Talk:Kamilia Shehata

rs tags

Marknutley: Why did you add an rs tag as selfpublished to the first refernce? The source is one of the oldest surviving weekly magazines first published in 1925. Kamiliashehata (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Because i was unsure of it mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What was unsure? Kamiliashehata (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

this ref aljazeera this is the video at aljazeera English aljazeera report in english and also BBC Arabic Mfarouk1984 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you MFarouk, I have added the original jazeera transcript as a reference, it is an excellent solution to rejection of youtube references Kamiliashehata (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley: this time you removed a reference as selfpublished. Is it just an unsure feeling again? The reference is published by a well-known scholar and speaker, Dr. Hossam Abu Al Bokhary. Kamiliashehata (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is self published please read wp:rs amd wp:sps, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No. The reference is indeed published by the well-known comparative religion scholar and speaker, Dr. Hossam Abu Al Bokhary. Moreover, many of the other sources, refer to him and his specialist site as well as interview him as a direct reference; including the specific article removed which is now replaced and verified by a direct referral to it by the mainstream "Al Shorouk" newspaper, one of the oldest and most respected publishing houses in the region. The Al Shorouk article interviews Dr. Al Bukhary, publishes a photograph from Dr. Al Bokhary's article and refers their readers to the full file on his site; the reference is in English at the bottom of Al Shorouk article "www.kamiliashehata.com" Reggala (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed it again, please read wp:rs and wp:blp mark nutley (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read it; can you be more specific why you removed the 100% verifiable AlShorouk reference? You can hardly call one of the oldest and respected publishing houses' newspaper in the region as self-published? Reggala (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This www.kamiliashehata.com is a self published source, do not reinsert it again as i am fed up of removing it mark nutley (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you avoid the question? The source is the Al Shorouk article which refers to the site. Instead of losing your self-control, why not respond in a objective, rational and polite way? Maybe because you have no such response? I dont see any reason for your reply and it is not acceptable. It seems also you have a history of losing your self-control during edits. Reggala (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreement on rewriting

Rrburke: I appreciate that you also have made a real effort in research/writing and we may merge the information. Thank you for redirection to the correct nomikar "Kamilia". The rewriting removed the whole article with all the references. I understand that perhaps you dont read Arabic; that maybe remedied by translations. Highlight for me where you need confirmation on areas of objectivity so we may decide together on the facts from verifiable sources. Lets agree to revert the article to the original state and work together on the areas you need more information on. Let me know your feedback or alternative way of working to move forward. Reggala (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Reggala. I'm not comfortable restoring a version of the article that failed to comply with both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core policy, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The rewrite complies with both. If you think there are important parts of the story missing whose inclusion can be effected in a way that both complies with these policies and can be substantiated with references to reliable sources, I welcome such additions.

As for sources, as I mentioned in another post, I think there should be a strong preference for English-language sources where these exist -- and there seem to be plenty on this topic. I see no need for recourse to non-English sources when there appears to be an abundance of sources in English. If there is some essential aspect of the story not covered in English-language sources and which has received adequate coverage in reliable sources, I have no objection to its being added, provided a translation can be offered so that English-speaking readers can satisfy themselves what the source actually says.

On one source in particular: I have no objection in principle to the inclusion of the Al-Jazeera report linked here. The problem is it is a likely copyright violation and as such we can't link to it. If you can find a link to the original, say from the website of Al-Jazeera, I don't object to its being re-added and used as a source. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rrburke: No issues on all of the above; agreed as part of a workable framework. I also agree not to insist a restore as the end result; rather a basis for merging the two articles. Since my write-up was the original and full replacement was not discussed or even specific items, I opted to keep it as the start page. I do think this is fair and for me to respond on all/any of your comments on what you would like to question. Let me know your feedback on the process for changing the page. In particular where the compliance can be met so I may respond specifically. Reggala (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten from scratch

I have rewritten the article from scratch so that it might comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The previous version was a fairly undisguised piece of advocacy and made no attempt to fairly represent all major points of view on the topic. In my opinion it was unsalvageable in its previous form, so I elected just to go back to the drawing board. I don't pretend to think it's finished.

