Talk:Hamza Tzortzis

Ashley Madison data leak

Should information on Ashley Madison data leak be included? For example:

"Tzortzis' details were included in the Ashley Madison details leak[1], a dating website marketed to married people. Information included his name, address and bank account details. The listed preferences included "cuddling", "receiving oral sex," and "sensual massage"[2]. Further, the first payment (£54) was taken while Tzortzis was in Australia and payments continued to be made for 9 months (£15 per month)[3]. The account was set up from an IP address in Sydney[2]. Tzortzis denied that the account belonged to him and stated that he was going to contact the police to investigate the fraud. Initially, he posted a statement on Facebook however this has since been deleted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le banana (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The reliability of sources

Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. See the Manual of Style guidelines for biographies located HERE. Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living persons are strict. If something is unreferenced, and potentially contentious, it should be removed immediately. Please desist. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep Nuetral Macaya5738 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Macaya5738, it is YOU who robbed the article of any neutrality. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

SPA's

There are a lot of SPA's active here. I believe some action needs to be taken. Regards.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've protected it and replaced the speedy deletion notice. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because he meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete: because Tzortzis is not notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft

A draft is actively being worked on at Draft:Hamza Tzortzis - the aim is to make the article more neutral whilst maintaining WP:V -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Hi, I believe the use of a verbatim quote from The Telegraph is causing a bit of a neutrality issue - Wikipedia shouldn't really be describing an institute as "hardline". I think removing the quote entirely and paraphrasing would allow us to maintain the facts in a neutral manner. I'd welcome further input on this -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect, friend Samtar, Wikipedia doesn't work the way you want it to. Wikipedia requires citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. Why call cutting out parts of a quote that you don't like "paraphrasing"? That's disingenuous, in my view. I am not calling the Hittin Institute a "hardline" organisation. A major, reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party source is. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with you samtar. The issue at hand is the quote as it stands in relation to Hamza Tzortzis himself, and Wikipedia should really focus on the facts, rather than subjective perspectives - regardless of where they are to be found. Yes, it is a fact that the Andrew Gilligan wrote this statement in the Telegraph (which doesn't make it a neutral comment, given Andrew Gilligan's background, and Telegraph editorial on this subject matter as a whole), but is it a fact that Hamza was part of the Hittin Institute? The article provides no proof for this to Wikipedia standards. But in either case, whether the Hittin Institute is "hardline" or not is only the perspective of the author and not a statement that should be repeated (and implicitely endorsed) by Wikipedia. Further loaded comments also misrepresent Hamza and are provided without context or with consideration of Hamza's own explanation. As it stands, the Wikipedia article is simply regurgitating specific viewpoints of biased individuals only on the authority that it appears on a platform which forms part of the mass media. There is little (if any) neutrality or consideration of the wider facts. Some might call it "selective quoting". Contrast that with this later article from the telegraph which does not make those claims, it appears that this Wikipedia page relies primarily on quote-mining to propagate a specific viewpoint, rather than being neutral in its rhetoric. I would suggest the first source be replaced with this later source, and the quotes removed accordingly. Jay (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In reading the relevant policies further, I believe the following should be taken into account:

• Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

Using a clearly biased article (regardless of where it's published) seems to contravene this principle of conveying information in a fair and proportionate manner. By quoting verbatim, Wikipedia is implicitly affirming the bias within the article.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts

Verbatim quotation of biased articles runs the serious risk of presenting subjective opinions as objective fact. The Hittin Institute being "hardline", etc is a subjective opinion, as is the association with extremism.

• Prefer nonjudgmental language

The article seems entirely judgement. Just for the sake of comparison, Hamza's page is only a few lines long and refers to extremism four times. Osama bin Laden's page is several times longer, yet only refers to extremism five times. There needs to be an undue concentration of this rhetoric on Hamza's page in absence of any content that balances it out with the overwhelming bulk of his activities (public lectures, debates, etc).

• Wikipedia:Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

There is scope for recognising that certain sources do not improve the Wikipedia article, and I would argue that verbatim quoting of biased statements without counter-balance grants undue weight and negatively impacts on the quality of the article.

