Talk:WikiIslam

Identical citations to 2022, 2023 or 2024 study

The following citations appear to be to identical:

• name="KozaricBrekke2023": Kozaric, Edin; Brekke, Torkel (2024). "The case of WikiIslam: scientification of Islamophobia or legitimate critique of Islam?". Ethnic and Racial Studies: 1–19. doi:10.1080/01419870.2023.2268154. hdl:10852/109661. S2CID 264331620.
• name="Brekke 2024": Kozaric, Edin; Brekke, Torkel. "The case of WikiIslam: scientification of Islamophobia or legitimate critique of Islam?". www.tandfonline.com. 47 (5). doi:10.1080/01419870.2023.2268154?needAccess=true. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

The publication date was 2024, but the date the paper was received by the journal was 22 November 2022, and it was accepted on 4 September 2023. Note that the page numbers were 963–981. Even numbered pages have the page number in top left hand corner; odd numbered pages have it in the top right hand corner. i.e. the "KozaricBrekke2023" has the page numbers wrong. I think that the date in the citation template should be 2024 - the publication date of Volume 47, Issue No. 5. I will fix these problems.

@Doug Weller and Darklightsd: The "Brekke 2024" version of the citation is cited for A 2024 study stated.... Do you think that should be changed to 2022? The study must have been completed in 2022, though the paper was published in a 2024 issue of Ethnic and Racial Studies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

“A study published in 2024”, we can only speculate about when it was carried out, if the publication date was late 2024 it could have been carried out the same year. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Agh, sorry I missed the date of the study. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I have implemented the wording Doug Weller suggested. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

but shouldn't the later pages like 16 be the recent ones? also tbh speculate is really not academic for we really don't know which ones are first. it could be that the later pages are more recent which talk about biasness:

in page 16 it gives another view of it biasness: In a 2023 content analysis, Edin Kozaric of Oslo Metropolitan University and Torkel Brekke of MF Norwegian School of Theology examined WikiIslam using a framework they termed the "scientification of Islamophobia," referring to how prejudice against Muslims can gain credibility through academic-style referencing and terminology. Their overall assessment was that the information WikiIslam presents about Islam is far from neutral:[11]: 16  the site's topic selection is biased, and it continues to have hardly any information presenting Muslims positively or neutrally. Because WikiIslam's articles often present conflicting interpretations, they concluded it would be wrong to characterize WikiIslam as entirely Islamophobic. However, the site does not meet the standards set out in its vision document. Their primary concern was that WikiIslam positions itself as an objective encyclopedia while failing to acknowledge how its content is used elsewhere; their backlink analysis found that far-right websites such as Breitbart regularly cited WikiIslam articles to support anti-Muslim arguments. Darklightsd (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This link states "Published online: 18 Oct 2023." Snuish (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

In another place the same paper is cited for In a 2023 content analysis.... Should that be changed to 2024 (publication date), or 2022 the date the paper was received by the journal.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

in page 16 it gives another view of it biasness: In a 2023 content analysis, Edin Kozaric of Oslo Metropolitan University and Torkel Brekke of MF Norwegian School of Theology examined WikiIslam using a framework they termed the "scientification of Islamophobia," referring to how prejudice against Muslims can gain credibility through academic-style referencing and terminology. Their overall assessment was that the information WikiIslam presents about Islam is far from neutral:[11]: 16  the site's topic selection is biased, and it continues to have hardly any information presenting Muslims positively or neutrally. Because WikiIslam's articles often present conflicting interpretations, they concluded it would be wrong to characterize WikiIslam as entirely Islamophobic. However, the site does not meet the standards set out in its vision document. Their primary concern was that WikiIslam positions itself as an objective encyclopedia while failing to acknowledge how its content is used elsewhere; their backlink analysis found that far-right websites such as Breitbart regularly cited WikiIslam articles to support anti-Muslim arguments.[11] Darklightsd (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the page numbers in the rp templates should be fixed as well - the currently show the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. page of the article, rather than the page in the journal. I can see great benefit to users in leaving them as they are (easier for people using the URL). The citation template has been changed to show the correct pages of the journal (useful for people with a paper or pdf copy of the issue of the journal); I am sure readers can figure out that where Wikipedia says page 10, it really means page 972 of the journal.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

First sentence doesn't state what the site is (MOS:LEAD)

The opening calls WikiIslam "an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki." If you take out the two adjectives then "wiki" is all noun that's described, which carries almost no information. A reader here has to infer its purpose and actual content from the labels, this doesn't give enough context and information about what is on the wiki.

MOS:LEAD says the first sentence should tell a nonspecialist what the subject is through a concise definition. Comparable articles on contested sites do this by leading with function. I.e. Breitbart News opens as "an American far-right news, opinion, and commentary website." This kind of label has a lot of functional nouns. This lead gives the adjectives nothing to modify, which is also the WP:STRUCTURE problem of ordering carrying a POV independent of the sourcing.

Proposed: WikiIslam is an anti-Islam and anti-Muslim wiki that documents Islam critically, drawing on Islamic scripture, hadith, and prophetic biography alongside modern historical-critical scholarship. EdithVane (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"Wiki" could be a more specific genus, but the proposed text adopts WikiIslam's own mission-statement language ("documents Islam critically," "drawing on... historical-critical scholarship"), which is exactly the self-characterization Kozaric and Brekke (2024) found the site fails to live up to. Per WP:WEIGHT, the lead should reflect what independent sources say about the site, not how it describes itself. I don't think the Breitbart comparison supports your position. That article leads with "far-right," not with Breitbart's account of its own journalism. If "wiki" reads as too thin, a neutral fix is to describe it as a wiki focused on criticism of Islam, which the sources support, without importing the site's promotional framing. Snuish (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)