User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Some correction on Physical appearance.

We should fix the disambiguation link of Mandarin to Mandarin (bureaucrat) which means bureaucrat scholar. However the word currently edited refers to Mandarin Chinese. It was to legitimize Genghis Khan as a Chinese emperor

Another thing to me really doesn't make sense is claiming the portrait as arbitrary rendering. Kublai Khan was born from 1215, Genghis khan died in 1227. There is at least 11-12 years of them meeting eachother. Kublai Khan would know what Genghis Khan looked like, so how can his portrait be just a essentially arbitrary rendering.- Vamlos (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right the disambiguation link should change - though I'd still keep the word 'sage', as used by Weatherford. As to the other point, perhaps 'arbitrary rendering' is the wrong phrasing (not mine), but the broader point is that none of the renderings were made, in person, while Genghis Khan was alive, so none are first hand, and also, none of the artistic styles from the period are particularly naturalistic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've replied back on the talk page. Even if none of the rendering were made in person, Kublai was still 11-12 years old when Genghis Khan Khan died in 1227. There was even a special recorded occasion on Genghis performing ceremony to Kublai who was 9 years old than.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manscaped has been accepted

Manscaped, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Temujin (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Temujin (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temujin (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Genghis Khan AFD

If this means you are convinced by my sources then why are you not withdrawing the nomination? And if you are not convinced why have you not stated in what way they fall short of requirements? SpinningSpark 12:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought I would reserve further judgement and wait a little while to see if any other editors decide to join the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:WDAFD. SpinningSpark 12:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I do get the process. I have withdrawn a nomination before, but I am still a little undecided and would like to hear from others. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whaling in the Faroe Islands

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whaling in the Faroe Islands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whaling in the Faroe Islands

The article Whaling in the Faroe Islands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whaling in the Faroe Islands for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap - Is this: "Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands" the right way to do this? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I hardly ever do DYK. There's a tool that makes it easy and the folks there are v. friendly, ask Cwmhiraeth if any issues.v Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! @Cwmhiraeth: sorry to bother you, but can I ask if this is correct, or if I was meant to copy the template to another page? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well the DYK nomination is fine, and someone will review it in due course, but I can tell you in advance that the ALT1 hook is too long, being 238 characters when the limit is 200. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'd seen the 200-character limit, but didn't double check! Thanks for the heads up. Will review. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RM

I don't want to bludgeon the discussion at your RM so I'm having a separate discussion with you here. What do you think are the advantages of "Concubinage and female slavery in the Muslim world" vs "History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world"? I think the latter is much more specific. The former could be misinterpreted to include forms of modern slavery, unfortunately, much of which is completely unrelated to the topic.VR _talk 12:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think adding the word history really helps you get around that problem - history can ultimately be interpreted as proceeding right up until the present day - even yesterday in history. I think the better way at differentiating medieval and modern slavery is to improve the content on abolition and properly define concepts like modern slavery, so that those sections can be stubs that lead to more appropriate articles covering such themes in adequate depth. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, yo're right about the "History of" part. But "slave concubinage" refers to something very specific in Muslim history and there's no way that can be misinterpreted to mean debt bondage, prison labor, child marriage or the exploitation of migrant workers (all of which happens in the Muslim world, unfortunately).VR _talk 13:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be clear enough from the terminology across the piece under a heading of "female slavery and concubinage" that modern slavery is not the emphasis - concubinage is a legal antithesis of marriage, so the very suggestion of rolling child marriage into the article is absurd. I say modern slavery needs to be properly defined because medieval slavery involved the legally sanctioned ownership of another person: modern slavery never has. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

