This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MezzoMezzo (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 14 March 2014 (→The initial intro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:07, 14 March 2014 by MezzoMezzo (talk | contribs) (→The initial intro)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Saudi Arabia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Saudi arabia.jpg
Image:Saudi arabia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Utter Rubbish
Wow. This article is completely biased against Shaykh Rabee, and seems to support Shiaism. There is no such thing as 'madkhalism', and he is with the major salafi scholars of Saudi Arabia. Here is his bio: http://www.fatwa-online.com/scholarsbiographies/15thcentury/rabeealmadkhalee.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.250.127 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's a Salafist website made for translating fatwas from Saudi Arabia, widely coped and pasted on English language discussion forums. It's neither reliable nor professional as a source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the works section here?
The list of the subject's works seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as it's random with no reliable proof that any of the books listed are notable. Similarly, none of the reliable sources for the subject's bio mention any such works, and his books don't seem to be what he's known for. I'd suggest removing the whole section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the works section is to list in the English language what Rabee' al-Madkhali has written in support of the Islam. It is completely listed in his 15 volume compilation of his writing which span over decades. Your attempt to defame any notability regarding his writings is a potshot and indicated your utter negative bias towards him and his work. He is completely known as an author to anyone who knows of him and your failure to fathom that indicated you have no business editing this page whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sir, first of all, you need to read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as it isn't appropriate to accuse an editor right off the bat of defamation and having "no business editing this page whatsoever." Secondly, you should go back and read WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not in general. The site is based on policies and guidelines, not arguing. Please don't make the edits you did again as they violated a number of said policies, and as a new user it's always preferable to slow down in the beginning. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Good Sir, it is in no way meant as an 'attack'. It is stating fact of your proven historical ability to not be negatively biased against someone who you are 'writing' about. I am not here to argue, hence why, I barely touched your 'opinion' and added a counter 'opinion' with multiple sources including audio evidence. I welcome you to expand on your points within the page of Dr Rabee while I check and verify the citations you made for authenticity. In the mean time I welcome an alternative Wiki editor to examine the page for 'neutrality' issues. Also, FYI I am proceeding at a very slow pace. There is much work to be done on other articles you have negatively slanted as well as positively slanted for others. But all in due time. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
In general, it would be 'enlightening' to hear you expound on what criterion you utilise when deleting text that has been sourced. Because to my 'untrained' eye it seems you discriminately delete anything that does not fit the narrative you wish to set fourth for this page. How is it that your sources are 'legitimate' while in a previous mass culls you deleted things which were authentically cited? What's the point in deleting photo evidence of things which are directly linked to the individual this page is about? How is it that documented evidence such as his lineage is being deleted? I wonder if you hold the same standard of neutrality for someone like Abu Abd al-RahmanIbn Aqil page that you frequently edit as you do for this one amongst others. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand you're new here and all the regulations can be overwhelming, but you really should review the policies I mentioned. Whether one is violating said policies or not is not based on one's own opinion of what, say, a personal attack is; it's based on the guidelines established here on Misplaced Pages itself.
- Accusing someone of defamation without discussing the issue with them first is technically a violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks; you should check this one out well.
- Regarding the sources you posted, then I did not post my initial reasoning because your account is brand new and Misplaced Pages is frequently hit by one-issue editors who cause disruption for a short time. It has happened on this article especially, and generally new editors who ignore WP:CAREFUL tend to disappear quickly. In short, there were a number of issues with Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and in cases like this, the best thing to do is post any suggested sources here on the talk page before inserting them into an article, and gaining Misplaced Pages:Consensus before moving on.
- Regarding the images, check out WP:NOTGALLERY and then open discussions about each suggested image here. On Misplaced Pages, gaining consensus on a talk page and reading the feedback of the community is generally the way to engage in good editing.
- It is also important for you in particular to read and understand WP:WIKIHOUND as well as Misplaced Pages:Harassment in general. You already tried to out my identity here twice and had the edits suppressed, and you have apparently been monitoring my edits on other pages. Specifically following one editor around because you think they're biased, but without proven grounds for doing so, will rarely yield the desired results on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith is quite relevant here.
