Talk:Safa Khulusi

Articles of possible relevance

Peter Gran, 'The political economy of aesthetics: Modes of domination in modern nation states seen through Shakespeare reception,' in Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 3, 271-288, (DOI: 10.1007/BF00243366), there's stuff on Khufusi's joke there. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Simon Salousy

I have, with regret, removed Simon's additions and alterations. Some of his alterations were probably useful additions, but were WP:OR. The paragraph added at the end was uncited, and thus appeared to be OR. Of course he may be able to cite it to a reliable source, in which case it can be readded, as long as it is properly footnoted.

Other alterations appeared to be deletions of material that might make the subject of the article look bad, especial the removal of references to homosexuality in the Abu Nuwas section and the word "demented" quoted from Eric Ormsby. The deletion of that passage from the quotation seems to be pure censorship, which is really not acceptable. Whether or not the term should be in the article's lead section is, however, debatable. The addition of the claim that his expressed views on Shakespeare were designed to show links between English and Arabic seems like special pleading - as well as OR. Such links exists, but they are relatively minor; writing a book stating that Shakespeare was Arab certainly seems a very odd way of making such points. Ormsby's summary does not hint that Khulusi had any such pedagogic intent, nor does he imply that the book was satirical. Khulusi's English language articles, which I have read, show no sign of satire either. Again, if there is a published source which suggests this we can include it alongside Ormsby's views per WP:NPOV. As for the homosexuaity, this section could certainly be rephrased. I have not read the novel, but my understanding is that Nuwas discusses his homosexual inclinations in it. That particular section is sourced to Orit Bashkin's book The other Iraq: pluralism and culture in Hashemite Iraq [1] in which it is stated that Nuwas visits a "gay bar". Clearly the novel also suggests that Nuwas could be cured of homosexual urges in America, but discussion of sexuality is apparently part of the novel's content. So, we can certainly work on improved phrasing. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Would editors who wish to delete material please come to the talk page. See WP:BRD. It is not possible to have a proper discussion through edit summaries. Not liking what a text says is not good grounds for deleting it. The blocjk of text summarises the content of the book. Without it, the reader has no sense of what argument was being presented. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Simon Salousy writes in an edit summary that "Mocking a respected scholar with the term “demented” is very distressing to Professor Khulusi's family. We are asking you to not use this in a Biography about him." We are asking you to take account of the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. That means that all points of view should be included. As I said above "if there is a published source which suggests this [alternative point of view] we can include it alongside Ormsby's views per WP:NPOV." However, Ormsby's view is, I'm fairly sure, representative of the consensus of the (admittedly few) scholars who have commented on this. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important point is that Ormsby is a reliable source who provides a summary of the book's claims and an authoritative comment on the nature of the arguments that Khulusi presents. It is therefore a highly effective way of presenting the argument and the consensus of academic opinion about it. Endless outrage is not an argument. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Accusations

Despite the fact that Simon continues to make accusations via edit summaries rather than engage in discussion, I will respond to his claim that "Fairness and neutrality are the absolute basics of encyclopedias. This article at its inception aimed discredit and disparage and unfortunately continues to do so." It is of course true that fairness and neutrality should be the basics of an encyclopedia. I defy Simon to identify anything in this article that is unfair. Indeed the quotation from Ormsby is the only piece of negative critical comment in the entire article. It represents the standard opinion expressed of this theory (Abdulla Al-Dabbagh for example calls it "outlandish, indeed comical"). I was looking for an account of Khulusi's theory by a reliable source. This was the only one I could find, and therefore the only summary of the content of the book that I could use. There are a few scattered, brief references from other writers, but none that explained and commented on the whole argument. Of course there may well be others, but I don't know about them. Encyclopedias should inform. The Ormsby quotation gives a clear picture of Khususi's argument. Without, the reader is largely left in the dark. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The only questionable point I can see here is the inclusion of the following:-

(a)The Iraqi argued, with the unassailable logic of the truly demented, that most of Shakespeare's language could be traced back to Classical Arabic

(b)on a mad, meticulous, and painstaking inventory of Shakespeare's vocabulary.

