Talk:Timothy Winter

Be joined with "Abdal-Hakim Murad"

Amongst Muslims AFAIK this is well known as anyone with a little research can discern ie http://masud.co.uk/ Masoud Khan's web page where there are titles such as by 'Abdal Hakim Murad' uder site content where the link says

"Abdal Hakim Murad graduated from Cambridge University with a double-first in Arabic in 1983. He then lived in Cairo for three years, studying Islam under traditional teachers at Al-Azhar, one of the oldest universities in the world. He went on to reside for three years in Jeddah, where he administered a commercial translation office and maintained close contact with Habib Ahmad Mashhur al-Haddad and other ulama from Hadramaut, Yemen.

In 1989, Shaikh Abdal Hakim returned to England and spent two years at the University of London learning Turkish and Farsi. Since 1992 he has been a doctoral student at Oxford University, specializing in the religious life of the early Ottoman Empire. He is currently Secretary of the Muslim Academic Trust (London) and Director of the Sunna Project at the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge University, which issues the first-ever scholarly Arabic editions of the major Hadith collections.

Shaikh Abdal Hakim is the translator of a number of works, including two volumes from Imam al-Ghazali's Ihya Ulum al-Din. He gives durus and halaqas from time to time and taught the works of Imam al-Ghazali at the Winter 1995 Deen Intensive Program in New Haven, CT. He appears frequently on BBC Radio and writes occasionally for a number of publications, including The Independent; Q-News International, Britain's premier Muslim Magazine; and Seasons, the semiacademic journal of Zaytuna Institute."

this is the same information on the Tim Winter page!.

In knowing him personally & he refers to himself as "Abdal-Hakim Murad" in his correspondence with me.

I don't understand the confusion or see why any further discussion has to be done, it's a moot point.

Salams!

Enthogenesis 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper referencing

The majority (more than half) of this article appears to be OR...in some cases, the citation is just a link to the Masud.co.uk site, which doesn't provide any information up front for the reader. A lot of this appears to be a quote farm as well; a long list of his positions on various issues isn't wholly relevant or helpful to learning about the guy. I think this article needs attention from an expert on his life, because the biographical information is also lacking; there's not much about his early life and parts about his education could probably be expanded as well. MezzoMezzo 14:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

MezzoMezzo,

Regarding the sections that were removed, I will try to explain why they should be reinserted.

The sections “On Extremism” and “British Islam” were deleted on the ground that they were quote farms. It is true that these sections contain long quotations from Mr. Winter’s articles. However, the quotations provide information that is immanently relevant to their respective sections. I suggest, instead of removing the sections, to add the following tag:

In the case of “British Islam,” it was also said that its overall relevance to Mr. Winter’s life was not explained. This section, as with the other sections that were removed, deal with Mr. Winter’s ideas rather than his personal life. Nevertheless, a subject’s ideas certainly have a place in his biography. See, for instance, the sections, “Summary of Absurdism” and “Camus’ Ideas on the Absurd” in Wikipedia’s biography of Albert Camus.

“Sufism,” “Theology of Metaphysics,” and “Al-Ghazali” were deleted because they were unreferenced. The quotes in the “Sufism” section can be found in http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/contentions11.htm. As for the rest, rather than deleting the sections, the following tag can be used:

--Rsidique 07:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags are meant, however, to encourage other users to ultimately address the problems they bring to light. Considering that this article has seen little activity over recent months, it didn't look like anyone would be addressing them anytime soon. Per WP:CITE, the issue of whether to keep the tags or to remove the material is really a judgment call, and in this case for the unsourced above it didn't look like it would become sourced. Luckily, you've come along with the actual source for the formerly unreferenced sections so we should be able to fix those now.

As for the sections on extremism and British Islam, why exactly are they immanently relevant to those sections? Even if we do put the quotefarm tag, what does that tag mean? It means that ultimately, we need to edit the sections so they are no longer quotefarms, which is what I did. Considering he's an Oxford professor, the sheer volume of papers he's authored makes proving the significance of one or two ideas over the others he has difficult.

