Talk:Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

Remove Neutrality tag - the rant on the talk page relates to older versions of the article, otherwise no clearly stated reasons for it.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does the BBC link say "This should be checked against transmission for accuracy and to ensure the clear identification of individual speakers". Does this suggest that this transcript may not be accurate?Bless sins 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Which BBC link?--Ioannes Pragensis 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"A question of Leadership".
I guess that this is a standard warning for all similar transcriptions of controversial shows, made mostly for legal purposes. It should be about as accurate as all similar transcripts. If there were clear mistakes in it, the Moslem Council would probably point at it in its statement.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The absence of criticism from Muslim groups does not justify anything. What do you mean by "standard warning". there are plenty of pages on BBC that don't make this warning. Even is this is a standard warning, then it shows that BBC itself is not confidence in its sources. Why should we any more?Bless sins 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone does not provide an adequate response for this, i will remove this, considering the BBC self admits that its program may be errarneous.Bless sins 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, the more you attempt to whitewash hate speech, the more you discredit yourself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't create a straw man arugment. The question (in this section) is regarding accuracy, not neutrality. "Whitewashing" is completely irrelevent.Bless sins 05:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Standard legal boilerplate to prevent lawsuits. It is sufficiently verifiable for wikipedia, and much more so than some of the smaller websites without the same level of oversight. -- Avi 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

WP:BLP says "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. "

Here criticism of Sudais is presented "in a manner that does not overwhelm the article".Bless sins 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you had changed did not overwhelm anything. Bowdlerization of text is as much a POV violation as vilification. Well sourced statements do not violate WP:BLP. Thank you. -- Avi 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Again if well sourced statements overwhelm an article about a living person then they violate WP:BLP. Bless sins 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This does not overwhelm the article. Neither does the categories. Please edit in accordance with wiki policies and guidelines. If you have other information from well sourced sites about other activities of this man, by all means add him, but it is not tyhe fault of wikipedia if he is rather notable for his virulent antsemitic statements. The article would be improved by your adding content, not removing verified information that makes you feel uncomfortable; which is against policy as well. -- Avi 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Until there is a sufficient amount of positive material already in the article, WP:BLP forbids adding only critical material.
I believe that is a misunderstanding of the policy. Perhaps you should ask for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. -- Avi 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I don't mean to violate WP:POINT, but take a look at the talk page of Martin Gilbert. On that article users forbade any criticism of the man until sufficiently positive material about him was on the article.Bless sins 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Having never edited on that page as far as I can recall, you may wish to consult with the editors for that page, and ask them to comment here. However, removing accurately attributed information because it makes you uncomfortable is a violation of NPOV. Sometimes, there exist people without much redeeming information. If you can find it, add it, by all means! -- Avi 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Avraham, wiki BLP says that "...so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article." You edits clearly overwhelm the article. Please stop violateing BLP, this is rpetty serious.Bless sins 19:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer here is not to keep the article in a stub to suppress information you do not like. It is the responsibility of wiki editors to find other things about this man. And if all there is that is reliably sourced is negative, so be it.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.

– WP:BLP#Biased or malicious content

The above is upheld in the article; there are reliable third-party sources. Further, this is the view of mainstrea,m Western media, or the majority opinion, not the minority opinion. Your responsibility is to bring OTHER sources that debate/argue the point, not to hide information. Please re-real WP:BLP carefully. Whitewashing and information deletion is as just a serious issue. Thank you. -- Avi 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to support Avi - you should, Bless sins, concentrate on adding sourced info and not on deleting it. BLP is about unsourced libel, not about well-researched citations. If all articles were to be balanced in your sense, Bless sins, then the article about Hitler would be empty... - I agree with you, Bless sins, that the Sudais article can be better - but this can be achieved only by broadening its scope and not by narrowing it. Greetings and happy editing to both of you, --Ioannes Pragensis 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, according to mainstream media, Hitler is dead. Secondly, BLP says "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material". Clearly BLP is against overwhelming the article with critics' material. But perhaps you, Ioannes Pragensis, can take a look at the Talk:Martin Gilbert and take a look at the controversy there.Bless sins 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, this article is about Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, not Martin Gilbert. Everything is sourced, so there is no violation of WP:BLP. There is no reson to boedlerize the article, because editors are either undesirous or incapable of finding positive or neutral things to say about this man. Your job is to BUILD the article, not delete things that make you uncomfortable. His antisemitism is well-documented and well-displayed. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry, but it is verified and well-cited, and central to his notability. -- Avi 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again please answer the issue: you are not to overwhlem the article with criticism of Sudais. That is precisely what you are doing.Bless sins 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have asked for comment here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and overwhelming clause. I hope you join in and we get some form of consensus. Secondly, even were you to be correct, that in no way shape or form justifies removal of the categories. His antisemitism is well documented in his own words, regardless of how much of it will be displayed in the article. -- Avi 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, I do not think that the criticism overwhelms the article. The controversies about Sudais' antisemitic speeches are just what makes him notable here in the Western world. If you wish to make the article better, please start with adding the reference for his Ramadan prayer and do not delete sourced material.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have joined the commenting you directed me to. However, I will not settle this issue until a proper interpretation for "as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article" is provided.