I also think that there should be a strong preference for English-language sources, as the is no way for a non-Arabic speaker to evaluate the reliability of foreign-language sources on the basis of machine translation alone, nor any way to verify if the sources being cited indeed say exactly what it's claimed they say. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn that was quick, i never got the chance to even look at your userspace draft :) Good job man, well done mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rrburke: No issue on the point of view, thats something I am working to fix and would appreciate your review when done. In terms of language sources, English language is preferrable for me too. To give you an idea, ratio of English to Arabic google results for Kamilia Shehata or كاميليا شحاتة is ~9,500 in English to over 2,000,000 in Arabic, defintely the breadth and depth of the story is covered in much more detail in Arabic. Machine translation is not always accurate, we may use stories that do not use complex sentence structures and that are easy for the reader to confirm accuracy of content. Let me know this part of the framework also makes sense to you. Reggala (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Tadros Samaan or Tedaros Saman? Priest or Bishop?

I have seen him described variously as the "Bishop of Saint Mark’s Church in Mowas Cathedral in Minya"[1] and as "Priest of Saint Mark’s Church in Mowas Cathedral."[2]Does anyone know which is correct? I have also seen his name transliterated as Tedaros Saman. Is one preferable? -- Rrburke (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic is قس which is priest, and you will find that in any of the Arabic transcripts. Litmus test also is Tadros's age compared to bishops. Tadros is pronounced Tad'ros, in two syllables which is correct; Tedaros would be three syllables. Samoun is the closer transliteration, preferrable to Saman as the Arabic و is closer to "ou" and not "a". Let me know should there still be a question regarding those items. Otherwise we will standardize them for consistency. Reggala (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I think we should probably follow whichever is most common in the published sources. As for "priest" vs "bishop," I think we should do likewise. Making inferences based on his age is too much like original research for me. Thanks for your help. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• • As a Copt I can categorically state that the priest CANNOT be a Bishop. It is against church law for a priest who is married to become a Bishop. All higher levels in the church are only occupied my men who have either never married or who are widowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaneal (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering that Daily news Egypt may be the source of your confusion (priest/bishop) and is a low grade online rag then perhaps it isn't a good reference to cite.Babaneal (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Rrburke: Your article includes undue weight on minority views and in some places is plainly not factual: In the first paragrpah you state "subsequent re-conversion to christianity" noone has reported that, not even as a rumor. Either people confirm that she declared Islam as a Faith backed with documents and witnesses or claim that she never declared Islam to start. Even the church that has admitted to holding her from public view do not claim that she has re-converted.

In the second paragraph, you write "apparently following a marital dispute" this is incorrect and has been officially denied by all parties even Tadros, the former husband as recorded in an interview on television!

In the third paragrph, you state the authenticiy of the video is disputed; where is was officially denied authenticity by the church!

Describing the niqab-photo as "photoshopped" from Al Masry Al Youm is undue weight to a minority view, without reporting the original photographs in the possession of Sheikh Moftah or the majority of other newspaper reports that continue to confirm the photo, including scientific analyses on the photo.

In the fourth paragraph, you say "alleges Shehata is being kept against her will", Shenouda has directly said it no-one's business but his where she is, on-air on television!!

Another undue weight is the characterization you included in the last paragraph, an opinion stating that a detention of an adult is somehow "misguided attempt" in the avoidance of strife! How can you leave all other editorials and somehow tone the imprisonment of an adult against their will as some good intention gone astray?

You avoided specifically responding to my article. I have done so above and found yours to be containing characterizations misguided wording and plain inconsistencies and errors. Although my article had a tone that I am replacing, it did not contain any factual errors. I am including an improved rewrite of my article and should you have good faith to respond objectively. Do not vandalize by replacing the article in entirety. Reggala (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted you, RrBurke`s version is fully NPOV, and it is what we should work from in expanding the article mark nutley (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Reggala:

• "you state 'subsequent re-conversion to christianity' noone has reported that, not even as a rumor."