Jay (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It is bad practice to remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. If statements are felt to be biased, then verbatim quoting is the best approach. See WP:WikiVoice. Instead of deleting things you feel do not present him in a good light, why not find counter-balancing reliable sources. If you cannot find counter-balancing reliable sources, this ought to tell you something...

I noticed that the article mentions something about his views on homosexuality. You could expand on this. Male homosexual acts were a criminal offence until 1967 in England and Wales, 1980 in Scotland, and 1982 in Northern Ireland. That some people have traditional views is unsurprising.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Telegraph

Dear friends, I have re-inserted a direct quotation from a newspaper that certainly meets the criteria of a RS and is widely used on Wikipedia as a RS. One editor in good faith has removed the reference because he says the journalist Andrew Gilligan's ostensible prejudice outweighs the value of RS. Could we please get other opinions to prevent the possibility of an unintended edit war. I certainly don't want that. Other opinions please. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:IERA#revision 733707928 by Djrun-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, friend Toddy1. I've read your detailed response. Please let's now see what other non-involved editors think. If I prove to be in a minority position I'll willingly concede the point. My thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

I have noticed that several edits I made to this article have been reverted or revised. Could someone please justify the reasoning behind the following items:

• removing "public speaker" from lead section
  • Is it sufficient that referenced sources in the article identify the subject as a "speaker" who lectures at public events? By the way, there is a Daily Mail article that identifies the subject as a "lecturer and public speaker"

• removing the sentence "Tzortzis later renounced some of his previous statements and asserts that his contemporary speeches preach about peace and compassion." from the lead section
  • Providing a counter statement of controversial information is a common practice on Wikipedia to meet the policy of neutral point of view. Some examples of where this is seen is on the following articles: Jeremiah Wright; Edward Snowden; Malcolm X and Jonathan Pollard

• adding the following quote in the subject line: "has called for an Islamic state, expressed his hostility towards Western values and stated that: 'We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even of freedom"
  • Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines state the lead section should be concise and summarize the subject.
  • Replacing the quote with the statement "he has previously been associated with extreme positions and extremists" is a concise summary. Details on his views are more appropriate for its own section.

• changing the "Controversy" section to "Career"
  • The majority of the content in the section is exclusive to his controversy and therefore a similar section title would be more appropriate.
  • It would be more appropriate to include content surrounding speaking engagements, work experience and accomplishments in a section titled "Career"

• Replacing "The Telegraph described Tzortzis in 2010..." with "Tzortzis is, according to The Telegraph..."
  • It is important to denote the date of the quote as to signify the time frame of the subject's controversial statements. Recent articles from reliable sources describe the subject as not currently holding those views.

• Replacing "Tzortzis responded to such allegations by stating that his words were taken out of context and since then he has authored writings that condemn all forms of child marriages, oppose extremism, denounce the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), and promote a peaceful case for Islam." with "In a 2016 media interview in Australia, Tzortzis "defended himself against reports he supports child rape" and pointed to an apology he had earlier made for his comment on the killing of apostates."
  • Why was the wording changed to replace "condemn all forms of child marriage" with "defended himself against reports he supports child rape"? The replacement leaves Tzortzis' current stance on the issue vague.
  • Why was "oppose extremism" removed? It would be appropriate to include that statement to help promote a neutral point of view since the article does make mention that the subject "has been associated with extreme positions". Including the statement "oppose extremism" would provide evidence as to why he "has been (previously) associated" and not "is (currently) associated".
  • Why was "denounce the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)" removed? It would be appropriate to include that statement to help promote a neutral point of view since the article does make mention that the subject "has called for an Islamic state". Including the statement "denounce the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)" would provide evidence as to why he "has (previously) called" and not "is (currently) calling".

• The Telegraph says that Tzortzis "has called for an Islamic state, expressed his hostility towards Western values and stated that: 'We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even of freedom.'"
  • I did not previously comment on this, but based on the more recent 2016 Stokes Sentinel article, it would now be more appropriate to change the sentence to "Tzortzis had previously called for an Islamic state....".