- All the rules can seem overwhelming at first, but they exist in order to improve the encyclopedia and smooth out the editing process. Please read the links I have posted and in the future, refrain from personal attacks and any sort of stalking behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
User:mezzomezzo you are absolutely right about new rules and me being rough around the edges here and I shall do my homework with policy as well, I can assure you. However, why were your sources not posted in the talk section prior to being utilised? You saw it fit to put your sources up without seeking consensus. A detailed explanation to my previous points would be much appreciated, however my instinct tells me we will need arbitration here. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I checked WP:NOTGALLERY and fail to see what aspect of it you interpreted that would lead the the deletion of the photos I posted onto WikiCommons. Explanation on that too please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sir, you've had this account for two days and you have tried to out me twice and launched into a measure of personal attacking. The onus for detailed explanations lies on you; we can take this to dispute resolution (that comes before arbitration) if you would like but for the time being, you need to cool off. Read the policies I posted and explain why you want to make said changes to the article; your behavior unfortunately resembles that of numerous one-subject editors who have disruptively edited religion based articles - including this one - and that, coupled with your recent violations, does reduce your ability to edit so aggressively.
- Look, I am helping you in a way here. If you take my advice, check out all the policies I mentioned and explain clearly - here or via WP:DR - why you want to implement said changes, you have a good chance of being understood properly and achieving some sort of agreement. If you continue with the WP:BATTLEGROUND, then things likely won't end well for you here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
You deleted sourced information with no explanation, therefore the onus of proof is upon you to explain why. If it was unsourced information I could understand your point. None the less, I explained in this section the relevance of detailing the written works of the person. I await answers to that as well as my previous enquiries in this thread. Much obliged user:MezzoMezzo Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how it works, sir. You just tried to out another editor twice after creating an account only two days ago, and have made edits only to this article. You have also made it clear that despite being new, you have been monitoring my own edits and intend to continue doing so. Now falling into certain violations is not uncommon when editors are new, but given your aggressive stance and the fact that you made clear you know me personally and dislike my editing, I have to once again reiterate my insistance that you defend your edits before going any further. It's not unreasonable of me to suspect that this could be some sort of a personal thing, and though your edits trying to out me were supressed, the editors who removed them are aware of what you said.
- Seriously, check the relevant policies and go through suggestion by suggestion. Typically, these things take time which isn't the end of the world. Talk:Qamaruzzaman Azmi is one example I can think of where such a process took place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I defend my massive update to the edits by inviting you to explain what is wrong with them. You make many erroneous assumptions. First of which is that I monitor your posts. I looked at your edits once to get a better idea of the methodology you utilize in your edits in order to understand why you edit in the manner that you do. That is abundantly clear to me know and there was never a continued effort on my part to look any further. Secondly, I do not know you personally and I have never had the good fortune to meet you in person. Therefore I have nothing against you personally but rather find your editing to be odd. My newness is not up for debate. It's apparent for all and I sincerely appreciate your patience in that regard. However my actions are based from an academic background and not founded in your false assumptions. I tackle one issue at a time and therefore to you it seems that I intend to only post on one particular page. Again, this is a false assumption and I fully intend to move on once I feel neutrality has been restored to this page. Mistakes of wiki manners in the part of a newcomer should not be used in order to skirt answering legitimate questions. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. I asked for the specific edits where you outed me to be removed, but I don't feel shy in letting it be known that you did try to out me twice. You're straight up lying now, and the admin who saw your attempt and expunged it also knows that. You know very well who I am apparently and while it's good that you want to play ball now, you aren't simply going to play it off like it didn't happen.
- You clearly came here from knowing who I am on the outside and while I won't mention how, you know, and anyone who sees this will know and can check with User:Risker to confirm. Explain each edit before doing it, individually instead of adding 23,000 bytes to the article, and wait for consensus to form (using dispute resolution if you choose to). You aren't in any position to be making demands of other editors in regard to accepting what you're pushing, period. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- And yes, I am openly accusing you of violation of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view with the edits you did. That's okay because you're new, but just so there isn't any mincing of words. Your behavior and your edits (which used the subject's own website and "themadkhalis.com" as sources) have me 100% convinced that at least initially, you came here as a defender of the subject of this article and his movement, Madkhalism. You can quote me on that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I have not once addressed you asking to have that removed because for me it is a non-issue that occurred from someone who didn't know it was prohibited. Not sure what you're carrying on about in regards to that.
