Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of a self published source

[edit]

If this guy is really "the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims" as is claimed, can we maybe find a better source than one guy's weblog? Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So were going through this again. The reason were including it is because that weblog comes from an expert on the middle east and his opinion on tantawy's prominence is relevant. annoynmous 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDFLAG states "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources". I think the claim that he is "the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims" is exceptional and that Juan Cole's blog is less than an exceptional source. Bonewah (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well when the blog is written by an expert in middle east history and affairs than I think it stands as an exceptional source. Anyway, I don't understand this objection, are you claiming that Tantawty isn't the highest spirtual authority for Sunni muslims? There are other sources besides Cole in this article that say the same thing. I think a respected university professors word on this should be seen as a respectable source and not arbitrailly dismissed because he writes it on a blog post. annoymous 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not questioning that Tantawty is the highest spiritual authority for Sunni muslims (although some muslims might reserve that title for the Profit Muhammad) im saying that as that authority, he deserves a better reference than an associate professor's weblog. Let me put it to you this way, if I claimed that the pope was the highest spiritual authority for Catholics, would you be content with a citation to some history prof, or would you expect to see a cite to one of the many many books written on the subject of Catholicism? Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the professor was an expert on catholic history, than yes I would.
Anyway that's beside the point, Islam is not like Catholicism, it doesn't have any central leadership. So a professor who is an expert in muslim traditions and culture I think is pretty reliable source on tantawy's preminence. So what if he does it from a blog? If he said it in a newspaper it would be just as valid, and I don't understand why just because he wrote it on his blog it is somehow less credible than if he wrote it elsewhere. annoymous 18:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are NO "spiritual authorities" in Sunni İslam; everone is entitled to(and responsible for) his/her opinion. God will judge us all. Tantawy's opinins may carry weight as an expert scholar, yet he does not have any more authority than any other muslim in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.167.41 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

[edit]

The following are unreliable sources:

Both authors are widely regarded as extremists, and thus the sources fail Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources.VR talk 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is debatable, but irrespectively we can not assume that everything they say is incorrect as default. They are quoting the work and doctorate thesis of grand imam Tantawy, which was published in 1968 and republished in 1986 and titled Banu Israil fi al-Quran wa-al-Sunnah, which consists of 700 pages. This work remains valid. They are not making this up, if that is what you are suggesting so this should not be removed, as Imam Tantawy did in fact author such a thesis, so it is reliable and the sources are citing this work among other references in their respective articles which a random reading will show:

So it stays. Fragma08 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly your above mentioned link does not show what you put in the article. It shows tha name of a book only.
Secondly, everything Tantawi said is not notable. If it was we could endlessly quote his books here and the article would never end.
Thirdly, if a source is unreliable, we CAN NOT use it. Yes, an unreliable source may be correct sometimes (just as a broken clock is correct twice a day). But we can't use that source because we can't trust it. Please find a reliable source.
Finally, what Tantawi said, and whether he said it is irrelevant. What is relevant is what a reliable source says what Tantawi says, and whether this reliable source agrees that Tantawi indeed said it. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth.VR talk 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Kindly find my comments attached below:
1) I know. My point was simply that the work cited by the two sources, does exist.
2) I agree, but my point was that this part is notable due to the two sources, who are quoting late imam Tantawy's thesis. Not making claims of their own.
3) I am not sure the sources are unreliable per say in THIS case. At least one of the sources is used in a wide range of articles on wiki. People may be controversial, mind you, but does everything they write even when citing original work of third parties become unreliable.
4) Sure, but if you refer to 3) it is not unreliable, when they quote word by word what the late imam wrote in his thesis.
Fragma08 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you misunderstand the fundamental wiki policy: truth does not matter - verifiability does.
Even if I believe that Spencer and Bostom are the most honest men on Earth, who are neither quoting the imam out of context, nor distorting his words, that doesn't change the fact that they are unreliable sources.
For the sake of broader consensus, I'm taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard.VR talk 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok only one person responded, who was against including the quote using the two sources you put on. So as of now I'm removin the material. You can re-add it should you find sources that meet the WP:RS criteria. Remember, it doesn't matter if he said it, it matters if a reliable source says he said it.VR talk 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting others well document contributions and facts

[edit]

Dr eng x (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)I can not believe why my contributions are deleted though they are facts with well documented references. I have added a section for education as in other wiki articles about public figures. We have talked about this before the opinions/views of individuals specially if they are not neutral should not be forced here. This associate professor is free to express himself but if we are to write everyone's opinion then I can write pages from other professors even full professors! Also if you wish to express a fact just write it without taking sides.[reply]

