal. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, hang on ... I'll go and check how to do it. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Checked it: Try ''this'': <!-- Ayaab Hirsi Ali is Somalian. --> See what happens. I.e. this edit contains some invisible words showing you how to do them if you put it into editing mode. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks, that works. You may well be right about "some kind of hint" -- but also that it is trivial in the overall scale of things. I have no more thinking power at the moment! I rather like the elegance of hidden code. It serves to educate those who delve behind the scene -- those who take the plunge from reader to editor. I think the article is better now than a few days ago, but it does need reasonable, verifiable criticism of her views, although I'm not going to go searching for it. [[User:BrainyBabe|BrainyBabe]] 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
| 