User talk:Matt57/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Islamofascism

Fine, I should have waited, I looked at the article before (didnt edit anything though) a while back, I could have sweared it wasnt part of fascism then, but times change, sorry for going straight into it.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive box

Noticed your archive box template is busted (the one with July and August 2007 in redlinks). ^Avruchtalk 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Username

Im not trying to be a sockpuppet, but I would rather just start this new one as I managed to get my signature as my real name, and would rather remain at least partially anonymous, I dont think I edited the article on Israel with a username but I think I have done with a IP, (changing what I originally wrote, cos im more sure of it) the IP I mainly edited under was the IP I used when I was abroad, as I think I mainly did the edits in one week or so. I more just looked at what other people had written earlier and made one or two points (although I cant remebr waht about, but I can remeber the incivility on both sides of the argument), but nothing really big. Also I would rather not get to involved in the Israel because, as you may have seen, I have a tendency to rant when something gets on my whick, and there isnt any point in irritating yourself.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However as far as I know Im only using this account to make edits, so it dosent really matter anyway.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW im happy to change my singature if thats what you want, but im not familiar with changing my username, I know it sounds neccessary but do you feel its really neccessary to go through a (presumably) longer process for not much reason that I can see.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I changed my signature to my initals,I think I used the user Rob,G,P,A before, but did the bulk of any edits on talk pages as an anon. R.G.P.A (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it sounds like copping out, but I have to go im afraid, I will be back on later and will clarify for you if I can, but my edits were not substantial, and I cannot remeber all the Ip's I have edited under, I will try and find some though.R.G.P.A (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant Rob.G.P.A (I think) sorry I accidentally turned my signature into my real life name, however, and did not know at the time how to reverse it, and as I have reason to be worried about my security dont really want to disclose it on this page, although it has the initals R.A. Ill try and give you a few edits that I made, or my account made but youll orobably appreciuite that since I may well have been suing a different IP and the edits wer eup to two years ago it might be hard to find them (especially since they werent [articularly big all of the time). Although a christian I also announce to you that I am a fello pastafarian.R.G.P.A (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia

There is no evidence that Eurabia is a reality, infact Eurabia is more of an allegation. Do you see a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid anywhere on Israel?Bless sins (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm presenting to you a precedent. "Islam in Europe" is a reality. "Eurabia" is a theory, at best, plain fiction at worst. "Eurabia" may be related to other theories of the sort, but not to reality. By linking Eurabia, you are asserting that it is true, which is POV.Bless sins (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Me? what about you?

I saw this comment.[1]

It's pretty interesting. Let me help you in collecting evidence against me. Bless sins (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The following are my major contributions to wikipedia in the past one week.

• Shiva, reviewed the article for GA status.
• Sources of sharia, previously a completely unsourced article, I have rewritten, sourced, and wikified 3/4 of the article (I haven't gotten to the last quarter yet). Note the article size.
• Hilf al-Fudul, wrote an entire article (a 20 fold increase in size), the article is now comprehensive.
• Islamic economic jurisprudence, major additions to this article, about a 30% increase in content in 5 days.
• Islamic astronomy, tidy up the article for a new assesment (though my contributions are dwarfed in comparison to those by Jagged85).
• Gaza, made additions and organized the history section.
• List of mosques, format the vast majority of the list, removing non-notable entries, finding more notable ones.

I urge you, Matt57, to go forth and start an RfC against me. Otherwise, stop making empty threats.Bless sins (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All this doesn't help the fact that you consistently remove relevant sourced material. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: what have you done, that is comparable to the above? what has Arrow740 done? In anycase, are you going to file the RfC against me or not?Bless sins (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'll do. All I know that you've been removing relevant sourced material and revert warring over it. I'm not aware of what Arrow has done. Even if thats true, that doesnt give you a license to do the same. Whats wrong is wrong and should stop. Our job is not to login every day and start revert warring. This is not how its supposed to be (obviously). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what I'll do." Why don't you, instead of making threats of filing an RfC against me, start making some good articles? I assure you, you will be much more respected for creating good articles than for making threats against me.Bless sins (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, whats the use of me making some good articles when you're likely to revert them all out as soon as I put them in. This environemnt is not conducive to making new articles and I'm not kidding about any 'threats'. You know yourself that you login and you start reverting everything. That has to stop and I will think about whats the way to investigate this in the best way. Please ignore my 'threats' if thats what you see them as. They're not of any consequence. Just keep doing what you think is right. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo is vandalizing the Islam article, he's at his 6th revert with no talk page justification. Could you help combat this vandalism? Arrow740 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologize, I dont know enough about the sources being used to know whats going on at Islam. Looks like a number of issues in that edit. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. You can't go around recruiting people for your cause.Bless sins (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BlessSins, I'm not impressed with anything you say about other users. You've defended Kirbytime sock puppets a couple of times. I've told you that wont go well with what you do here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

