Talk:Taj El-Din Hilaly/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Taj El-Din Hilaly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Far from NPOV

This is very far from being a NPOV article. I don't like Hilaly either, but this is not acceptable language. Adam 08:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It also may need updating in that Keysar Trad was just toppled as head of the Lebanese Muslims Association, which may thus affect his role as spokesperson for Hilaly. Ambi 10:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I once read that a certain organisation gave Hilaly the title of Grand Mufti of Australia. I should look it up some time.
Another thing to do would be to mention the incidents of his car being pulled over, and also his complaints about being checked at an airport.
I'm surprised that Keysar Trad is a red link. I would have thought someone as high profile as him would have an entry. Andjam 15:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard that he has been thrown off the PM's Islamic advisory council for denying the holocaust, but I can't find a source. Xtra 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] Adam 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would be helpful to find a source for the positive things this guy has done - the article reads as if there is nothing positive in anybody's eyes he has ever done - which is very unlikely. User:SmithBlue 30 October 2006

Removed "on a tourist visa from Lebanon, but stayed permanently after an injunction from then Prime Minister Paul Keating" from intro as "arrival" has own subsection in "Controversy". SmithBlue 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING

I've stubified this per WP:LIVING. None of it is properly referenced, and much of it negative. I'm not implying the article is unfair or non-neutral, I don't know. But this type of negative material needs a specific citation for just about every claim made. Please rebuild it with citations, or simply replace those parts of it that can be specifically verified.--Doc 19:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think an article needs improvement, then improve it. You have no right merely to delete most of it. Adam 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does, because he did so per WP:LIVING and an OTRS complaint. And how is removing unsourced negative information not improving an article?--§hanel 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd have to say the latest version is more negative [2] (although there was a lot of negative material in the old one). However I agree the removal was necessary and proper but we should look in to sourcing some the info from the original article, if relevant and re-adding it here. This also might be useful to add some small 'counterpoints' [3] Nil Einne 23:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why it was removed in the first place. Negative information isn't forbidden, but obviously it should be well-sourced.--§hanel 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed some of the external links stuff may be useful for the Douglas Wood issue Nil Einne 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography?

I just found that answers.com quotes Wikipedia in its entry about this subject but with lots of info which is missing from Wikipedia itself. How come?

The link: http://www.answers.com/topic/taj-el-din-hilaly

Penedo 02:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Because answers is a mirror of Wikipedia and takes a while to refresh. The article was mostly deleted on the weekend, and the answers shows the old version.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniela_Garnero_Santanchè

One is debating Muslim women's clothing in Australia, the other is debating Muslim women's clothing in Italy.

There is a it:lingua_italiano Daniela_Garnero_Santanchè article. Please, someone, translate it|alian.

Thank You. it:Daniela_Garnero_Santanchè. hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The veil has also been debated a lot in the uk, here a BBC link on that story, [4] hope that helps.Hypnosadist 15:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent controversy (Oct 2006)

Roused a great controversy yesterday over his "uncovered meat is the problem not the cats" sermon. — Donama 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Links: [5][http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/

And please consider supporting this article as an Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight here. — Donama 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analogy. I guess he regards male sexual appetite as being purly a matter of instinct. This contrasts with the usual Christian view, which asserts, "If you look upon a woman with lust you are committing adultery in your heart."

I wonder if this is related to either (a) the harsh beatings given to immodestly dressed women by the Taliban or (b) the honor killing of rape victims. There seems to be a Muslim view that when unsanctioned sexual activity occurs between man and woman, it is the woman's fault. --Uncle Ed 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. Thanks, Andjam 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing positive info

Taj Al-Din Hilaly was instrumental in securing release of hostage Douglas Wood in Iraq in 2004(2005?). This should be included. — Donama 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

He certainly made a trip to the middle east on behalf of the family of Douglas Wood, and was able to contact the kidnappers and arrange payment. Whether that makes him instrumental in securing the release is another question. Andrewa 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean he claims to have secured his release, but he also lied when he claimed to have seen Wood, something Wood denies...

