Marknutley: Why did you add an rs tag as selfpublished to the first refernce? The source is one of the oldest surviving weekly magazines first published in 1925. Kamiliashehata (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because i was unsure of it mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was unsure? Kamiliashehata (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this ref aljazeera this is the video at aljazeera English aljazeera report in english and also BBC Arabic Mfarouk1984 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MFarouk, I have added the original jazeera transcript as a reference, it is an excellent solution to rejection of youtube references Kamiliashehata (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley: this time you removed a reference as selfpublished. Is it just an unsure feeling again? The reference is published by a well-known scholar and speaker, Dr. Hossam Abu Al Bokhary. Kamiliashehata (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is self published please read wp:rs amd wp:sps, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reference is indeed published by the well-known comparative religion scholar and speaker, Dr. Hossam Abu Al Bokhary. Moreover, many of the other sources, refer to him and his specialist site as well as interview him as a direct reference; including the specific article removed which is now replaced and verified by a direct referral to it by the mainstream "Al Shorouk" newspaper, one of the oldest and most respected publishing houses in the region. The Al Shorouk article interviews Dr. Al Bukhary, publishes a photograph from Dr. Al Bokhary's article and refers their readers to the full file on his site; the reference is in English at the bottom of Al Shorouk article "www.kamiliashehata.com" Reggala (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it again, please read wp:rs and wp:blp mark nutley (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it; can you be more specific why you removed the 100% verifiable AlShorouk reference? You can hardly call one of the oldest and respected publishing houses' newspaper in the region as self-published? Reggala (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This www.kamiliashehata.com is a self published source, do not reinsert it again as i am fed up of removing it mark nutley (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you avoid the question? The source is the Al Shorouk article which refers to the site. Instead of losing your self-control, why not respond in a objective, rational and polite way? Maybe because you have no such response? I dont see any reason for your reply and it is not acceptable. It seems also you have a history of losing your self-control during edits. Reggala (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rrburke: I appreciate that you also have made a real effort in research/writing and we may merge the information. Thank you for redirection to the correct nomikar "Kamilia". The rewriting removed the whole article with all the references. I understand that perhaps you dont read Arabic; that maybe remedied by translations. Highlight for me where you need confirmation on areas of objectivity so we may decide together on the facts from verifiable sources. Lets agree to revert the article to the original state and work together on the areas you need more information on. Let me know your feedback or alternative way of working to move forward. Reggala (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article from scratch so that it might comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The previous version was a fairly undisguised piece of advocacy and made no attempt to fairly represent all major points of view on the topic. In my opinion it was unsalvageable in its previous form, so I elected just to go back to the drawing board. I don't pretend to think it's finished.

I also think that there should be a strong preference for English-language sources, as the is no way for a non-Arabic speaker to evaluate the reliability of foreign-language sources on the basis of machine translation alone, nor any way to verify if the sources being cited indeed say exactly what it's claimed they say. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn that was quick, i never got the chance to even look at your userspace draft :) Good job man, well done mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]