Your assumptions are absolutely erroneous (again). I did NOT come to this page or any other knowing who you were. I was looking for information and found the entry for Dr Rabee to be completely biased in a negative way to the reality of things. This caused me to look at the history of the page and who had edited things in such a hazardous manner. Not until after that, when seeking advice about fixing it was I informed who you are. But rest assured I will not mention that again here. However I am saddened to read that you think I am a liar. That and other instances here goes against so much of the WP:EQ of which I read which I would expect a veteran editor like yourself not to make. And I am happy for user:risker to know that.
With that in mind, I take umbrage with you initially and automatically assuming that I am/was a 'defender of the subject of this article or his movement'. That seems to go against 'Assume good faith' on your part. More to the point, to illuminate the problematic nature of this page as it currently stands, I bring your attention to the following: "Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another..." found in WP:EQ under: "a few things to bear in mind." So a website that translates the speech of a person from Arabic to English and provides the actual recording is extremely beneficial as far as a source. Whether it is on an unknown page or not because the audio file they provide is the actual source not the website itself. If I am stating, for example, that "the famous Dr. Jack Jones stated that Nurse Jill Johnson is a renowned nurse in his experience and expert medical opinion" and it is on the webpage of Nurse Jill Johnson, how is that not a relevant source in establishing the capabilities and expertise of Nurse Jill Johnson, exactly? The audio is the evidence not the actual website and that's why I added secondary citing for them as well in other locations when available.
Anyways I'll move on attempting to balance this article Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- You also know from reading the policy on assuming good faith that there is a limit, and when someone tries to out you (along with throwing in a personal insult) that tends to be eroded very quickly. And I know that you know who I am; why did you bring up the article about Ibn Aqil, even though I haven't edited it in six months? You would have had to scroll through pages and pages of my contribs, noticing other articles which I edited much more frequently but you chose that one. You and I both know why, but if you do want to move on then let's move on. Understand that I know what's going on.
- As for the official website, then no it isn't a good source, nor are websites which exist solely to spread propaganda about the subject. We can discuss that in detail below in the coming days. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Source and relevance of this sentence?
"Madkhali is the father-in-law of anti-government cleric Musa al-Qarni."
What is the reference for this and it's relevance? It would seem more informative to list his children like Muhammad b. Rabee al-Madhkalee who is seen by some as a scholar in his own right and the author of books than who might or might not be his son-in -law. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's uncited and I don't see any sources myself, it would be prudent to delete it in that case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, prudent indeed. I'll let the individual who added it on Feb 12th 2013 have the honor. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Photos
I added four photos which I uploaded on WP:COMMONS to this page and they were deleted without much explanation. I was referred to WP:NOTGALLERY by an editor but did not see anything explicitly stated there helps me to understand the reason for deletion.
Upon looking at WP:PERTINENCE it would seem to me that the photos fill every requirement. Such as: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Misplaced Pages project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation." As well as, "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information."
Thanks in advance. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's good, you should have the background now to jump into this. Can you post the links to the four photos on Wikimedia Commons? Other users (there are ways to get feedback from more than just myself by the way, I can give some links for on-Wiki community forums for soliciting such advice) will want to see them so they can understand the relevance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to picture one showing the 15 volume collection of a lot of Dr Rabee's written work. ] This picture would tie in nicely as a visual to show the prolific nature of his peer-reviewed published work of which contains work of importance and some note. See Roy, Oliver (2012) Whatever Happened to the Islamists? and Hasan, Noohaidi (2006 ) Laskar Jihad.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Given the headway that has been made with discussing the addition of a works section, that picture seems like a great addition. What about the other images? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Works of Dr Rabee
As user:MezzoMezzo started this thread and it has gone in a different direction I would like to re-evaluate the necessity of including the list of writings which Dr Rabee has authored. I detailed it previously as thirty in number, showing a prolific nature in my opinion, with multiple citations but it was deleted. I have a list of more works he has written but I didn't include them due to not have a citation on hand and find it strange that the cited ones were deletes in entirety. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there are a few issues, the first of which is that for the entire selection there was only one citation included. It isn't a policy violation but it generally isn't done; exceptionally prolific authors may also have works which are unknown or simply have no academic focus on them. Not everybody is Isaac Asimov.
- The second issue is what we find in the conditions for P:ABOUTSELF and WP:NOTADVERTISING. One of the main characterisations of the subject and his movement is a somewhat self-serving/self-promoting nature; that, coupled with the tendency of both the subject's official website and the fansite themadkhalis.com to provide such long lists of works would make the article look like fancruft.
