User talk:Eyrryds

Welcome!

Hello, Eyrryds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Materialscientist (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Estes

Dear GorgeCustersSabre,

I understand you have concerns regarding the criticism I recently added to the Yusuf Estes page, however I believe there is valuable academic criticism of Yusuf's work in the document I referenced. I request that you kindly explain to me what is the problem, I hope I can present the valid academic criticism in a way suitable to Wikipedia's standards.

thanks in advanced for you help!

sincerely,

Eyrryds (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eyrryds, I hope you are well. Thanks for asking your question. I am not trying to stifle criticism of Estes. I have never met him or had contact with him. I'm just an editor trying to uphold Wikipedia guidelines.

You certainly should not re-post the particular anti-Estes document that various editors have tried to include because it is not a reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party source. It is merely a non-encyclopedic polemic writtem by someone with theological differences to Estes. In its current form it is not a "valid academic criticism". Plus, it was introduced entirely without any reasonable context.

And just because any person has critics, or that a polemic exists on any individual written by a critic, does not mean it should automatically be included in Wikipedia. Please see WP:BLP guidelines for how carefully all biographical pages on living persons needed to be maintained and edited / protected.

Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. If you stick to Wikipedia's rules should have a better change of making a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.

Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GorgeCustersSabre,

I will review the references you provided in hopes I can improve my contribution, thank you for that. The document that has been added as criticism includes a number of verifiable references to well known and respected scholars of orthodox Islaam from among the first generations. I therefore disagree on the following: "it is not a reliable, authoritative,"

Can you please look into this and tell me if you agree?

My idea is to use the verifiable and authorative references used in the document and present them in a way that complies with Wikipedia's guidelines for BLP's.

thanks again and please bare with me,

Eyrryds (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eyrryds, I looked at it and, with respect to you, I do not agree. It remains a partisan and accusatory document, even if it internally has references to some scholars. My advice therefore is that we should avoid an edit war, and now let other experienced Wikipedia editors look at the issues and arrive at a consensus. Thanks again. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eyrryds, for your assistance I have cut and pasted this from the WP:BLP guidelines. This explains why I have removed your material from the Estes page:

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V); No original research (NOR)

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Please comply with these guidelines. Thanks.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear George Custer's Sabre (talk)

I understand. What I am thinking now is either or both of the following options:

1) to directly quote published books where the refutation to Yusuf Estes' ideology is criticized (note this would not include a direct mention to Yusuf Estes rather a direct criticism to some of his preaching).

2) To present the recorded words (through a link to a youtube video or so) from a professor in a recognized Islamic University such as Ummal Qura University in Mecca or the Islamic University of Medina saying that Yusuf's teaching on the Quran are opposed to mainstream Islaam.

I appreciate your help with this addition, you have been very helpful. I request you continue to help me reach the correct contribution.

Should I expect other editors to help us out on this? Did I understand you correctly regarding the intervention of other Wikipedia editors?

Finally, I am not sure why you would have a concern for an edit war. As soon as I saw that my contribution was rejected by you, I immediately asked for your assistance to do this in the right way. I can see other people have also tried to add the same article I was referencing but I have nothing to do with that. The article was recently published and it seems not only me was shocked to see Yusuf preaching teachings that are contrary to some basic mainstream beliefs. Again, I have only and exclusively edited Yusuf's webpage under my username Eyrryds.

Thanks again, Eyrryds (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just thinking of ways to accommodate Wikipedia's rules, please be patient with an inexperienced well-intended user. Eyrryds (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eyrryds, thanks again for this dialogue. I respect your constructive attitude. I was not criticizing you by mentioning the need to avoid an edit war. I was talking about my own need to be careful myself to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and not, for example, to violate Wikipedia's three-revert rules. See what third-party sources on Eestes you can find. If you have no success finding something suitable by, say, Friday, feel free to contact me and I'll gladly try to work with you on correctly expressing and referencing the information you want to add whilst staying fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. I hope that helps. Thanks again, and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear George Custer's Sabre I have a brief criticism by a well known scholar of Islaam from Medina: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nK6hNbRW4&feature=share&list=UU5k6j9TtJWdQ0XVrVk-VsXQ Here is a short bio on the scholar, he was a teacher at the University in Medina until he retired. http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Shaykh_Ubayd_ibn_Abdullaah_al-Jaabiree Does this qualify as a third source part? If it does do we need more than that?

thank you for your help I appreciate it. Eyrryds (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have found a recent new audio talking on the topic but I am unable to distinguish if it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements: http://www.troid.ca/media/audio/MR_yusufestes1.mp3 thanks again for your help, Eyrryds (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eyrryds, I hope you are well. Unfortunately, in my assessment the sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. But don't worry; this weekend I'll try to construct something for you to look at in my sandbox that, if it captures what you have been trying to argue, you might be able to post on the Yusuf Eestes page without violating any guidelines. The key is compliance with the rules on neutrality, verifiability and third-party evidence. Trust me: there's no issue of censorship. It is best if we now continue our dialogue on your talk page so I can clean up this page a bit. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear George Custer's Sabre

thank you for your help, I suggest you leave the talk in the Yusuf's page so others may see that we are working on this. I just saw the history it seems that people are really trying to add the criticism and I wish they saw we are working on it. Either way, your call of course. many thanks again, Eyrryds (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]