Talk:Maytham al-Tammar

Title correction

Thank you for your contributions. But may you please change the title of the wiki page from Meesam Tammar to Maytham Al-Tammar. His name was not Meesam it was Maythem (proper arabic). And Tammar was not his last name it was a title "Al-Tammar" which means the date seller or the plan tree. Because in his life Maythem use to sell dates to make a living. Thank you. And once again thank you for you contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

According to a quick Google Books search the most common spelling is Maytham al-Tammar. I checked various alternatives, including the old "Meesam Tammar", and no other variant came close to seeing this much use. Thus I've moved the article.

That said, the article text itself is also in dire need of improvement. I'll do a little and add a reliable source that mentions him, but the current content is completely unverifiable and seems a mix of historical fact and legend. Huon (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It was really bothering me that his name is spelled wrong. But no one would change it. So I thank you a lot. May God bless and reward you heavily. I will also add to Maytham's page over a period of time. There is a lot about Maytham and I hope that he gets recognized around the world. Once again thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yotube

Zabrano, please remove all of the Youtube sources and all of the statemetns supported by the lecture. We have no proof the speech is authentic and unedited, we have no evidence that the speech was fact-checked by anyone, and we have no proof the speaker is an expert in al-Tammar. Really, someone special enough to be an expert would probably have their own Wikipedia page (or at least some mention somewhere on WP)--that's how high the bar to "expert" is. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, its Youtube not Yotube. Second, the entire speech is unedited its 56:20 minutes long (recorded live). Third, he is a Islamic studies professor at the University of Cambridge, one of the most prestigious universities in the world. He also has a PhD in Islamic Studies and has written several biographical book on Islamic personalities like Hujr ibn Adi. Fourth, I have provided book resources as well confirming that his statements are accurate. In addition, he has studied at the highest levels of Islamic Studies for more than 6-10 years. Fifth, he use to have a wikipedia page but someone deleted it. His picture file is still on wikipedia. If you want me to recreate his wikipedia page, I will gladly do so. Because he is a renowned Islamic studies lecturer/professor/teacher/author in the world. So I really don't see why he is not a valid source. He has a better understanding of Islamic personalities like Maytham al-Tammar than both you and me. If your upset at the fact that I deleted your comments then sorry. But there is no reason to delete this page because it comes from multiple sources not just one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way he has his own website so you can check out his biography. And the reason I linked the Youtube video is to prove he said those words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites".

As per Wikipedia:Video_as_references, "YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. .... You should be fairly certain that the content in the YouTube video is indeed actually from the source you are citing. Please take care to verify this. .... Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube."

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then, who uploaded the video? Was it the Jaffari Community Center? Or the professor himself? If no, the video is a copyright violation, and thus cannot be linked to because of our copyright rules. We may only link to videos if we are certain that the uploader holds the right to the video itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It was the Jaffari Community Center who got special permission from the professor (whom they paid) to upload and use his lecture to educate others online (through Youtube) and the professor himself gives permission for the lecture to be used as a means of reference for educational purposes. In addition, Nakshawani himself released this lecture on his website. (He is encouraging people to write more about Islamic personals like Maytham, Hujr ibn Adi, Salman the Persian, and so on. In his lecture he even mentions that their needs to be more books written about Maytham and other companions due to the shortage of information on them.) If he doesn't give the rights/special permission to organizations then he makes sure that they are not put on Youtube or that they are deleted from Youtube. Therefore, it does not violate copyright laws since both the professor and the center give permission to use it. By the way, why are you getting to emotional over this? It's like you don't want this page to exists.Zabranos (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nakshawani himself released this lecture on his website, if these videos are available on Nakshwani's site then it is better that we use Nakshwani's site's links and not that of Youtube's. Zabranos can you please change the source form Youtube ones to that of Nakshwani's?

Also! Zabranos please concentrate on the matter of copyright infringement and RS and don't get involved into personal comments, Qwyrxian has raised quite valid points in quite suitable manner, he has given an opportunity for explanation & probable corrections (if required). I hope no one of us departs WP:Civility.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have taken business law and I am aware of what classifies as copyright infringement.