In the meanwhile I have some more objections:

  1. BLP says "[criticism] does not...appear to side with the critics' material. BY putting Sudais in the category of antisemitism, we are doing exactly that.
  2. Who is making the allegation of antisemitism "vilifying" anyways?
  3. If we are going to quote Sudais' sermon, we'll have to quote all of it for context. On the other hand we can choose not to quote any of it.Bless sins 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That is because you are interpreting Category:Anti-Semitic people to be pejorative. I am sure Al-Sudais himself wears it as a badge of pride. Secondly, It is his own words which place him there, not your or my criticism. -- Avi 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, and moreover the parts of article which you delete do not contain only criticism, they mention more peaceful citations of Sudais and reactions of Moslems. - We cannot of course quote whole sermons (from both space and copyright reasons) but we provide all links and citations, so everybody is able to find the whole text easily and read it. - You used Gilbert as an example, let me allow to use Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was on the Main page today. Most of the article about the living person contains criticism - at least from my point of view, because I think that killing innocent people is very bad and condemnable. And still the admins who edit the Main page used this article. Therefore it seems to me that your understanding of BLP is not correct and you should perhaps re-think it in light of this example. Peace,--Ioannes Pragensis 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Avraham, why don't you just answer the questions. 1, 2 and 3. Has Al-Sudais said he is anti-Semitic? Then how does he wear it as a badge of pride?Bless sins 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling Jews "monkeys and pigs", especially with whatthe pig represents in both Judaism and Islam, and saying that they are "rats" and should be "exterminated" when people such as those of my family members who survived still have numbers tatooed on their arms from the LAST time someone tried to exterminate us, is proof positive enough to any observer who is not in denial, I believe :( -- Avi 03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So you are the one who says Sudais is anti-Semitic. I'm sorry, you're not notable or reliable enough to be a source. Also, you allege the comments "vilify" Jews. You have not provide a source other than that. Also, i'm going to remove a sermon that has been quoted. there is no reason that this particular sermon is more notable than other sermons of his.Bless sins 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
His own words are more than enough, but to be 100% above board, I have now sourced it from the Anti-Defamation League. -- Avi 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I added another reliable source specifically calling him antisemitic. -- Avi 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
While i was at it, I found a better source for the Dubai award, a photo, and infoboxed the article. -- Avi 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the anti-Defamation league a reliable source? At best it is a controversial and one sided source aimed at attacking those who attack Jews. Also, who is making the "vilifying" allegation? BTW, please don't re-insert the out of ocntext quote I removed.Bless sins 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League fulfills all requirements of WP:ATT. You may wish to review the policy. -- Avi 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In particular, please review Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?. -- Avi 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you please quote the part(s) of Wp:ATT that would seem to suggest the ADL is reliable. Thanks.Bless sins 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

…or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

– Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?

The ADL is accepted as an authority on anti-semitism. It may not be to your liking, but it is in accordance with policy. -- Avi 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Says who? In any case please cite the person who wrote the literature that the article currently links to. I'd like to what qualifications he/she has in relation to antisemitism and Islam/Sudais.Bless sins 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The ADL is extremely well known throughout the US in terms of antisemitism. Perhaps being from Canada, you are unaware of this. -- Avi 14:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'm not aware of this. Please provide a reliable source for this.Bless sins 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Also the "International Broadcasting Bureau of Broadcasting Board of Governors" source seems to be more a letter to editor than an actual reliable source. Please state the person who wrote it and his/her qualifications relevent to the topics of this article.Bless sins 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And the same for "Gossett, Sherrie". Hwo is he/she, and what qualifies him/her to speak on Sudais, Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Any different from Za'za', Bassam, other than the name? WorldNetDaily is as reliable as Gulf News. Do you disagree? -- Avi 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between reporting facts and analyzing them. Any reporter can quote a prominent personality, all they need is to record the words. On the other hand, to analyze one's words and suggest they are anti-semitism, is much different. Please provide the information I ahve asked you to provide.Bless sins 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to accept WorldNetDaily as a reliable source, so long as wee attribute the source, and not suggest that it is fact. However, I still need info on other sources, especially the name of the person who wrote the material.Bless sins 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war?

