Talk:Khalid Yasin

Sunday Nights With John Cleary

What is this section doing ? it has no significance whatsoever to the article. Also, riddling half the biography with controversies is extremely biased. either make the article long and substantial so its not just controversies or remove that section altogether. It seems like a character assassination article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.231.89 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fraud Allegations

I have removed all the statements regarding fraud because the cited references do not work and of the links that did work, gave no mention or any of the slightest indication of fraud or criminal wrongdoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.205.86 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________ ==Fraud Allegations== The fraud allegations have not been removed. I am a impartial party and observe the motive or slander in accusing Khalid Yasin of fraud without any documentation or reference to a legal document. There should be no fraud section when there is no fraud established.creativeconsultinggroup (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Other sources regarding this issue here and here.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

One more here.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

September 11 ?

Why is the Sep. 11 ref. important ? MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of being included.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert vs. Convert

What makes revert better than convert? I don't know if using 'revert' is trying to make a point or not but I don't see why it should be 'convert'?翔太 ^{「Shouta:talk」} 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to change it to convert now. Be Bold, eh? 翔太 ^{「Shouta:talk」} 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Convert and not revert. Convert is the most neutral term.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending the use of the word, but in the NME interview, he uses these terms. He describes going from Christianity to Islam as reverting back to God. But I agree that the article should use the common "convert." Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations

I have just removed a major part of this article because it violates the Wikipedia rules concerning biographies of living people (wp:blp). I have also brought up the problem on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please don't try to re-add this material unless much better sources and justification can be found. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is properly sourced. The that it contains information that reflects negatively on Yasin doesn't mean it should be placed in this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, based on the history, I was pretty sure somebody was going to revert my changes. I am convinced that the material needs to be removed, but since I refuse to edit-war, I am going to follow up on the BLP noticeboard. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a closer look. You were partially correct. One citation has youtube as a source and another seemed to have somebody's person webpage as a source. I have removed both of them. I also cleaned up the other references to provide clarity. However, I stand by my belief that most of the controversy section is properly sourced - although some could be more NPOV. I believe this material should not be deleted.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

All of the remaining citations seem to be properly sourced. If they are not, please explain why as opposed to simply deleting them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

If you have specific concerns about a particular source, please explain them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Okay, trying to be terse:

1. "What many do not know..." -- unsourced derogatory material.
2. Meeting Malcolm X -- this is not a BLP problem but the quote is too long and diffuse to be readable.
3. Fraud -- The standards for accusing a living person of fraud are very high, and it isn't clear that they are met here. If you actually consult the listed source, it isn't very definite about the matter. A Google search shows that the "Islamic Broadcasting Corporation" does in fact exist, and distributes DVD's of Yasin's lectures. Also, TV shows are not ordinarily considered good sources for something like this. Even so, I left this in and only tried to make it more concise.
4. List of quotes -- I don't believe that these quotes portray Yasin appropriately. In his lectures, he always tries to argue that mainstream Islam is no more extreme than conservative Christianity. Cherry-picking his most extreme statements gives a false impression of his message. Even so, I left a lot of this in place.
5. frontpagemag.org is not a valid source -- it's a right-wing blog site.
6. John Cleary -- a lengthy quote from the guy who introduced an interview with Yasin? I have a hard time commenting on this without getting sarcastic.

In the interest of cooperative editing, I will refrain from reverting immediately back to the previous version, although under BLP rules I believe I would be justified in doing so as often as necessary (3RR does not apply to BLP violations). I'm not willing to leave the article in its current state for much longer, though.Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point of view on some of the above issues, such as Frontpagemag and the John Cleary show. You are also correct that derogatory statements should be removed. However, the quotes should remain because they are accurate and properly sourced. However, I would completely support adding new information that displays Yasin in a more favourable light. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Mere accuracy of quoting does not automatically make a quote useful: it needs to make an important contribution to a properly balanced article. Anyway, let's take it one piece at a time and see how far we get. I'm going to start by removing the unsourced paragraph mentioned at the top of the list above. Looie496 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Plagurized/Copyvio

In this edit, a user asks how a section was plagurized. The section was copied word-for-word from a copy written, unreliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability

On notability. This person is the global center piece of controversy regarding Islam and criticism of Islam / islamophobia outside the US. This article has also several issue of that very reason. A good share of the edits has been done to ether support or discredit the person.--Caygill (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

So what do we do about it? Are you proposing he doesn't deserve a page, or that he deserves a better one? Either way, I think this guy is super cool. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khalid Yasin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130503025358/http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1883.asp?s=1 to http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1883.asp?s=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Screenshot 20190717-203049 Gallery.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Truth

Did Alliah make the hevens and Earth No 27.123.139.94 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)