Using primary sources to push a certain POV is considered a violation of WP:NOR. If you want to push the argument "Muhammad being sexually attracted to Zaynab", you need reliable secondary sources.Bless sins (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Watt mentions it and I put in the primary source for that. Its something that the secondary source has confirmed already, sorry. Beleive me BlessSins: if these historians recorded, it happened. Ofcourse you might think its disgusting but we can be sure that this happened. Multiple sources talk about it. A lot of people talk about this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If Watt mentions it, then you source Watt. Infact, if you haven't seen Tabari yourself (have you?) then you can't source it. "Beleive me BlessSins: if these historians recorded, it happened. " These historian also recorded that Muhammad, an Apostle of God received Divine messages from Him. I suppose you agree with that as well? " A lot of people talk about this" Rumors are also discussed by a lot of people.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking to a primary source narrative Watt has already mentioned. Arrow740 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam

Hi, could you please explain me what "OR" means? --يس (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice transparency

Nice of you to be so civil and pleasant to regards to my username on you talk page, however trawling someones userpage who left a comment on my talkpage, I see this 'civility' was for show however, as your actions werent transparent and you should have been clear with what your true belief was from the start, at least allowing me to defend myself:

'I suspect Anti Bs squad is a sock puppet of a banned user. 2, I dont think people would like it if I got a username 'Piss' and told people it means "Paris is so Special". It means what the first meaning coming to mind, i.e. bull shit. Besides its a sock puppet any way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)'

I am a sockpuppet only in the sense that I have already admitted to you I had a previous account, which for your information is not banned, and I think I have accurately provided you with its name (but It might not be accurate, in which case state so and I will find an example of an edit). Besides its a sock puppet any way., I assume you mean this in the malicious sense, which I would like you to prove otherwise Ill just assume its an assumption of bad faith. As you have assumed bad faith on my part, ill assume bad faith on yours, that as you seem too have a more right-wing POV, and from what I have seen are also mainly centralised around articles relating to the middle east and specifically controversial topics such as islam and racism, my POV on these topics differs from yours, and so you are deliberatly trying to prove (which you cannot) that I am using another account maliciously, and you dont really care about my username being a profanity at all, as seen by freely using the world 'Piss' on this guys userpage, just as I have confined a shorterned version of the word bullshit (BS) to my userpage. If you would have read my userpage you would realise that me pretending to use BS as anti- big squids (a poor joke I know), was a joke, and I even stated (basically) as such on my userpage, so im not trying to decieve anyone at all. At the moment my assumption of bad faith is that you are either going after me personally, not because you actually care whether I am a sockpuppet or am offensive, but because of my terrible sense of humour, or because I have a left-wing liberal POV in discordance with your (apparent POV). As you have assumed bad faith with substantiating on my part, I assume bad faith on yours.R.G.P.A (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock

It appears you are persecuting new users, whose edits you disagree with, by trying to block them. This is most unjust. Bless sins (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Because you know that its Kirbytime, right?" I don't like you empty threats. If you think I "know" who Kirbytime is or I'm associated with the user, then report me too. Else cease this slander.Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question is absurd. There is a first time for everything. However, legitimate reasons are: lack of time, such persecution never caught my attention, lack of understanding of what the checkuser process is.Bless sins (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another alleged sockpuppet of Kirbytime was Atari. It is clear he was very opposed to you. Have you been persecuted all those you reported? I can't say, since I'm not familiar with those cases.Bless sins (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay out? So you can persecute more newbies, who don't know wikipedia well enough to defend themselves? Why don't you pick on someone your own size?Bless sins (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think he's [Kirbytime] your friend and you are in contact with him off-wiki." And you want me to continue civilized discussion with you while you make all sorts of baseless allegations against me. If you have something to prove, report me. I'm no longer going to entertain your rude speculations.Bless sins (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the discussion is going on [[2]]. I've already said that I won't entertain your speculations on my talk.Bless sins (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So now Im a user called kirbytime, I already told you my previous username its Rob.G.P.A (and have put on that page that this is my current username), as far as I can recall that is the first ever username I have had, if I was a bad faith sockpuppet I would hardly tell you straightaway that I have had another account, although I wont try and dig myself a hole by dfending myself against accusations with not much basis (im pretty sure that if you check this user out theyll have a different IP though, because I cant recall making an account called kirbytime, at least whilst not under heavy nacotics). Also, if I was this user:kirytime, using a illegit sock, wouldnt I be using it in conjuction with my current username? I dont know whether user:kirbytime is even editing the articles I am editing, let alone eiditng to support/oppose any comments I have made, which to my mind would be the only reason anyone would use a illegitimate sock,unless they were banned.

However, I made my claim in pure bad faith bless sins, in retaliation for a bad faith accusation (although two wrongs dont make a right). I havent seen this users defense of himself, so although I appreciate your defense of me, until this issue is resolved I dont particularly want to be drawn into any past disputes between you two, but thank you for your defense anyway. I dont know Matt:57 to take a stance on whether you are a perssitent type at this kind of thing, or whether you are generally a reliable and fair editor, but have wrongly accused me of being a illegitimate sock puppet, not because you disagree with my edits, but simply because you suspected my username and linked this to possible sockpuppetry.R.G.P.A (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a not about my username on my usertalk, as I dont want to crowd yours too much.R.G.P.A (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ezra Levant and the CIC

Levant has said lots of things about the Liberal Party of Canada and various Liberal Prime Ministers. Does this mean his comments are notable enough in and of themselves to merit inclusion in an article on the Liberals or on Jean Chretien? If Levant wrote an article criticizing Bill Clinton does that mean his comments are notable enough to be included in the Bill Clinton article? If he wrote an editorial in the Western Standard on global warming would this mean we need to include his comments in our global warming article? I don't think notability is necessarily transcendent. You might be notable in one way on one topic but not notable on another. Why are his specific comments on the CIC notable? Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You said that he's notable enough to have an article on himself and implied that that was sufficient to have his comments included in the article on the CIC. I was pointing out that that's not necessarily the case, many people have articles on themselves, that doesn't mean that there opinions on any and every topic are notable. Why do you think his actual comments are notable enough to be included in the CIC article? Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and as I said just because he's notable enough to have an article on himself doesn't mean that we are required to include his comments on anything he's ever written in the articles on the topics he's written about. Why do his comments about the CIC merit inclusion in the CIC article? Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't go to any policy in particular. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it in different words. Why should the comments by Levant be included? There's nothing in the link you meant to provide[3] that suggests that just because someone has an article on themselves means their utterances need to be included in other articles. Levant is not such an important person that any opinion he has merits attention - he's a failed publisher and is now almost a fringe political figure and his comments are purely opinion rather than fact. Why should his personal opinion of the CIC be included? Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is the paragraph in question:

"Commenting of the website of the Canadian Islamic Congress, of which Elmasry is President, Ezra Levant, the publisher of the Western Standard, wrote that “his [Elmasry's] organization's Web site shows an obsession with Jews, a running apologia for terrorist groups such as Hamas and cheerleading for Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his nuclear program. There are dozens of pages of anti-Israel propaganda, including essays by notorious anti-Semites such as Greg Felton.”"

First of all, while I don't think my opinion of Greg Felton is very different from Levant's, I don't think we can include that part since it's an opinion stated as fact and raises BLP concerns.