• Paul is within policy in holding that the source is eminently reliable. (WP:RS)
• There are policy grounds for challenging a quote in extenso in terms of [[WP:Undue]], in order to propose that the citation's substance be given in paraphrase. But I can't see where that would apply here, since sources are exiguous, and this rare one happens to sum up the theory as the page would require.
• The crux is that the RS writer calls an eminent Iraqi writer 'demented'. Again, this doesn't fall under WP:BLP, so no policy infraction.

However, WP:NPOV would probably suggest that we would do well to avoid that phrasing, either by eliding the passage under editorial discretion, or paraphrasing it. At the Shakespeare Authorship Question page, we came across numerous RS which branded the various theories for an alternative author 'lunatic'. Arthur Quiller-Couch likened these obsessions to the fantasies of people incarcerated in bedlam. Words like 'delusion', 'mania' etc., are also commonplace. Tom elided them because that kind of evidence, though eminently sourced, if used, undermined the WP:NPOV of the narrative voice. Dismissive language was limited to entries in footnotes, at the most.

Khulusi of course wasn't 'demented', and the adjective is an example of writerly carelessness. He was, if serious, prey to an obsessive idée fixe, like many otherwise creative people. His method was not 'mad' either if it was 'meticulous' and 'painstaking'. If that adjective were to accompany the use of the other two, A. E. Housman was mad. Sedulous attention to detail is not qualifiable as 'mad'. Its results, on the other hand, may well be.

One could write that Ormsby considered his thesis demented, if one wishes to retain that unfortunate terms.

The best solution all round would be to excise 'with the unassailable logic of the truly demented,' replace it with commas, or paraphrase Ormby's psychiatric judgements. That is a rather sloppy opinion, not a useful fact, or incisively informed and well-grounded judgement. The rest can stand, in my view. Were one rightly in another, academic venue, there would be no problem, because one could in turn ironize Ormsby's metaphor. One can't here on wikipedia, and therefore discretion suggests that the offensive snippet be excluded.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

ps. It should be clear that my opinion is not worth a nob of goat's shit technically, insofar as it is a personal editor's judgement on what is an RS source by an academic specialist. I just think one has to exercise discretion in even best sources when they smack of loose language or orientalism. By the same criteria Ormsby uses, every one of the several hundred agents, diplomats, CIA analysts and politicians who scoured millions of pages of data, or insisted the evidence be interpreted according to a preconceived theory, in order to assert Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was 'demented'. They have no excuse, Khulusi did: the creative imagination functions close to the borderline as often as not. That's why I sniff a whiff of Orientalism in the language.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to sdee why criticising asn Arab is "orientalism". If a westerner insisted that Muhammed was from Liverpool, and 'proved' it by finding scouse expressions in the Qur'an, we would have no qualms about quoting critics ridiculing the theory. We should not have double standards. That includes being polite to foreigners! Thats pure paternalist condescension, and what could be more imperialistic than that? Paul B (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The "Sheikh Zubair" theory is the same kind of nonsense as the 18th century claim that the great Iranian leader Nader Shah was really an Irishmen called Thomas Kelly because one of Nader's names had been "Tahmasp Quli". Refuting the latter has nothing to do with The Troubles or "Hibernophobia". Ethnocentric kookery is ethnocentric kookery. --Folantin (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is rather curious to call a distinguished (and, to gather from his well-received novel, very capable) Arab writer 'truly demented' for joining a confraternity, by imitation, of those who like Nietzsche, Freud, and Twain, indulged in wild speculations against the grain of evidence. I don't think those who dismiss Nietzche's Baconism, or Freud's Oxenfordism, use language of this pejorative intenseity to assert they were 'truly demented'. We're more sophisticated on home ground. Virginia Woolf called Ulysses and its author,'illiterate, underbred book … of a self taught working man,' and we instinctively note in reading such things, 'ah, Bloomsbury class consciousness, snob's envy, the hack putdown of the working man, contempt probably for the ape-like Irish of English lore, just as you get from Gosse and others.' We are highly tuned by history to feel our antennae quiver over texts which, for example, introduce Jewish characters. There's a huge amount of literature that teases out a whiff, if not the stench, of prejudice from statements in literature that most non-Jews would not, on hearing or reading, think veined with the long shadows of a traditional hostility. That sensitivity is restricted all too often to them, as an 'exceptional case'.

