Talk:Mahmoud al-Zahar

quotes
I am removing multiple quotes attributed to him that only reinforce painting his opposition to the state of Israel. NPOV says that obviously we must not hide his anti-semitism, but nor should we make a monster out of him. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A quote should be put up about his anti-gay views, not just anti-Israel views. He's said lots of things about homosexuals, NPOV dictates we can't ignore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Joeyfox10 (talk • contribs)


 * If the quotes are relevant to him, yes. But unless he's been elected leader of GLAAD or the Anti-Gay movement, they're not.  George W. Bush has said a lot of things about cattle, but because they're not relevant to his notable role, they're not included.  Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

doctorship? and historical not respecting the bible link

 * 1) i've seen a few places that consider this guy as a doctor, i don't know much about him and havn't yet read the entire article.. what is certain that there is no mention of this in the introductory paragraph.
 * 2) i've just happened to catch this TV interview: Al-Zahar making a claim that the Torah is a fabrication (VIDEO) (Transcript), i've been discussing many muslims and the majority of them, when discussing the bible, either said that Islam respects the bible or that they tried to make unscholar naive claims about the bible based on stuff they picked up on hatespeech websites... all fairly easily refuted by someone who can actually read biblical hebrew and knows a little about the bible.
 * 3) what about a picture on the article? Jaakobou 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC) This guy is a joke.

B89.1.208.15 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy of the "murder" of Israeli children worldwide
All sources listed for this quote say that he said "They" and not Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodge (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He is referring to Jews. Read the article: "a Hamas leader warned that the Islamists would kill Jewish children anywhere in the world..." PS Thanks for adding the Naim source, that's very helpful. IronDuke  21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read them. The only quoted bit of his speech in The Times is "They have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine... They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.” The headline for The Times article is "Hamas: Israel has legitimised the killing of its children", the "jewish children" bit is only mentioned within the article but it's not his quoted speech. Wodge (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, what I'm saying is, given the context, the reports are indicating it was clear he meant Jews (and not Israelis). I assume he said "Yahudi" or some variation thereof. There's no evidence he didn't, and RS's that say he did. IronDuke  21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not trying to be awkward but The Times article headline says Israeli Children while the article itself says "Jewish children", Al-Jazeera justs says Israeli children, The Guardian says he didn't actually make any threats. Both The Spectator (which I removed) and the London Daily News* just seem to repeat what Times said. So to be neutral, I'd say it should be left as Israeli Children. Depending on POV, people can take the word Israeli which ever way they want. *(LSN contains this "Speaking to the Times, Mark Gardner, of CST, warned Jews:" so I'm assuming it was sourced from The Times) Wodge (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologize, you're not being at all awkward and I very much appreciate this dialogue. First off, I'm adding two more sources which confirm "Jewish." Second, we have the Times which uses it (and doesn't say "Israeli children" AFAICT, it suggests both Israeli children and Jewish children worldwide, so I'm (hopefully) putting in a compromise version that shows both), The London Times doing its own reportage, and The Guardian, of course, isn't saying anything at all, Naim is. And he can't overrule a plethora of RS's. Finally, FWIW, replacing "Jewish" with "Israeli" here is not neutral -- it is starkly pro-Hamas. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but trying to soft-pedal antisemitic comments by their leaders and spokespersons is definitely POV. IronDuke  00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find an article which has the full text of his speech and that speech reveals he specifically meant "Jewish" instead of "Israeli" then that's Pro-Israeli POV. Incidently, This is from the wiki for BDBJ "On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organization called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticizing particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews.[4]" which suggest they're hardly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodge (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But they don't need to be neutral -- see WP:TIGER for a good explanation of this. We quote un-neutral people all day long. Or did you thing az-Zahar was neutral? I've been looking for the full text, wish I could find it -- but I am in no way obliged to. Multiple, reliable sources say "Jewish." It's not POV to go with what multiple, reliable sources say. IronDuke
 * I disagree, if there is significant doubt whether somebody is being maliciously quoted out of context to advance a political agenda, we cannot simply present the quote as though it were true. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no significant doubt. One Hamas official vaguely disputes it, which is hardly surprising. IronDuke  01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering you added the statement "Hamas has never made any secret of their extremist and [[anti-Semitic] agenda. A quick read through the Hamas Charter which outlines the focus of their ideology over the last twenty years, clearly demonstrates that they have never made any distinction between Jew and Israeli and have always considered the death of Jews to be a desirable objective]" to the article, in gross violation of about a million policies...I'd say that's very surprising, actually...it seems to contradict you. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It violates no policies at all, actually. Your posting that makes me feel you don't really grasp policy. IronDuke  03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS -- have you read this thread? IronDuke  04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. Have you? As I have already said unless you can find an article which has the full text of his speech and that speech reveals he specifically meant "Jewish" instead of "Israeli" then that's Pro-Israeli POV. Claiming your newspapers citations are reliable doesn't make them so. There are numereous instances of anti-semetic remarks being attributed to Palestians which turn out to be false.Wodge (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to Sherurcij. The way you can tell this is that my comment was indented under his/hers. As to your point -- you added Naim: Do you think he is a neutral source? IronDuke  05:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. As for your question, I think he's as neutral as all but one of the links you've cited.Wodge (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Which source is more neutral? IronDuke  16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the following has a NPOV?