Please sign your posts on talk pages. There seems to be some doubt as to the role of Hilaly in the Wood affair. So, bearing in mind that our only goal here is to improve the encyclopedia, any such positive info which is added to the article should be carefully and verifiably attributed to its source. Andrewa 06:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless he did risk his own life and his own health (delaying a heart bypass operation) to make the trip. It made huge headlines at the time, and is therefore worth mentioning. Unless one is simply interested in highlighting the negatives aspects of his life only. Sdefranc 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of name

The parts of Hilaly's names are transcribed into Latin characters in a variety of ways. In newspapers I have seen El-Din, Al-Din, and al-Din for the middle one and Hilaly or Hilali for the last one. Any preference on which transcription is the best to choose for our article title. This makes a total of 6 possible combinations anyway so there must be 5 redirects in place to make it easy to find. — Donama 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If they are accurate, & you know how,...

redirect

wikipedia : Redirect

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBc are using this spelling Taj el-Din al-Hilali in this article [6] and no redirect, and i don't no how.Hypnosadist 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson connection?

From this article: "He has not since apologised nor retracted his comments, in which he accused Jews of causing all wars [8]." He made this accusation in 1988... Mel Gibson's statement in 2006: "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Both are Australian and Gibson was raised in Australia... Not necessarily proof, but still interesting. KazakhPol 03:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You implying that there is some sort of Australian connection between the two? because the Jewish population in Australia is less than 0.5% and there is virtualy no anti-semitism. Both Hilaly and Gibson were born elsewhere and moved to Australia and since they are also both of different faiths, i do not think their comments are connected nor is there any link to Australia.CtrlDPredator 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Those sorts of odd connections are fascinating, which is why I've requested assistance regarding Daniela_Garnero_Santanchè.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

wtf???? Just because 2 people from the same country hate Jews doesn't mean that they're linked in any other way. They're completely different people and they almost certainly have never met each other. Go back to thinking of conspiracy theories, you crazy wierdo Huey45 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Wood?

Why is there nothing written in the article about his part (large or small, as it may be) in the release of Douglas Wood? Did it get lost?- Malkinann 11:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was removed along with most of the article when it was insisted that everything must be referenced. No one has yet put it back in with references. CtrlDPredator 12:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See the section Missing positive info above. It would be good to have some information on this, but it should be carefully sourced. Andrewa 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You geeks are extremely annoying. So what if you don't source the information? That doesn't mean it isn't correct. If you know it already, why isn't that good enough to write in the encyclopaedia? It's unnecessary and if anyone reads the article, they wouldn't realise it because of those stupid whingers removing anything that isn't sourced. If you know that he was involved in freeing Douglas Wood, write it in the article. Huey45 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with your sentiments about geeks, see Category talk:Articles with unsourced statements#Why I hate this category, Talk:Emperor Penguin#Removed cite needed, and Talk:K. Zildjian. But in this case, I think the citations are important, simply because we don't know. So, while we can't say what happened, we can and should report the opinions of notable people on the matter. And we must say who said what, otherwise this isn't information at all, but mere rumour. Andrewa 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is much information floating around regarding Sheikh Hilaly's trip to Iraq to assist in the freeing of Douglas Woods. I find it hard to believe that a bio on a person can include a Traffic Offense yet omit the fact that his person put aside his own health issues to travel to Iraq to help out a fellow human being, regardless of whether you believe he played a role or not. Once I'm able to edit this wiki entry I will put some effort into adding an appropriate section Sam De Francesco 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While you are welcome to do that, it would be much better to start your contributions with something less controversial. I'm sure you have much to contribute not just on this subject, but on many related ones, and you can edit these other articles immediately. A record of good contributions will give your opinion more weight here, and will also give you practice in understanding and applying Wikipedia policy.