According to US law, copywriter infringement occurs when a party copies a substantial and material part of a plaintiff’s copyright work without permission or reference. I am not infringing on any copyrights since I have referenced the information properly and since both the professor and the center give permission to use the work (lecture), according to the US law.

Also the Fair Use Doctrine permits certain limited use of a copyright (work) without the permission of the copyright holder.

Following uses are protected:

a. Quotation of the copyrighted work for review or criticism or in a scholarly or technical work

b. Use in a parody or satire

c. Brief quotation in a news report

d. Reproduction of a small part of the work to illustrate a lesson

e. Incidental reproduction of a work in a newsreel or broadcast of an event being reported

f. Reproduction of a work in a legislative or judicial proceeding

Public domain in US law

a. Anyone can publish (once information has been released to the public) the work without paying the prior copyright holder.

Do you want more proof now Qwyrxian or are you done? Zabranos (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can change the reference to Nakshawani's website, theres no problem in that. Both the lecture are exactly the same. And thanks for the help Faizhaider.

:) Zabranos (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that is a great solution, Faizhaider. Zabranos, Wikipedia copyright policy is actually more strict than US law. We do not allow people to link to sites that contain videos that are uploaded by anyone other than the copyright holder. This is because Wikipedia's goal is actually to not be fair use, but to be fully "free" (CC-BY-SA or GFDL). We only use fair use when absolutely necessary. Faizhaider's solution, thus, completely fixes the problem.

Now that the copyright problem is solved, we can look into the other issues; I've made one quality-fixing edit, and I'll check more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian please do not delete the following sections: Teachings of Imam Ali, Prophecy of death, Confrontation with ibn Ziyad, and Final days and death because they are not my work but I have book references to prove the person's points. I will gradually cite them over a period of time. Zabranos (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but what the hell are you doing, Zabranos? We agreed, above, to remove Youtube. Until you can demonstrate that the uploader is the copyright holder, we MAY NOT LINK TO IT. This is not debatable, per our always preference for free, NOT fair use. The only reason I haven't removed them yet is because Faizhaider said he's going to ref them to the person's website instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I fixed the issue and changed the references.Zabranos (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Next key step

The next major thing to do would be to replace those dialogues with secondary sources talking about what is in the dialogues and what they mean. WP articles are not supposed to be a collection of primary sources, but, rather, a collection of summaries of what secondary sources have said about the primary ones. Unfortunately, I don't have any of the sources needed to do this job. Above, Zabranos, you mention that you do, so I'll have to rely upon you (or anyone else who wants to help). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we should remove the dialogs because it Wikipedia allows primary sources to make straightforward and descriptive statements of facts. The dialogs give a deep insight of the events. But I agree that more secondary sources should be added overall. I will hopefully proved more secondary sources in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the dialogues mean absolutely nothing without commmentary. Take the slave dialogue, for example. What does it mean? Is it some criticism of slavery? Is it saying that slavery is okay for non-Muslims, but not okay for Muslims? Is it saying that buying a human being is okay, so long as you teach them Islam afterward? Is it a story about greed? About white people? Persians? Stories from religious texts simply are not useful for an encyclopedia. Maybe they mean something to you, because you know the traditions and interpretations, as a member of Islam. But to the rest of the world, they don't have a clear meaning. WP:NOT says clearly that we are not a repository of primary sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Im not saying don't add commentary. Im saying just saying add secondary sources/interpretation to the dialogues so its a fusion of both.Zabranos (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Zabranos, I'm making this stuff up based on preferences: this is Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOT. The dialogues need to come out very soon. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any section that says that dialogs are a violation.Zabranos (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY, point 3. We do not just leave a bunch of quotations from primary sources in articles--this is not what an encyclopedia is. I understand that this is normal practice in much religious writing (from several different religions), but it's not standard academic/reference writing. Primary sources are of very very little value to us, because they are always open to varying interpretations. Religious primary texts are of particularly little value, because their age and function is not to provide "facts" but rather to provide the foundation for a religion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will start the cleaning process soon. Thanks for your pertinence. Zabranos (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)