Secondly, to be fair, I don't think the rest of the comment should be included without also referring to the fact that Levant and the CIC have a history. Levant wrote his column several months after the CIC made a criminal complaint against Levant and the Western Standard for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. This should be mentioned not only because it's directly relevant to an article on the CIC but also because it is information the reader would need in order to weigh the objectivity of Levant's subsequent comments about the CIC. I really don't see how we can mention one without mentioning the other. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"A failed publisher (and your source is? Does the article mention this? I dont think so otherwise the lead wouldnt say it?) "

You're right, the lede should describe Levant as a former publisher since the Western Standard ceased publication this fall "due to unprofitability". Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about what I mean by not notable - Levant's comments don't communicate any factual information - they are pure opinion. Since they are opinion whether or not they have weight is determined by the writer's authority. Is he an expert on the particular topic? Does he have a personal experience or special insight? If not, is he an important figure whose opinion matters because of who he is? In the Elmasry article there are comments by Levant about his experience being on the same panel with Elmasry and his direct observations of him. Because he is conveying a personal experience in regards with the person being written about and because the RS and V tests are passed (to the best of my knowledge) his comments merit inclusion. However, the comments in the CIC article do not have any specialized authority - either personal experience or expertise. Ok then, is Levant an influential or important enough figure so that his opinion is of great interest? Not that I can see. Does he occupy a position of importance or relevance to this topic? No. If he were an officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress or a similar organization I'd have a different view. If he was an MP, former MP, I'd have a different view. If he were an academic I might have a different view. As it is, I don't see why his views are either important enough in what they convey or important enough because of who he is to merit inclusion. But, if the views are included I think we have to also mention the CIC complaint against Levant earlier that year. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Western Standard is a commercial failure and its print edition has failed. Would you prefer half-failed publisher? :) Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP - Levant's comments on Felton are opinion, not established fact so their inclusion raise BLP concerns. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ezra is the right man for what job? It sounds like you're approaching this with the aim of proving something about the CIC rather than trying to create an informative, factual and balanced article. If you have negative information to add, fine, but have you found nothing positive to say at all? Also, there is a problem in what you say with using primary sources - doing so takes you into the realm of original research - you shouldn't be digging through the CIC's writings trying to put together an argument or prove something. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

<no comment>

I found this disappointing. I thought you'd favor free speech on your talk page. Apparently, you remove facts from your talk page that you don't like. Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse I know about the Stalk policy. I'm not stalking you any more than you are stalking me or any other editor is stalking others in controversial articles. We follow each other around, the contribs link is there for a reason. Anyway I wont stalk ofcourse but I'll see your contribs as you are seeing mine and if I see anything wrong, you might see me there otherwise you wont. The main point is, you dont have anything to worry about as long as you think you're doing the right thing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits like these are completely unacceptable.. not. Just kidding. Finally I found an edit from you that I could agree with. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Levant cont'd

Well he's not the publisher of the online version anymore either.

Anyway, given that Levant and the Western Standard have published content that is arguably anti-Muslim[4] and that the new publisher of the Western Standard website has issued a formal apology for anti-Muslim comments made on the site[5] I don't think he's really your best candidate when it comes to critiquing the Canadian Islamic Congress. I.E. if he ever had any credibility on the topic of hate speech or bigoted speech he doesn't have it anymore. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, given how you intend to use his comments, we'd also have to mention the fact that Levant allowed and defended the posting of anti-Muslim comments on his site. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And the anti-Muslim cartoons? Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At the very least you should raise the matter of Levant's comments on the CIC Talk page first and see if there is consensus for inclusion. Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I understand you have a strong POV on this topic, that's understandable, but even if you want to get certain information out about a person or group you have views about it's in your interests (as well as those of wikipedia) to do it in as fair and balanced way as possible. That's not only the right thing to do but it also gives the article more credibility. If it's just a one-sided litany of negative information, opinion and rants, written in a biased manner then no one except for a small group of people who've already made up their minds is going to take the article seriously since it will just look like (and for all intents and purposes be) propaganda. Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the reply

Yer everythings good with me, sorry for seeing some ;conspiracy' where there wasnt one, I was just slightly bothered you approached me seemingly innocently whilst making claims on other people's userpages. However, if you told me you were suspecting me from the beginningl, then it would have been harder to get me if I was a sock, so sorry for kicking up such a fuss.86.145.205.156 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mo's article

Hi Matt, thank you for letting me know about the revert. However I am not sure to understand the motivation: the added entry put into context what Ayaan said, and the given reference does cite her (fourth paragraph). Nova77 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could find an (English) version of the interview where she made that claim for the first time, but I does not appear to be online. Adding the blog link (without removing the more authoritative one) seemed to be the only solution to put it in context. Thank you for the fair criticism! :) Nova77 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I would also expand (in a different section?) what secular historian have to say. For instance I was expecting to see something from Maxime Rodinson (which also wrote about M's seizures) or Ibn Warraq. Nova77 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. speed reading tricked me too! I thought you meant of a section in Mo's article, not in the Cartoon Controversy. :P Nova77 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics

I can completely understand your your edit here. However, I believe that it is appropriate to refer to "Muhammad" as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" once in the article (preferably the first mention). What do you think?Bless sins (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You posted this link on my talk. May I humbly suggest, that you read this link over more carefully?Bless sins (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood

Hi Matt. The problem isn't that the sources aren't reliable per se; it's that most of them (and most of the material in the article before I reduced it) merely use the term but are not about the term. WP:NEO is clear on that distinction, and explicitly calls for "secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." You also might have a look at a parallel article, Jewish lobby, which periodically fills up with content describing the alleged lobby instead of discussing the term "Jewish lobby." Armon and Jayjg have been valiantly trying to keep that article in line with policy. I'm not sure why Armon's fighting the opposite battle with Pallywood; he seems not to have read the discussion carefully. Take care, --G-Dett (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re cartoons

The source doesn't say that Hirsi is a former Muslim. Thus we can't say that Hirsi is a former Muslim. Please see the comments I left on that article's talk page.Bless sins (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

In response to this. Hirsi, according to the source, indeeds calls the prophet a 'pervert'. But this is not supported by the source:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called Muhammad a "pervert" for marrying a girl as young as six

Secondly, about Hirsi and Luther. Sure Luther is unreliable, but he is far more notable that Hirsi. Hirsi is a local Dutch politician, with little status. Luther was one of the founders of a major Christian sect, that has millions of followers worldwide. Secondly, both are unreliable but notable. Hirsi, especially, is not included because her arguments are based upon research, but because she is notable. Note the emphasis is on her, not her arguments. Thus she belongs in the "Non-Muslim critics of Muhammad".Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic peace

Relax man. I would totally understand if you subjected me to a strict interpretation of WP:NOR. That's cool. But please do not bite the newcomers.

And he is making progress. He had initially 0 reliable sources, now he has 3. That's much slower than you or I, but not everybody has the kind of time we do.

As a compromise, I can move the ORish content to his user space, leaving that which is sourced well, in exchange for you giving some time for Zikrullah some time to work on the article before putting it to an AfD.Bless sins (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

islamic peace

dear brother i need your help to improve the article . i know there may be good reasons to delete it but i will improve it enough see the article Kingdom of God . THANK YOU!Zikrullah (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) brother ,i need your help to improve the article. give me some chance i will give the source of every thing mentioned in the article God bless you! Zikrullah (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter

Thanks for the heads up. Links are fixed, and a note attached to the top of the AfD for explanation. Pastordavid (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Busy

I apologize for not answering you immediately after your request. Currently I'm busy with fixing an article. And after that there are a couple of tasks that I need to get done. You are free to post links on my talk page, but please note that I will take some time to respond to you. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that consensus is against me: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Is_this_OR.3F_.22A_number_of_people_have_done_this.22.

Thus, I must concede to what you have done.

On a more positive side, I can make connections between two hitherto unconnected subjects without sources.Bless sins (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zwemer

I agree that Zwemer is notable because the Catholic Encyclopedia singles him out. But the space dedicated to him was too much, so I moved part of it to the footnotes. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack?

What personal attack?[6] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not answering my question. With regard to your question: I still don't believe that Sanchez has anything beyond marginal notability. Agree to disagree, I guess. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit in The relation between Islam and science

My edit here, is a summary of the criticism section which was complained about as having undue weight. What don't you like about it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The old stuff (and more) is all at a big new improved article on Bucailleism. ITAQALLAH had cut out some of the criticism which has all been restored at Bucailleism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam and gay sex

The whole article is a disaster, I am trying to correct the most glaring flaws. All the stuff that is there now has to be sourced, especially the Qur'anic quotes. However, it is worth keeping the material, including the pederasty section, since it is all consistent with the literature and plausible. But it ALL has to be sourced. Haiduc (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Female figures in the Qur'an

Users evolve over a period of time. Infact I'm much more familiar with wiki-policies than I was a long time ago. So yes I'd say that much of the content in this article is not appropriate and is much below wikipedia standards. However, the topic is highly notable, and there's easily a lot of reliable content that can be added.