Whilst we are on the subject of policy - who are you? Sam De Francesco 19:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fascinated to know what that has to do with the subject of policy! I'm also fascinated to know what you could possibly want to know that's not already on my user page, or the extensive personal websites and other wikis that you can find by following the links there. But tell me what else you want to know, and I hope it will be easily answered! Andrewa 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the traffic infringement. But what you claim to be a fact is not undisputed, while the traffic infringement is. It is a fact that he made the trip, yes. Andrewa 10:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughtful advice, but there appears to be no hard-and-fast rule limiting users from contributing to any page in the main namespace on the basis of their Wikipedia newbie-ness, in terms of being unfamiliar with the nuances of official policy. A user progresses in that regard as they make contributions, and, though this may not be the best page to start with, they are still free to contribute here if they wish. The important thing is that they be careful and thorough.

True, but in practice it's very useful to understand the polity, policies and guidelines before becoming involved in editing a controversial article, otherwise you risk finding Wikipedia a very negative experience at worst and a waste of your time at best. Wikipedia is not perfect, any more than any of its editors are. You might like to have a look at User:Andrewa/creed for more on this. I imagine you've already had a look at the welcome page.

As for the disputed/undisputed, fact/not fact business... I believe you're referring to the ambiguity in saying that the Shaykh put aside his health concerns, at the time, to travel to Iraq... that may be presented as a point-of-view in the article, if properly sourced. -- Shoejar^talk/edits UTC: 11:45, 02 Nov 06 (+11 ≈ 22:48, 02)

Exactly. Good luck with it, and if you approach it in this way, you should get lots of help and encouragement.

It wasn't the issue of health concerns, I think those are well documented. It was more motives, effectiveness and other assumptions. It goes something like: best case, yes he's acting for the family; worst case, he's acting for the kidnappers; somewhere in the middle, he's doing it for the publicity or other similar reasons; probable case, he has several reasons. How do we tell? Answer: We don't, we just report what others have said. Andrewa 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cronulla Riots

The section titled "2005 Cronulla Race riots" is completely unrelated to Sheikh Taj and should not be in this article. Perhaps if there is a wiki section on Lakemba Mosque it can go there. Since the page is locked I'm not able to edit it at the moment to remove it, otherwise I would. Sam De Francesco 06:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The activities occuring at a mosque would seem to reflect strongly on the head of a mosque - if he later condemmed this use of the mosque then this needs to be included in the article. Please explain how this section is "completely unrelated to Sheikh Taj"? USer:SmithBlue 09:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not completely unrelated, but this information would be better placed elsewhere; placing it here implies that this particular controversy is somehow his, or that he had a direct role in it. He didn't. The only link between it and the Shaykh is the fact that the mosque in question was the one the Shaykh presided over. There was nothing known, or reported at the time, to suggest that he encouraged or incited people to gather there on that night (the newspages linked to in that section certainly don't make any mention of it).

So, I'm moving this bit to the article on Lakemba Mosque. That page clearly states that the Imam of the mosque is Shaykh Hilaly. No loss of information. Shoejar^talk/edits UTC: 13:23, 01 Nov 06 (+11 ≈ 00:26, 02)

"to hospital" or "to the hospital" ?

"to hospital" implies that the specific hospital used was not important. "to the hospital" implies that the hospital refered to is a specific one or in some way special. All institutions that were once widely spaced were called "the institution" as each was unique in that locality but now in a city many similar institutions are found in the local area and so I think it gives a clearer picture to write "taken to hospital" SmithBlue 01:51, 3 November 2006 UTC

Hardly a point of importance. Best way would be to simply state which hospital it was. -- Shoejar^talk/edits UTC: 04:56, 03 Nov 06 (+11 ≈ 15:59, 03)

It's a regional thing. Some places say 'to hospital' and some places say 'to the hospital'. I happen to live somewhere (western canada) that we say 'to the hospital' even when there is no specific hospital meant. But I've also lived other places (e.g. India) where people would say 'to hospital', which sounded strange to me at first, but upon investigation I found that it was just a regional thing. 10:31, 2 July 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.219.53 (talk • contribs)

Other controversies

Should there be a mention of other controversial parts of his sermon?

