User talk:Itaqallah/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contents

[edit] Islam

Salam Alaykum

Bro, I'm waiting for you. Please add your idea in Talk:Islam#Wrong claim.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

apologies for the delay. i have responded. ITAQALLAH 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Islam

First all my source are academics and reliable.They talk clearly about different version and more than pronouncing.you should notice the quote "These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.” .That mean that thing were change from Peter time.Thank.Oren.tal 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

that is talking about the Sana'a fragments discovered in 1972. Peters wrote in 1991 and later. if you try reading a little deeper about the Sana'a fragments you will realise that the differences were small (i.e. variant codices aka ahruf). nobody disputes that. i don't know why you are copy-pasting irrelevant quotes. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not what it say.It don't say anything about ahruf and certainly don't say there were only small change.Oren.tal 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
you need to read the material and reports associated with the Sana'a fragments more closely. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists

I provided sources in the edit summary for Avicenna, I don't think anyone has ever said Avicenna was remotely Sunni. Nevertheless, I added sources. As for Ibn al-Haytham, his name is Abu Ali Hasan ibn al Hasan and he was born in Buyid Iraq so there is very little doubt he is Shia. I will try to find sources for Jazari. FiveRupees (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources, one that counts him among leading Ismaili Shias and another that says he worked for the Fatimids. Again, his name and the fact that most of those who lived in Buwayhid Iraq, despite its short term, indicate that he is a Shi'a Muslim, just like Avicenna and Khwarizmi, etc. 1 2FiveRupees (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Islam

I like the idea making a task force part of WikiProject Islam how do I this--Java7837 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:mediation

Mediation accepted and very much welcomed. Where should we start? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

the mediation page may be viewed here. ITAQALLAH 13:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coworking

Salam Alaykum

Unfortunately I don't have enough time in these two weeks to participate in the core articles contest. But I'm ready to cowork to improve some articles. So just tell me on which articles do you want to work. In addition, don't bother yourself about our disagreement. I think both of us know how should build consensus. However I propose choosing one of these three articles Muhammad, Qur'an or Ali.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

wa 'alaykum. i am unlikely to have enough time either, but i might see if i can raise the standard of the Allah article. as for general collaboration, my personal preference would be Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Nadir

You should not repost the same text that has already been edited. It is quite inappropriate to do so without discussion.

Moreover, your unconfirmed source alleging a Jewish invitation, contradicts the earlier story that "two men were killed during skirmish in which the Muslims were involved. As a result Muhammad went to the Nadir, asking them to make a contribution towards the blood money of two men killed."

The story on the requested contribution has wide acceptance rather than the unfounded Jewish invitation to discuss religion. Authoritative (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

you should not remove sourced text without discussion, as you did on 26 Nov. multiple reasons for the ousting of Banu Nadir are given in varying works. i don't see any source claiming the story is "unfounded." ITAQALLAH 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeatedly advised the original poster that I have not found this story in any Islamic website. I have given you and him as well as your other colleague ample time to substantiate it. The story contradicts the reliable account on the requested contribution. Authoritative 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

why must the story be on an Islamic website? the presence of multiple theories surround Banu Nadir's expulsion is quite clear - your own belief of contradiction is an original deduction. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be more Muslim than the Islamic websites by presenting theories as facts to justify the expulsion of Banu-Nadir from their Medina mansions. How can one reconcile this story of a Jewish invitation to discuss religion with the widely known account of Muhammads's request for a contribution? Authoritative 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Thank you for starting a mediation. I accepted late, since I was busy and occupied in other work. I hope you (who started the mediation) will also be an active player in resolving the disputes.Bless sins 00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith the city of knowledge

Salam. I put a comment on the talk page of Ali article. Please write your idea about the authenticity of this Hadith among Sunnis.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another issue, As I saw you redirected Imam Ali to Ali. Unfortunately we didn't reach to consensus in the talk. I don't know it's better to redirect it to Ali or Shi'a view of Ali.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
ah... i wasn't aware of any ongoing discussion on talk. i don't mind which of them it is directed to. it depends on how the words Imam is used. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Please write your idea here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check Ali's talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] al-Insan al-Kamil revert war