Again I propose to you the following: let's delete the OR (which reduces the article to a stub), and give me (hopefully others will join in) time to develop this article. This way we are not violating any wiki policies, while keeping a notable topic alive.Bless sins (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoting primary sources to make an argument is OR. I could probably use the American constitution to push a ridiculous POV. Anyone can use any scripture, twist the meaning and push a POV.Bless sins (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infact, quoting the text is OR. The immediate question that would rise is: how do you know this verse is even related to the concept. Secondly, you could quote a verse out of context. For example the Qur'an says "There is no god but God". One could simply quote "There is no god" and show that Islam is an athiest religion. This would, ofcourse be false.Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Does Wikipedia prohibit quoting religious scripture?"

Not if it is done while accompanying a secondary source.Bless sins (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following: what if I went to the Ministry_of_Jesus#Teachings section and quoted the following as as example of Jesus' teaching:

I did not come bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father. (Matthew 10:34)

If any one comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

Would this be fair? Note, I haven't added any commentary. But by simply quoting the verses I make Jesus look so bad.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr

It seems like you violated the 3rr rule on Islamophobia. Shall I report you, or forgive you?Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nvr mind you self-reverted.Bless sins (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Sorry for the late reply, Matt. None of those authors seem to have anything about them to demonstrate they are reliable sources. No PhDs in Islamic studies, nothing but their own opinions and in some cases, popular history books. They should not be used to source anything other than their own opinions, or information about themselves. However, they are all notable, so sometimes their opinions will be notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia. Even in that case we still need to use reliable sources - that is, not their own books, but some other reliable, secondary source commenting on their opinion. This was the problem at Criticism of the Qur'an, it was basically just a list of Spencer's personal criticisms sourced to his own books. He does belong on that page, but he should be referred to as something like, "According to the New York Times, Spencer is one of the most prominent critics of the Quran. He has criticized so-and-so about it, according to this peer-reviewed article by a real Islam scholar." As for a policy on this, I don't think there needs to be much more than WP:SOURCES already says: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There are plenty of these about. If you see any specific cases where an unreliable source is being used, please let me know, and I'll try to help rectify it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Contending Muhammad was some of the things you wrote on my talk page is irrelevant. If Einstein had robbed banks and eaten children in his spare time he was still a genius, so don't get side-tracked. If there's RS describing him as a Universal Man in the manner of polymath, rather than in the manner of a man around whom the universe revolves/depends or something similarly spiritual, then his name should be in the list. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OR

You can't interpret the Qur'an as you wish. It has to be interpreted by scholars. Secondly, please check out the consensus at Islam and animals.Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Making false statements is not good. You are not quoting the verse., like you claim.[7] You are inserting in "The Quran mentions that people who broke the Sabbath were turned into apes as a punishment.^{[Quran 2:65]}". That is an interpretation.

Secondly, why does the verse belong in the article at all? Who said the verse is relevent to apes?Bless sins (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an uses thousands of words. For example, the Qur'an uses the word 'and'. Are you going to go the the article and, and place all the Qur'anic verses there?