For instance he claimed Christians would be condemned "to the fires of hell. And not part time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of the earth."

"And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him." Richard 10:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I can easily picture him saying that, I think you'd need a newspaper article, lol. I remember hearing him say that muslims have more rights in Australia than convict-descendents as well. Or something along those lines.

Yoda921 06:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Verifiability reminder

The article for Keysar Trad recently had changes done as a result of an OTRS complaint. If that article was a target, this article is also a likely target. The article looks good, but please remember to dot every i and cross every t when it comes to citing facts for this article. Andjam 04:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Wood

Ive attempted to put the info up, but it does not show in the article's main page. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth 06 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

You must close the ref tags. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Woods comments after release refer to nothing stated in section. Please cite Hilaly's claims re Woods knowledge of Hilaly's negotiations or similar and then re-add Wood's refutation with source. This whole article appears far from balanced. Is a single positive action by Hilaly cited (outside the Wood's section)? If we are editing Wikipedia then balance is required. SmithBlue 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bikkini(sp?) March

Mixed tenses and no source for Bikkini March section SmithBlue 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Please provide sources before replacing. SmithBlue 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Ah..sources are there. SmithBlue 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See the other entry on this topic 'Bikini march suppported by white nationalists' --Eyedubya 16:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BInguyen makes a very good point - the whole thing was a beat-up and irrelevant to an article about Hilaly. Besides, it didn't actually happen.Eyedubya 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

More on NPOV

There have been some concerns raised about whether the article is NPOV. That's fine, but it'd help if actionable objections are listed. Requesting merely to find something positive to say about him isn't what I interpret NPOV as meaning, either. Thanks, Andjam 12:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andjam, I edited Douglas Wood section to include info on Australian government fax requesting help and reduce importance given to unsourced inferenced produced by claims of a person recently released as hostage by insurgents. I removed visa controversy from introduction on basis that "controversy" has 95% of space in article and "controversy" sub section "arrival" seemed to be good place for such info. Both edits were reverted within 2 hours with no discussion entered into. I'd like to know your views on my edits. They aint perfect but were they an improvement? "Positive" thing available is deleted and any possible flaw given a lot of space, ie visa/immigration issues addressed in intro and then again in "arrivals". Hope you find these actionable. SmithBlue 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Where in Lebanon was he born?, what sort of education has he received and from where?, has he been an Iman at other Mosques?, what sort of Muslim is he? (Shite?, Sunni?), how was he selected to be the Iman at Lakemba?, what has he been doing in Australia when not generating controversy?, what duties does he have at the Lakemba Mosque? What health problems has he got? Is he married? kids? Languages? Its reasonable to expect a lot more of this sort of information to be present in a balanced encyclopedia entry. SmithBlue 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) What date did he become an Australian citizen? SmithBlue 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Where in Lebanon was he born..."? He's Egyptian. -- Shoejar^talk/edits UTC: 11:37, 14 Dec 06 (+11 ≈ 22:40, 14)

(added) At least, I think he is... sources cite him as being Egyptian-born. Shoejar^talk/edits

Added "Egypt" and languages. Changed "attempted deportation" to "eventual citizenship" - a little more NPOV, and shifted all relevant info to that section as otherwise being mentioned twice. If anyone has source for Keating involvement please add to section. Are there 2 Mosques in Lakemba? Cause there are 2 Imams in Lakemba - see Lakemba Mosque discusion for details. Anyone got more biography details? SmithBlue 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Got a URL that has lots of biograph detail for Hilaly on it. Such as prior placings, education, family of origin?. But not verifiable, reliable source. http://forums.muslimvillage.net/lofiversion/index.php/t27683.html 0.5 way down page. "Sh Taj was the winner of the Australian Muslim Man of the Year Award in 2005" Anyone here good at searching the net? Or finding it in a library? see sp. name variants at start of article! SmithBlue 11:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A source for life story from a little boy till 1998: "he is featured in a book by Gina Lennox called "In Search of Heroes: Stories of seven remarkable men", Allen & Unwin, 1998" SmithBlue 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to "support by his daughter over "rape sermon"" and Muslim Brotherhood membership http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20652625-2,00.html SmithBlue 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Struggle for Power in Australia by Richard Kerbaj Source: The Australian http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=2608 says Hilay is a Sunni but full cite is behind paywall. Alternative title "Islam's secular stoush". SmithBlue 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I reworded a paragraph and did some wikifying. I wikified zina and removed the word "adultery" because it can be confusing to readers who have their own definition of adultery. It's a small point, but I feel it's important.