Please gentlemen, do not start edit wars here. Try to speak quietly, hear each other, do not make bold changes in the article against consensus of other editors. Thank you,--Ioannes Pragensis 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting sourced and cited material

Please refrain from deleting material that is well and reliably sourced, as well as relevant, without a discussion here. Removing material simply because one feels that it paints a person in too good or too bad of a light is improper, and a seeming violation of WP:NPOV. Pleae remember that Nuetral point-of-view does not mean that the article can say neither good nor bad about the subject. Rather, that (emphasis added is my own) “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.” If the reliable literature predominantly paints a person, object, or idea in one light, that light must be the dominant theme in the article, in accordance with the "proportionate" clause. Whitewashing or vilifying (as the case may be) an article to achieve a "neutral" tone is both an improper representation as well as a violation of WP:NPOV and would need to be reverted as vandalism. All editors do need to review the appropriate policies before editing articles which may have contoversy surounding them. Thank you. -- Avi 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

hten why limit ourselves to jsut this sermon. I can finf many many other sermons as well. Why not quote them all? You've not shown any reliable source that suggests that this particular sermon is more notable than other ones.Bless sins 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This sermon is an example of his beliefs. Another similar sermon with a reliable source may be used as well. The sermon itself need not be notable, it does not have its own article, Sudais is notable. The extent of his antisemitism is part of what makes him notable for the purposes of English Wikipedia. Examples thereof are relevant; it need not be THIS PARTICULAR one, but having such an example is appropriate, and this was the one that for now passed WP:RS and WP:V. -- Avi 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should quote the entire sermon. It is unfair to take man's views out of context. Who are you and I to say that other parts of the same sermon are not as important as this part?Bless sins 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you find anything in any other part of the sermon that would in any way shape or form mitigate the antisemitism? Please quote it here. -- Avi 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So, basically you want the inclsuion of material as long as Sudais is portrayed to be anti-semitic. But as soon as anything doesn't portray him bieng anti-semitic, you are opposed to its inclusion in the article. This is clear violation of WP:BLP, not to mention WP:NPOV.Bless sins 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.Bless sins 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get that from? If you can find some equally reliable sources that say this man is not anti-Semitic, they belong in this article as well. If you cannot find such sources, that is not a reason to delete the sources that say he is. Unless I misunderstood you? -- Avi 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I said "Then perhaps we should quote the entire sermon", to whic you responded "Can you find anything in any other part of the sermon that would in any way shape or form mitigate the antisemitism? Please quote it here." WHy are you only after material that "mitigates" antisemitism? Can a man not say anything else besides antisemtism? Why not include parts of his sermon thet are not alleged (by you) to be antisemitic?Bless sins 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the section is titled "Statements vilifying Jews and other non-muslims". If you wish to create a new section titled "Speeches" that is a different story. -- Avi 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. So we can quote loads of his sermons in a section called "speeches"? In any case which of your sources actually uses the word "vilify"?Bless sins 05:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind all users that WP:BLP says criticism should not "appear to side with the critics' material." Please don't portray criticism as fact, it's against WP:BLP.Bless sins 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely wrong interpretation of WP:BLP, If your reading of the policy were correct, then any negative material would have to be attributed to sources. That is at odds with common sense and the generally established practice. Beit Or 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
THis is what WP:BLP says. I'm not making anything up, you can check out BLP for yourself. In anycase, your edits are very hypcritical in the light of articles like Martin Gilbert where you have removed all criticism, regardless of attribution.Bless sins 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing the correctness of the quote from WP:BLP, just poiting out that your intepretation is nonsensical. Al-Sudais' statements on non-Muslims are not "criticism", but facts drawn from multiple, independent, reliable sources. Beit Or 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Allegations of anti-semitism are definetly criticism. Infact, his statements on non-Muslims are disputed. But again I would like to draw attention to your double standards on this article and Martin Gilbert and Bat Ye'or where you have been silencing criticism.Bless sins 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, documenting his speech is not "criticism", just reporting. Beit Or 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes but those "reports" are disputed by other media outlets who claim that his words are misrepresented. Clearly the "documenting his speech" is an allegation in an attempt to make Sudais look bad.Bless sins 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Disputed, not a valid dispute. 9-11 is also "disputed." Why should anyone take these disputes seriously? What makes them scholarly enough to be ligitimate disputes?--Sefringle 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
9/11 was reported by hundreds of media sources. No serious sources dispute its occurence. This is a bit different. This is disputed by the Muslim Council of Britain, a pretty netural organisation with no political ties with any group. Its general secretary was even knighted by the Queen of the United Kingdom. Thus if it disptues something, it is assuredly a serious dispute.Bless sins 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that all? It seems like they are the only ones accusing BBC of being liars. Even some muslim sources have admitted he said this. Sounds like undue weight.--Sefringle 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Muslim Council of Britain is so neutral that it boycotts the Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK. Beit Or 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm no. The link you point to suggests that some politicians accuse MCB of boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day, while MCB itself denies this. The MCB is infact is calling for the remembrance of all persecuted nations ("Genocide Day"). Nothing non-neutral about remembering everyone regardless of ethnicity.Bless sins 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"The MCB policy of refusing to send representatives is widely perceived as a boycott, and has been condemned by a variety of British public figures and organizations..." Beit Or 05:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The only people that condmen it are some politicians and activist groups. Then again it quite natural for politicians and activists to condemn others, it's almost like what they do.Bless sins 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this so-called "scholar"...