But what's wrong with "slave concubinage"? The sources use "concubine" term so broadly that it includes every female slave with whom the master had sexual relations with, but if there was never any sexual component the term concubine wouldn't apply. Also, debt bondage type slavery isn't modern and has existed throughout history (Debt bondage#History).VR _talk 13:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only seem a handful of sources use slave concubinage specifically, mainly because concubinage in a medieval context already MEANT slave concubinage. As for just using concubinage - while I think this works for the Islamic Views piece, I do see the point of view that concubinage could be seen as WP:EUPHEMISM for slavery. Also, concubinage is quite an unusual word that lacks the WP:TITLE "Recognizability" factor of slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason that "slave concubinage" is a good term: it has the recognizability factor of slave without creating issues that "female slavery" introduces. As for sources using it, there are plenty[1][2].VR _talk 14:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Look, I totally agree that it WOULD be a good term, but I still honestly don't see it used particularly prevalently in the sources. The terms slave and concubine are often used in close combination, but as the set phrase "slave-concubine" only rarely. (From what I see) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question: download copy of the book (most likely illegal) and the search it. Depending on the program you use to open it, it can give you string search statistics.VR _talk 17:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Another thing: the longer a discussion the less likely it is to attract external participation. I don't recommend responding to every comment someone makes. Just my opinion.VR _talk 14:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as space is being wasted outside of the move discussion, I don't really mind. But you're right that it does seem like certain discussions could go round in circles indefinitely. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but I think that the tables are incredibly valuable in the RM. I'm thinking of pasting them in there somehow without taking up a lot of markup text. Maybe I'll insert anchors or something.VR _talk 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Whaling in the Faroe Islands at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I accidentally found something that might be useful to you

I was experimenting with Google search terms to see how effective it was to search for concubine and ISIS whilst filtering out articles about ancient Egypt. And I accidentally found Mirza, Younus Y. (1 February 2017), "'The Slave Girl Gives Birth to Her Master': Female Slavery from the Mamlūk Era (1250–1517) to the Islamic State (2014– )" (PDF), Journal of the American Academy of Religion It might be useful to you. I have not read the article, only the abstract.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I'm curious if you read that source. I'm only asking because I did and I found the title of it to be quite misleading. The article is actually about a debate regarding a hadith, and whether this hadith is literally talking about female slaves or it is metaphorically referring to child/parent relationships. The article does not in any way attempt to cover the history of female slavery from 1250 to 2014. VR _talk 13:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No I have not read it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait

Hey,

I saw that you created Concubinage in the Muslim world. I think we should wait for the outcome of the RM before we go on creating or moving any articles? For now, I think lets redirect that to either Concubinage#Middle East or Sexual slavery in Islam. We can even request the RM be closed by admin by posting it to WP:CR. But lets wait for the outcome first. Thanks, VR _talk 11:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The RM discussion is clearly not going anywhere at this point. I fundamentally agree with Andrewa that these two subjects are potentially overlapping but not identical. Sexual slavery is more than just concubinage, and concubinage is more than just sexual slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, the RM discussion will need to be closed as something. Hopefully it will be more than just vote counting.

What is the difference between "sexual slavery" and "concubinage" in the Muslim context? VR _talk 11:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because informal sexual slavery clearly happened in contexts far outside of Islamic law, including outside of the mandated boundaries of the institution of concubinage, including in the form of pimp and prostitution arrangements, while concubinage could also include the elective participation of free women in the context of at least two major empires, under both the Timurids and Ottomans. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would one associate things that happened far beyond the bounds of Islamic law as "in Islam". I mean on one hand you're right, we have: Sex trafficking in Kazakhstan, Sex trafficking in Kyrgyzstan, Sex trafficking in Malaysia etc. But there is nothing "Muslim" about this. It has nothing to do with Islam, and I have never come across sources that tie this to Islam or consider this a Muslim practice.VR _talk 11:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? All of the examples I mentioned were within the confines of Islamicate periods. Prostitution is common in all societies. There is ample evidence in Ottoman society [3], and ultimately, where you have prostitution, trade analogous to sexual trafficking almost certainly happened in most medieval empires. The sexual slavery article should still be re-titled to say "in the Muslim world", not "in Islam", as this is clear mislabelling, but there's no solving the wider problems without consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused here - the RM discussion was clearly in favour of shifting the article to the phrasing "in the Muslim world", even Mcphurphy agreed to this, but here it seems like you're arguing that it should only be what's in Islam, not what's in the Muslim world. You can't have it both ways. Either you're covering the history of a geography or the history of a religion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In line with Nishidani's points about classification, if anything, I'm now more in favour of renaming that piece as "female slavery in the Muslim world" again, because at least that would account for the huge overlap in female slaves for general purposes and specific purposes, and generally de-POV it away from being a lurid account of big bad Muslims from ages past. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest accepting that that article is just too broad to be redefined in narrow terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What I was in favor of was an article on concubinage in the Muslim world. Because the concubinage of the Ottoman empire bore strong similarities to those of, say, Mughal Empire. This is due to a shared theological/legal understanding of the concept. But what was similar between prostitution in one part of the Muslim world vs another? It is like having an article on Theft in the Muslim world etc, its not a coherent topic.VR _talk 12:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing currently in the article about prostitution (AFAIK).VR _talk 12:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That would probably because Mcphurphy was never working particularly diligently towards creating actual encyclopedic content - there's loads of it on the main concubinage page. I guess it should probably be moved across, since it specifically states that these practices bore no resemblance to either marriage or concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about nikah mutah? Sure that looks like prostitution, but it is not sexual slavery at all. Also calling it prostitution is very POV and offensive to Shias. Also it is only specific to Shias. Sunnis (80-90% of Muslims) don't practice this.VR _talk 12:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that and then all the obvious Ottoman prostitution - even if this material isn't in any of the articles, we should clearly be considering it when we contemplate how these articles should be scoped. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I know full well how much and in what context Iran's loophole is used. It shouldn't be offensive to Shias outside of Iran, because it's clearly a very obvious form of legalised prostitution unique to Iran (where men and women can get "married" for just an hour). Speaking frankly, it is prostitution in everything but name - and that's not necessarily even a bad thing, given that prostitution occurs in almost all societies anyway. Legalising it is good thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikah mutah and Ottoman prostitution are two very different things. Also, I don't think nikah mutah has anything to do with slavery or sexual slavery.VR _talk 12:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

