Talk:Suhaib Webb

Notability

The only thing this article says which makes any claims of notability is the Times, and we don't have a link to that article. Can somebody provide it? Corvus cornix_talk 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

how can this be accurate?

"Webb's notability comes from his moderate approach to Islam, which he makes without shying away from Islamic orthodoxy."

How can that be an accurate statement? It is Islamic orthodoxy that drives the terrorist violence and Jihad. You can't be a moderate while clinging to orthodoxy. Christians who follow Christian orthodoxy, which calls for killing gays and beating children, aren't considered moderate, so why are muslims who cling to Muslim orthodoxy, which calls for the same thing and worse, considered moderate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, just shut up. This is a POV comment that should be deleted. Because this guy THINKS that Islam endorses violence, he contends the wiki entry because it states that this individual adheres to orthodox Islamic teachings.

Edits' History

Hi I'm a new user - I can't figure out why none of my edits shown in the history page are no longer showing up? Each one led to a legitimate reference, was explained, and there doesn't seem to be anything in the history undoing the majority of my suggested edits? Dooddude (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I might have figured it out....I think it didn't like the facebook external link I added and automatically reverted it back to an earlier version as a result — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooddude (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Caller, PeaceandTolerance.org, Washington Post op-ed - Reliable Sources?

I would like to start a discussion on how would the two articles referenced from the Daily Caller & PeaceandTolerance.org be viewed in light of the guidelines of a reliable source? Wikipedia's guidelines for "Biased or opinionated sources" state, "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Both of these publications are biased/opinionated and I feel both articles may potentially be disqualified for use in the article.

• The Daily Caller: The article claims the Suhaib Webb is associated with an Al-Qaeda operative (Anwar Al-Awlaki) based on the fact that they both were part of a fundraiser in 2001. The article does not provide a source of the claims (an FBI document) and furthermore Al-Awlaki was not known to be an Al-Qaeda operative as of 2001 (which the article blatantly omits that fact). The lack of supporting references and the historically inaccurate characterization of Al-Awlaki lead me to conclude the article is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's guidelines.
• PeaceandTolerance.org: Same as above.

Please share feedback. I will wait for a week for any open comments, then will decide the fate of those two references. Thank you. --Djrun (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I am adding to this discussion in light of two additional references that do not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines:

• Washington Post Op-Ed [1] ** Opinion pieces are the specific views of individuals and cannot be considered a fair and reliable source for stating facts Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion since they are generally one-sided and lack neutrality.
• PeaceandTolerance YouTube video [2] - Material from this organization cannot be considered reliable as there are many documented articles stating the organization's bias against Muslims

I propose to remove these references unless evidence is shown to prove that they should be considered reliable sources. --Djrun (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)