One criticizes whoever one thinks merits criticism, but as an individual, nor as an 'Arab' or a 'Jew' or an 'Irishmen' etc. The 'other' just hears things differently, as often as not. I have never agreed with Said's Orientalism from the time it was published. I dislike people who are ethnically defensive and oversensitive. But, . . Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Khulusi isn't the only writer to have cranky opinions. The difference is he put a lot more effort than the average celebrity anti-Stratfordian into disseminating those opinions, writing a "massive tome" on the subject. Khulusi's notoriety as a proponent of the "Sheikh Zubair" theory is largely his fault. I think we can also guess what Joyce would have thought of the theory (cf. "Patrick W. Shakespeare" and "Brian Confucius"). --Folantin (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start a wikipage. 'Famous people with demented opinions', starting with Isaac Newton's alchemical-theological obsessions. If no evidence + far-fetched, wild speculation were the criterion, then most of humanity, or that large part believing in an afterlife or some god, is demented. The late Pope was clearly 'demented' in proposing that the Blessed Virgin Mary was cocreatrix of the universe, by the same token. You see, just readjust the focus someone, reframe the questions, and people outside our civilized fold could see a lot of things we subscribe to as demented or cranky.:) Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My point was about proportion. Khulusi spent a disproportionate amount of time and effort on the theory compared to others, it garnered him an unfortunate reputation as someone obsessed with the issue and the article is going to reflect that. I'm a Wagner fan. He wasn't the only composer who was an anti-Semite but he did publish Das Judenthum in der Musik, so he's really only got himself to blame for his Wikipedia article devoting a big section to his dislike of Jews. (Obvious disclaimer: I'm not saying Khulusi's "Sheikh Zubair" nuttiness is anywhere near as noxious as Wagner's racial musings). --Folantin (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If time spent on weird, outlandish research and theories is the criterion, then Khulusi was nowhere in Newton's class. Most of his lifework was outside mathematics and inside 'demented' theories. Of course his one great theory changed the world, which means we ignore, as did the college which had the massive papers testifying to his futility, the mania. I won't insist, though. I think Abdul Sattar Jawad's remark in his delightful short essay on the fascination Shakespeare exercised in Iraq in the 'good old days' here, in calling it 'funny', captures it, 'funny' meaning 'raising a laugh,' 'odd', 'weird', 'askew'. We should be tender with foibles at times, when they do not impact on public credulity but simply reflect a profound if misdirected personal passion for an idea.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

INACCURACIES IN THE MAIN REFERENCE- Article on: Safa Khulusi. Ormsby, E, "Shadow Language", New Criterion, Vol. 21, Issue: 8, April 2003. At the time of writing the article "Shadow Language", Prof Ormsby tried to remember the details of the “far-fetched theory about Shakespeare” that had amused him many years earlier. This had been in “an article or possibly a dissertation”, (but not a tome), that he had viewed at a university library (possibly in Pennsylvania) in the United States. Prof. Ormsby recalled some of the themes but not all the the details or its authors name at the time of writing the article in The New Criterion in 2003. Indeed he admits to not knowing the name of the author [Safa Khulusi] even now. Prof. Ormsby points out, that this is the reason that the authors name does not appear anywhere in the New Criterion article. (Personal Communication E. Ormsby, Institute of Islami Studies London, 19 December 2011). (1) Two paragraphs of recollections from “an article or possibly a dissertation”, many years previously, where even the authors name had been forgotten does not make a “Summary”, by any standard. (2) The ship the Tiger wrecked in the Adriatic as Shakespeare may have been making his way back home from Tripoli (William Bliss The Real Shakespeare 1947) is not exactly “…a lone survivor of the shipwreck of an Arab merchant vessel washed up on the shores of Elizabethan England making his way….”Simon Salousy (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