I agree that the overall impression of this figure is fairly negative. I really don't want impede harmonious editing, but we must remember that this is a living person. NinaEliza 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my statement - I don't know anything about this person other than what I've read here (trust me, I'm an ignorant American). My gut simply tell me that there is "good" and "bad" to every person, and that all sides need to be reflected in a truly NPOV article, even if the "good" is very small. It need not be given undue weight, it just needs to be there for the sake of the article.

Feel free to discuss any concerns you have with my comment on my talk page or here. NinaEliza 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This "figure" is fairly negative, and the article needs to portray that adequately. The only "good" side to this person is that he advocates genocide against non-muslims -- and that is of course good for muslims themselves. He should be deported immediately along with any other (term removed in line with WP:BLP SmithBlue 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)) muslim (term removed in line with WP:BLP SmithBlue 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)) that back up his statements. --88.113.137.249 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly helpful links

[Note - posting removed as violation of WP:TALK; note posted on editor's talk page - John Broughton | ♫ 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)] [~~Comment struck~~ --Fantastic4boy 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just found some helpful links that could verify reputable sources. Hope they'd satisfy the resource materials Wikipedia users are looking for:

And to consider that Prophet Muhammad mentioned that “No Arab is superior to a non-Arab and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab. No white man is superior to a black man, and no black man is superior to a white man.” [7], Sheik Hilaly has breached the Islamic ruling by stating that Muslims should have more rights than the Anglo-Saxons in Australia. [8] Remember that Muslims are not only for the Arabs but also for other races. Furthermore, doesn't he realise that he would offend a number of Anglo-Muslims, such as Yvonne Ridley and Yusuf Estes (former Christian preacher now a Muslim Chaplain) [9]? Anglo-Muslims may feel totally enraged hearing such matters spoken out and that Sheik Hilaly doesn't seem to know his place well - he lives in Australia and yet constant criticising that Westerners are all liars and not trustworthy and that Australia is not a good place to be at since that there's no democracy. --Fantastic4boy 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove the comments of others. And please don't begin discussions like this which are not directly relevant to the furtherance of the article. See WP:TALK. — Shoejar^talk/edits UTC: 20:26, 13 Jan 07 (+11 ≈ 07:29, 14)

I'm sorry Shoejar, I accidentally deleted your comments. I wanted to add my comments but I accidentally deleted your comments by not realising that I typed on it. I tried to retrieve your comments but I couldn't. --Fantastic4boy 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bikini March supported by white nationalists

Note: I have removed all the comments from this section since the discussion seemed to be profoundly uncivil. It also wasn't that productive. -- John Broughton | ♫ 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of editing the article, and will not put back any information about white supremists supporting the march. This is an article about a person; he made a speech and there was to be a protest march in response. That's fine. But details about others using the march for their own purposes aren't relevant to the subject of the article. Readers interested in the march can follow the links. If he had organized the march (obviously he didn't), it would be another matter, but it's not.

In short, the matter isn't one of WP:RS and WP:V, it's one of WP:NPOV (undue weight) and relevance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of facts (see WP:NOT).

None of that excuses the incivility expressed by one of the editors, here and in edit summaries. I will handle that separately; talk pages are not the appropriate forums to discuss improper behavior by editors.