random break

This, incidentally, is why I originally suggested female slavery AND concubinage together (again based on Nishidani's suggestion), because I could see that the article used sources and material on both extensively and I saw the potential problems of editors coming and looking at it during an RM discussion and thinking: Hang on, this seems broader than that. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As for female slavery, are there sources that treat (non-concubinage) female slavery in the Muslim world? Pretty much every source I come across treats female slaves as concubines or concubines in waiting. Also, why the focus on trying to tie all Muslim practices together? Most sources focus on a specific time period or region at a time.VR _talk 12:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, concubinage was an institution, so there WERE distinct similarities across empires and ages. Because of the spread of the Abbasid empire from Spain to Iran, a huge geographical area was saturated with the same institutions and similar mindsets, so the analogies are plain. If this piece only contains sources on females slaves used for sex, then I think you will find that this is by design - mainly because people haven't been looking for them. Obviously there were female domestic servants in these empires numbering many times the number of those used purely for entertainment. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Also if the female slaves are being used only for domestic labor (nothing sexual) then how are they different from ordinary slaves? Ordinary slavery is already covered at History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR _talk 12:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not much, except that female slaves have wombs, so it gets complicated. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The article I have created is simply a true counterpart to Islamic views on concubinage - why did you lump all Islamic views together? Aren't these also different in different times and places? At some point, you have to group. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lumping views and cultural practices are very different things. Christian views on alcohol lumps all different Christian views together. But List of alcoholic drinks in Christian-majority countries would not be an encyclopedic topic.VR _talk 12:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, that is kinda what List of alcoholic drinks ultimately works out as. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(that's funny) But the list includes China, Myanmar, Mongolia, India etc. Ok, consider Christian views on suicide. Its ok to lump all those views together. But it would be weird to have Suicide in Christian-majority countries.VR _talk 12:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I see this as an opportunity to define concubinage for a major world civilization, in line with the material you added on anthropological viewpoints, just like there is Concubinage in China, which, needless to say, was quite often not one country or empire in the past. There are clearly parallels between concubinage arrangements in different parts of the Muslim world, not least in the similar religious justifications, and the use of the same terminology, such as jarya, surriya, qiyan, etc. If that article alone expands to an absurd degree, then it can always be split. There is certainly already an incredibly strong case for a standalone Concubinage in the Ottoman Empire article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Look, we have an article on Concubinage, we have anthropologists saying Islamic concubinage is in its own category, and we have Islamic views on concubinage - seems like an article discussing how all of this intersects is warranted - it tells you a lot that I had to gather scattered material from three separate articles to compile it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that concubinage in Muslim world is a valid topic. But I don't agree that sexual slavery in the Muslim world or sex trafficking in the Muslim world are valid topics.VR _talk 12:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sexual slavery is a terrible topic - but female slavery in the Muslim world would be fine, and in fact, this could actually encompass a far more balanced overall view of female slave conditions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Or if it is going to stay as sexual slavery, those that want that title should show their encyclopedic good faith by actually adding some content about the less stereotypical male sexual slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources that treat "female slavery in the Muslim world" as a coherent topic? VR _talk 12:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Well a little commonsense has to weave its way into the process at some point. Slavery can be divided by gender and many of the sources do state things about the situation for female slaves specifically. But for an utterly specific example, here you go: [4] Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read that source? It is not about slavery in the Muslim world! It is about how ISIS misappropriated some medieval texts.VR _talk 12:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of that article is really badly named. Its doesn't even talk about slavery during Mamluk's. It talks about a hadith that was being discussed by Ibn Rajab (who lived during the Mamluk era), and the debate on whether that hadith is about women slaves or not.VR _talk 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The intended key takeaway was actually the appeal to commonsense. I don't see why you are arguing against the article I created - it is essentially what a boiled-down Sexual slavery in Islam might have looked like if re-scoped. If your only objection is that it weakens the case for that article now being renamed (which I think was unlikely anyway), then that's not a very progressive approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good point about why I'm arguing against you. Its bureaucratic (but still important). Basically, assumption is that "sexual slavery in Islam" shouldn't exist, and if most (all?) of the content there should be moved to "Concubinage in Muslim world". But this creates an attribution problem, as history is lost. Which is why we move an article to a new title as opposed to copying and pasting it into a new article.VR _talk 12:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't think most of that material should be moved - a lot of it is a useless sources slurry that blurs the lines between slavery, female slavery, concubinage and other random things. I have already boiled down what the concubinage article needs from three separate articles, and it was possibly not even mainly from the rather terrible Sexual slavery in Islam text. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That sexual slavery in Islam should be deleted? VR _talk 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I think it should be definitely renamed "in the Muslim world", possibly renamed "female slavery" and then probably just be left to stew, because it will continue to be a horrendous flashpoint of unencyclopedic editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not like there's a shortage of editing that needs doing on other pages, like Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Imperial Harem, Cariye, etc. - most of these need tonnes of work too. I'd rather do this. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On balance, I think that possible slightly more material came from Concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I won't deny that its a horrendous flashpoint of encyclopedic editing. That's for sure.VR _talk 13:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, if its such a bad flashpoint, why not delete it? VR _talk 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously because you'll never get consensus for that, because too many people think lurid coverage of medieval slavery practices is hugely important. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