You're right: that was my misreading of the sources. I have changed it.

• "you write 'apparently following a marital dispute' this is incorrect and has been officially denied by all parties even Tadros

That characterization appears in nearly all the published reports, denials notwithstanding. If there are reliable sources alleging a different reason for her leaving home, please feel free to bring them forward.

• "Describing the niqab-photo as 'photoshopped' from Al Masry Al Youm is undue weight to a minority view"

I disagree that it's undue weight. In fact, it's rather carefully weighted: the claim occurs in a dependent clause occupying one third of a single sentence. The passage takes no position on the image's authenticity, but merely reports the characterization and identifies the source. If a respected wide-circulation daily refers to the image, baldly, as having been photoshopped, I think it is reasonable to include a very brief passage mentioning that its authenticity is disputed. Readers can evaluate the claim as they see fit.

• "you state the authenticiy of the video is disputed"

That claim is anchored by this source, in which the video clip is described as "questionable" and which quotes the misgivings of several sources. "A video whose authenticity is disputed" is merely a concise way of describing the doubts surrounding its genuineness without unduly belabouring the point.

• "How can you ... somehow tone the imprisonment of an adult against their will as some good intention gone astray?"

I didn't say the plan had any good intention. Judging by what he said, I don't think Hossam Bahgat, the person quoted, holds any such view either. It appears to me that he views Shehata's detention, if that's indeed what it is, as illegal, self-serving conniving to avoid sectarian strife, solving a problem for both the Church and the state by running roughshod over the rights of the woman herself. This is a sentiment expressed in several sources, and on that basis I believe it merits inclusion. I take no position on whether it's true: I have no idea about what motivated them, naturally -- and neither do you.

• "In the fourth paragraph, you say 'alleges Shehata is being kept against her will'"

I said merely that that is what Mamdouh Ismail's administrative suit alleges, which, according to published reports, it does.

• "You avoided specifically responding to my article."

I'm sorry that I did not respond in a timely-enough fashion for your liking. Sometimes I have other things to do, including sleeping, eating and working. I had no intention of "avoiding" your response, so please do not make frivolous accusations. I simply had not had time to craft my own.

• "Do not vandalize by replacing the article in entirety."

Please be more circumspect and assume good faith: "Vandalism" implies an intention to harm the article, and no reasonable person could conclude that this was my intention. Please be aware that a misplaced accusation of vandalism can be interpreted as a personal attack, which can lead to a user being blocked. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer to Rrburke I am waiting for your response in refusing any decent merge and replacing my article in its entirety with your own; you have had almost a week. I refuse to engage in a superficial or meaningless edit war, facts are facts and this story is not going away. I pointed out plain factual errors in your point of view and you have agreed that you article indeed is incorrect due to your misreading. You have avoided responding to my article except superficially. Objectively, and illustratively, like I pointed out your errors and you have admitted to being incorrect; why did you replace my article in its entirety, in fact are there any errors at all in my article? If you dont respond then I'll assume you dont indeed have any real or rational reasons (which is indeed vandalism) and therefore I'll post my original article back. Reggala (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reggala he did give you a reply, your version was not NPOV, not did it follow wp:mos. mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Rrburke? Reggala (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

reversion of recent edits

I have removed some clumsy interpolations that made claims not actually present in the sources cited in the passages into which they were inserted, and some others that attempted to spoon-feed the reader. I have removed the claim that "police reports" confirm she had been attending Al-Azhar Mosque until an accurate translation of the article claiming that is furnished. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger

I propose the page Mohammad Salim Al-Awa be merged into this one since it seems he is only famous for his comments regarding her, and his allegations of the Coptic church having weapons... Tim.thelion (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The man is a highly influential figure in contemporary Islamic political thought, and besides, [he's running for President]. Lockesdonkey (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)