Why is this so-called "scholar" portrayed as a becon and a role-model for all Muslims? He is loved only by Wahhabis and some Salafis, meaning that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims don't like this man. Armyrifle 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This, along with a lost of other stuff, is in the article because this is the perspective of some wikipedian.Bless sins 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources documenting this man's mariginalism in Islamic society, by all means add it. If you have reliable sources documenting this man's importance in Isalmic society, by all means add it too. But please do not remove informatin because the current existing facts lead to uncomfortability. I agree, this article needs sxpansion; I'm sure there are many more things that can be added such as history, birth, family, etc. That is why it is rated start and not B; we need more; help us out. Thanks! -- Avi 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, at the top of this talk page, an anon said about al-Sudais: "He is one of the most widely respected scholars in the Muslim world." Beit Or 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said claims here are based upon OR.Bless sins 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Career section

Can someone please source the statements about Sudais's renditions of the Qur'an? It's been tagged since February. Thank you. -- Avi 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

there is no reason for an archive right now. I've seen longer talk pages.Bless sins 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I know; but in my experience, people don't tend to read longer talk pages. -- Avi 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want, you can archive everything above (but not including) "Neutrality". BTW, please respond there as I've raised a point about BBC's accuracy.Bless sins 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism and racism

I do not think that the title "Antisemitism and racism" is well chosen. I do not see why Sudais should be described as a racist. He does not slander races, but religions and nations - e.g. not white persons but Christians, not Semites but Jews. It is indeed possible that there is a bit of racism in it, but not clearly visible, at least as far as I know - WP:V :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The previous title included vilification (which I felt was a more provocative term) of other people besides Jews, so I thought there should be another term besides "antisemitism", but you are likely correct that "racism" is the wrong term. Do you have an alternative, perhaps? -- Avi 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but I dont. For the time being, I renamed it to the "Controversial sermons" but I am not sure what title should be used.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best title is "sermons vilifing non-Muslims" or "antisemitic sermons." It should be made clear that this guy is an antisemite and a racist.--Sefringle 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is blatant antisemitism and anti-hinduism in the sermons, but where is there racism per se. His demarcation seems to be religious and not racial. -- Avi 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are Semites. Being anti-Jewish isn't being racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.157.231 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote restoration to footnotes

Since user:Bless sins seems to be perturbed about the length of the quotes sections, yet removing the quotes in toto is inappropriate for verification purposes, I have restored the pertinent quotes into the footnotes of the citations. The article text is now, hopefully, smooth prose and paraphrase, with pertinent quotations down below. This way, the text is not overlong and choppy, yet the information is immediately available. I also fixed a few improper links and updated citation templates. -- Avi 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family, wife, children, etc.

Can anyone help to flesh this part of Sudais's life out? -- Avi 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vertical format for cite templates

Please leave the vertical formats. The article text does not appear different, and the citations in the code are easier to verify. -- Avi 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also harder to edit, since it is harder to tell where the text and references starts and stops --Sefringle 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The ref's always end in a </ref> tag, and I always have that at the beginning of a line, so it should be easier to edit, actually. -- Avi 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-reliable source

Can you explain what you mean by "Non-reliable source "Citizen Jounalism". This is does not seem to be even an established organization; more like a blog"?Bless sins 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is in English, and the grammatical structure seems sound. I am unsure as to what is troubling you about the meaning inherent in the sentence, unless, perhaps, you are not a native or fluent speaker of the English language? -- Avi 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain how Ohmy News in a "Non-reliable source"? Why do you think it is a blog? Finally why did you remove the remark about Sudais' comments being "overblown" by media? Oh, stop attacking my language.Bless sins 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh My news engages in "citizen journalism," it is not a reliable, eben ostensibly, unbiased news site, but a place where people post their take on journalism. It is more similar to a blog than CNN/NBC/Fox/Al Jazeera/etc. -- Avi 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)