AfDs are decided based on strength of argument, not vote counting, so I do have my hopes. Also, can we at least let this RM conclude? It should only be a few more days. If the RM ends up with "no consensus" regarding the scope of sexual slavery in Islam, then no one can accuse you of making a fork of an article whose scope noone really knows.VR _talk 13:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Whaling in the Faroe Islands

On 26 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whaling in the Faroe Islands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the practice of whaling in the Faroe Islands dates back to the early days of Norse settlement during the Viking Era? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whaling in the Faroe Islands. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Whaling in the Faroe Islands), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Random

• Thanks for the humor on that talk page full of conflicts. You've made me smile. PS, I post so often on your talk page, you should create a dedicated section "Posts by VR" here so I can just post there.VR _talk 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hahaha, although grim humour. I'm only half laughing ... and half just cursing the Wikiverse. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• [5] VR _talk 15:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Great Disney intro - tempted to create a page for "Agrabah" now, see how long it can survive. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  You know what the sad thing is? Someone on wikipedia said that "we have more articles on a fictional universe than we have on some countries in Africa". See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias.VR _talk 16:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  You only have to look at the list of Turkish Grand Mosques to see this - each of these entries is a cathedral-class place of worship with centuries of history, and yet the average parish church in the West has more coverage than most of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Part of this is not wikipedia's fault. There's so little literary output from Africa and the Muslim world. In America, every little town has a newspaper, which is a reliable source. But in developing countries, a town or village might have a facebook page instead, or worse a whatsapp group, which will not constitute a RS.

  But part of it is. Some of the best newspapers from developing countries barely qualify as RS. Iran has one of the highest scientific and cultural output in the Muslim world but because of their government repression we don't consider their sources reliable, even for boring local stuff.VR _talk 16:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Didn't know that about Iran sources ... sounds like a very specific US-based bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Like I'm not saying Iranian sources should be considered RS for international events. They shouldn't be, they represent the POV of the Iran government. But if they're reporting local, uncontroversial stuff that should be OK. Or they should be considered reliable for the POV of Iran government with attribution.VR _talk 16:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Historic AfD

A recently closed AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)) was historic for two reasons. First is that it is the largest ever AfD in wikipedia's history. Second is that me and Grufo both voted (roughly) on the same side.

