Talk:Flying while Muslim

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Not True Muslims"[edit]

The link to "No True Scotsman" is not inserting opinion, as the use of "Not true Muslims" in the quote is exactly the sort of situation in which the fallacy occurs. To say that committing a terrorist act means that one is not a "true Muslim" is equivalent to saying that putting sugar in porridge makes one not a "true Scotsman." Note the particular emphasis in the fallacy article on accepted definition; it is generally accepted (if denounced by religious scholars) that terrorism is not a disqualifying attribute for Islam. Sketch051 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is open to debate whether or not terrorism would disqualify someone from being Muslim, and I've heard it argued both ways. Putting in the "no true Scotsman" link is thus your opinion and not a neutral, factual statement. If you're making the case that a terrorist can be a Muslim according to the Qur'an, you need to back that up with evidence and not just link to a logical fallacy. You say that "it is generally accepted (if denounced by religious scholars) that terrorism is not a disqualifying attribute for Islam" — however, religious scholars are exactly who you should be listening to in this case. Kyle Barbour (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English language does not have an academy like that of the French language, so it is not left to scholars to dictate the definition of particular terms; it is the sole domain of English speakers at large to determine, by their use, what they mean by a term. That is the point I am attempting to make with my reference to accepted definition; I'm not asserting whether Koranic law permits terrorism or not, merely that, to the general public, terrorism is not a prima facie disqualification to claim to be a Muslim. Sketch051 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) p.s. I'm also not directly stating that the quote is an instance of the fallacy (although I believe it to be), but am linking to the fallacy's page, leaving it to the readers to judge for themselves whether the fallacy applies.[reply]

It would be interesting to know, how should the airport security decide who is a true Muslim. Anyway it's like saying Christians didn't do crusade, because who kills in the name of religion, isn't a true Christian. --80.98.75.217 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the same as "No True Scotsman" because one can arguably believe that one who participates in acts of murder is not a true Muslim by Quranic law, while nobody can believe that the property of being a Scotsman is invalidated by committing intolerable acts. For example, "No true Scotsman was born in England and has lived in London his whole life" is a perfectly rational statement. If, according to the imams' interpretation of the Quran, murder disqualifies you from being a Muslim, then the statement "The terrorists are not true Muslims" is correct. --83.147.169.24 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I've removed the biased links twice now, and they've twice been put back into place. These biased columns that express opinion have no place being mixed in with objective articles that are journalistic accounts. I hope to not have to remove them a fourth time. Fifty7 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, it's nice of you to finally explain yourself. But your theory makes no sense. A news article where all the quotes come from one side of a controversial issue, as is the case in the Associated Press article that is linked to, is just as biased as a column. The AP article is constructed to argue that the Flying Imams were victims and that the people who were suspicious of them were bigots. The article/column distinction reflects a (sometimes arbitrary) decision made by the editor of a publication. It is not equivalent to objective/biased. External links can balenced by linking to articles with differing biases. Objective articles are few and far between. If you look at WP:External Links, the relevent guideline is "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view." This implies that a particular link can have a point of view. Kauffner 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the articles in question as per the neutrality tag on the article. It's true that the links in question are to columns, but that isn't necessarily a problem. To get around it, I have added a couple of lines to the article detailing the debate over "flying while Muslim", which references the same articles as before but puts them in context and notes that they are opinion pieces. I hope this will satisfy everyone & have removed the tag. -- TinaSparkle 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying while fill-in-the-blank[edit]

Considering that a Jewish man was thrown off an airplane for being "too Jewish", rocking back and forth in his seat while praying, it should be obvious it doesn't matter who you are anymore. Anything 'weird' is going to freak out American flyers, or at least individual ones.