If you do believe that information on the march should be expanded to include the white supremist aspects, I ask that you discuss your reasons why here rather than engaging in further edit wars. John Broughton | ♫ 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The white nationalist support info, alongside The Australian newspaper info relates to

That, by purpose or accident, through the planned date of the march, a link was created between the Cronulla race riots and the "anti-Hilaly sermon" Bikini march. One stage of the Crr was anti-"Lebanese Muslim/Middle Eastern". White nationalist literature was handed out at Cronulla at this time.
That the "anti-Hilaly sermon" march event was used by white nationalists to promote themselves.
That the "anti-Hilaly sermon" march event was seen by white nationalists as worthy of support.
That protesting against Hilaly or his comments was promoted by both a mainstream and a fringe organisation. And therefore by implication;
A wide cross-section of society responded to the idea of the bikini march.

I see that this issue is not central to the article. However I do argue that the uses the image of a public figure is put to, by notable groups, should be included in a biography. For example if MENSA decided to use George Bush Jun. as part of a campaign to reintroduce eugenics then that use should be in George Bush's biography. I'm not clear that white nationalists are a notable group though. SmithBlue 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your analogy is a good one. If such a MENSA campaign became so huge that it totally intertwined George Bush's image with that of eugenics, then yes, it would be derelict to mention that in the GWB article. If, on the other hand, someone in MENSA wrote a more-or-less joke article in their national publication about GWB being a good argument for eugenics, that wouldn't possibly be justified as an addition to the article.

To get to specifics - if the march against Hilaly's remarks had been taken over by white supremists, or if they represented a large percentage of the marchers (I did find it odd that the citations to the story were all prior to the march, which has actually occurred, yes?), then certainly it would be worth mentioning that. One the other hand, the reality (as I understand it) from reading several articles is that white supremists (a) put something on a website about supporting the march, and (b) hacked into the website involved in organizing the march). And that is what I find so peripheral to Hilaly - it's sort of like mentioning that the grandmother who organized the march was descended from an important prime minister of England in the 1800s - it's true, it's related, it's not critical to the story. If the march had a separate Wikipedia article, then everything related to the march itself could, of course, go into that article.

In summary, I agree that this is pretty nuanced, not cut-and-dried. If the issue hadn't raised so much ire and opposition, and I was just reading the article, I'm almost positive I would have ignored any addition of this information, or simply shrugged if I had noticed. But that's not the case here - and the information is still only one step away - via links to news articles - for readers who are interested enough to look at primary sources.

It's good to have a civil discussion about such things - thanks. John Broughton | ♫ 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

John, you ask if the Bikini March has occurred. Actually, it was called off before it happened. [10] In retrospect, it is surprising that so much Wiki space (and so much time and energy) has been put into debating something that never even happened. Perhaps the entire sorry episode should be deleted from Hilaly's entry. It was, after all, just another "threat" that never amounted to anything. WWGB 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your decision. Given the publicity it got, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a march was scheduled (cite, cite, cite) but that "organisers said that public reports critical of the demonstration and personal attacks caused them to abandon the event" (cite). John Broughton | ♫♫ 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with present state of "Bikini march" section and hope that we see nothing to make it more salient. SmithBlue 01:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

... and I wasn't satisfied with the state of 'Bikini march' as I found it on 25/4/07. I think 3 facts need to be recorded, and I have edited the article to provide to sources for them: 1) the fact that it was called 'The Great Australian Bikini March', rather than say, 'reclaim the right to wear bikinis march' (as a nod to the tradition of feminist 'reclaim the night' marches around the world protesting against male violence, rape etc.); 2) the fact that the organiser appeared on the front page of Brunswick's local paper draped in an Australian Flag; and 3) that the march was timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the Cronulla riots. We cannot know the intention behind any of these facts, but they are as significant as the statements by the organisers that the march was protesting against the sexist remarks of Hilaly. The issues that make Hilaly controversal go beyond gender issues. His remarks are directed at what he sees as 'western' culture and what he sees as 'Australian' society in particular. He is not merely sexist. He also engages in a form of cultural critique that some would call racism. And in doing so, Hilaly invites a similarly multifaceted reaction that has elements of racism in it as well. Why should a mosque other than Hilaly's be targetted on account of his words? A fourth fact, verifiable from the local paper in Brunswick, is that while the bikini march was called off, the mosque in question held a free community bbq that was well-attended by local people - muslims and non-muslims alike, women and men. And yes, the Bikini marchers were supported by several right-wing and supremacist websites - that can be documented. And yes, the mosque was supported by local left-wing and, notably, feminist groups. There was a speaker from 'Radical Women' at the bbq - a group significant enough for a Wikipedia entry all of their own. But it would be hard to find verifiable evidence of this from the mainstream media because they are not interested in this kind of complicating detail - 'radical feminists' supporting 'sexist muslims' ruins the stereotypes that work so well. But life is like that - complex and contradictory, and the facts must be allowed to stand for themselves as just that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyedubya (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Hilaly and Arabic language