Selam Itaqallah,

EliasAlucard seems to be insisting that a link to Robert Spencer's blog be included in the external links section for the al-Insan al-Kamil article

I have pointed out that the link is only to a rebuttal by Spencer to some criticism made of him, and is not in any way a primary reference to this topic. he insists that the article presents and "interesting debate", though it is not a debate at all, as Spencer only takes specific points out of context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ins%C4%81n_al-K%C4%81mil

Can the article be blocked once again, after removing Elias' link? I'm new to editing article so am not familiar with this process.

Jemiljan (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith guideline

Salam alaykum, Please help me with Hadith guideline --Seyyed(t-c) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honor killings

The need for spelling revision is discussed on the Talk page. Please give your reasons for reversion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tescoid (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hazrat Fatimah

Salam, Please participate in the discussion instead of editorial war:Talk:Fatimah#unnecessary caveats. Thanks--Seyyed(t-c) 05:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two points on which i have acted: 1. EoI cites its sources of the Fatima article from Bukhari and Tirmidhi, thus it is only academically responsible to include the original citation in the Wikipedia article. By simply citing EoI when the original sources are available does not serve any independant article or stands to the scrutiny of primary sourcing. Thus the full citation that i have included links Wikipedia to the original source of claim of the EoI. 2. This claim of EoI is sourced from the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Tirmidhi. These two along with other Hadith collections are from the historucal narrative of the Sunni schools of Islam. Hadith are not concrete undeniable sources, many are strong, whilst orthers are neutral or weak. Those sources in the Sunni Hadith may not be historically accurate and thus not accepted by the Shia collections. Vice versa, many Shia hadith are not considered accurate according to Sunni collectors. Thus we are in a situation where the historicity of the sources becomes an issue. Therefore, it is not only academically responsible for original citation but moreover it is our duty as academics to ensure that all avenues of factuality are presented so that the readers of the content will have a balanced view of the sequence of events. For example, the history of the Battle of Qadesh is presented very differently in Egyptian sources from their Hittite counterparts. Thus to avoid confusion and for the sake of clarity and academic integrity, both viewpoints are presented. Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 14:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand the point you are trying to make, this is why after a while i changed it from "according to Sunni hadith" to Sunni view. This is because of the sourcing of EoI, of which the hadith are from ultimately Sunni Hadith Collections. Had we been editors for them, we would have included a disclaimer, a side note or other hadiths or historical documents for a balanced view on the subject of historiocity when it comes to Hadith. If it hadn't been for Madelung, Esposito, Seyyed Nasr and Henry Corbin, the encyclopedias of the west would have had a simplistic view of the Islam and the Middle East. This situation stems from a long tradition that was brought to light by Edward Said regarding the Middle East and orientalism, this can be applied to Islam as well, including the preoccupation of Islam as being sunni and Shia as being Iranian, both of which are false. There is much debate within the muslim world and thus it is for the first time that mediums like Wikipedia not only ensure integrity but a totality of fact and history. Moreover, we are indeed editors of an encyclopedia, but we are indeed unique to the principles of freedom and fair representation that may not be the case in some academic realms including EoI. Thus the presentation of fact vis a vis Sunni/Shia view, provide a complete and enriched article from which a reader can be enlightened will all aspects knowledge and debate. Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have restructured the section so that id does not violate WP:NPOV#Article structure, i am sure you will be satisfied. Al-Zaidi (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory

Hi Itaqallah. If you have a minute, the page on Purgatory, mainly a Catholic concept, has a mention of the Islamic concept of Jahannam, but it is unreferenced. If you have a suggestion about what to do, it would be appreciated, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The most useful item in the literature must be the history of the concept by Jacques Le Goff. I've yet to get hold of it, but see from the article that he dates the crystallisation of the concept to the High Middle Ages - Aquinas and then Dante. I'd like to see if he thinks Aquinas derived the Purgatory idea from his critical engagement with the work of ibn Sina and ibn Rushd. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history