- The second issue is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no reason to doubt that all those works are real, but why do they need to be included? Is there any third-party, mainstream academic coverage explaining the impact of such works within the field? I do believe, when doing research for sources on the subject, that some academic sources do mention a handful of works to be included. I would suggest looking back through those and focusing instead on books with mainstream, third-party coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's start with Manhaj al-Anbiyyah which Lacroix & Holoch (2011: 212) state was "very controversial" as well as being the book that made him famous within the "Saudi religious field". Further on, they (Ibid:220-221) mention the "tazkiyyah wars" and challenge to Dr Rabee's "authority" (which is one would NEVER assume Dr Rabee' had from the current wiki page) which led to "exchanges of refutations" between Bashumayyil, Al-Duwaysh and Dr Rabee respectively. So, that seems kinda noteworthy too.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Good researching. If you have the time, could you suggest a draft version of a blurb about that work here in this section of the discussion incorporating both sources?
- As an aside, links from OCLC affiliates like WorldCat, while not necessary, are also good to throw in as a citation for books. They also provide good info like ISBN numbers, publisher info, etc. It's a good way to get quick info on published works. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
A Question of bias in sources
user:MezzoMezzo please expound on the reasons why I am facing resistance in utilizing common-knowledge biographical information about Dr. Rabee from the website like Rabee.net when people like Lacroix (and others) rely on it for information in his book? Please see page 330 of Awakening Islam citation number 87.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, it really isn't upon anyone else to explain the reason for resistance at this time. While Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, you got your start here - before I even responded to anything - with an attempt at outing my identity along with a personal attack in addition to a number of policy violations within the article itself. These together - especially the outing attempt - destroy the assumption of good faith rather quickly. Given the history of vandalism and fanboyism on this article by new users who are followers of the Madkhalist movement, it's fair to say that the onus is more on you to explain why you want certain changes to the community at large. The assumption of good faith is usually regained after missteps like this, especially from new users, but it takes time and dedication.
- Regarding your specific question here, then per WP:BLPSELFPUB the concern is self-service as well as sections or paragraphs inserted which are based solely on the subject's own books and/or sites. Now if they can be worked in with other sources already there then it's ok, even if other sources to quote those. The reason is that professional, peer-reviewed sources by recognized and respected publishers such as we see from the Lacroix source are known to inspect their own sources beforehand; additionally, anything the author wants to publish is inspected again by editors for said publications and thus the process is trusted. This is in order to adhere to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources.
- Another issue is bias. Per Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, it's actually not a problem if the source is merely biased as long as it is reliable, but we as editors must not be biased when using said sources. This is where a measure of subjectivity can come into play, as how do we decide on the correct language when presenting a reliable yet biased source?
- Regarding the question on reliability of sources, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a great forum for seeking community input on the status of a given source.
- Regarding neutrality in presentation of reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is a way to gain community input. People tend to respond promptly at both locations.
- Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a draft version of suggested text here first and then, after we work on it here, bumping it over to the noticeboards as there doesn't seem to be anyone else watching our discussions here and making suggestions. Could you suggest text incorporating sources tied to the subject in a neutral way which also incorporate third-party sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I can do that. Understand that when I ask things such as this it is more so to pick your brain and breadth of experience and not personal. Secondly, are you aware of the peer-reviewed nature of Islamic books written and published in the Arabic language?
Also in my defense, and to prove that I did not utilize those sources any differently than other academics have in their research and writings, I never touched the criticisms which are already present on the page. I merely added praises to balance it out. If I was like the individuals you have had to deal with in the past then surely I would have made an attempt to delete the criticisms. This undoubtedly shows my intentions here are not biased anymore than yours (for example) or any other editor on wiki.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Very much aware; I have work experience as a contractor both editing and translating for universities in the Middle East, which involved both written editing/translating as well as verbal, on-the-spot translation both ways for mathematics and agricultural science faculties. Additionally, I have access to a few databases which include publications from religious institutions like Umm al-Qura and Qarawiyyin Unis - that's something about me that most people actually don't know. If you would like access to such publications for Wiki purposes I can try to help but my access is limited.
