Talk:Mohammed Hijab

Sourcing

@Hipal:, could you clarify why the current sourcing is considered insufficient?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

Referencing this version of the article:

All citations need to include basic information per WP:CITEHOW.

Self-published sources are highly restricted per WP:BLPSPS.

Poor sources should not be used per WP:BLPRS.

Of the first five citations:

1 and 2 seems ok

3 is problematic. It does not verify the information given. I'm unclear how it identifies Mohamad Nabil Hegab as Mohammed Hijab.

4 is problematic, per BLPSPS

5 is unreliable.

I'm not going to look further at this time. Please check all references against WP:RSP at a bare minimum. --Hipal (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal: I have removed all issues from the Mohammed Hijab article. Please review it again, and let me know if there are any unresolved concerns.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I've no idea what you did. You didn't use any edit summaries, nor have explained here. Can I assume you removed everything cited to the poor sources identified above, and other unsourced information?

Those were just the first five references. Could you look over the rest? --Hipal (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal: I tried to fix your tag.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal. I've updated the Mohammed Hijab page with stronger refernces (I've removed the need for his personal website). I've back education section in early life and provided several references that are not his own personal website. Included his position at Cambridge Arabic College as well as added references for his debates and discussions in the 'Public Intellectualism' section. In light of this, I've removed the warning message so please check my changes. Thank you! Shameer2001 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

UAE Stories appears to be unreliable, the Al Balagh Academy ref appears self-published. Did you check? --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Hipal and I agree with your first point. I've removed UAE stories and included two new sources for the al-azhar (source number 5 which is in Arabic) and queen mary (source number 4). For the other qualifications, I've also added sources. None of them are self-published and I've checked. Shameer2001 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

HI @Hipal What more needs to be done? Shameer2001 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I keep wondering if a full rewrite from better sources might be the best approach. I'm not in a position where I have time to completely rewrite this. There doesn't appear a good version to work from.

At a glance, the first 13 references seem poor. Do you think they are use appropriately per BLP? --Hipal (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal please outline exactly where you think it seems like a promo? Please be specific Shameer2001 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

What of the comments above should we discuss in more detail. The refs are poor. BLP requires better. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Please point out the exact refs and don’t be vague because we can’t amend if you are not specific. Shameer2001 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Themuslim500 and the Master's Thesis to start.

The ONUS is on those seeking inclusion. This article is in very bad shape, the sourcing very poor. How about you identify the very best sources that you feel meet BLP-criteria and are clearly independent? It's those references that this article needs to be rewritten around.

The article is under partial protection for two weeks. I'm happy to address edit requests and make other edits to the article when it looks appropriate to do so. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Muslim 500 is an independent, reputable publication based in Jordan. It has no affiliation with mohammed hijab or any of his organisations or institutes. And I’m not sure which one you mean when you mention the “master’s thesis” reference. Any others? Shameer2001 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The Muslim 500 piece is a profile, likely submitted by the subject. There's no author, publication date, not even copyright. It looks like a who's who.

You apparently didn't notice you added back the Master's Thesis. Please be more careful with your editing.

The ONUS is on you. Could you take time to identify good references? Perhaps pick some out for discussion instead? --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I will do but how do you know it is “likely submitted by the subject”? That is pure conjecture. The following are examples of articles where the muslim 500 is used and no issue is raised:

Omar Suleiman (imam)

Yasir Qadhi

Not trying to be a pain but just trying to understand. Thanks Shameer2001 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, in the latest edit, I’ve changed the wording from “preacher” to debater because multiple articles referenced have him as “debater” where as fewer have him as “preacher”. Also, all of his debates are sited as primary sources. Shameer2001 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's conjecture. Can you provide any evidence otherwise? Reliable sources are required, and BLP places additional criteria on sourcing.

Which sources call him a debater and not a preacher also? Again, identifying high-quality sources first would be helpful.

Note that we can always get outside assistance on these issues. I will do so eventually, but would like to have more discussion before doing so. --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TheMuslim500.com to address concerns about that reference. --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

(Sawer, 2022) from The Daily Telegraph is one of the best sources we have. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that The Telegraph can be a strong mainstream source, and Sawer (2022) might indeed offer useful reporting. However, per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on multiple reliable sources, not just one, to ensure balance and neutrality.