Please share your feedback. Thank you. Djrun (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason for wanting wanting "The Telegraph says" type wording in the article is that we do not actually know that what the Daily Telegraph says about him is true. If you feel that the date needs extra emphasis, try adding that to the beginning of the sentence. Unfortunately, the Daily Telegraph's claims about people associated with iERA have been recycled by other publications. It would be helpful if the article also used sources that gave Tzortzis a voice. I believe that concept is called neutral point of view.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers are seen as reliable sources, since they have editorial oversight. So there is nothing wrong with the Telegraph as source (until something better turns up.) But if you can find some interview, it can be welcome.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Generally that's true, but where the media uses polarised or biased language, for the sake of neutrality the bias and sensational rhetoric needs to be excluded, and claims also balanced with counter-claims. Several newspapers make an entire article about a vague claim (supporting ISIS, child-rape, etc), and then expand upon it with sensationalism and conjecture. At the end, they'll include a single sentence to say that Hamza has spoken against it. There's no balance within the media, and it's not the role of Wikipedia to propagate the imbalance. Incidentally, there are more balanced mainstream newspaper interviews available, although in a foreign language. From my research, these are acceptable. JamShady (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer English-language-sources, but if you think your sources are acceptable, I would say: be bold and go ahead! Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

People like Edward Snowden and Malcolm X are notable for things they have done. But Hamza Tzortzis has not done anything to be notable. He is notable only for being the victim of extremist statements by journalists with an agenda that have been published by newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph, and then recycled as if they were true. An article about someone who is notable for being a victim is going to be different than an article about someone who has done notable things.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you consider notable. He's debated several high-profile individuals (Laurence Krauss, Dan Barker, etc) who are notable in their own respective fields (and thus Hamza isn't exactly a nobody to have engaged them in debate), and he's also one of the more prominent figures with regards to theological discourse, particularly within Islam (which like it or not, appears to be a hot topic these days), and is a regular guest and international speaker. He's quite notable to a wide variety of people. Perhaps not yourself, but he's not exactly a nobody either. JamShady (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of Views

Considering what I have read and heard from Tzortzis, I don't see the credibility that The Telegraph and other sources have assumed in that he is a supporter of terrorists and expresses radical views. Consider Tzortzis' website, and reevaluate the stance taken in on this Wikipedia article before publishing absurd remarks. Seems out of place.

Thanks for your personal views, but Wikipedia requires something more than subjective opinion; it requires neutral coverage in reliable and third-party sources (ie, like the Telegraph). Please sign your posts in future. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

Fractal-Mind (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done, unknown as to what the editor wants changed. Please use the change x to y format. Thank you,VViking_TalkEdits 15:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"he has previously been associated"

I propose using the wording in the lead section "he has previously been associated with extreme positions and extremists" in order to show that such characterization took place in the past, according to the following cited sources:

• "According to the Telegraph UK he has previously been associated with extremists." [4]
• "Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, who once associated with a group who call for the establishment of an Islamic 'Caliphate'" [5]
• "He has previously said Muslims 'reject the idea of freedom..." [6]
• "A cleric who previously was accused of linking homosexuality..." [7]

Please share your thoughts or comments. Djrun (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a citation that is less than 15 months old claiming that he is associated with extremists, it would seem reasonable to do as you say. Do you think that "he was at one time associated with..." satisfies this?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johndoe10001:, @GorgeCustersSabre: Perhaps you could discuss the edit that you disagree on here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A journalists article is subjective and the claim of Linking anyone with extremism,has to be proven without a shadow of doubt.If Wikipedia wants to stay neutral and not be biased towards any religion and promote degradation of peaceful preachers of any religio, then remove the biased and false claim of Mr Hamza being associated with extremis. Truthful servant (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

2.100.40.85 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Your request is blank. CityOfSilver 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018

Tzortzis' details were included in the Ashley Madison details leak[8], a dating website marketed to married people. Information included his name, address and bank account details. The listed preferences included "cuddling", "receiving oral sex," and "sensual massage"[9]. Further, the first payment (£54) was taken while Tzortzis was in Australia and payments continued to be made for 9 months (£15 per month)[10]. The account was set up from an IP address in Sydney[2]. Tzortzis denied that the account belonged to him and stated that he was going to contact the police to investigate the fraud. Initially, he posted a statement on Facebook however this has since been deleted. Le banana (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. My sense is that this information is trivial and would constitute undue weight, at the very least. There are also implications regarding Wikipedia policy on biographical content. The Middle East Forum, which you cited twice, is not a reliable source in general, and certainly not for biographical content about a living person. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan described Tzortzis in a 2010 The Telegraph article...

