Talk:Raheel Raza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

My edits were reverted wholescale here.[1]. The reason given was "POV edits, "claim" rather than "say", deletions of RS supported material."

The word claim, which was appropriately used twice, has been removed entirely now, and replaced with state. I don't see deletion of significant sourced material. I did delete some quotes and paraphrased them, but thats hardly enough reason to revert all my edits. I did remove dead links, and they should not be restored until the proper url can be found. I hope that while my edits are corrected and changed one a case-by-case basis, they are not simply reverted wholescale again.Wheatsing (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your prior edits involved large-scale deletions of RS-supported material, addition of unsourced material, and POV characterizations. Frankly, they seem POV-driven, and violate a number of wp rules, which is surprising as otherwise you seem to be a very seasoned wp editor (though perhaps not under this name). The word claim, used as you use it, is not appropriate -- state or say is appropriate. I'm going through your second series of edits, which seem to largely suffer from the same problem, and carefully parsing through them, saving whatever is salvagable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out addition of unsourced material that I made.
You added a quoted phrase in a section header, without any source whatsoever for the quote; I've deleted it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "state" is better. Yet it is you who removed it.[2] "Devout Muslim" no matter who its applied to, is highly POV. It needs to be attributed. Islam is not a monolith and there're varying interpretations of devoutness.
I agree to that. Feel free to re-add that she identifies herself as a devout Muslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"though perhaps not under this name". What does that supposed to mean? First you threaten to block me, because I oppose your edits, and now you're accusing me. May I ask you to behave in a civil manner?Wheatsing (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, perhaps I'm mistaken -- is it not the case that you have edited previously, other than under the Wheatsing name?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to Amina Wadud as "Imam Amina Wadud". Can you point me to sources that refer to her with that title (as a prefix to her name)?Wheatsing (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its widely mentioned in all manner of writings about her. Including the wp article on her. And the BBC article and other articles here. And the books here. And a few thousand hits here.
Ok simple google links don't prove anything (in fact you can see that just by looking at the top 5, how unreliable the results are). The books only return 3 hits, none of which use Imam as a title. At this point I think maybe "Amina Wadud, a female imam" would be better than "Imam Amina Wadud".Wheatsing (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook. You added what appears to be Raza's facebook page. I don't think that's allowed. See this. Thanks.Wheatsing (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not policy -- just one editor's viewpoint.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask that you respect wikipedia's guidelines? If you disagree, feel free to go discuss them there. But the fact it is a guideline means probably multiple editors agree with it.Wheatsing (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle. I would suggest you respect better our rules against POV editing (especially on a BLP article), against adding quoted language where the person has said nothing of the sort, against unsupported characterizations, and against deletion of relevant RS-supported material.
Some of your other edits that you are edit-warring over are, admittedly, just plainly incorrect. For example, you shouldn't be writing her name out in full and then edit-warring when it is fixed (as you have now done repeatedly). Or adding in a "see also" link when the very next sentence links to the same article (as was already explained to you -- and yet you have edit-warred over it). And when an item is a dead link you should just delete the url while keeping in the ref -- a bot may well fix that over time.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, did you just copy and paste this from your talk page? Despite the fact that I responded to you 11 minutes before you posted the above?[3] This is not impolite, but this is certainly poor communication. Please don't paste the same thing over again, even though I responded to you the first time you posted it.Wheatsing (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Raheel Raza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 15:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

compliment[edit]

I happened to notice that this is very well-written, well-organized Wikipedia article. Kudos to all the contributors! --Maplemabel7 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

needs updating[edit]

She now works for Alt-right Rebel News, so this page needs updating.

TruthBuster21223 (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raheel_Raza&oldid=1205483871"