My view; "Hilaly speaks Arabic eloquently" is a paraphrase of his supporters (soon to be) cited statement. It conveys the meaning that he is a good, or even very good, orator/speaker/preacher. For a Inman this is a very positive quality. This guy works for a large part with his words. His notability flows from the sermons and interview given in Arabic. "Hilaly's first language is Arabic" does not pass on any of the above info. And also it is in need of a source as the "eloquently" source doesn't state "first language" or such. (will dig up cite for eloquently.)Other views? SmithBlue 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Given that Hilaly was born in Egypt and that listed languages are "Arabic, Masri" I've got no source to say that his first language was Arabic but should soon have cite for "eloquently". Couldnt find reputable bio info on Hilaly so maybe difficult to find a "first language" source. Will revert when I find cite. Or combine eloquently and first language if also cited? SmithBlue 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Still very short on bio details: family history, education, version of Islam, prior positions. Languages are very salient for this subject - and available. SmithBlue 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Imam of Lakemba - or not?

http://www.lma.org.au/sheikhs.php The Lebanese Muslim Association lists 4 Shiekhs for Lakemba Mosque;

Shiekh Taj Al-Din Hilali, Mufti of Australia & New Zealand,
Shiekh Yahya Safi, Imam of Lakemba Mosque, Australian Representative of Dar ul Fatwa of Lebanon
Shiekh Bassam Alameddine, Assistant Shiekh
Shiekh Shady Al-Suleiman, Youth Representative

Views? SmithBlue 10:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what point you are making. There is probably more than one priest at St Mary's Cathedral too. WWGB 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First sentence should have read "The Lebanese Muslim Association lists 4 Shiekhs for Lakemba Mosque". Also changed section title. WP:Sheikh and WP:Imam arent much help - but I think very roughly to use your analogy Shiekh = priest whereas Shiekh Yahya Safi is explicitly stated to be "Imam of Lakemba Mosque" and Hilaly, "Mufti of Australia & New Zealand". We do have an explicit cite for Keysar Trad saying "Imam Hilaly" but that may not be "Imam of Lakemba Mosque" but an honorific. Also say cite for K Trad saying "Imam Yahya Safi". Hilaly may be an Imam at Lakemba Mosque but not the Imam of Lakemba Mosque. Dont know if distinction exists. But our article reads "the Imam of". SmithBlue 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reputable publisher?

Going improving cites I find http://is.ci-ce-ct.com:85/frameset.asp Do other editors find this to be from a "reputable publisher"? SmithBlue 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not linking to an article writen by them, just the translation of one of his speeches. I dont see a problem in the context that it is used in the article.CtrlDPredator 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If they arent reputable how can we be confident that the translation is correct? If they are then we can be confident. SmithBlue 07:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Media ban

This story from the BBC [11].

"Most of our clerics are selected on the basis that they have Australian values and Australian characteristics," Lebanese Muslim Association President Tom Zreika told The Australian newspaper."Some of them haven't lived up to that," he said.According to The Australian, the association sent a letter to the five imams concerned, demanding that they "pause and desist" from talking to the media, especially Arabic-speaking press.The association warned the imams that they could lose their position if they defied the directive.It said it had introduced the gagging order so that imams could concentrate on their primary task of offering pastoral care."