Jokes aside, lets read the two pertinent paragraphs:

The principal argument for deletion is that the article collects together incidents of mass killing by communist regimes that reliable sources normally treat individually, not together under the umbrella of "communist mass killings". Wikipedia editors are not permitted to 'synthesize' disparate bodies of information in this way, because it is considered original research that violates our commitment to verifiability and a neutral point of view. Those in favour of deletion also contended that the individual incidents covered in the article can be—and often already are—more appropriately covered in individual articles (e.g. Cambodian genocide); that the criteria for inclusion in this article is unclear; and that the present state of article is generally low quality and has remained so for many years, despite repeated discussion of its shortcomings. They generally considered the arguments for keeping the article to be undermined by canvassing, subjective assertions lacking a grounding in policy, and unfounded accusations of bad faith.

The principal argument for keeping the article is that the topic meets the 'general notability guideline', our basic criteria for including a topic in Wikipedia as a standalone article. They contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight. In rebuttal of the arguments for deletion, editors in favour of keeping the article argued that it is normal for coverage of related topics (i.e. the individual incidents included in this article) to be duplicated across related articles; that if the title is problematic, it can be renamed rather than deleted; and that issues with the quality of the current version can be addressed through other processes. Many other points were raised (that deletion of the article has already been discussed, that a lot of work went into writing it, that if this article is deleted others should be too, that it has a high readership, that the deletion nomination is allegedly ideologically motivated, or an attempt at censorship) but we did not consider these to align with established policies and guidelines.

What this strongly suggests is that individually notable events can't be used to create an "umbrella" article - unless there are reliable sources that treat these events in a cohesive fashion. What do you take from this? VR _talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is even worse than that: List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - it contains some truly stupid and sweeping statements, but I imagine you're referring to concubinage. I agree there is a hint of synth, but it's broadly a cohesive topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well in order to show that we'd need multiple sources give in-depth coverage. What are those? VR _talk 07:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you read "I Led 3 Lives" by Herbert A. Philbrick (1952)? I got a second-hand copy through a well-known internet bookshop. It explains how communists work covertly to try to achieve their goals.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: no I never read that. But I have heard stories about Soviet sleeper cells in America, I'm not sure how true they are. But I don't doubt that Communists (and others) would work covertly to get what they want.VR _talk 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Modifying RM

Hey Iskandar,

I really don't think you should be modifying the original RM[6] after nearly a dozen have voted on it, including a majority in support. Because their vote then becomes ambiguous, they may have supported your original RM but may or may not support your modified RM. I also don't think its appropriate to call everyone back to a huge discussion and get them to offer their vote again. If you want to change your own vote, you can definitely do so, as can anyone else.VR _talk 13:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is almost nothing in that article that actually talks about non-concubine female slavery (domestic labor etc).VR _talk 13:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. There is loads of content that talks about female slaves in an almost entirely generic manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you give me examples of female domestic labor mentioned in that article? VR _talk 13:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean specific examples of domestic labour, just generic talk about female slaves, like the whole marriage bit, and the forced conversion bit, which is more of a generic slavery topic too. I also think that a lot of these topics might be better couched within a broader conversation on female slavery, much as Female slavery in the United States does, since the concept is fluid. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Right but if it is general, meaning it could apply equally to male and female slaves, then it would belong at History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR _talk 14:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There was not a single vote for the original title of History of female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world, so modifying this is somewhat moot, since no-one has actually responded one way or another to this. The whole RM is an unresolvable mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(I wasn't really calling anyone back to vote again, except maybe Bookku, who hasn't voted at all I don't think.) Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There are many, many votes that said "support". Now, what exactly they are supporting becomes ambiguous. And if its a mess, can we please let an admin close it, rather than modifying it? VR _talk 13:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of the votes for support are for something different than for the original title, mostly for History of concubinage in the Muslim world. Your vote may be the only ones that refers back to the original suggestion. If it has two votes, it is dead. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Just consider my vote: "...I think Iskandar323's title is better than the current one." Now my vote is ambiguous. How is the closer to know what I mean by "Iskandar323's title"?? VR _talk 13:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• I understand that you are frustrated by lack of progress in RM, so am I. So lets do this: 1) revert the RM back to the original one that everyone voted on (you are free to add additional comments, change your own vote, but not change the original RM), 2) Post the RM at Wikipedia:Closure requests so an admin can go through and close it. Does that sound reasonable? VR _talk 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please could you revert this edit. If you want to say that you have either
(1) changed your mind and no longer agree with the proposal
(2) would be content with a different solution
that can go as a separate post. But changing the original proposal after 19 days makes a mess of the whole thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ok, I've undone it. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Iskandar, I really appreciate this. Now as promised, let me add this to WP:CR, but before that I'll quickly pop by Wikipedia talk:Requested moves and ask if its ok to list a RM there. Thanks once again.VR _talk 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Step 1 done.VR _talk 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • So someone says to wait just a bit longer before making a closure request. I think the current relisting will elapse in 2 days at which point I'll try to remember to immediately list this at WP:CR (if I forget you can list it there).VR _talk 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it would be better to leave it so that the RM has been open a month before asking for closure. Bookku said six months (12:52, 8 November 2021).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I definitely disagree with 6 months. I also think it might be good to post it at WP:CR. It takes 2-3 weeks (sometimes longer) for someone to get around to it from there and we're almost at a month anyway. But I don't want to unilaterally do that if you guys don't think its a good idea. May I? VR _talk 06:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Please wait until at least 11 December. I do not mind if you wait until January.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Dec 11 it is.VR _talk 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Number of new contributors to the RM per week:

• 10-16 Nov 21 - 9
• 17-23 Nov 21 - 5
• 24-30 Nov 21 - 2
• 01-07 Dec 21 - 2 (so far)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Did you notice the contribution history of the last person to !vote? The last time there was an RM on that title, at least one !vote turned out to be from a sock.VR _talk 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I liked this post by SpacemanSpiff-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before "Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment removal notification

Hello I have removed your violation at WP:SPI is not allowed per WP:BANEX. Shrike (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: How is a sockpuppet investigation related? It is an atopical discussion of user behaviour. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I see in the edit comments that you have referred to the WP:BANEX policy on WP:AE mentions. Is the fact that a user that made statements about me in an WP:AE might be a sock not "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume that removing the WP:AE mentions referenced in your edit comment resolves the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but you still refer to conversion about regarding edits about the conflict moreover as Icewhiz one the editing area was the I/P conflict his SPI page is too broadly construed covered by you topic ban I ask you to remove your post entirely Shrike (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Very well. I have struck out my comments (since it seems Selfstudier already responded). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw the strike at SPI. Although I am not convinced that this is a tban breach, I suggest discretion is better part of valor, Iskandar.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Iplikçi Mosque

On 11 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iplikçi Mosque, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 13th-century Iplikçi Mosque in Konya, Turkey, contains a mihrab with traces of mosaic tiling which is the oldest extant example of Anatolian Seljuk art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iplikçi Mosque. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Iplikçi Mosque), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello? I edited the Ogedei Khan page. I think this fix is more consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilegchuluun (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bilegchuluun: Hi, yes, I can't see any issues with your more recent edits. I hope you got the point about caption/list punctuation in the WP:MOS guidelines. More generally, it's great that you are interested in detailed editing and cleaning up grammar issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please sign

Please sign this edit (and it makes a good point) TIA Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Hi, what edit was that? I can't figure out which one it is about, and that link is wrong. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this one? VR _talk 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one! Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite right, that was a copy-paste bungle. But Vice regent has the correct diff. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa @Vice regent Ok, done - thanks both! Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have made a typo or miscalculation, please could you correct it.

In this edit you wrote "still had a consensus of 18 to 11 votes". But surely there were only 20 editors expressing an opinion (ignoring the closer), or have I got that wrong? If you have made a typo or miscalculation, please could you correct it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I based that on the table compiled at the end of the discussion. I believe some editors expressed support for either, but perhaps the math is wrong. I've removed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Random part2

I see you've found this article! Enjoy reading the talk page and know that this was subject to a recent full arbitration case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics.VR _talk 16:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh and happy, happy new year, my friend! VR _talk 16:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived by mistake Connirae Andreas

I did not mean to archive our discussion on the talk page for Connirae Andreas. I meant to add to it. (I think that "one click archive" might be too easy for me to make mistakes with). However, I am now stuck as I don't know how to undo that step so we can continue the conversation. If you can help with this, I would appreciate it. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I've reverted the edit and cleared the archive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the added work. I will comment there next. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, Iskandar323,

I just took care of several articles involving Sufi beliefs that you PROD'd. I don't know if you are familiar with Sufism but I came across this unsourced (well, it has one dead link) article, Sufi Order Ināyati Silsila and wondered whether or not you thought it would be a likely candidate for proposed deletion.