While The Telegraph is generally considered reliable for factual reporting, its editorial stance is known to lean conservative. This isn't a disqualifier, but it makes it even more important to balance it with sources from a range of editorial perspectives, per WP:NPOV Shameer2001 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Not if you're attempting to "balance" with poor or unreliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note WP:RSHEADLINES regarding the latest attempt [1] to change the description in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Then in that case, preacher should also be removed as it is from a headline. Also, I did not get debater from a headline. It was in official court documents which can be found at https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/2043. These are official UK case file national archives. Shameer2001 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"Preacher" is prominently in the body of the reference.

See WP:BLPPRIMARY regarding the court documents or anything similar. --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, both sources below from Al Jazeera, a generally reliable secondary source under WP:RS, explicitly describe Mohammed Hijab as an "activist", not merely a preacher. The Al Jazeera documentary clip and the related short both frame his role in terms of organised political advocacy, public mobilisation, and protest activity, particularly around Palestine. This aligns with Wikipedia’s standard use of “activist” for figures engaged in sustained, public, cause-driven action. The descriptor is therefore source-based, neutral, and policy-compliant rather than editorial and it would be appropriate to include in the beginning of the article.

https://x.com/aljazeeradoc/status/2008973167461908837?s=12

https://youtube.com/shorts/OGn6_VNnw2Q?si=A_JxCTnTErKwZlmo Shameer2001 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Shameer2001 (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a written version of either published on their website? Otherwise, I wouldn't give them any weight. --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Mohammed hijab 2019.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

I have added his bankruptcy, which he filed after his failed defamation case. Feel free to expand that section. Tamsier (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it until someone can find a secondary source to avoid WP:BLPPRIMARY and the NOT and POV problems that go with attempts to use such sources. --Hipal (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay! Very well. It is from the UK Government's website, and other political commentators such as Douglas Murray (the person he tried to sue) has responded to it! That's fine, though. Tamsier (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Published works

I don't see any reason to list any published works of his. Relevant policies include WP:BLP, WP:POV, WP:NOT, WP:VNOT. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

A large part of his public persona is being a published author on subjects that are rarely touched in the English speaking Muslim communities, such as Kalam cosmological argument. Metamentalist (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal could you please address this, if not I will have to bring back his published works. Metamentalist (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

What BLP-quality sources support their inclusion? --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the content on this page doesn't explain why this page exists at all. Use WP:IAR and fix it so that it makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Criticism from questionable sources

In dispute:

News18 referred to Hijab as a "so-called public speaker" and questioned the contrast between his self-description and his online content, quoting his website while noting that videos circulating on social media reflect a different image. Firstpost characterized him as someone known for holding extremist and antisemitic views.

References

See WP:NEWSORGINDIA

After reviewing these sources, I don't think any of them should be used at all in this BLP article. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

OpIndia specifically is a far-right source (as per its own article) which has been blacklisted in Wikipedia for about half a decade now (See WP:OPINDIA). Kautilya3 is a longtime editor and should know this. In their revert, they did not give their rationale and instead disputed the widely accepted fact that OpIndia is far-right, something which I only stated in my edit summary and not even in the article. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Please remember to focus on content. The currently open discussion at WP:AE is where any behavioral concerns belong. --Hipal (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, AE closed asking us to "collaborate". Making unsubstantiated allegations is no way to "collaborate". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude: I might be missing something here. Where was OpIndia used as a source? — Longewal (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

OpIndia was one of the sources originally cited. I see that it has since been remooved. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Citing WP:NEWSORGINDIA as a justification to remove well-sourced news pieces that point to legit social media posts made by Hijab and his associates is disingenuous. WP:NEWSORGINDIA is about news orgs in India publishing paid news and undisclosed advertorials, and exercising caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. If you actually read the two news pieces there's nothing that seems inaccurate or misleading.

A blanket removal of Indian news sources from BLPs is akin to poisoning the well, and risks de-legitmizing all news coming from Indian sources.

However, in this case, I am not going to revert your edit because Firstpost and News18 aren't really pinnacle of Indian journalism, but nothing in those two pieces that were cited was egregous. They link to IG and Twitter content posted by Hijab that is clear invitation for violence. — Longewal (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting. Please WP:AGF and WP:FOC in the future. --Hipal (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:FIRSTPOST, we ought to be extremely cautious when the topic is political. News18 isn't very reliable either. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)