How to deal with material written by Islamic terrorists on Wikipedia?
I hate to intrude with such an unsavoury situation but you have much more experience with Wikipedia as a whole and are (by my estimation) qualified to opine on the subject itself, while I am genuinely stumped here. I was going through the edits of a user always lacking edit summaries all of which were related to Da3esh or aligned groups. While doing so I stumbled upon the article Zahiri school which doesn't just read like its main goal is to legitimize the modern revival movement, large sections of it were cited to a blog called www.ghuraba.info on which the American terrorist John Thomas Georgelas had written under the pseudonym of „Yahya Abu Hassan“. I don't really know how to proceed? What would I write on the talk pages of users who cited this blog? Is there a way to blacklist the site or at least search Wikipedia for more citations? How to proceed with the content in the article itself (ie not the citation)? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Bari' bin Farangi! Some websites that are not in fact used to spam but that are unwanted for some other reason can be added to the spam blacklist if there is a consensus to do so (see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist). Asking on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard whether any specific website should be blacklisted is probably a good way to start the process (don't forget to add examples of the website's use on WP). For other questions of this nature you might want to ask for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
- When dealing with (suspected) Islamic extremists on Wikipedia, it's best to treat them as any other editor using unreliable sources or pushing some non-neutral point of view. Perhaps it's a good idea to make sure that no one can uncover your real-life identity from your WP activity (although it's also important not to trigger a Streisand effect in case they can; more info at WP:PRIVACY). But apart from that it's the same old deal: revert, clean up, warn users at their user talk (Wikipedia:Twinkle is a wonderful tool for this which I use all the time), if needed revert again and kindly explain on article talk, take disruptive editors to WP:ANI or another appropriate administrative noticeboard (WP:AN3, WP:AE, etc.).
- Don't forget, however, that editing Wikipedia is not compulsory. It's not your responsibility to keep Wikipedia free POV pushing of any kind, let alone Islamic extremism. It can be a dreadful job, and depressingly time-consuming; see my user page. You can undertake to completely rewrite the Zahiri school article if you feel like (or hunt for a better revision in its 20-year history and restore that, though most often you will find that it was even worse in the past), but you can also do something that you personally find more interesting and rewarding. I don't bother anymore with anything out of my field of interest; I'd rather wait for someone passionate about medieval Islamic theological schools to come around and rewrite the thing. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! You're right I've said my piece on the talk page and if for years no one was bothered by the article openly citing an entirely unqualified terrorist as if he were a historian or scholar of religion, it's not my job to suddenly care, though admittedly slowly but surely I am starting to share your frustrations with this place! Hope you have wonderful rest of your day :) Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Pseudo-Geber
In this edit, you restored Aqua Fortis which an IP had removed. Note that Aqua Fortis is simply a redirect to Nitric Acid, mentioned earlier in the sentence. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 05:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Citation
I think you want a citation like this. [1] NGC 628 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- No. First of all, if you quote someone, you should make that clear by mentioning the name of the person you quote and by relating the quote to the author in some way (e.g.: as Smith mentions, "blablabla"; Johnson 2023: "blablabla"). Then the reference to the source should also at least contain the name of the author, publication date, title, publisher/journal, and page number.
- There is also a problem with wp:neutrality. You seem to refer exclusively to revisionist scholarship, rather than give a broad overview of different scholarly opinions on the subject.
- If you want to discuss this further, please do it at the talk page of the article in question. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- The problem I see in this article—and in many others—is that hagiographic information is presented in a format of verified or verifiable scientific historical information. I have no intention of rewriting the article from scratch or simply revising it to fit a revisionist viewpoint. The hagiographic information will remain; some may wish to use it in their sermons, I just want to add a few points regarding the type of information it contains. NGC 628 (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- We summarize reliable sources into a structured and coherent overview. Some reliable sources regard some of that hagiographic information as historical. Ignoring those and writing only from the revisionist viewpoint, even if other (hagiographic) viewpoints have already been covered, even if they are in fact over-represented (as they are in many articles, I agree), will often break coherency and introduce more imbalance.
- For these reasons, if you're not willing to look at all relevant sources and (re)write a coherent summary, it's better not to edit Wikipedia at all. There are many other worthy intellectual pursuits. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think we see the same problems and know they need to be corrected. We don't have the option here to edit any article solely according to the revisionist school of thought, because verifiable data from that period is very limited, and almost nothing can be written based on it. My only aim here and elsewhere is to emphasize the quality of this hagiographic information and make the reader aware of it. Thank you for your understanding and warnings. NGC 628 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- The problem I see in this article—and in many others—is that hagiographic information is presented in a format of verified or verifiable scientific historical information. I have no intention of rewriting the article from scratch or simply revising it to fit a revisionist viewpoint. The hagiographic information will remain; some may wish to use it in their sermons, I just want to add a few points regarding the type of information it contains. NGC 628 (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
References
- "All of the earliest declarations of Islam are found on coins, documents, and monumental inscriptions produced under 'Abd al-Malik and his successors. After 72/691-2, such media become increasingly common; before, they are extremely rare" "The answer, I suggest, is that the polity that found itself ruling the conquests was a loose confederation of Arab tribes, not a hegemonic state."https://islamspring2012.voices.wooster.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/192/2018/09/johns_archaeology-and-history-of-early-islam-1.pdf
Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti
I think is a misunderstanding of the message you wrote on my talk page. I was just fixing the Sanaag region, which is in Somaliland and not Somalia. Infowritere (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Your edit is simply not fixing a typo. See typographical error if you're unsure what the word 'typo' refers to. You need to make sure that your edit summary actually describes the changes you make, because otherwise it will be perceived as misleading and disruptive.
- This is even more important if you are changing a place name to a contested region such as Somaliland, which is claimed as national territory by Somalia (cf. International recognition of Somaliland). In fact, you're operating within a topic that Wikipedia has recognized as contentious, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Horn of Africa. (on contentious topics in general, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics), where you are supposed to be extra careful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm still pretty new to editing Infowritere (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's okay; we were all once new here.
Just make sure to learn from your mistakes! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, I hope you have a great day or night 🤝 Infowritere (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's okay; we were all once new here.
- I'm sorry I'm still pretty new to editing Infowritere (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Asharaf
Just wanted to clear this up - I know nothing about this topic but after quickly skimreading through it, I wasn't sure if it was politically correct, so decided to remove it :) - Hope your doing well! Best, RossEvans19 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
