Talk:Mahmoud al-Zahar

message: #i've seen a few places that consider this guy as a doctor, i don't know much about him and havn't yet read the entire article.. what is certain that there is no mention of this in the introductory paragraph.
#i've just happened to catch this TV interview: Al-Zahar making a claim that the Torah is a fabrication (VIDEO) (Transcript), i've been discussing many muslims and the majority of them, when discussing the bible, either said that Islam respects the bible or that they tried to make unscholar naive claims about the bible based on stuff they picked up on hatespeech websites... all fairly easily refuted by someone who can actually read biblical hebrew and knows a little about the bible.
#what about a picture on the article? Jaakobou 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  doctorship? and historical not respecting the bible link 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The Board of Deputies of British Jews statement, although sourced elsewhere,  is not in the latest update of the Times. It is also unclear if they made this statement in reaction to Zahar's statement. So I'm removing in the hopes that it can be the common ground for the two sides here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I find the prose text we have acceptable, I don't see a problem with saying "media reported he said X, Y said he was misinterpreted", the only outstanding issue I have is why it has a subheading which draws too much importance to a single quote -- it belongs, but it belongs in the "Hawkish position" section like the rest. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think the BDBJ statement is revelant. Apart from anything else it just bloats the current text. If the reader wants to find out more about Hamas or their Charter they can go and visit those pages. I sort of agree with Sherurcij that we don't really need a subheading. If, however, the consensus is for a subheading than can we have something a bit less clunky then "Advocacy of the "murder" of Israeli and Jewish children worldwide"? Either Israeli or Jewish but not both? Wodge (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving BDBJ aside for a sec, I think a header is important. The idea that threatening the murder of Jewish children worldwide is "hawkish" would be... strange at best. That's why I put a header in in the first place. IronDuke 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Does anybody have a problem moving this to Mahmoud al-Zahar? This is the name most commonly used in the sources, for a short list of examples: Al-Jazeera, Ynet, BBC, Washington Post, and The Times Nableezy (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is the most common version of his name. Wodge (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: The New York Post story has inserted words into what al- Zahar said. He said "We have to build the mosque as you are allowed to build the church and the Israeli are building their holy places. We have to build everywhere — in every area we have muslims, we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer especially for the people when they are looking to be in the group — not individual." The audio file can be found here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=191797
See this for further info: http://warincontext.org/2010/08/16/hamas-supports-the-right-of-muslims-to-pray-in-mosques-even-in-new-york/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodge (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Park 51 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mahmoud al-Zahar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615222606/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200606/s1663270.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1663270.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100819041914/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5lnPPJXXpZ_cmN17J9dJBFjcgnQD9HKH6S00 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5lnPPJXXpZ_cmN17J9dJBFjcgnQD9HKH6S00
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , I reverted your edit as the sourcing simply does not withstand the OR objection. The quote is reliably sourced, yes, however here an analysis added by a Wikipedia editor that this quote contradicts the prior material. In fact, most of this should not be included at all, things cited to comment is free at the Guardian have no place in a BLP. But this specifically fails WP:OR, and it cannot be used in that way. nableezy - 19:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain specifically what amounts to 1. OR, and what amounts to 2. BLP concerns. El_C 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Im pretty sure I did, that being the analysis that this quote contradicts the previous material. The source only has the quote, and any use of the quote for analysis is original research as that analysis does not appear in any reliable source cited. The BLP concern is using a collection of op-eds to include derogatory information on a living person. nableezy - 16:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, those are fair points. El_C 03:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  last edit 

message: * What I think should be changed (format using ):
* Why it should be changed:
- Recent information regarding his alleged authorship of a book.
also by the way the reference: "Arafat ordered Hamas attacks against Israel in 2000", Jerusalem Post, reported 29 June 2010 []"
seems to me broken, it doesn't point to that article.
-
* References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
Bowad91017 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really WP:DUE to add? It feels like a triviality, which is probably why nobody responded to this in almost three months. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Over Incorrect Attribution of "The End of the Jews" Authorship