 * a) Tom said "x". Dick claimed this meant Tom was advocating "y". However, Harry claimed Tom actually meant "z".


 * b) Tom was advocating y. He said "x". Dick said Tom was advocating "y". However, Harry claimed Tom actually meant "z". Someone else said "You can't trust anything Tom and Harry say because they're really, really, really, really bad people, honest. I am 100% neutral on this. No, really, I am." Wodge (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refactor, it us much appreciated. Your a versus b example here is, I think, beside the point. We must have a NPOV; our sources often don't. Naim, obviously, is not neutral. Does that mean he's not a good source? Not at all. He is one of several good sources, of varying degrees of neurality. IronDuke  17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The San Francsico Sentinel page you linked to has as part of its strapline "Challah Is Taken" as well as a logo at the bottom saying "We support Israel". Furthermore, the article itself contains three large pictures of Israeli children which it says were previously killed or wounded by Islamic Terror. The "previous" bit means, if you go and check, that no Israeli children were actually killed during the last conflict or indeed during 2008. It also neglects to mention how many palestinian children were killed or wounded by Israeli terror. So do you seriously expect anyone to think this is a neutral source? The Australian headline says "Hamas terror: every Jewish child now a target". Do you think that can be described as neutral? Incidentally, The Times and The Australian are both owned Rupert Murdoch who to put it mildly is pro-Israel. Since his newspapers tend to reflect his political views, do you think they can be described as neutral?
 * 2) What you wrote most resembles (b): "Tom was advocating y. He said 'x'. Dick said Tom was advocating 'y'. However, Harry claimed Tom actually meant 'z'." which implies that you are implicit endorse that as-Zahar said "y". And that is not NPOV. Wodge (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But you think Naim is a neutral source? A member of Hamas, neutral about a controversy involving Hamas? IronDuke  21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the Al Jazeera article is the one that's neutral. It's the only one that limits itself to just reporting who said and did what without putting a spin on it. Wodge (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but it doesn't quite answer my question. To quote myself "...you think Naim is a neutral source?" IronDuke  22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And to quote myself: "I think he's as neutral as all but one of the links you've cited." If, as you claim, Naim is lying, why hasn't somebody released the video of what Zahar said with a full transcript? Wodge (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Whoops, we'll take a time out here. You wrote "If, as you claim, Naim is lying..." As you are accusing me of what amounts to a BLP violation I'd love it if you would 1) Apologize and retract or 2) Prove what you wrote, and I'll apologize. IronDuke 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a BLP? Wodge (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Our biographies of living persons policy. Can you answer the question please -- where did I say Naim was lying? IronDuke  01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Board of Deputies quote you added seems to be the exact opposite of what Naim says. You've also asked "But you think Naim is a neutral source? A member of Hamas, neutral about a controversy involving Hamas?". So if you don't think he's biased or lying, what exactly are you saying? Wodge (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So... I didn't say Naim was lying? I just want to be clear. IronDuke  02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The questions you asked me suggests that you do not think he can be neutral and that his statements with regards to Hamas cannot be trusted. So can you clarify what you mean? Wodge (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are two different things -- his not being neutral and his lying. Where do you get that I'm calling him a liar? IronDuke  15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to you, he's not neutral, therefore, he is biased towards Hamas and against Israel, therefore, anything he says about Hamas is not to be trusted, therefore he's lying. Wodge (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Being not neutral doesn't mean anything that comes out of your mouth is a lie, it's sometimes just a matter of what's emphasized and what's left out. Naim could well be correct, but that doesn't make him therefore neutral. I won't belabor the point, as you seem permanently confused as to the difference between lack of neutrality and mendacity. Now that our "time out" is over, let me ask you, once again: do you think Naim is a neutral source? IronDuke  16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's you that seem confused. Withholding facts can be construed to be lying just as much as making up facts. So by implying Naim is withholding facts, you are accusing him of lying. Wodge (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask one more time, and then we'll just mark you down as refusing to answer. Is Naim neutral? IronDuke  15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'll ask one more time, are you saying Naim is lying by either making false statments or by withholding relevant information? Wodge (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no earthly idea if Naim is lying or not. Your turn. IronDuke  19:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing the header - as it is supported by the cited reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. read the talk. Wodge (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. The only person who disputes it is a member of Hamas. That's it. And that stil wouldn't explain why you'd water down the header to vitual meaninglessnes. Surely you at least agree that there is some thought that he said such a thing? IronDuke  15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out none of the sources you've provided give the full text of what he said so it's not possible to say for certain that he actually issued a threat. Wodge (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very rarely do newspapers give the full text of what they report on. The idea that we may not quote them unless they repeat the entire text of what they quote is just bizarre. I really want to believe you are trying to help this article, and not just throwing up roadblocks to disrupt it, but you're making that difficult to do. IronDuke  16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Given that what he actually said is