Regardless, I am willing to defer on most of this as you have shown a legitimate interest in improving this article, which I didn't see before, and which cause me to edit the way I did. My main request is that we focus a little more on the bio section than making this a catalog for his opinions - for example, he's a convert to Islam. Has he ever discussed what brought him to that? Do we know anything about his upbringing before college? What about his current life outside of teaching? Those are just things i'd personally like to see. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons can be a big help as far as where to go from here with this article. Please let me know what you think and if you need any help with the improvements for this article. MezzoMezzo 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

sunni or sufi?

article states sufi -

but this website:

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/index.htm

states sunni:

"Abdal Hakim Murad, a Sunni Muslim..."

needs resolving?

if updated, this individual should also be removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.115.103 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sufism is a subcategory of Sunni, so calling him Sunni is being general while saying Sufi would be specific. As far as I know, the subject identifies with both in interviews and mainstream publications and there isn't a contradiction there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

edit war

Figure it out here in discussion. Ask for community input if you can't settle your differences. --Tznkai (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

edit war

Figure it out here in discussion. Ask for community input if you can't settle your differences. --Tznkai (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fall of the Family article

User:Roscelese removed accurately quoted text because, she asserts, it is no longer hosted on “the subject’s site”. Yet it is hosted there. With no disrespect to her, she is mistaken. Here’s the link:

http://masud.co.uk/cms/sheikh-abdal-hakim-murad/the-fall-of-the-family-part-i-and-ii/

It is also located elsewhere on the internet, as shown in the link I provided in the edit summary. Please leave it now. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see - I took for correct the article's statement that it had been taken down. Regardless, it's improper, as I pointed out, to cherry-pick from primary sources, especially where BLP is concerned. Have secondary sources written about this essay? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

GorgeCustersSabre Yesterday I piped Al-Azhar university thus: [[Al-Azhar University|Al-Azhar University, Cairo]] for symmetry with the other establishments listed ie Pembroke College Cambridge and SOAS, University of London. You reverted this today. Can you explain why please?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Roger Davies, I hope you are well. I reverted this because it is entirely unnecessary to add Cairo to Al Azhar University. It has a wikilink so anyone can go to its own page. Does one have to add "Manchester" after "Salford University"? Nope. Sorry that you disagree. It isn't personal. I'm happy to see if other editors agree or disagree with me (and you). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:GorgeCustersSabre - I haven't edited this article for almost 6 years, but thought I'd chime in here. Although technically you are right, I agree with Roger - the other University article titles make it clear where they are without clicking on their links, and piping Cairo would be of benefit to our readers. Doug Weller (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will say I definitely support your goal to "reduce the excessive use of the honorifics / titles which clutter some pages (Sir, Lord, Hon., Dr, Rev, Hon, Shaykh, Maulana, Imam etc etc)." Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] GorgeCustersSabre You seem to mixing up piped links (where it is customary to add extra material) and article names, which are by design minimal. You have also ignored the point I made about symmetry. Stating that Pembroke College is in Oxford, and SOAS is in London, begs the question: where is Al Azher University? We do not have to add the information about Al Azher University's location, but doing so is a courtesy to the reader (who may not know).  Roger Davies ^talk 10:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Roger Davies, you are mistaken' SOAS is PART of the University of London. Pembroke College is Part of Oxford University. The city names are not included, but the university names are. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre I'm not mistaken at all. The names include the universities' names, which are also the geographical locations. (Which is also the case with Salford University; it's in the City of Salford, part of Greater Manchester.) It would be a courtesy to the reader in this instance if the Al-Azhar University link piped the geographical location, to supply context. As a simple example, there's an Al-Azhar University College in the UK, which could otherwise - in a list of UK institutions - easily be confused. Anyhow, ramadan mubarak.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after over 2 weeks and a relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Timothy Winter → Abdal Hakim Murad – Current and famous name - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 09:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reject. On the Cambridge University website <http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/timothy-winter> he is listed as Timothy Winter. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy

I have removed the controversy section entirely as it relates to a en event which wasn't convered in any mainstream newspaper or other reliable publication such as the BBC news. On the contrary, the only sources for this issue were trash tabloids such as the Cambridge Tab, Evening Standard and Pink news. These publications do not meet the necessary standards of a reliable source as is clear in the instructions of WP:IRS and have already been covered in the BLP noticeboard (e.g Pink News) Tabloids, and other such yellow journalism cannot be used in Wikipedia to assert controversial claims such as this.

The other point is that even if the issue was true, it is surely non-notable given that Winters was not sacked or penalised in anyway. WP:ONUS makes clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article". So why exactly should this minor issue be added to an Encyclopedia? 81.154.213.93 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't mention the Huffington Post. Interesting lapse. Also, these "trash tabloids" (evidence, please) are under editorial oversight. It would appear that Winter made some bigoted comments, not murdered people, so why would it be covered in the BBC? Get wp:consensus before removing. Jim1138 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The source isn't the Huffington Post but The Huffington Post Young Voices which is self-defined as "A platform for young people to talk about social issues, start conversations and keep up to date with the latest student, apprenticeship and youth news". Hardly a reliable source.

Wikipedia guidelines state that "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." At the moment the section is only covered by Tabloid journalism so MUST be removed. The onus is upon you to provide high quality sources. And yes the BBC does report on people who make bigoted comments such as this. 81.154.213.93 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on "controversies" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following was removed from this article as the references were "tabloid journalism" See above. Should this be included, replaced, but modified, or left off the article? Timothy John Winter AKA Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad. This section was added before 2014. If restoring, please use this copy as one ref was formatted archive-url was added. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In May 2013, Winter was at the centre of controversy when the Cambridge Tab helped video footage come to public and media attention in which he stated that homosexuality was a sinful and "inherent aberration", with gays being "ignorant people who don't know what their bodies are for". A number of Cambridge students called for his resignation, but Winter asserted that the videos were over fifteen years old and reflected views that he no longer held. A Cambridge University spokesman said: "Mr Winter has apologised for these remarks, recorded nearly 20 years ago, and has emphasised that he no longer holds these views." In response to the suggestion that he be dismissed, Winter said "I think that the students concerned would be well advised to consult with me directly to determine what my views actually are, rather than complaining to others. That is the correct way of doing things in a university." Winter apologised on his website, saying:

"When I looked at the clip I saw a young man ranting. It was probably the worst thing I have ever done, tricked out with dubious science and many errors, and presented in a very aggressive style which is alien to the manner I now use. My views, knowledge and style have mutated in 17 years. So I asked IslamOnDemand to take it off YouTube, and they did this. I believe – and Allah is my witness – that I was right, in Sharia, and considering the maslaha of the Muslims, to dissociate myself from the lecture and to apologise. How does it serve the interests of da’wa to offend? Those who say I should not have apologised should ask why we should gratuitously offend others, whoever they are. And the basic information in the lecture was unreliable or dubious, to say the least."

References

• Support Removal: I removed the controversy section entirely as it relates to a an event which wasn't covered in any mainstream newspaper or other reliable publication such as the BBC news. On the contrary, the only sources for this issue were trash tabloids such as the Cambridge Tab, Evening Standard and Pink news. These publications do not meet the necessary standards of a reliable source as is clear in the instructions of WP:IRS and have already been covered in the BLP noticeboard (e.g Pink News). Tabloids, and other such yellow journalism cannot be used in Wikipedia to assert controversial claims such as this.

WP:BLPSOURCES explicitly states that "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources"

Based on the above I see it as proper to remove this material as it seems to be entirely based on tabloid journalism.

