:I am not an expert on Sina in any case. But I think this is a case of BLPSELFPUB being misunderstood. The guideline is talking about materials involving the subject’s life, being published by the subject themselves. For example, one line or two that mention the subject being an admirer of Mozart etc is likely OK; a passage claiming that they are the heir of the British throne and face numerous attempts from the UK government spies (involving third parties, without other sources supporting the claims) likely should not be mentioned. I have never heard anywhere that this policy applies to authors who comment on culture, religions and history, and are published by RS publishers (in this case, the publishers that this author relies on seem to be small publishers who focus on niche matters, it seems). In the social and humanistic fields, this will cause further problems, because every commentator reads Nietzsche/Kant/whomever differently. If you only provide the comments of their critics, the readers will not even understand what the debates are about at the first place. See this page of [[Stephen Hawking]] and basically every notable living thinker. Their thinking is certainly quoted extensively.
:I am not an expert on Sina in any case. But I think this is a case of BLPSELFPUB being misunderstood. The guideline is talking about materials involving the subject’s life, being published by the subject themselves. For example, one line or two that mention the subject being an admirer of Mozart etc is likely OK; a passage claiming that they are the heir of the British throne and face numerous attempts from the UK government spies (involving third parties, without other sources supporting the claims) likely should not be mentioned. I have never heard anywhere that this policy applies to authors who comment on culture, religions and history, and are published by RS publishers (in this case, the publishers that this author relies on seem to be small publishers who focus on niche matters, it seems). In the social and humanistic fields, this will cause further problems, because every commentator reads Nietzsche/Kant/whomever differently. If you only provide the comments of their critics, the readers will not even understand what the debates are about at the first place. See this page of [[Stephen Hawking]] and basically every notable living thinker. Their thinking is certainly quoted extensively.
:The removal of info from other sources should be explained and reach consensus if contradicted, though. [[User:Deamonpen|Deamonpen]] ([[User talk:Deamonpen|talk]]) 15:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:The removal of info from other sources should be explained and reach consensus if contradicted, though. [[User:Deamonpen|Deamonpen]] ([[User talk:Deamonpen|talk]]) 15:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::Sina’s first book was self-published via felibri.com, so it was not issued by an RS publisher. The same seems to be true of the other books released earlier this year and recently added by OceanSplash; I cannot locate any information about the purported publisher, “Onzole,” beyond the Amazon listings for those titles. [[User:Snuish2|Snuish]] ([[User talk:Snuish2|talk]]) 15:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::Sina’s first book was self-published via felibri.com, so it was not issued by an RS publisher. The same seems to be true of the other books released earlier this year and recently added by OceanSplash; I cannot locate any information about the purported publisher, “Onzole,” beyond the Amazon listings for those titles. [[User:Snuish2|Snuish]] ([[User talk:Snuish2|talk]]) 15:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
== Request for Third Opinion ==
== Request for Third Opinion ==
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: |
The piece “Muslim Mindset: ‘The hatred is in Muhammad himself’” appears under the Magazine › Features section of the Jerusalem Post and not in the Opinion section. It is an interview-style feature authored by Sam Ser, not an editorial or unsigned opinion piece reflecting the publication’s stance.
Even if it were considered an editorial (which it is not), per WP:RSEDITORIAL, such sources remain usable as primary sources for attributed opinions. In this case, it can be cited only for statements attributed directly to Ali Sina, which is how it has been used in the article.
Therefore, removing all content sourced to this article, even under the mistaken assumption that it is an editorial, misrepresents Wikipedia’s sourcing policy and disregards its limited but valid use as a primary source for Sina’s own views. Rackaballa (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve taken a second look at the source, and I mostly agree with your assessment. It does not have the same editorial standards as an opinion piece; I was mistaken about that. However, as you noted, much of this is a primary source, and it should be used with caution. WP:BLPPRIMARY urges extreme caution when using such sources. I will revise the material from the article to remove the more self-serving and sensational claims. Snuish (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also wanted to note that, as a primary source, the article’s use of the JPost feature should be done sparingly. It should not dominate the Wikipedia text. Snuish (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Your revisions seem good to me. You should add back why he chooses to shield his true identity. That’s important for BLPs where the subject uses a pseudonym. Rackaballa (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. 174.89.177.201 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your revisions seem good to me. You should add back why he chooses to shield his true identity. That’s important for BLPs where the subject uses a pseudonym. Rackaballa (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@OceanSplash: I have reverted your recent edits to the article. Your revision (1324371459) violates WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSELFPUB which prohibits such extensive use of the subject’s own writing. The restored version (1300860263) relies mainly on independent secondary sources.
WP:BLPSELFPUB allows some use of self published material about a living person only if the article is not based primarily on such sources, and if the material is not unduly self-serving or used to support claims about third parties or broad events. In your edits, Sina’s books were used as the main basis for long summaries of his views and for many quotes, including claims about Islam, Muslims, demographics, and geopolitical conflicts.