disputed it's necessary to find the full text of what he said before you can say for sure what he actually said. Wodge (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wildly off the mark here, Wodge, both in terms of common sense and Wikipedia policy. As you keep averring that you do not understand the policies here, can you take a break from reverting on controversial articles until you do? IronDuke  19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I off the mark? It's you that seems to keep changing this article in an attempt to push your POV? Wodge (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been told how. Again: please take a break from editing in these areas until you understand policy. IronDuke  19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh great wiki master, could you tell me if telling somebody to "go away" is a violation of WP:CIVIL link Wodge (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... good question. In this case, you might try treating it as constructive criticism. I'll also add that you seem to have some very advanced ideas about policy when you want to, but when it comes to, say, 3rr, you appear to be at something of a loss. Odd, that. IronDuke  20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wodge, the threshold here is WP:V, though we do need to take care of WP:BLP. If a number of sources say that he did in fact say this then so can Wikipedia. If you can find sources rebutting that they certainly belong in the article. On the issue of the title of the subsection, I think it goes a lil far, nothing in the title that was being used adds anything beyond just saying 'controversial statements'. What controversial statements were made are covered in that section. In the interests of harmony can we agree that the title of the subsection can just be 'Controversial statements'? Nableezy (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can absolutely do that, in the interests of harmony. Sadly, we can't do it in the interest of accuracy or usefulness. IronDuke  19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it not accurate? How is it not useful? The title 'Controversial statements' is certainly accurate, it may not be as specific, but you cannot find fault with its accuracy. Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, it's accurate in the same sense that using the header "Statements" would be accurate. The "controversy" exists mainly on this talk page, as to the import of his remarks. IronDuke  19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that there is a dispute in what he said, the article here says that the remarks were 'widely interpreted' not that he actually advocated the murder of Jewish children, I dont see how you can say that we should title the section 'Advocacy of the murder of Jewish children'. If you place that as the section title you are in effect reporting that he did advocate the murder of Jewish children, not that people interpreted his remarks to advocate the murder of Jewish children. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person who disputes it is someone from Hamas. That isn't a reliable source. A non-neutral source disputing multiple newspaper reports does not cast any reasonable doubt on what was said. If it did, many Wikipedia articles would be tied up with useless circumlocutions and obfuscations. I'd like for that not to happen here. IronDuke  19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only person who disputes it is someone from Hamas (at least in the article, haven't done too much searching on this and honestly am not going to while I am at work), who is speaking on behalf of someone from Hamas. Given that this is a BLP, should the views of the subject, or those speaking on behalf of the subject, matter less because it is from Hamas? Hamas is a RS for the opinion of Hamas, and it is their opinion that these quotes are misinterpreted. Nableezy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Hamas is an RS for what Hamas thinks, but Naim isn't an RS for what az-Zahar meant: az-Zahar != Hamas. If az-Zahar wants to deny, or clarify, he can certainly do so. And that doesn't explain why we'd try to obscure the nature of the disputed statement in the header. IronDuke  20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I will look for sources when I get to the safety of a private network. As far as obscuring the nature of the disputed statement, I think the only way you can put it like that is something along the lines of the nonsense titles we have all of over the place, like 'Alleged advocacy . . .' though I do not think that would be proper form for a BLP. Nableezy (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Naim wrote his statement in The Guardian as a spokeman for Hamas. So I would have thought he'd be an RS for Zahar as he was also speaking in an official capacity. Wodge (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the title. I wasn't saying we shouldn't mention the alleged remark. I'm just saying it's disputed and that should be included as well. Wodge (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromise
The Board of Deputies of British Jews statement, although sourced elsewhere, is not in the latest update of the Times. It is also unclear if they made this statement in reaction to Zahar's statement. So I'm removing in the hopes that it can be the common ground for the two sides here. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I find the prose text we have acceptable, I don't see a problem with saying "media reported he said X, Y said he was misinterpreted", the only outstanding issue I have is why it has a subheading which draws too much importance to a single quote -- it belongs, but it belongs in the "Hawkish position" section like the rest. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the BDBJ statement is revelant. Apart from anything else it just bloats the current text. If the reader wants to find out more about Hamas or their Charter they can go and visit those pages. I sort of agree with Sherurcij that we don't really need a subheading. If, however, the consensus is for a subheading than can we have something a bit less clunky then "Advocacy of the "murder" of Israeli and Jewish children worldwide"? Either Israeli or Jewish but not both? Wodge (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving BDBJ aside for a sec, I think a header is important. The idea that threatening the murder of Jewish children worldwide is "hawkish" would be... strange at best. That's why I put a header in in the first place. IronDuke  21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Talk