Hi Itaqallah: Thanks for contacting me. See my response at User talk:IZAK#Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Itaqallah: I have reposted the discussion to Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history so that all discussion should be centralized at that page. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TheTonyExpress

This user has been active since 23 December. In this little while apparently he/she knows a lot about wiki policies (like trolling, for example). Is it possible that this user is a sock? Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

it is likely. the user, who registered in September, appears to be a proxy for another editor. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

What does it mean to you? You seem to be confused. Arrow740 (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why you are reposting material found in the adjacent paragraphs in WP:POINT fashion. ITAQALLAH 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are pushing a POV and I included the balancing POV because you refused to stop. Arrow740 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no pushing of POV - there is insertion of an opinion you don't like from a reliable source - and then subsequent pointish, unproductive behaviour on your part. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little more mediation

Yaa akhee, could you drop in on the Madhhab article and let Sikandros know that the Jafari are a SHI'A madhhab and not a SUNNI madhhab, even according to his own sources? I tried but his reaction was to accuse me of vandalism. You have a good track record on getting through to people i've someone offended/slighted/pissed off in some way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear to anyone that only four extant Sunni schools exist. Regardless of whether Al-Azhar recognises it as a valid school or not, it doesn't make it a Sunni school; and Al-Azhar's modern day influence in general is probably debatable. ITAQALLAH 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animals

Opened discussion here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Islam and domestic violence

An article that you have been involved in editing, Islam and domestic violence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and domestic violence. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Assalamualaikum,

Just wondering, should the following words be always capitalized: ijma, qiyas, aql, sharia and ijtihad. I know that Qur'an is always capitalized ('qur'an' is wrong), whereas Hadith can be 'hadith'.Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Was-salam. The Qur'an, being the name of a scripture, is a proper noun. Hadith might not be, because hadith simply means report, and there are hundreds upon thousands of them. Other Arabic transcriptions I usually use in articles with lower case because they refer to general concepts (Sharia might be the odd exception) - but it might be useful to see what WP:AMOS says about this (else, one can ask on the talk page). ITAQALLAH 14:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Animals