- One thing to keep in mind regarding peer review in the Mideast is that it's reliability is low; frequently, peer review consists of a series of "yes-men" greenlighting each others' work due to nepotism and this is quite strong even at religious universities. The result is that the quality of research can range from acceptable to poor, as brain drain causes even religious scholars to often emigrate to the West. I'd trust pubs from McGill more than Madinah, for example, though the latter could be acceptable after editor scrutiny. That's why the reliable source noticeboard is so important, as many of the regulars there are themselves academics. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a very strong claim. Do you have any empirical data you can reference that has looked into that subject to back it up? I have in fact been told it is the complete opposite (In the Islamic sphere, anyways) and that books and papers are rigorously checked and when ideas in opposition to the Saudi State "Permanent Committee for Research and Religious Rulings" Islamic ideology have been checked/reviewed they did not hesitate to criticize. As have individual committee members on their own accord when asked to review books. Without evidence this claim (of weakness in Middle Eastern academic peer-reviewed work) seems elitist against them from a Western perspective.
When it comes to sources such as Meijer and Lacroix utilizing the same biographical data source to establish their points, like Rabee.net (for example) what is the problem in us using it to establish the lineage (for example) of Dr Rabee? Especially when it has been published in Arabic books, such as "at-Ta'asuub-udh-Dhameem wa Aathaaruhu" and even translated and placed (in full) into published English Islamic books such as "A Study on Selected Ahaadeeth of the Prophet. If the source(s) was dodgy then surely the publisher or peer-reviewer of Meijer or Lacroix (amongst others) would have taken umbrage with them.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not really a strong claim one you get familiar with the Middle Eastern education system. I don't have sources on hand but one thing you will find tons of research about is the decrepit educational methods here, even at unis and in all majors. Rote memorization is still favored, just as it was in the West or Japan up until two hundred years or so ago. I wish I could attach PDF files to talk pages as examples and there might be a way, but that's one thing on Misplaced Pages I really don't know about at all. But an example is one of the many PhD dissertations I keep on my old hard drive and simply haven't deleted yet; from a Saudi Arabian uni no less, though I have others like this. It's just about ahadith a scholar included in his collection which he thought were authentic but most others did not. In a modern country like the University of Chicago, for example, that would be a good senior project for a bachelor's degree but it isn't really heavy research; it's just cross checking what other guys said about one guy's work. A high schooler can do it, but in the Mideast it's acceptable in grad school. Obviously the sciences aren't as bad, but still poor. I once edited a research piece by an environmental engineer about water tables over a period of time under land in dry areas used to farm corn. That was probably the best thing I had read in the Mideast both among things I edited and things I just read on my own in journals or university libraries, but it was short and ended before it got interesting.
- Religion is ten times worse, because it's impossible to fail and they send all the dunces there. In fact, that's a well-known part of Middle Eastern and South Asian culture. "Oh, he failed out of math? That's ok, let him study Islam. How can he fail in that? He's doing it for the sake of Allah." This is such a common meme in the culture that even those born outside the Middle East make jokes about it.
- Anyway, the discussion isn't over whether what I said above should be stated in an article so bringing sources is a waste of time. The point is, peer-reviewed work in the Middle East will be subject to scrutiny like anything else but at the relevant noticeboard, I and most likely others will bring up issues of reliability, especially religious works which are often just polemical tracts without academic value; authors too often simply want to make a point about why their view is right instead of giving readers and overview of a topic. So by all means make suggestions, but I hope this advice here will help prepare you for the "sales pitch" so to speak.
- Regarding the last question about including Rabee's website or sources from respected publishers quoting his website, then I answered that in my previous comment. I don't mean to be blunt but you just asked the same question I already answered, and I have already written too much, so just refer to what I said previously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I am asking for further explanation based on your position that these sources don't meet some criterion, which you admit you haven't based on any empirical data (just your personal observations) which I feel is stifling sound information being placed on this page. Particularly when I see that similar types of Arabic sources, as well as sites like Salaf.com and fatwaonline have been used on other English pages, such as Muqbil Wad'i and Badi udeen Sindi. It is completely baffling and makes Wiki look like an unprofessional and unbalanced site.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm disappointed that you seem to keep going this route but such is life. Per WP:AOBF, accusing another editor of bad faith really ought to be substantiated via diffs as it could otherwise fall into WP:NPA. If you take issue with what I am trying to explain to you, there are proper forums where you can go with that.