This edit simply adds additional detail to the 2010 article. Although it may be deemed unnecessary by one user, I believe further discussion and citation of how the edit does not meet Wikipedia guidelines should be presented before reverting. Djrun (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The following are legitimate reasons I feel that mentioning the name of Andrew Gilligan in the article are relevant:

• Gilligan has been criticized for writing articles that allegedly have a negative prejudice/bias towards Muslims
• A libel claim against Gilligan found him responsible for defamation
• The accuser in the libel claim was a Muslim leader that was found to have been falsely portrayed as supporter of violent extremism

Although Gilligan's article regarding Tzortzis was well in fact be accurate, his history makes it relevant to mention him in the article so that readers can frame his comments in context of the aforementioned items. At the end of the day if you decide to revert the article back, that's fine, I simply request that this revision is given the courtesy for discussion, presentation of arguments for/against it, and feedback from others. Thank you and good day.Djrun (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Djrun, thanks for a great explanation. I’m convinced, and grateful to you. All good wishes, and thanks again, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Tzortzis' views on ISIS homosexuality etc

In reference to the ABP news article (an interview with Tzortzis) as well as the news.com.au, both sources mention that Tzortzis does not support ISIS, and no reference is provided stating that he has done so previously. In the Wikipedia article, the controversy section mentions that Tzortzis "'now' criticises child marriage, opposes extremism, and denounces the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)" this wording gives the impression that Tzortzis has supported ISIS in the past, even though the source cited doesn't mention this, and the source itself is highlighting controversies and statements by other individuals regarding Tzortzis positions ( e.g. Secular Party president John Perkins, who said in 2013 he debated Mr Tzortzis and put to him that “the Koran condones child marriage”. Mr Perkins said: “(Mr Tzortzis) defended it ... He was defending child rape. I was absolutely appalled.”

this quote from Perkins does not establish that Tzortzis holds such views it's merely providing quotations about what individuals have said about tzortzis in the past, even though he himself has stated that he does not support such views, yet the phrasing in the wikipedia sentence does not mention this controversy at all, it presumes that he changed his views from supporting ISIS, child marriage, etc. even though that's not what the sources claim or do, they listed controversies surrounding Tzortzis without making a decision on whether the accusations in the controversies are factually true or not (the sources merely report, and heavily recycle materials from other articles, they don't do independent analysis of any of the quotations as that's not their purpose).

The same is true with use of the word "now" regarding his condemnation of violence against individuals of the homosexual community ("he 'now' condemns any violence towards the homosexual community"), the source referenced is an interview with tzortzis, and he was asked: "The Telegraph UK lists you among "extremists who preach opposition to democracy and hatred against homosexuals and Jews." Why can't you love them ?"". no where in the interview did the source mention that Tzortzis previously supported violence against homosexuals, the question says :The Telegraph UK lists you among "extremists who preach ... hatred against homosexuals..." with no mention of violence. In his response Tzortzis' condemns violence against homosexuals, but there is no mention by either the interviewer or tzortzis that he supported violence against homosexuals in the past.

my recommendation is to remove the words "now" in the these two instances and explain the controversy in more depth, or new sources can be cited stating that tzortzis indeed did support, ISIS, violence against homosexuals and child rape in the past. However the current wording in the article is extremely vague regarding his previous views, as opposed to his newer views, as opposed to views attributed to him that he either supported or did not support. what do yall think? Thinktank9238327 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the two instances of "now" for now (pun intended)Thinktank9238327 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I support the removal of "now" as well. If other users disagree, I would suggest they share their arguments on this Talk Page article before reverting back. Djrun (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Who is he?

The wikipedia page did not really mention who he is actually. Where was he born? What is his education? Who is his father? Who is his mother? Which part of Greece does he come from. The only thing that seems Greek to me is his surname. His accent sound very much Indian-Pakistani accent. Well London-Indian accent. Not the Indian accent in India. I suppose he was brought up in an Indian-Pakistani neighborhood in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.188.128.214 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

Remove the description stating Hamza is a 'Muslim Apologist", as this is a false and biased statement. 2600:1700:1D2:7880:D4D1:7C37:EFFF:B83 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.

– Colonestarrice (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

broken sources

Can we remove the info that has broken sources/unsourced please? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)