It doesnt matter if we didnt "agree" to have that other thing rfC'd too. I'm simply asking for comments for others on this. I dont want to have to open 2 rfC's for the same exact issue. As you can see, I made it very nuetral so much so that you cant tell who made the request (which is how it should be). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue has long been closed, since September it seems. It isn't the topic of dispute currently, and if you believe it is, you should go back to discussing it on the talk page first. ITAQALLAH 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Closed it was because I didnt come back to it later. I could edit war and start putting it back in but I did the better thing i.e. RfC. Why would you protest to me doing an RfC over this? You and BlessSins thing it shouldnt be there. I and others think it should, therefore, the RfC. Pretty simple here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
RfC comes after discussion - which hasn't even occured for months. There was a clear consensus on the issue of quote-spamming, I count six editors on the talk page opposing it (Myself, Bless sins, Aminz, Mebabu, AA, Merzbow) with only two arguing for it (Yourself and Sefringle). That, and the subsequent lack of discussion clearly indicates the issue is closed. As I said, if you want to change the consensus, open a new section and re-start the debate- don't put it into another RfC. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, removed for now. You know very well that this issue comes up because the verses and hadiths in question are embarrassing for some. People will do anything to get them out; this is the truth of the matter. We use verses and hadiths in direct quotes everywhere else. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I find nothing embarrassing about any of them. I and others simply don't believe that the article is a dumping ground for every/any primary source available (WP:NOT). If its relevance or value is being discussed in secondary sources in the correct context, excellent. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If they werent embarrassing, I would see you and BlessSins removing instances of hadiths and verses where Islam is being shown in a positive light. Ofcourse whether or not they're embarrassing, is of secondary importance with regards to relevance in the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about positive or negative. If its being discussed by a secondary source in the appropriate context, then it's worthy of inclusion. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This is your own policy. Primary sources can be used. Yes explain below about #9 and 10 in Islam. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT. I have explained, and I am not going to waste anymore time on this. Please research the cites for yourself. ITAQALLAH 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you have to say about refs #9, 12, 13, 10, 17 on Islam? These are direct refs to the Quran and hadith, and we're using primary sources. The reason they're still there is they dont have an embarrassing value for some. If I was to go in and put a verse in article Islam you wouldnt like to be seen (like 5:33 or 4:34 etc), you'd remove it in 5 seconds claiming its OR. How do you explain your different standards? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I wrote that very section. All of these primary sources quoted have been discussed by the adjacent secondary sources (in direct connection with the etymology of "Islam") - in this case, that is the Encyclopedia of Islam article, as quoted in ref 11. I simply chose not to put EoI in each of the refs, leaving it to the end instead. ITAQALLAH 16:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
As for other uses of primary sources in that article - we went to great lengths to ensure that every primary source cited was traceable to a secondary source. In most cases, we provided the appropriate secondary source at the end of the passage or paragraph. ITAQALLAH 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets see if what you say is valid. Lets start with #9 and 10, the first two. Where is the linkage for these to another secondary source? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I just told you: it's all referenced to the Encyclopedia of Islam. I have also told you our method of citation in that article, so you can investigate the other citations yourself. ITAQALLAH 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
#9 and 10 (Quran verses) have nothing to do with #11 (Quran verses and EOI). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
How can I see what #11 says what you say its saying? Is there a link to the EOI? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly for 12 and 13. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do. The EoI discusses all of these verses, I have simply put the secondary cite at the end in citation 11. (EoI extract linked here) Now please stop wasting my time about this. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont see why you could not have mentioned the EOI as refs for 9 and 10. That gave the impression that EOI only applied to ref 11. In any case, in any case it is not forbidden to use primary sources, as long as we're not making any interpretation. This is what Wikipedia policy says. Although its better to use secondary sources, primary sources can also be used if secondary sources are not available and there's no analysis or interpretation. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe I did. Other people who were copyediting my text might have removed it. I already discussed your other comments on Aminz' talk page[1]. Primary sources can be used, but it's determined on a case-by-case basis, and it isn't a license to be quote-spamming. ITAQALLAH 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I'm saying, primary sources can be used with certain conditions. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women

Whats unreliable about this?

Fatma Katirici, a female Turkish imam in Amstersdam says "beating is degrading but if there's really no alternative, then it has to happen". <ref>The Caged Virgin By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, p. 4 (citation given for this quote in the book is: "NRC Handelsblad, July 8, 2002")</ref>

--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali's book is not a reliable source. Do you think it is? ITAQALLAH 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(And, by the way, is Katirici herself a reliable source?) ITAQALLAH 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Hirsi is a reliable source. Also, I don't see that Katirici is in anyway notable. Do you?Bless sins (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Explain why her book is not reliable for reporting someone else's statement, one that she may have heard with her own ears. Arrow740 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Unreliable sources cannot be used to make claims/attributions about third parties. Verify the original statement independently. Is Katirici herself a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The answer is that Hirsi Ali is a reliable source for statements in a discussion she is involved in her country. "According to" fixes the problem. Arrow740 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Several minutes ago you said the onus is on the editor who restores material to show it is reliable.[2]
Thus, it's double standards for you to demand "explain why her book is not reliable".Bless sins (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really, Arrow. If a source is unreliable, the last thing they can do is attribute statements to others, esp. when they may very well be their political/ideological opponents. "According to" wouldn't work, because Hirsi Ali isn't an authority. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaq, Ayaan is a notable person and a politician. Why should we consider her an unreliable source according to WP:RS? Also note that there was another actual citation as well from NRC Handelsblad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