- As for other articles, then the essay Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists is a good read that might clarify why that line of argumentation typically doesn't work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Pardon? What on Earth are you talking about? Where have I accused you in this thread of acting in bad faith?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, accusing other editors of stifling sound information being placed on pages necessitates bad faith on the part of the accused, if accurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Current Activity Section
Is there a specific reason why the Current Activity Section is so bare? In fact, for some strange reason the education and employment stuff that is in this section is almost two decades old at a minimum. It's well-known that Dr. Rabee is currently authoring books and giving classes twice a week and I had provided photographic evidence of that previously that was deleted. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a combination of the fact that there are only a few editors who have taken an interest in this page and none of us have taken the time to search for more info.
- Now regarding photography, then on Misplaced Pages it actually isn't counted as a legit source; per Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, published sources (online or in print) are required. Whether one editor says that a claim is "well-known" isn't of importance if there are no reliable sources to confirm the claim. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth, while technically an essay, is endorsed by the site as reflective of community culture and the way "the system works." It's a good read to get what I'm saying here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So a page such as http://miraath.net/Radio_Table/rt_1435-04-29.jpg showing that would suffice then?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- First, this appears to be a jpeg so what is the importance of images in this case? They aren't sources.
- Second, miraath.net fails WP:QUESTIONABLE big time as it is one of the sites run by the Madkhalist movement, just like the English site themadkhalis.com. It's about as reliable as athary or madkhalis.com (without "the"), which is to say not at all.
- If you can find a mainstream publisher with a respected editorial board quoting such sites then we can cite said mainstream publication instead, otherwise such sites are out of the question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The initial intro
Apologies, but I'm not familiar with the name of the initial paragraph on a wiki page. Is it called an introduction?
I would like to reword it as follows:
"Rabee' Ibn Haadee 'Umayr al-Madkhalee (ربيع بن هادي عمير المدخلي) is counted as one of the chief theologians in contemporary Salafism (Amghar, S., 2007 Salafism and Radicalization of young European Muslims IN European Islam: Challenges for Public Policy and Society. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies p38-51) and a former head of the Department of Sunnah in the Department of Higher Studies at the Islamic University of Madinah. Al-Madkhalee is a well-known Salafist Muslim scholar who is considered one of Salafism's most radical thinkers. He is often referred to as the founder of the Madkhalism movement by his critics and observers, although he contests this statement (https://ia600805.us.archive.org/16/items/SamirAbouAlBaraaItems/RadShRabee_NabzSalafis-Madakhila.mp3) and other Salafist scholars even deny its existence" (Al-Fawzan, S., 2010 Wajib Talibul 'Ilm ba'd at-Takharruj, Islamic University of Madinah. Lecture given 16th of July 2010. Http://iu.edu.sa/News/Pages/706.aspx) (Mandikar, F. 2013 Muhammad Aman Al-Jami and Rabi bin Hadi Al-Madkhali. Al-Watan Newapaper, Kuwait City, Kuwait. Http://alwatan.kuwait.tt/articledetails.aspx?id=270942&YearQuarter=20132). Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The POV you're pushing here is beyond ridiculous. First of all, this article isn't the place for you to argue about denial of Madkhalism - it's simply irrelevant to this article.
- Secondly, an MP3 file of the subject himself speaking is neither a reliable source nor is it appropriate for you to be using that as a means of trying to subtly argue against conclusions drawn by mainstream scholarship in this article.
- Thirdly, it's a bit dishonest to claim that only the subject's critics refer to him as the founder of his own movement. Those who do so are recognized academic scholars in political science and Middle Eastern studies; this is a clear attempt to play off the criticism and present an overly positive picture.
- Beyond all that, this process isn't following Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section anyway. The intro section ("lead") is a summary of what's found below in the main body of the article; it should primarily just repeat things already found below and as changes are made to the article's body, it might have to be altered slightly multiple times creating a lot more work. It's typically the last thing touched during work on article content.
- What we're looking at with the above suggestion are major violations of WP:NPOV, WP:IRS and WP:NOTADVOCATE. If you like the subject of the article and want to ensure that false information isn't spread then fine, but I'm going to call it for what it is: what you're suggesting here is that Misplaced Pages essentially becomes a forum to deny any truths about this man found inconvenient by his movement and to essentially use the site to proselytize. That's not what Misplaced Pages is for. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)