INCORRECT INFORMATION IN REFERENCE- Article on: Safa Khulusi. Yitzhak Nakash, The Shi'is of Iraq, Princeton University Press, 2003 p.262

Prof. Khulusi’s full name is Safa Abdul-Aziz Umar Khulusi. Umar is a name that is never used by Shī‘a Muslims, for historic reasons (seeHistory of Shi'a Islam). His ancestry is Kurdish from Khanaqin plus Arab from Northern Iraq. There is no ethnic component from the Shī‘a Arabs of Southern Iraq or from Persia. Further details provided on request --Simon Salousy (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

He did have a highly tolerant and non-sectarian view of Islam, but according to his brother, his background and that of the family is purely Hanafi. This is supported by his official documents, and even the family cemetery in Baghdad is reserved for Hanafi. The reference by Yitzhak Nakash is simply mistaken. --Simon Salousy (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right, but our rights do not extend to editing by making WP:OR violations, which appears to be the case here. It's unfortunate, but until the information you document is registered in a verifiable reliable source you technically cannot remove other RS. I suggest you get the details pubished, and then use that source to revise the text.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The obituary written by his son does not mention this supposed missing middle name of Umar. The name is given in full as it appears here. Yes, reliable sources can be wrong, but we have no reason to suppose that is the case here. Your footnote regarding his ancestry is not a serious reference. We can't just add what amounts to saying "records". Paul B (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1) In ‘The Shi'is of Iraq By Yitzhak Nakash Page 262’ the statement “It introduces us to a core of Iraqi and Arab Shi'i intellectuals” could easily be interpreted as shorthand for Iraqi Intellectuals and Arab Shi’i intellectuals. It does not state that Safa Khulusi was born into a family that was a particular sect of Islam. This extrapolation is incorrect according to his family. He was known to cross sectarian boundaries to assist other scholars, and neither his first nor his surname, indicate his religion or sect. The mistake is easily made that assisting with the issues around the Madrasas in Najaf was a sectarian act. I have not deleted the reference but moved it to the appropriate section. 3) I have a copy of his Iraqi Nationality Card which clearly states his full name as Safa Abdul Aziz Umar Khulusi. 4) I also have a copy of the land registry deed which is a highly reliable source, evidencing the name of his grandfather as Umar Abdul-Rahman Khulusi, and the family’s origins in Khanaqin. How else can one explain that Safa Khulusi was an Arab nationalist, while any one who reads in depth about his uncle Abdul Majid Lutfi, will note that he is considered a Kurdish national figure.Simon Salousy (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing an article when one has personal access to unpublished information can be frustrating since it may be hard to accept that Wikipedia's procedures do not permit use of information available only to the editor. The rules are at WP:V and WP:NOR and no doubt other policies, but the principle is pretty simple: since anyone can edit, there are strict limitations on what edits are retained because there is no practical way uninvolved parties can tell the difference between good information added by someone with valid information, and bad information added by a misguided enthusiast (or a troll, or POV pusher, or various other kinds of mischief maker). Articles have to be based on reliable sources that are verifiable (that is, anyone could, if they went to sufficient trouble, find the supporting text in a publicly available source). Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Ahwal Madania.jpg

Nationality Card with name of father Abdul-Aziz and grandfather Umar (hence Safa Abdul-Aziz Umar Khulusi)