The other point is that even if the issue was true, it is surely non-notable given that Winters was not sacked or penalised in anyway. WP:ONUS makes clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article". So why exactly should this minor issue be added to an Encyclopedia? 81.154.213.93 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, but shorten and move to different section IP editor is ignoring articles about the incident in reliable sources, including The Evening Standard and Huffington Post. That's enough to support a mention of this. But this is fairly limited coverage and thus should not receive undue focus. In general, we try to avoid criticism/controversy sections, so a single incident does not deserve its own section. I think only a couple sentences should do. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, but shorten and move to different section IP editor is taking out of context discussion on whether Pink News is a reliable source or not. That discussion had to do whether Pink News was reliable for a specific article, not whether they were completely unreliable for all articles. Given the balanced presentation I would suggest it appropriate to keep the content as in its present form I would not find it controversial at all. As per previously suggestion the content ought be moved outside of the criticism/controversy section and that section should be done away with. I don't think I would shorten as must as previous suggestion though, for balance his comments on his previous lecture should be kept. AlanS^talk 04:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, WP:BLPSOURCES states that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" So we *need* more reliable sources such as the BBC news, Daily Telegraph, Guardian etc... to justify inclusion. The Evening Standard and Pink News are tabloid newspapers. Please respond to this point. Additionally, as mentioned above also, even if the issue was true, it is surely non-notable given that Winters was not sacked or penalised in anyway. WP:ONUS makes clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article". So why exactly should this minor issue be added to an Encyclopedia? Again, can you respond to this point? 86.159.115.219 (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As I stated already your quoting of discussion on Pink News completely misrepresents the discussion that actually occurred. The DISCUSSION_WAS_NOT about whether Pink News was a reliable source or not. The discussion was about whether Pink News was reliable for a specific article and nothing more. Your assertion that it is tabloid press is completely that, an assertion. You can quote WP:BLPSOURCES all you want and that does not change the fact that it is ONLY_YOUR_OPINION that the sources are unreliable. I have changed my opinion on the inclusion of the content in the article to a strong keep. AlanS^talk 09:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe the section is balanced, fair, informative and necessary. I do not accept a characterisation of the sources as tabloid. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not explained why this information is "necessary" for a WP:BLP. Please explain. I see it as irrelevant given that Winter was not penalized in any way and given that the incident was not mentioned by any mainstream publisher. Also, WP:ONUS makes clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article". So why exactly should this minor issue be added to an Encyclopedia? Can you respond to this point? The Cambridge Tab is definitely a Tabloid ("Tab" is an abbreviation for Tabloid) as is the Evening Standard (read it's Wikipage). The The Huffington Post Young Voices is self-defined as "A platform for young people to talk about social issues, start conversations and keep up to date with the latest student, apprenticeship and youth news". Hardly a reliable source. I'm afraid that you are going to have to come up with better sources and better reasons for inclusion of this information. 86.159.115.219 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From the wiki article on the Cambridge Tab:

"The Tab is a youth news site published by Tab Media Ltd. It was launched at the University of Cambridge and has since expanded to over 40 other universities in the United Kingdom and over 70 in the United States and Canada.[citation needed][1] The name is both an abbreviation for 'tabloid' and a nickname applied to Cambridge students (from 'Cantabs').

The Tab's network consists of one main national site and an individual sub-site for each university. The vast majority of stories are produced by students, with a student editorial team for each sub-site. Professional editors in the Tab's offices in Shoreditch and Williamsburg offer guidance and editorial insight to their students teams, as well as writing for the site on a regular basis."

Your suggestion that a publication of the University of Cambridge, which has a team of professional editors, is unreliable is completely lacking in the tinniest bit of credibility. It is your opinion and your opinion alone that the sources are unreliable. Not one single piece of wikipedia policy you have quoted demonstrates that the sources are unreliable. It is only you interpreting out of policy that which is not there to be interpreted which has led you to the opinion that the sources are unreliable. Stop trying to push an agenda it is very obvious. AlanS^talk 09:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

First, it isn't upon me to prove that The Tab is unreliable, it is upon you to prove that The Tab is reliable, read WP:PROVEIT and WP:BLP which states that, The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Secondly, I have already cited on a number of occasions that the Cambridge Tab is a Tabloid ("Tab" is an abbreviation for Tabloid) and that according to WP:BLPSOURCES tabloids should be avoided. It states that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" So we *need* more reliable sources such as the BBC news, Daily Telegraph, Guardian etc... to justify inclusion. Has this information been reliable and noteworthy it would have appeared in mainstream publications. Why has it not?