In any case, you need a reliable source that says Quranic verse X:Y is about apes. You have failed to provide that. Thus you are engaging in OR.Bless sins (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about english. It's about you interpreting the Qur'an. Tell me one thing: why is it, that no reliable source on the face of earth considers this verse to be related to either Hominidae or Hylobatidae?Bless sins (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just because Sudan is a Muslim country doesn't mean anything it does is related to Islam. Similarly just because an India, the world's biggest democratic country, does something, doesn't mean its related to democracy.Bless sins (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[8] Thanks. I appreciate it.Bless sins (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only it is OR, it is propaganda (anti-Islam propaganda); inserting the Qur'anic verse in a non-religious article is totally needless (Imad marie (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Matt57. Thanks for your message. I do think most authors agree there was an alliance (they either use the terms "Mongol alliance", or "Franco-Mongol alliance" as we do in the article), but many would also say that it did not succeed, its results were minimal, there were many attempts for a larger scale endeavour etc... But the fact that the Mongols and Western rulers agreed (in writing) to act together (which would be enough in itself per the definition of an alliance), and even fought together as a result does make the fact that there was an alliance fairly undisputable. I my mind, having an article entitled "Franco-Mongol alliance" only implies that it is a subject of historical discussion, allowing for all views on whether or not it actually existed, and what was the extent of it. As always, we're not here to determine the truth, but just to lay out what reputable secondary sources think about it. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Hi Matt. I'm sure you've read my responses on Talk:Islamophobia. I think we've been debating the issue for ages, and it would be nice to see some sort of compromise and reach an agreement on the matter. I have made concessions in good faith by allowing mention of controversy in the lead, but its presence in the first sentence isn't something I can agree on. I propose it be moved into the discussion about acceptance and criticism (the specifics can be worked on if need be). I think we'd all be better off by reaching an amicable resolution instead of the continued warring. ITAQALLAH 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, have been busy. I'll respond as soon as I can, today. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Matt57. Thank you for your support. I agree Elonka's deletion of 120k of highly referenced content is a shame, and probably goes against Wikipedia rules. The time may come when we have to report this to the Administrator board (ANI) if a settlement is not found. Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI is not for resolving content disputes. Please take the matter to mediation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation was abandoned the last time. I advise to start another mediation by a non-biased nuetral mediator. Sadly as of right now, we cant even be sure that mediators are nuetral. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been on ANI and to mediation. These measures have failed to curtail the dispute. I predict that a request for arbitration would be accepted, and that sanctions would be issued. This may be the final chance for parties to reconcile. Please consider that. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt. As you are a full part of this discussion, you might also wish to give your opinions regarding the AfDs ("Articles for Deletions") that were placed by Kafka Liz, a contributor recently invited by Elonka: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Articles for deletion. Regards, PHG (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I only did the splits because Elonka had been insisting for split/reduction and was threatening to take the matter into her own hands. Now, when I splited, she immediately jumped on the "POV-fork" story. Well, I guess you know her methods... Please do not be intimidated and remain in the discussion, as I have to face of rather close-knitted band of Elonka supporters. Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If all these attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Why not seek a resolution via arbitration?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If thats what PHG wants to do, thats fine. The "closed-knitted band of Elonka supporters" has suceeded in intimidating me away from the affair as they have done in the past. I have enough to with Islam related articles anyway, so I'll stay away. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is. It will probably be in the favour of Elonka, I can tell you that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongol stuff

I hope that my not wishing to pick sides in the dispute did not cause you to feel the need to withdraw. I did not find your contributions at all unhelpful, and did not mean for any of my comments to be seen that way. If you took them in that manner, please accept my apologies, as such was not my intent. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do read that site from time to time. I don't post, as I'm not one to get involved in politics and fusses, if I can avoid it. Thanks for letting me know I hadn't ruffled your feathers, I hate upsetting people.Ealdgyth | Talk 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that me contacting you led to issues. I posted a note on Elonka's page explaining that I'd contacted you first. If you need me to say that I contacted you first anywhere else, please let me know.Ealdgyth | Talk 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being nice, but its not any of your fault at all. This is a usual affair for these other editors. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

William Campbell

Have you decided whether he is a reliable source or not?Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so and so niether is Maurice Buccaile. Get rid of both of these two while you're at it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Just a word of encouragement Matt. I think you're doing a great job. Wjhonson (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just my snarky self, but I prefer archiving the snarkiness of others. Helps me retain a long memory which will be very useful once I become Emperor. Wjhonson (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, here you wrote something like asscusations when I'm pretty sure you meant accusations. Wjhonson (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CltFn/Winn doom

CSD G4 applies to all spaces. More specifically, G4 applies to recreation of pages or content upon which there was consensus to delete, not to pages which were userfied by agreement of the community or which had no deletion discussion. The latter doesn't apply here I believe, but I will request clarification. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and miracles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_and_miracles Hi Matt57. I add link that criticize this claim to the article.The links are NOT belonged to anti Islalimc website.Yet Muslims again and again remove them. Please take a look at them. I talked with you during the past and you told me that if the Muslims try to censor than to talk with. Regard.Oren.tal (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"I talked with you during the past and you told me that if the Muslims try to censor than to talk with [you]" - That's intriguing. When was this, and where was it said? ITAQALLAH 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)