George Galloway is also a notable person and a politician, I don't see your point. But anyway, the burden of proof is upon you to prove her reliability. That is unproven, as is the reliability of the person she quotes. ITAQALLAH 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

For this, can you supoprt your edit from WP:REF? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Author-date referencing is a standard notation format used throughout Wikipedia, as is maintaining a full bibliography in a separate section. See WP:HARV and WP:FN. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mo's wives

Here you removed information such as:

  • "Muhammad saw Zaynab scantily clad and fell in love with her"
  • "Muhammad ordered a man to torture Kinana"

Why's that? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The dubious story of Muhammad seeing Zaynab is still there. I think the second is of fringe relevance, which is why I removed it. Why are you asking? ITAQALLAH 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"More concise IMO" Itaqallah is edit-warring non-stop today. Maybe you follow the lead of Bless sins and myself to discuss this passage on the talk page instead of reverting with silly edit summaries? Arrow740 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring non-stop? Sounds like you. Silly edit summaries? Strange how to try tout me as supporting your version. ITAQALLAH 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you try that last sentence again? Is it a personal attack? Arrow740 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a personal attack. I said: It's strange how you try portraying me as being in agreement with your version. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it strange? Look at the history for the Zaynab article and then tell me. Arrow740 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You make a multifactorial revert citing me. Were this just about the one Watt passage, which is represented in both versions, then it would be a different story. Given all the other strange POV flying around, ("disturbed state of mind", for example), I think you know it's not as simple as you portray. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You should have checked more carefully. I made it clear to BS that you and I had agreed on the Watt passage. I didn't say you agreed to other material. Arrow740 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
An edit summary should really be reflective of the changes as a whole, instead of only one specific part. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good thing to have on record. Actually, it is all justified on the talk page you are invited to post on. Arrow740 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. On talk pages of these articles Arow740 pretends I'm disrupting consensus made between Itaqallah and Arrow. Yet here, Arrow is portraying Itaqallah as an "edit-warring" user, while claiming that all is fine between "Bless sins and myself [Arrow740]". The reality seems to be that Arrow has neither my support, nor Itaqallah's.Bless sins (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be picking out random words from my posts and then twisting them. This is a waste of your time. Arrow740 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Itaqallah, Mohammad being sexually attracted to his son's adopted wife although disgusting, is not dubious. Multiple people document it and and talk about it. The story about Kinana is not a fringe theory. It was documented by Ibn Ishaq as well as other people. I've added other sources for these stories. Please dont undo these edits. By the way, likewise your argument of hit to be used of beat is also a fringe theory, since no one uses Hit. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt, your personal opinions are of no relevance. The dubious story, and that's how Watt and many others regard it, is mentioned in both versions in the article. Also, please read my post again, I didn't say fringe theory. ITAQALLAH 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"Fringe relevance", you said? How come? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo vandalism