Per Talk, what? What exactly are you on? The consensus so seems to be that the section is called "Controversial Statements" Wodge (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No there isnt, there is no consensus for either title. I think if it needs to retain 'regarding murder of Jewish children' it needs to carry an alleged in there. Something along the lines of 'Statement allegedly advocating the murder of Jewish children'. Especially in a BLP, no matter how small the chance this man happens by the page and tries to sue for defamation. Nableezy (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. has anyone called it "alleged?" Because it's being reported as fact, full stop. Yes, there is a denial, but I don't think that's enough, considering the source. Even al Jazeera reports it as fact. IronDuke  20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reported as fact or it is reported as being interpreted as saying that, half stop. Nableezy (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, after looking for some more source I think the title is fine, but not exactly how I would have it. What I think would be the best title would be 'Statement on the legitimacy of the killing of Jewish children during the Gaza conflict'. Nableezy (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. IronDuke  21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the best choice of words considering the subject, but I can too. Wodge? Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is acceptable because it implies that there is no dispute about this being the subject of the statement. See below. --BozMo talk 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it should stay as "Controversial statements". Naim makes clear what Hamas' position is: Hamas has never operated outside of Palestine and doesn't intend to start now. As a member of Hamas, he should be regarded as an RS for Hamas' position Wodge (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title should remain as Controversial statements, the other titles should not be considered for the simple reason that they are ridiculously long. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a compare and contrast, btw: You have the statement "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand. And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop" and a statement about hanging innocent children by Shmuel Eliyahu (a chief rabbi) listed under "Positions". Apparently, that doesn't even merit the inclusion of the word 'controversial'. And the Military Rabbinate gets "incitement controversy" rather then "Religious fundamentalist Rabbis gives their blessing to Israeli Soldiers to kill anything that moves in Gaza" . Wodge (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defense minister, who threatened the Palestinians with a 'shoah'. That quote is entitled "Israeli Minister Threatens Palestinians with a Holocaust", Again, the quote is there but it doesn't even merit a title. Wodge (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed, Ironduke removed relevant parts of Naim's quote as well. So we have three cites to Churnalism repeating the allegation. Two lines for Maajid Nawaz who works for the Quilliam foundation, an organisation almost entirely funded by the British Government and with zero credibility. Whilst cutting downing Naim's quote, who being a Hamas spokesman is presumably qualified to speak for Hamas as an RS, saying that Hamas has never operated outside of Palestine and doesn't intend to start now. Wodge (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The two quotations at the bottom are extensive, consider reducing the length by just keep the more relevant parts of the statements. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quote was too long. Possibly still is. IronDuke  20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is Nawaz? And how is his "Israel is better than Hamas" statement relevant to the issue? The problem with the quote is undue weight and much of it is irrelevant. I cut part of Naim's quote as well because of copyvio issues and we just need the most relevant details only.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about just this bit if you want to cut down Naim's quote: "He did no such thing – nor would any Hamas spokesman. Such a call would be against Islam and the teachings of the Prophet, who prohibited the killing of children and attacks on places of worship. And from the beginning of our struggle, Hamas has always insisted that its operations are restricted to the field of battle, Palestine itself"?
 * Just had another look and I think it looks ok Wodge (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nawaz has sterling credentials. See Maajid Nawaz. IronDuke  21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, about one million sterling Wodge (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this has to carry a title which only says controversial statements. Anything saying "about xyz" when whether the statement was about xyz is itself contested carries a POV, since it implies that the statements were about xyz. Therefore, unless you can find a formula which does not imply this in the heading it has to go back to "Controversial Statements" --BozMo talk 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think Naim statement in the Guardian also made Hamas' position clear. Wodge (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your merely restating an already refuted premise isn't helping. Again: this "dispute" exists primarily on this talk page. One Hamas member disputes it. That's it -- no neutral reliable sources do. IronDuke  22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Niam is an RS for Hamas. Wodge (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument has already been refuted above. (Hint: it's the discussion you scuttled away from.) IronDuke  22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just replied. Just out of interest will you be visiting this page Shmuel Eliyahu to make sure the titles there are just as literal? Wodge (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your interest in where I'm likely to edit next is touching, and I'm obviously quite eager to take pointers from you, time permitting. That said, you haven't actually replied. Then again, it may be just as well. IronDuke  03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh the Irony! Compare and ContrastWodge (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article
Does anybody have a problem moving this to Mahmoud al-Zahar? This is the name most commonly used in the sources, for a short list of examples: Al-Jazeera, Ynet, BBC, Washington Post, and The Times Nableezy (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is the most common version of his name. Wodge (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Mahmud al-Zahar → Mahmoud al-Zahar — Most common spelling of the name Mahmoud and used in most sources — Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