[That was an Air Canada Jazz flight, so it wasn't American passengers, sorry to dissapoint you]

If this article wants to say that it is a special problem for Muslims, if might be better as a redirect to an article that deals with that more general topic. However, as demonstrated by the references, it is a wider problem, and perhaps this article should be expanded to include the general problem on paranoia in flying aluminum tubes. Shenme 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (background story that's cute)

I would say that these arguments go in support of merging this article in with Racial profiling. -- TinaSparkle 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a see also link to Flying Imams controversy, which looks to be the larger/'better' article. But as above it definitely is part of a larger topic. I think I'm going to add another merge proposal to both these articles. Shenme 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Shenme. I would support both merges - in the sense that the term "flying while Muslim", and the controversy in question, seems to me to be relevant to both articles, and would merit a mention in each. I feel that "flying while Muslim" should probably redirect to "Ethnic/racial profiling" rather than the specific "Flying imams controversy" article, as it's a term used in a wide variety of situations rather than solely in the case of the 6 imams. But I don't feel very strongly on this and if anyone feel otherwise, please do put your case. -- TinaSparkle 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly satirizes[edit]

Karl Meier and Prester John persistently delete the word "similarly" with illogical edit comments, sich as "this concept is not similar and has nothing to do with racial profiling. As mentioned, Islam is not a race." The sentence in question does not say that it is a similar concept. It says that the phrase satirizes one concept in a similar way it was done with another concept, irrelevantly, similar or not. Mukadderat 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The No True Scotsman link is OR[edit]

I'd have to agree with Fifty7 here: linking to "No True Scotsman" is inappropriate - because it's original research. "No True Scotsman" is an informal logical fallacy; therefore, if a Wikipedia editor makes the association between "No True Scotsman" and "...those involved in this terrorist act were not true Muslims," the Wikipedia editor is essentially asserting that "Omar Shahin's words are fallacious." Whether or not they actually are fallacious, Wikipedia cannot be the original source of that argument - that's the very definition of OR. If we can find a reliable source that associates "No True Scotsman" with the quote about "not true Muslims," we can mention that fallacy; if such a source doesn't exist, we can't. --209.78.3.114 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the wiki link is editorializing, and shouldn't be included. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't realized that OR="Original Research"; I stand by my assertion that it's not opinion, but if it falls afoul of a different policy, I'll relent. Thank you for your opinions. Sketch051 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Have I somehow been blocked from watching this article? Sketch051 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relenting, and regarding your query, no you are most welcome to continue editing. PhilKnight (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was just a glitch that it wouldn't stay on my watchlist. It doesn't matter anyway; I was only watching for this issue. Sketch051 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger[edit]

Isn't this a specific case of Islamophobia? I understand the reference to Driving While Black. It's very unfortunate that this is going on, but I am uncertain that it merits its own article just because it is actually happening. One might as well ask if we should have a specific "double parking while in New York City" article [2] or an "eating tacos on a bench" article [3] (both of which really did happen to trigger arrests as well.)

When we see an article on a TV show episode, we must determine if the episode itself is notable, because notability is not conferred merely by the overall TV show being notable. Using the same standard, I must ask: Is this notable outside the context of Islamophobia, or is it notable largely because it is Islamophobia? If the latter, we should merge it into Islamophobia. -moritheil^Talk 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Different wikiProjects have different criteria of notability. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge to the 'Incidents on aircraft' section. Fences&Windows 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this makes more sense as a subsection in the Islamophobia article - Omar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.159.19 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy to support a merge to Islamophobia. Dheppens (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Islamophobia is a really huge article now. The difference between "eating tacos on a bench" and "flying while Muslim" is the latter is a catch phrase while the former is not. We have quite a few articles about cliches. This one gained certain notoriety. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Merger The Islamophobia is big, adding another page to it will only make it larger, and more difficult to read.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flying while Muslim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929135658/http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/michael_smerconish/20070408_Head_Strong___See_suspicious_acts__Feel_free_to_report_them.html to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/michael_smerconish/20070408_Head_Strong___See_suspicious_acts__Feel_free_to_report_them.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flying while Muslim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted[edit]

This page fails the rules for importance for a wikipedia article. I'm surprised it hasnt been deleted. Ergzay (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]