Hope all is well with you in the new year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, thanks for taking care of those, and for pointing out that other page. Yes, another good candidate. Most of these articles were created in 2007 and haven't been improved upon much since. They all pertain to the rather confusing subject of Western Sufism, covered by a confused article itself that seems to conflate the advent of Sufism in general in the West with the arrival of certain specific religious groups, such as the Inayati Order, that were at the center of efforts to create Universal Sufism - seemingly some sort of modernising movement aimed at globalising and, by some accounts, de-Islamifying Sufism - in the early 20th century. It seems these ambitions ultimately fell well short of their intended, lofty aspirations. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and you tagging the article. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Peoples

Thanks for your high-quality edits to this list! One thing: I noticed it looked like you removed some information relating to the specific geography/islands of where these people live. Don't you think that is relevant information? KaerbaqianRen^💬 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@KaerbaqianRen I mainly removed the geography where the geography is already obvious from names like "X Islanders", or the name of the people's name contains the name of established countries, as with the examples of Tongans and Vanuatuans, just as how we wouldn't necessarily explain where a German was from. Obviously these names are also linked, so people can link through to these peoples and where they are from. My priority was breaking down the linguistic structure that had been imposed on the list, presumably either by someone with a linguistic background or copying a linguistic source. It was making it even more confusing! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Inayat Khan Edit

Hello, Unfortunately, your edits to the Inayat Khan page have not improved the article. You deleted key information and added uncited materials. If you wish to move the bibliography, that is fine. The content of the article, however, should not be altered without discussion on the talk page. If you would like to make changes, please introduce them on the talk page next time. ~~Mirmughal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mirmughal: You do not decided what information is key or not. I brought the article better into line with the sources, tagging parts where further citation is needed. Since you are reverting me, you should be articulating this on the talk page first. Reversion should not be used to undo normal edits unless they are obviously vandalism or disruptive. I note that you are a new editor that has worked almost exclusively on this page? Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject, or are you a follower? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]: This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit if they believe information is key or not. You deleted well-sourced information without discussion. If you wish to delete such material in the future, please put it on the talk page. All that is relevant is the accuracy and salience of material an editor posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirmughal (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mirmughal: I see you did not answer the question about conflict of interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, please reference the last sentence of my previous comment. --Mirmughal — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mirmughal This is not all that is relevant. Conflicts of interest are very relevant to editing on Wikipedia, see WP:COI, and you should disclose a conflict of interest if you have one, see WP:COIEDIT. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, I recommend contacting the conflict of interest noticeboard if you believe this to be a legitimate concern. ~~ Mirmughal — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mirmughal I'm now concerned about how you: A) clearly dodge straightforward questions, and, B) know so much about noticeboards with theoretically only 94 edits on Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You haven't disclosed any previous accounts. Should you? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, The notice board was mentioned on the article about COI that you recommended. ~~ Mirmughal — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mirmughal Yes, I know. I already checked. And yet that is still a very lawyer-y and not Wiki novice response, and still with the dodging of all the actual questions at hand. "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:37) ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:STYLEVAR

Hi Iskandar323! I was already afraid that this might happen.

Of course you disagree with removing {{refbegin}} & {{refend}}: you added them to the article in the first place. I also understand your argument about it: on small screens smaller fonts may be more helpful. I would counter that by saying that full bibliographical references are primarily relevant in situations where people are doing actual research, which they would be more likely to do on a computer with a large screen (disclosure: I work with a big fat 32″ screen most of the time).

But none of that is relevant. MOS:STYLEVAR reads:

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.

There is nothing particular about this article making smaller or larger fonts in the references list more appropriate. It's a purely personal preference. This means that there is no substantial reason for the change. Articles just take the style chosen by whoever first created the reflist. At times, editors may come to a casual consensus about changing such things at the talk page. More often, some editor changes it and is not challenged. It is, however, not acceptable to try to enforce such a personal preference. You made bold edit, you were challenged, and from there MOS:STYLEVAR applies: one should not reinstate purely stylistic changes not covered by the MoS.

This is a known thing on Wikipedia. Every editor stumbles it a few times before getting it right. Would you please self-revert? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)