Talk:Turki al-Hamad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Various 2 Protection

[edit] Various

I´m glad to see this stub expanded! Just 2 notes: Is book no. 3 in the triology translated to English? I don´t think so? I cannot find any reference to an English ed. And should it be in the bibliography if it is (yet) only available in Arabic? I belive he has published about 14 books in Arabic.

-also: the date, 1998, must be wrong? "Adama" came first in Arabic in 1998, I belive "Karadib" (<-that is what my english version of "Adama" calls the third book in the series) was first published in Arabic in 2002. I suggest that this book is moved out of the Bibliography (perhaps renaming it: "Bibliography, in English" -or something like that.)

PS: I just changed the date: now it was contradicting the text "After the first, in 1999, Crown Prince Abdullah, who succeeded to the throne in August 2005, offered him bodyguards for his protection. The next three were issued by the country's religious clerics after the publication of the third in the trilogy, Karadib". But I´m not 100% sure that 2002 is correct! Huldra 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I got confused about the dates too. I think only the first two are translated. I took the 1998 date for Karadib from Amazon. [1] But you're right: it seems to make no sense in terms of the chronology. I may try to find an e-mail address for Saqi books and ask them for the correct dates, and for the names of his other books. I have no objection if you want to move Karadib into a separate section, or remove it entirely.

Regarding his birth place, I took out the reference to his "native Saudi Arabia" because I recall reading somewhere that he was born in Jordan, though now I can't find a reference for that, but I'll keep on looking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I also meant to say thanks for creating the article. He's an interesting writer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes: he is an interesting writer (though I´m not sure I will say that he is a great writer) ..anyway: I removed Karadib, the ref. you gave clearly say that the book is in arabic. (It will be translated though; according to the Daily Star ref. it will come "in a years time" from Jan.-05) Also: I´m still completely confused as to when Karadib was first published. I see several ref. to the book first published in 1998, but the Time mag. article say 2000.

Also: about his birth place: In the publishers note in Adama it says: "Despite being officially banned in several countries throughout the Middle East, including the author´s native Saudi Arabia, Adama attained bestseller status within one month of its initial printing in 1998." That is the Saqi, 2003 ed. I cannot remember seeing anything about him being born in Jordan, are you sure you are not mixing him up with Abdulrahman Munif? ..I first heard of Turki al-Hamad on Saudi webloggers pages, and they certainly talk of him as "their own". Huldra 14:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The Winds of Paradise published, ref: NYT, June 9th: http://www.metransparent.com/texts/neil_macfarquhar_saudi_reformers_seeking_rights_paying_a_price.htm -Huldra

Hi Huldra, I found a reference for his being born in Jordan here and I'll shortly add this, and other information from the article. A word about the references section: this is for articles and books that were actually used in the compilation of the page. Further reading is for material that wasn't actually used, but which the reader might nevertheless find interesting in relation to the subject.

Also, I made this invisible, as it's not clear. "One fatwa was later withdrawn. According to Ain-Al-Yaqeen in 2003, Sheikh Ali Al-Khudair, a well-known Saudi scholar who was arrested in Madinah for supporting terrorist attacks, had repented. In an interview with Saudi television, conducted by Sheikh Aaid Al-Qarn, Sheikh Al-Khudair withdrew the fatwas he had issued declaring the Saudi thinkers Turki Al-Hamad, Mansour Al-Naqeedan and Abdullah Abusamh as infidel."

According to this publication in 2003, or he withdrew it in 2003? Al-Khudair repented? Do you mean withdrew the fatwa? Then you refer to an interview with Saudi tv, so are you quoting the newspaper quoting the interview? If so, you should make that clear. Also, no need to say who conducted the interview unless it's pertinent. And you say he withdrew the fatwas, plural, yet earlier you say only one was withdrawn, though I'm assuming you're including the ones against the others, but it's unclear from the writing. Finally, any source linked to should ideally be added as a full citation to the References section. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've added that he was born in Jordan, created different sections and an intro, as it was getting too long for one section, and I've reduced the material about the withdrawn fatwa to one short sentence, linking to the source, which is now added to References.

For future reference, it's best not to copy what you find in the sources word for word, unless you quote them and attribute it e.g. "thinly disguised sketch of the lives of ..." and that the Sheikh "repented." Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've briefly protected because of vandalism from an AOL user. AOL customers can change IP addresses with each page they load, so blocking the addresses usually isn't enough. I'll unprotect in a few hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey I am the person that has been "vandalizing" this page and many others yesterday and today. I would like to apoligize for any inconveniences that this has caused. It will not happen any more, I got bored and just started playing around and since this was the first page I found I decided to vandalize it for entertainment. Sorry, If you like to unprotect this page feel free to since you will not have to worry about me vadalizing it, also I might actually contribute to this website in the future.

-Mike

Thank you, Mike, that's appreciated. Welcome to Wikipedia! ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I really do feel bad about what I have done. - Also I am the same person who "vandalized" the Star Wars article, so feel free to unprotect that also

Thank you for explaining, Mike. I was really wondering what on earth was so offensive about this article :-) Oh, well, I agree with SlimV here: your apology is much appriciated. You are welcome to Wikipedia, Regards, Huldra 02:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One more question, did yall ever find out who i am because I did leave a bit of a trail, all you would of had to do is analyze a few peices of information closely.

Lol! Well, since I´m not an admin, I can honestly say I don´t know. But if I were you I would not expect an answer to that question. Regards, Huldra 03:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should I not expect a response?

Mike, since I´m not an admin or a member of the group who go on regular "vandal-patrol", I can only answer for myself. (I´m only here because I wrote part of this article + the "Emily Ruete"-article). So:

Firsty: Though certainly not appriciated, what you did was not exactly the worst case of vandalism WP has experienced. Not by far. Some vandals continue for days or weeks, even months.

Secondly: I have met several editors on Wikipedia who started as vandals...then regretted their behaviour and went on to become well-respected editors. You will see that most Wikipedians are quite forgiving. We all do mistakes. In other words; I don´t think people will spend much time or energy analysing who a one-period vandal is. Who cares? There are far, far more important things to do.

Finally: If somebody has a method of finding out/has found out who you are; why should they tell you? If I was dealing with long-term vandals I would not want it to become generally known how, or if, I could find out who those vandals were. Do you follow me? It is like not showing all your cards. But remember: this is just the opinion of ONE user on Wikipedia (namely me). Other edititors might have a different opinion. I can only advise you to get a user-name (user-account), and start experimenting in the sandbox or on you own user-page. When you start contributing to WP you will not have time to be bored again ;-) Regards, Huldra 07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of the sandbox? Oh and for the reference, this was not the only page I vandalized, I did this to 50+ pages besides this several times each in some cases.

hmm, yes, as I said: I also "watch" the Emily Ruete-article (as I wrote most of it), and I did notice it got vandalized, too... Anyway, in the sandbox you can experiment all you want...beeing bold ..or you can be^{up in the sky} or colorful. In short: play around..;-) If you create a username you can do the same on you user-page. Good luck, regards, Huldra 16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)