Moreover, you removed information that was cited to reliable secondary sources in these edits: 1324137292, 1324145589, 1324145846, 1324198131, 1324367200. Your edit summary in diff 1324198131 is not accurate, since it states that “No verifiable source was provided” while deleting a citation to a book with both a page number and a quote. Snuish (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on Sina in any case. But I think this is a case of BLPSELFPUB being misunderstood. The guideline is talking about materials involving the subject’s life, being published by the subject themselves. For example, one line or two that mention the subject being an admirer of Mozart etc is likely OK; a passage claiming that they are the heir of the British throne and face numerous attempts from the UK government spies (involving third parties, without other sources supporting the claims) likely should not be mentioned. I have never heard anywhere that this policy applies to authors who comment on culture, religions and history, and are published by RS publishers (in this case, the publishers that this author relies on seem to be small publishers who focus on niche matters, it seems). In the social and humanistic fields, this will cause further problems, because every commentator reads Nietzsche/Kant/whomever differently. If you only provide the comments of their critics, the readers will not even understand what the debates are about at the first place. See this page of Stephen Hawking and basically every notable living thinker. Their thinking is certainly quoted extensively.
- The removal of info from other sources should be explained and reach consensus if contradicted, though. Deamonpen (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sina’s first book was self-published via felibri.com, so it was not issued by an RS publisher. The same seems to be true of the other books released earlier this year and recently added by OceanSplash; I cannot locate any information about the purported publisher, “Onzole,” beyond the Amazon listings for those titles. Sina’s works seem to be the only works that Onzole is associated with. Snuish (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Clarification on Talk Page Use and Policy Application ==
Hello,
I am seeking a neutral third-party opinion in accordance with WP:3O, as discussion with another editor has reached an impasse.
I made substantive contributions to this article, which were fully removed by editor Snuish2. He stated they were AI-generated, and on that basis declined discussion of the content. After this, I did not re-edit the article but instead began asking questions on the talk page, requesting guidance on how to revise my contributions to comply with policy. In response, I received two warnings that I would be blocked if I continued to post.
I stated clearly that I am the author of my writing and not using AI, but I was told simply to “stop,” with the threat of blockage.
Because I do not want to be blocked and wish to proceed in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, I am requesting clarification from uninvolved editors preferably those not vested in religious topics, so that discussion can remain focused on policy rather than conjecture.
I would greatly appreciate guidance on the following:
Is it not permissible to discuss draft content on a talk page before proposing edits to the article itself?
Can entire contributions be removed solely on the basis of a belief that they may be AI-generated—without evidence?
Can an editor position themselves as the sole gatekeeper of an article and reject proposed improvements based on personal objection to the topic?
Can posting policy-based questions on a talk page be grounds for a block warning?
– Is not policy-based discussion the very reason talk pages exist?
I may be mistaken, but based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy:
Repeated threats of block without policy citation may be against WP:CIVIL / WP:AGF.
Refusal to answer specific policy questions may be against WP:ADMINACCT.
Collapsing comments without prior discussion may be against WP:TALKPAGEGUIDE.
Removal of all contributions of another editor, rather than addressing specific concerns maybe against WP:OWN
Declaring someone’s comments “AI-generated” without evidence and removing them on that basis, may be against WP:BURDEN / WP:AGF.
I want to be absolutely clear:
I am not asserting these policies were violated. I am mentioning them only to explain why I am seeking neutral guidance and clarification before proceeding further.
My hope is to contribute constructively, follow policy, avoid conflict, and improve the article’s accuracy and neutrality.
I respectfully request input from uninvolved editors.
Thank you for your time. — James— Preceding unsigned comment added by James (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
 |
|
Hi James, I’m happy to provide a third opinion, but I understand the suspicions of AI/LLM/chatbot use for reasons I’ll go into below. I’m glad you’re not saying anyone violated those policies, because you’ve unfortunately got them wrong. For example, you’re asking for an uninvolved editor, so how could a non-admin violate WP:ADMINACCT? If you mean the editors who left you warnings, this policy only applies to admins who carry out admin-specific duties. Any editor can leave a warning template. Regardless of whether this post was written by AI, I’ll do my best to answer your questions:
To clarify – I also have good reason to suspect AI use because you’re:
The suspicion of AI use was not without merit, but I’ll take your word that you didn’t use it for this post. If you aren’t using AI, then there are problems with your understanding of policy, editing and WP:COI concerns. AI use would explain a lot of this, but if you’re not using AI then there’s a lot that needs sorting out. This should be done at ANI. (BTW since I can’t close this via a noticeboard it was never on, I’ve removed the template from the top of the page instead.) Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