(1) The only item on Prof Khulusi in the book “The Shi'is of Iraq”[2] relates to his participation in the group helping to reform the madrasas in Najaf, which is important and valid and needs to be part of the article with its the reference. (2) There is no other information in this book about Safa Khulusi's religious background or that of his family. The statement in the Wikipedia article that he was “born into a Shi’a family” is incorrect, and over extrapolated. This is demonstrated by his full name on his Nationality Card, Safa Abdul-Aziz Umar Khulusi, and according to his family. As the error regarding his and his family's religion affects living family members I presume that this counts as part of WP:BLP rules. (3) The published documents in the public record office of the Iraqi land registry are accessible, as are the documents in the Ministry of Interior relating to nationality. That aside, the item on his family origin from Khanaqin is not contentious and is available on Arabic and Kurdish language web pages.Simon Salousy (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of originally researched analysis of Khulusi's works

In these five edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], I removed whole sections from this article and replaced one (please see here for the revision before removal), because they consisted of originally researched analysis of Khulusi's works, based on nothing but these works themselves. These sections were often well written, and while they sometimes suffered from a problematic taking of Khulusi's views on face value, they were also for the most part quite informative. However, our policy on how to use primary, secondary and tertiary sources is very clear: articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. For nothing that was written in these sections was it established that such reliable secondary sources exist.

One section, called "Islamic and Arab contributions in the history of science", was especially problematic in the sense that it presented Khulusi's wp:fringe views on this topic as simple and uncontroversial facts. Khulusi's account of the history of Arabic and Islamic science is full of legends and inaccuracies, which is disastrous for an encyclopedia when presented without context. But it should also be noted that our core content policy would not allow any of the removed sections to stay in the article. Even beyond the problem of original research, their sheer length was probably wp:undue –though this problem would solve itself if we would try to base the article on secondary sources, and come to the realization that there are not enough of them to write on Khulusi's works in such detail.

The section on "Shakespeare and the theory of Arab ancestry and Arabic influence" was also almost exclusively based on Khulusi's works, and given that Khulusi's views on this topic are known to be wp:fringe, this was also a pretty bad situation. Fortunately, this revision from 25 November 2011, the last one edited by the creator of this article (User:Paul Barlow) before the editor responsible for the addition of all this original research (User:Simon Salousy) came onboard, contained a brief but informative section on the topic that was largely based on secondary sources and in line with our policy on fringe theories. I therefore replaced the section's content with the content from that revision.

The section on "Arabic poetry in English", which I did not remove or replace, is also a problematic piece of original research, but it has the redeeming qualities of being largely based on quotes (the only appropriate way to use a primary source in this context) and of being somewhat more wp:due given the fact that Khulusi is mainly notable as a literary figure. Since it obviously needs work I added a {{Original research section}} tag to it.

Any future editors of this article would do well to read the last revision before I removed all this material, as well as to use some of the images which I removed along with the text. Briefer sections on Khulusi's work that are based on secondary sources and that put his work in a broader context (as secondary sources are wont to do) would probably profit from some of these images, as well as perhaps from some of the removed text. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please allow the readers to have a full article and draw their own opinion about the variety of contributions that Khulusi made to literature.

I'm returning this article to a previous version. Prior to 15.07.22 this article was the culmination of many individuals contributions from different contributors. The article was indeed started by Paul Barlow but the original version was based around the opinion of Eric Ormsby. Simon Salousy and Paul Barlows disagreement was arbitrated over at the time and the article then flourished up to the 15th 2022. On thar date it was returned to a version prior to the arbitration, and the contributor who reverted it may not have been aware of the origins of this debate. Please allow the readers to have a full article and draw their own opinion about the variety of contributions that Khulusi made to literature and not make it just about Eric Ormsbys views. StopTheV4dals (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In the section above I explained why the revision you restored (cf. [8]) runs afoul of some of Wikipedia's most important policies.

I will therefore revert your reinstatement of the old article. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to gain wp:consensus to include the disputed content. See WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

One way you might do this is by raising the issue at a content noticeboard such as Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and ask other editors for opinions. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)