The Cambridge Tab is most definitely a tabloid, regardless of what you might claim. The Daily Telegraph describes it as a Cambridge student tabloid and also as a controversial red top. It is controversial for holding "events" such as (according to the BBC) the Rear of the Year contest and (according to the Guardian), a Page 3 equivalent entitled Tab Totty. This isn't reliable journalism suitable for an encyclopedia. It's tabloid schmuck.

Thirdly, your claim that The Tab is a "publication of Cambridge University" is false. Where is the evidence for this? The Wikipedia article merely states that it was "launched at the University of Cambridge" not that it is a "publication of Cambridge University".

So clearly, I have provided numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines and have provided evidence from reliable sources such as the Daily Telegraph etc... regarding the obvious unsuitability of 'The Tab'. It is you who have provided absolutely no evidence for your claim that the The Tab is reliable. 86.159.115.219 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that AlanS HAS proven the acceptability of the Tab. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you care to elaborate? Particularly in light of the contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:IRS, WP:PROVEIT, WP:BLP etc... I explained above. To date, not a single piece of evidence has been provided regarding the supposed suitability of Cambridge Tab. If you have evidence, then please provide it.86.159.115.219 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You can quote all the policy you want and it does not show in the slightest that the policy you are quoting weighs on the discussion at hand at all. It remains yours and only your opinion that The Tab is unreliable. The fact that Cam Tab is a shortening for Cambridge Tabloid means nothing. Proper names do not infer meaning. AlanS^talk 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not "my opinion" but Wikipedia policies and I will continue quoting them no matter how much you dislike it. You didn't actually respond to the points I made above so I will restate them again in the hope that you answer them this time.

First, it isn't upon me to prove that The Tab is unreliable, it is upon you to prove that The Tab is reliable, read WP:PROVEIT and WP:BLP which states that, The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Please provide evidence that The Tab is reliable.

Second, The Cambridge Tab is most definitely a tabloid, regardless of what you might claim. The Daily Telegraph describes it as a Cambridge student tabloid and also as a controversial red top. It is controversial for holding "events" such as (according to the BBC) the Rear of the Year contest and (according to the Guardian), a Page 3 equivalent entitled Tab Totty. This isn't reliable journalism suitable for an encyclopedia. It's tabloid schmuck. Please respond to this point.

Thirdly, your claim that The Tab is a "publication of Cambridge University" is false. Where is the evidence for this? The Wikipedia article merely states that it was "launched at the University of Cambridge" not that it is a "publication of Cambridge University". Where is your evidence that this tabloid is a publication of Cambridge University. Please respond to this.

The other point is that even if the issue was true, it is surely non-notable given that Winters was not sacked or penalised in anyway. WP:ONUS makes clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article". So why exactly should this minor issue be added to an Encyclopedia? 81.159.253.111 (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is clear consensus that the material should remain with only the IP editor arguing that the material should be removed. I propose closing this discussion are restoring the material. AlanS^talk 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. 4 editors have commented on this. I have suggested removing this section per violations of WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:ONUS (see above). Another editor (FuriouslySerene) has suggested that "I think only a couple sentences should do." and 2 editors have suggested that the section should be kept as it is. That is not a "clear consensus" as you claim. Also, it would be useful if you could actually discuss the points I raise above before trying to close the RFC. 81.159.253.111 (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addl source on Traditionalism/Evola

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/muwo.12475?af=R

I'll try to work this in at some point. Prezbo (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)