What you view as "facts" and "well documented references" may not be what Wiki agrees with. First, you can see from previous discussion, "facts" do not matter - verifiability does. Your education section is not the problem, but your repeated removal of a sourced section deeming it my personal opinion, is. This shows you don't understand simple WP editing rules. You can not remove something just because you dislike it or disagree. For the record, the section is not my opinion, it is mr. Moosa's and the source is newsweek. Your removal constituted vandalism just like you did on my userpage. I strongly advise you to read the policies shown. Fragma08 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr eng x (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Again I have not removed Moosa's opinions initially. Verifiable references and documentations to each line or paragraph contributed were added. However, all my contributions were undone by you without a logical reason. In response and after a long discussion from others who did not agree on adding individual's opinions not only because they are not neutral per wiki policies but also we can write thousands of pages of verifiable opinions/views. I might not be vocal but I am a research scientist who can filter facts from here-say. check http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view[reply]

But you did remove the quoted and sourced section repeatedly - until today. I don't have a problem with most of your edits on the article. I have explained several times. I am not keeping you from editing, but i.e. your removal and Telegraph edit made no sense and were not neutral at all. I am not sure what "long discussion with others" you are referring to (?) but the removal was wrong. Assuming good faith and being civil are worth checking too. Yet you repeatedly claimed the section to be my opinion, which is false. While you can edit the article, you should follow the policies for editing. Just remember, "truth" and "facts" on wikipedia are subject to their source. So your or my opinion on facts don't matter. Hence the caution with bios. Thats all. Hope it helps in your future editing. Fragma08 (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr eng x (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC) My respectful author; With all my respect, I have not at first removed a thing but when I was attacked and my efforts were reverted after hours of research, collecting and writing.[reply]

Respectfully, you did delete the critique by Moosa and more than once. When editors point out your lack of explaining your edits, unexplained deletions and inserting povs (telegraph example) then that is not attacking. You were never attacked. On wikipedia you should expect that editors may question, challenge your work, revert you, change something you wrote or simply delete it. Hence the collaboration and talks and why it is beneficial to know the policies. Fragma08 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding long discussions; please read other authors views and discussions in this article and other similar articles. Facts are objective reality without expressing an individual's emotions or expressions as if it's a robot. For example, X did such.. or said such... however the same statement can be expressed less objectively by stating X was classical/typical when doing.. or saying.. Also, X stupidly or hatefully said... or X claimed...These are all stated in wiki policies and guides ThanksDr eng x (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other discussions are not relevant for this article, unless you have a specific thing in mind, as I can't just look at random articles. I know NPOV and WP policies, and agree with your definition. But again, you should read the basic policies to understand how editing works on WP. This article to me is neutral. Or feel free to make a new topic and discuss there. Fragma08 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr eng x (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I am glade we have finally agreed. Out of respect, again if you check my very initial contributions, you will find I have not deleted anything. For example under the "public image" I wrote the opposite view as you all know any public figure has dual contradicting perception. Unless there was a published statistic to indicate otherwise. Even those statistics specially for politics "i.e. elections" are represented differently by the media. Repeatedly deleting my additional contributions without explanation, then my page is full of threats, calling my actions uncivil,... you do not call these attacks!Dr eng x (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look I am not repeating this. I explained (edit summaries and talkpage). You behaviour was uncivil and a personal attack and I have pointed exactly how. Pointing out when you breach rules is not an attack. Hence warnings were in place especially when you persisted. Yes we appear to agree on editing the article and leave it at that. Your edit under PI hasn't been touched. I don't agree with your removal of orthodox but it is no big deal for me. I don't feel theres more to say and this topic is already too long. Move on and focus on editing not on editors. Happy editing.Fragma08 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr eng x left a message on my talk page regarding a dispute here. I saw the edit on Tantawi's supposed "orthodox" stance on women as imams. While, I'd assume that opposing female led prayers is "orthodox", there are two problems: the definition for "orthodox" in Islam is not clearly defined; we need a reliable source saying that. The aljazeera article mentions that "little was orthodox" about the prayer, and that Tantawi opposed it, but combining the two to say Tantawi was taking an orthodox stance is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Islamic prayers can be opposed for a number of reasons, not all of which are orthodox (e.g. such as the infamous argument that Muslims shouldn't have religious freedom in America until non-Muslims have religious freedom in Saudi Arabia).

Are there other standing issues?VR talk 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VR I agree not only for synthesis but also articles have to be expressing neutral point of view and facts. Facts are objective reality without expressing an individual's emotions or expressions as if it's a robot. For example, John Doe did such.. or said such... however the same statement can be expressed less objectively by stating John Doe was classical/typical/orthodox when doing.. or saying.. Also, John Doe stupidly or hatefully said... or John Doe claimed...These are all stated in wiki policies and guides. Thanks the issue was settled long ago. Thanks again. Dr eng x (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence should be covered up in shame.

[edit]

"In October 2009, Tantawy launched a campaign against the niqab (the full-face veil which covers the entire body except for the eyes, increasingly worn by women in Egypt) by personally removing the niqab of a teenage girl (after she failed to remove it) at a secondary school affiliated to Al-Azhar University, which he was touring in Cairo's Madinet Nasr suburb, much to the shock of all concerned."

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018

[edit]
 Not done ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

Tantawy born on 28 October 1928 in the village of Selim ash-Sharqiyah in the municipality of Tama.

Tama should be linked to Tima, Egypt. 175.206.243.43 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Sayyid_Tantawy&oldid=1209538236"