This might need adding. Hypnosadist 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewording needed?

One of the section headings is "Abduction of Douglas Wood". Does the wording make it sound like he was involved in the abduction, rather than the negotiations? Andjam 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Imam no more it would seem.

See today's Sydney Morning Herald. [12] I'm not familiar enough with this article but I might have a go at updating. Merbabu 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm now it seems that he hasn't been sacked. [13]. I've reverted my changes but left the current tag. Suggest waiting for the dust to settle. Merbabu 10:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

current event

... i removed this tag, because it didn't seem to make sense at the top of the article - the main body of the article will remain unchanged after the current events, so i don't think we need this right now..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petesmiles (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

yup - sounds reasonable. I'm surprised though given the controversy that follows this bloke that this page hasn't been jumped all over given various news articles this weekend.Merbabu 08:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

eloquence and douglas wood

...i've changed the wording on the douglas wood bit, because i agreed with the sentiment that as it stood there was a danger of implicitly linking the sheik with the abduction - also, i removed the reference to his eloquence in the opening paragraph.

I've removed it before, because i really feel that it's a bit of a non-sequitor, and makes the article read in a strange fashion. I won't be upset if someone puts it back, but please provide a rationale - perhaps his skills as an orator warrant a separate section? - Petesmiles 08:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

This is an appalling article. Beginning from a POV of hate, collecting dirt and second-hand hearsay, and then presenting that as fact variously. You may also want to examine the role of The Australian's Richard Kerbaj in breaking 'controversies' about Hilali, and reflect on his apparent 'access' to confidential internal documents of the LMA. From whence do these recent 'controversies' emanate? And yes, as someone noted above, some actual bio details might be nice to see in a bio article. His daughter also has a few things to say from to time about the controversies, as do others in his praise. Someone from Lebanon, this week, for instance reports that Hilali deserves a medal for his charitability there this week.

Appalling in what manner - that it doesn't suit your opinion? The article as far as I can tell is well referenced, arguably better than many others out there. There isn't much point bleating on about the missing bio details/Lebanon charity work, if you feel it should be in the article, find a reference and edit away. Crx2gen 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Referencing alone doesn't make an article NPOV. If an article on, say, abortion, had a majority of its statements from a pro-choice POV, it would still be POV no matter how well-referenced those statements were. -- Shoejar^talk/edits 02:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I support editors who will find the other material on Hilali, referenced above, and add it to this article - if you think there is published positive material then do the work and bring it here. And it will be included. This article looked NPOV till I tried finding the other stuff - now I see it reflecting the available materials. If you can make more material availble that would be great. SmithBlue 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

This section is too long; many of the links should be integrated into the references section. Will get onto this soon. Recurring dreams 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing article links from the External Links section. They don't belong in there. Any relevance they have should be exploited for referencing, and until they're used as actual references instead of cluttering up External Links, they shouldn't stay on the page. -- Shoejar^talk/edits 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the most respected newspaper in the sheiks own city is entirely relevant, notable and within WP:EL. Not agreeing with the content of the column is no reason to purge it from the encyclopedia.Prester John 17:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of external links is to support facts in the article. You should actually read the policy. The links you are seeking to add are just editorial opinion pieces from journalists. 124.182.136.193 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The flipside to Prester's comments is that simply agreeing with the opinion is not a reason for inclusion. I'd agree with the other comments that they can be used as in-line citations if they support a specific fact in the article although a better source should be found - ie, an actual news article rather than opinion peice, or better still, something academic. IN general, opinion pieces are written by journalists who are not experts in the subject, and even though they may be from respected publications, they are being paid to, well, make an opinion for us to either nod our head in agreement or get annoyed at - ie, to sell papers. What part of WP:EL is Prester referring too? Merbabu 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WK:EL "This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." 'I think, 'if balance is being maintained', opinions published in major papers about a person seem very relevant to demonstrating the public perception and media portrail of subject. SmithBlue 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)