Talk:Zaytuna College

Untitled
All these wonderful things Zaytuna allegedly does, who says so? If these are all Zaytuna's claims, they need to be presented as such. If there is confirmation from credible sources, we need a reference. CuriousOliver 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Physical addresses of Zaytuna College in Berkeley
Contrary to a speculation below, Zaytuna College is not a "non-location" institution. There are two campuses in Berkeley. The upper campus is a large (12 acres) property at 2750 and 2770 Marin Avenue 94708 (at the very end of Marin Avenue in the Berkeley hills; previously this was location of the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary). The other location is at 1712 Euclid Ave 94709 on "Holy Hill," an area long home to several other religious educational institutions.135.180.117.203 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Info links
Zaytuna has a homepage, and many articles and mp3s of speeches. The New York Times published an article and video on it:  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.155.154  (talk • contribs) 10:20, June 18, 2006.

Most of this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia as it is little more than publicity material. It needs to be rewritten in its entirety rather than cut and pasted from the Instituted promotional material. Jk54 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Helloo ....
The information in the article comes directly from Zaytuna's site .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.14.222 (talk • contribs) August 6, 2006


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The physical address for Zaytuna appears to be a post office in Berkeley, giving the impression that it does not have a substantial dedicated physical location; as a result am removing the "missing coordinates tag" on the basis if it being more of a "non-location" based enterprise. --Mdukas (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

update
This article is sparsely referenced. I added another reference. somebody else excised it. The reference substantiated that the college did hold a conference. I suggest this is important. Geo Swan (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a section from WP:THIRDPARTY:

Why third-party sources are required Third-party sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia. Arguably, an independent and reliable third-party is not always objective enough to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.) If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, let alone debated a topic, then that only improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia. First, multiple sources that have debated a subject will reliably demonstrate that the subject is worthy of notice. Second, and equally important, these reliable sources will allow editors to verify certain facts about the subject that make it significant, and write an encyclopedic article that meets our policies and guidelines.

Should be avoided.

 * I do not think when tag "refimprove" is added on main space of the article,is there still any need of adding the templates "cn"?. It should be avoided.Justice007 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have searched and added WP:reliable sources to cite the content and expand the article. Other editors are wellcome to work on it. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Justice007, I hope you are well. Yes there is still a need to keep the citation templates, so please don't remove them from the body. It shows WHERE other editors believe sources should optimally be placed and represents the helpful advice of many other editors. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gorge, I am well, hope you are same. I never remove templates "cn" without citing the sources. That is ok, I will try to find more sources to expand and improve the article, I have not check the sources yet, I have realy not much time, there are many things to do in real life. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures
Has anyone thought about adding pictures of the College or the new building or the Co-Founders? Just wanted to put that idea out there. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. How would this strengthen the article? Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that question. Most Universities and Colleges on Wikipedia have their logo in the 'info box' at the top of the page and this article has a logo option but it is empty for the moment.  I should have mentioned adding the logo above in my first post. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Abdullah H. Mirza, Adding the logo seems reasonable. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, How would this strengthen the article? How old are you George Custer's Sabre? 5 years old? Or do you not have any no common sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.17.70.1 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Or do you not have any no common sense?" This isn't even correct English. Who is 5? Have a nice day. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, silly me I must be so unintelligent to make grammatical errors when typing. I am so embarrassed, you have really made me look so stupid.


 * Sorry, me no speak English very well good like yours mister. Je ne parle pas anglais. 178.17.70.1 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it only took you a year to reply. Your mind works fast, I see. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, only took about an hour to reply today so I must be on a role. Actually, I just happen to have a life which doesn't involve wasting time editing Wikipedia articles. 178.17.70.1 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ″You couldn't help yourself. Want the last word now? Need it? Go ahead. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk)
 * What's with the opening speech mark, now who is making grammatical errors? Why, have I touched a nerve? Are you familiar with narcissism?178.17.70.1 (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I corrected your own inadequate punctuation: "What's with the opening speech mark? Now who is making grammatical errors? Why, have I touched a nerve? Are you familiar with narcissism?" George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good for you, I didn't realise it was a contest. Not that it alters the meaning, but whatever helps you shoot your goo, sonny. 178.17.66.1 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 178.17.66.1 (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Links to other Wikipedia Articles
On March 20, 2013, I added several links to other Wikipedia articles. Feedback is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah H. Mirza (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion concerning sentence structure
It appears as if most a paragraph in this article begins with "Zaytuna College" and to maintain the encyclopedic quality of the writing we should consider rewriting the sentences to maintain the appropriate variation of wording at the start of the sentences. Your thoughts are much appreciated. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing
Zaytuna is a small college that is accredited was accredited in 2015, by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges to award a single degree, "the Bachelor of Arts in Islamic Law and Theology". There are similar, small Christian colleges, ones where everyone learns Greek so that they can read the Gospels in the original language. I see it a s a neutral thing. However, some editors on this page are pushing the idea that Zaytuna is a liberal arts college by removing reliably sourced descriptions of its actual accreditation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. The sentence I added was as follows:


 * In 2015 the Zaytuna Institute became the first accredited Muslim campus in the United States after it received approval from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges


 * This was based on the following sources:


 * L A Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-muslim-college-accreditated-20150311-story.html) which states that:
 * A Berkeley-based college has become the first accredited Muslim campus in the country after it received approval from a key educational association.


