Talk:Ali al-Jifri

Proposed Article Merger

It appears to me as though this Article is referring to the same person as this other one. I provisionally suggest that this one be kept, and the other's additional information, image etc be merged to here. - NickVertical | Talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

• No objection--Ghulam Alasmar 10:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by غلام الأسمر (talk • contribs)

Looks good to me. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

His teachers

His teachers are

• Sayyid Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki
• Shaykh Habib Umar ibn Hafiz
• Shaykh Habib Ahmad Masshur Taha al-Haddad
• Shaykh Habib Abdul Qadir al-Saqqaf
• Shaykh Habib Zayn ibn Sumayt

--[[Special:Contributions/[IP REMOVED]]] ([[User talk:[IP Removed for security purposes]|talk]]) 04:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical coverage

How do we feel about the content removed in this edit: [1]? The IP who has twice removed it thinks that it is "libelous material sourced from blogs". I think that libellous is overstating it quite substantially but the neutrality and sourcing is worth discussion. The Huffington Post is more than a blog but it is a place where people publish their own opinions and both the references are opinion pieces. Is that stuff valid, half-valid, what? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Claims like this needs evidence from reliable sources such as news organisations and books not blogs and self published articles. Otherwise anybody can claim anything. The blogger claimed that jifri was complicit in a massacre. This needs proper evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.147.221 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am very surprised that my posting on criticism of Habib Ali was removed. The main source for the criticism was from a Huffington Post blogger who is an academic and a scholar of the Middle East based at Princeton University. You can find his biography here: http://iiit.org/Research/SummerInstituteforScholars/SummerInstituteforScholars2013/ScholarsBios2013/tabid/363/Default.aspx I don't think its fair to say this is unreliable source. If you prefer, I can reword the criticism as coming from the scholar himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriatricmusings (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Claims that jifri was comlplicit in mass murder need to be backed up with reliable sources. Read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Some random blogger on the huffington post is not a reliable source. If this were true you would expect news organisations around the world to be reporting it. Have they? I Have not come across anything in any news organisation such as bbc, cnn or Reuters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.49 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. For such specific activities of Al-Jifri not to be covered by English news orgs seems perfectly normal. According to the link on reliable sources you gave: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations) this news item qualifies as an op-ed piece because its falls under: "opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Even "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." Therefore there is no justification for preventing the use of the Huffington Post piece here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriatricmusings (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. The Wikipedia recommendation states that:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

The blogger is entitled to hold his view that Jifri was complicit to mass murder, however none of his articles on the Huffington Post have been peer reviewed or vetted by the scholarly community. Also, I could find no evidence whatsoever from either academic journals or reliable media agencies supporting his view (despite the fact that the massacre was well documented). As such, it seems like nothing more than his personal opinion and should not be used for statements of fact. It might be possible for you to create a new article on the blogger and place his opinions there instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.147.221 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put it as the scholars opinion.Geriatricmusings (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you readded the view of the blogger.i didn't agree to this. As mentioned above, Wikipedia recommendations clearly state that opinion pieces are rarely reliable for factual statements. If you want to put the claim that jifri was complicit with mass murder you need to provide a reliable source for this. The only other option is to create a new article for the blogger Azami and put the claim there. It would be a reliable source for Azamis own views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.4 (talk • contribs)

Sorry folks. This is getting a little confusing, I hope you don't mind me indenting your comments above. It makes it a bit easier to read.

The other thing that is confusing is that I assume that the IP edits above are all from the same person but I can't be sure. Of course, you don't have to register an account if you don't want to, but it might make things simpler if you do. Also you would you get the benefits of being able to have a stable talkpage and watchlist if you make an account so I think it is well worth considering.

Anyway, I think we have a bit of an impasse here. You are both making arguments that sound reasonable but it is not clear who is right. I think the best thing to do is get some more people to look at it. What I am going to do is start an RFC. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The source is an opinion piece although its from the huffington post. I believe it would be appropriate to include this controversial statement if other reliable sources back this. Im also concerned about the placing of the content. It should rather be placed in a controversy heading of the subjects article. Misdemenor (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is the critical content neutral and well sourced?

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.

---

As you can see from the section above, we have a dispute that is getting a little heated concerning the extent to which critical comments about the subject should be covered. The current sticking point seems to be over the content added in this edit. This has since been removed. Opinions and guidance on this would be appreciated. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose addition of this content. Although this is stated in two sources, the two articles are by the same person. Stating that he was "complicit" in a massacre is extremely serious, and at best vague: in my opinion it would be undue to include, especially in its own section. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose addition of this content, endorse reasons given by Rubbish computer and add that the writer of the two Huff Post pieces "Usaama al-Azami is a PhD candidate at Princeton University’s Department of Near Eastern Studies. … … He completed his undergraduate degree at Oxford where he earned a BA in Arabic and Islamic Studies in 2008" ie the guy is still a student, albeit an advanced student. The text used seems even to 'beef up' the criticisms made by al-Azami, rather than neutrally represent them. This should probably be a RSN matter, rather than a RfC, though I am fairly sure that they would completely reject the idea of using a student's blog article as the source for such serious accusations in a BLP. Much better sourcing is needed to use this even as attributed opinion. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2016 (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.

Habib is not his name

Habib is Not his name. So, the title of this topic should be changed to: Ali al-Jifri. Without the word Habib. مصطفى النيل (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, Habib Ali al-Jifri is the title of the subject that is most commonly used in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

❤️

السلام عليكم ورحمة وبركاته الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول لله 💞 I want to baihath❤️ Iam in sharjah 5.31.225.119 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)