This was the name of the article until it was moved in April 2008 by Mahmudss. I cant see any rational for keeping the page as Mahmud except it uses a certain transliteration of the Arabic name. "Mahmoud al-Zahar" gets 37,700 ghits where "Mahmud al-Zahar gets 29,500. The numbers appear close but the results are telling. The first result is this page, the second is a BBC News page with the name "Mahmoud al-Zahar" in the title. There certainly are sources that use Mahmud, but a quick perusal of some major sources, for a short list Al-Jazeera, Ynet, BBC, Washington Post, and The Times, shows that "Mahmoud" is the most often used English name. Nableezy (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A move like this would be non-controversial, so a survey is unnecessary. Just move the page, I don't think anyone will object. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is by far the most common english spelling of his name, anyway. Wodge (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody already moved it once so I assumed one might object. And it needs an admin to move, I tried. Nableezy (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Park 51
The New York Post story has inserted words into what al- Zahar said. He said "We have to build the mosque as you are allowed to build the church and the Israeli are building their holy places. We have to build everywhere — in every area we have muslims, we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer especially for the people when they are looking to be in the group — not individual." The audio file can be found here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=191797

See this for further info: http://warincontext.org/2010/08/16/hamas-supports-the-right-of-muslims-to-pray-in-mosques-even-in-new-york/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodge (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Mahmoud al-Zahar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615222606/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200606/s1663270.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1663270.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100819041914/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5lnPPJXXpZ_cmN17J9dJBFjcgnQD9HKH6S00 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5lnPPJXXpZ_cmN17J9dJBFjcgnQD9HKH6S00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

last edit
, I reverted your edit as the sourcing simply does not withstand the OR objection. The quote is reliably sourced, yes, however here an analysis added by a Wikipedia editor that this quote contradicts the prior material. In fact, most of this should not be included at all, things cited to comment is free at the Guardian have no place in a BLP. But this specifically fails WP:OR, and it cannot be used in that way.  nableezy  - 19:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain specifically what amounts to 1. OR, and what amounts to 2. BLP concerns. El_C 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Im pretty sure I did, that being the analysis that this quote contradicts the previous material. The source only has the quote, and any use of the quote for analysis is original research as that analysis does not appear in any reliable source cited. The BLP concern is using a collection of op-eds to include derogatory information on a living person.  nableezy  - 16:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, those are fair points. El_C 03:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Over Incorrect Attribution of "The End of the Jews" Authorship

 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):

- Recent information regarding his alleged authorship of a book.
 * Why it should be changed:

also by the way the reference: "Arafat ordered Hamas attacks against Israel in 2000", Jerusalem Post, reported 29 June 2010 []" seems to me broken, it doesn't point to that article. -
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Bowad91017 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this really WP:DUE to add? It feels like a triviality, which is probably why nobody responded to this in almost three months. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)