 * The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/852075/us-gets-its-first-accredited-muslim-college/) which states that:
 * A non-profit Muslim college in Berkeley, California, became the first officially recognised Islamic institution after receiving formal academic accreditation.


 * The Curriculum section of the article already provides detailed information of the courses available at the college.
 * RookTaker (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't be disingenuous. The material you removed stated, accurately, that the college is accredited to grant degrees in "Islamic Law and Theology".  That is a fine and legitimate thing to do.  but it is not the same thing as offering a full liberal arts education. It was sourced to USA Today, the Washington Post, and ot a blue-linked writer publishing on the Middle East Forum, although other papers may well have also had the information.  It was also sourced to the letter sent form the Accrediting body to Zaytuna College, posted on Zaytuna's own web site.  The article after your edits implies taht Zaytuna is a small liberal arts college.  In fact, it is a tiny school where all students major in Islamic law and theology, and the page, in clding the accreditation section, ought ot reflect that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't make statements such as Don't be disingenuous. It is unnecessary and uncalled for.
 * Anyhow, the text I added read as follows:
 * In 2015, the Zaytuna Institute became the first accredited Muslim campus in the United States after it received approval from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.


 * You changed this to:
 * In 2015, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges granted Zaytuna Institute accreditation to award a single degree, "the Bachelor of Arts in Islamic Law and Theology, making it the first accredited Muslim campus in the United States after it received approval from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.


 * I reverted your version for a number of reasons.
 * Firstly, it doesn't read well at all. Sorry, but the language is just poor.
 * Secondly, the article already states that "The college is accredited to offer only a single degree, in Islamic law and theology". It's not clear to me why this needs to be repeated more than once.
 * Thirdly, the author of the Middle East Monitor article is Stephen Suleyman Schwartz who is a controversial writer is his own right. For a number of years he has written a number of articles with a clear PoV regarding the Zaytuna institute (see for example http://democracy-project.com/2010/09/stephen-schwartz-reveals-the-hollow-core-of-zaytuna-college/). I am not saying he is wrong, but if he is to be quoted in this article his words should be qualified (e.g. "According to the writer Stephen Schwartz.....").RookTaker (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * RootTaker, you need to learn how to edit NPOV.
 * RE: my edits:
 * I did not cite Schwartz, I cited him on fact, along with some general circulation newspapers. His article was useful because he  linked to the actual accreditation letter from the WASC posted on the Zaytuna website.
 * articles form critics of the college, especially when they are people of some note, can be cited. Removing edits that criticize the college is not the way to build a reliable, neutral article.
 * disingenuity is not a good way to approach a talk page. If you spot a word use  problem, change the wording.
 * Now, back to the topic at hand, Zatuna is a college fully accredited to grant degrees in a single, fairly subject area: Islamic law and theology. That is not the same as being a fully accredited college.  There are multiple, reliable sources that say so - not to mention the WASC and the Zaytuna website where the WASC letter is posted.  The page needs to be accurate, which, in this case, means that the accreditation section needs to specify what the college is accredited to do.  As it now stands, the accreditation section is misleading.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Status
Is it no longer a non-profit, 501(c)(3) educational institution? Why was this removed without explanation? George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I found a source from 2013 stating that "The college grew out of the non-profit Zaytuna Institute, founded in 1996 as a local community organization." (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/01/muslim-college-usa/2379261/).


 * It's not clear to me from the above if Zaytuna is still a non-profit organisation. However, I would inclined to assume so given that this was the case in the past and we have no clear evidence of the contrary. RookTaker (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, RookTaker, that's very helpful. Thank you. Yes, let's leave it as it is unless there is further evidence to consider. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory mottos
The info box at the head of the article gives the college’s motto as “Say: O Lord, increase me in knowledge.” But the “Educational philosophy” section states that the motto is “Where Islam Meets America.” Which is it? Dodiad (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is the former. The latter was a line in a talk that got misinterpreted in a low quality article as the college motto. Niide Kyojo (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Zaytuna-seal-2x.png