He has removed 3300 bytes of material from Islam with no justification. We may disagree on some of this material, but could you help combat vandalism here? I'm taking the fact that you stopped reverting as a sign of good faith. Arrow740 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be dragged into this mindless back-and-forthing. I agree with Tigeroo, this newly inserted material which I find highly contentious, especially for a featured article, should be removed until agreement is acheived over it. But three reverts isn't an entitlement. ITAQALLAH 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You should also know that I have not preferred Tigeroo's version of the jihad section over the version we developed. I am happy to restore it. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you've decided to stop this knee-jerk removal of sourced content. Anyone who removes massive amounts of material no doubt "finds it highly contentious:" that's not a valid reason for removal. The only guidelines and policies being violated are WP:3RR, WP:EW, and Wikipedia:Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow740 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the first two are being violated, by yourself primarily. You won't get content to stick just by inserting as much of it as you can. WP:VAND doesn't apply here. ITAQALLAH 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So Tigeroo has reverted 6 times, and you as many as I, yet I am primarily responsible. That's makes no sense. "You won't get content to stick" implies your belief that by edit warring you can exclude material without appeal to policies or guidelines, as you have made no attempt to do. This is an unproductive mindset. Arrow740 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unproductive mindset? Vexatiously spamming more and more tendentious content to lure people into reverting you fits that description exactly. ITAQALLAH 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I could just as easily call any guideline-driven additions of yours "spam" and revert. Do you see my point? Arrow740 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why did you continue to add more material (which I think you knew would be contentious) after my reverts which specifically requested discussion and proposal first? ITAQALLAH 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring every statement I am making here, and I am awaiting responses from you on the talk page. You have to be specific and adhere to editing guidelines. I am not required to ask you for permission before adding perfectly sourced material. You have been using "contentious" and such words as blanket excuses for reverts. Please stop this. Arrow740 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The last thing you should be doing is feigning ignorance about these incendiary and unbalanced edits. I am being specific, we have been discussing an example of this irresponsible approach over at Talk:Islam. Please answer the above question dated 00:24 4 January UTC. ITAQALLAH 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset>You're not being clear. That statement appears to be an attempt to avoid the issue I pointed out above it. Please try again. Arrow740 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. You said: "I could just as easily call any guideline-driven additions of yours "spam" and revert. Do you see my point?", and I replied, "Then why did you continue to add more material (which I think you knew would be contentious) after my reverts which specifically requested discussion and proposal first?". ITAQALLAH 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you intend your statement to respond to mine, but I'll just repeat that I am not required to ask you for permission before adding perfectly sourced material. You have been using "contentious" and such words as blanket excuses for reverts. Please stop this. Arrow740 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If I understood correctly, your point was that any "guideline-driven addition" could be reverted as spam. I said- actually, there's a difference between doing that and repeatedly adding incendiary material despite requests to propose them on talk first. You don't need my permission for anything, but you'd be much better off discussing first when you realise your edits are being reverted, instead of inserting even more material. ITAQALLAH 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My point was that you were wrong to revert such material as spam. Nice use of the passive voice again; it's one of your favorite techniques. Please propose an alternate treatment on the talk page for Islam as you have been requested. Arrow740 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't, because it was. ITAQALLAH 00:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. Please read, WP:SPAM, perhaps for the first time. Arrow740 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You know I'm not talking about WP:SPAM. ITAQALLAH 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Junk lying around

There's a lot of unsourced junk lying around relating to Islamic dietary laws. This I had cleaned up but it appears there's other articles which have the same problem, or which should all just be merged together to keep it sourced and in one place e.g.:

I think these should all be merged, or atleast some of them. What do you think? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Halal and Haraam are highly notable concepts. Please note that they are not limited to Dhabihah, but are applied across jurisprudence. As for Dhabihah, I guess one could merge it with Islamic dietary laws, but what is your rationale behind merging/deleting this article?Bless sins (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Islamic dietry laws has 4 lines and 2 references (after I deleted all the OR). It should be merged from or to some other article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise a valid general point that some of these articles are unnecessarily forked out. Haram/Halal/Istihlal etc. all refer to Shari' concepts, not necessarily just food. The article Halal, at least, must make this distinction. Dhabihah should probably be discussed as a section under Halal (it depends on whether we can discuss the issue well in two paragraphs or so, or whether it requires a separate article. I am currently inclined towards the former). Other articles like 'Islam and alcohol', 'Islam and pork' etc. should really just be merged into 'Islamic dietary laws' I think. It depends whether we want 'Islamic dietary laws' to be the main article discussing Islamic food regulations in detail (which I think it should), or whether we should just leave most of it in the Halal article. Again, I incline towards the former. I'll take a look at other articles later. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you guys then to consolidate this material into one or a few good articles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You may want to keep an eye on Arrow740

"These invasions were characterized by genocide and cultural obliteration.[1]" is his most recent contribution to Wikipedia; it's in the lead of this article. I am already tired of following him around. He didn't get his way in the Islam article, so now he wants to push his POV edits in the related one. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It may be necessary to bring this POV-mining behaviour to the attention of the wider community if it continues. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of Islam

Islam has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)