This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Old threads have been moved here to make management of the main Talk page easier, and has been protected from editing. If a matter mentioned here requires further discussion, please start a new thread on the main Talk page with a link to the conversation here. Thanks.
Shouldn't there be a note that the Arabic Wikipedia has a different background than the other Wikipedias? BirdValiant 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is User:Meno25 a bot? If not, it isn't necessary to be updating the article count every other day. Once a month would probably be enough. BirdValiant 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, somebody updated the article count 7 hours after the last article count update. It moved up five measly articles. Please refrain from updating the article count at least for a month or two, not 7 hours. Or if it increases a substantial number, like 2,500, or 1,000 at least. Not 5. BirdValiant 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Im doing a report on Arabic language wikipedia and umm, I need aloooot more informations, but the thing is I dont speak arabic. So, does anyone have any sources I could use? -- 20:10, 4 August 2006 User:Elatanatari
Out of curiosity, what was the 20,000th article? AnonMoos 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic Wikipedia has been trumpeting its hitting the 30000 mark, but my Arabic is rather poor, especially reading, and I can't make heads or tails of what exactly is going on. Can somebody take a look? Meanwhile, I'm putting Template:Update, just in case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lockesdonkey ( talk • contribs).
Unsigned-for security purposes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.1.51 ( talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You have seen (English Wikipedians) how OsamaK (a very very very proud muslim), an administrator in the Arabic wiki, and a wikipedian on the English one, how he has spoiled this discussion page, just to ban the freedom of speech. You can imagine his doings in the arabic wiki... -- Stayfi ( talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Stayfi, since you have joined Ar wiki and you are making troubles. Please do not make trouble here also. -- Qadsawi ( talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the Arabic Wikipedia. It is not a WP:SOAPBOX for complaints about the Arabic Wikipedia. It seems that some editors (who may be the same editor) think differently. Accordingly, I've fully protected this article until a checkuser can be run to find the source of these edits, and appropriate blocks issued. This may take a little time. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So, let me add references to the sunni wikipdia, as soon as possible. regards -- Stayfi ( talk) 09:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
--
Stayfi (
talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So far no serious discussion about adding sourced content has taken place. Not to repeat the flurry of socks (and a user editing without loggin in) I'd appreciate a partial protection when the full one expires. Санта Клаус ( talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
arabic wiki is no less, a sunni one, see th persian wiki. we'll see the point of view of rodhul, nd others i suppose, bear in mind, that i've no less than a year in the arabic wiki, they want u to write about spring or birds not about the caliph othman. nd u where one of them, u know, no need to defend it here, cos all admins here are not sunni, this to remind u, -- Stayfi ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Stayfi ( talk) 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Older conversations have been archived here.
Unblocking of Arabic wikipedia in Syria was on February 13, 2009. I made a mistake last time. -- Ciphers ( talk) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Several administrators are trying to remove the criticism section because they believe it violates the "good faith" policy. Of course, this is a misunderstanding because this is not a talk page but a criticism section in an article. In a "criticism section" you get criticism, there is no assumption of good faith here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.178 ( talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you will need to prove that the points listed under criticism are really trivia and not neutral.
First, technically, your claims are invalid since the criticism section is very coherent (it is not a listing of miscellaneous points) and the points listed under it are all directly related to the clearly meaningful title of the section, which is "criticism." You need to show how this is a trivia section? You seem to know the titles of the laws but not how to apply them in real situations.
Your other claim, neutrality, is even less valid, because this is a criticism section-- if it were neutral then it would have deserved to be deleted since it would not make sense. The section simply lists critical points.
Now to the discussion of your ulterior, emotion-based motives. How can you call by trivia such serious criticism as accusing the encyclopedia of having systemic bias in Islam-related topics, and noting that over 60% of its articles are stubs (which usually means they contain nothing at all but the title), etc. You are obviously biased yourself since you're an administrator in Wikipedia, but the Arabic Wiki is nothing like the English Wiki at all, it is just 100,000 empty pages with administrators who mostly do nothing but enjoying trips to the Wiki conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 ( talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided anything new; what you say is just a reiteration of the previously refuted claims; though in a less organized fashion this time.
Again: first of all, Wikipedia:Trivia sections is irrelevant to this discussion since, as it clearly says, it deals with lists of miscellaneous information. I fail to see the relation between this and the criticism section.
Your rather personal statement that "a list is not an efficient manner of presenting information" is, besides being weird, not mentioned in any of the pages you referred to. We need to see a clear text saying that lists should be avoided-- "lists" not "lists of miscellaneous information," don't jumble things.
Your definition of neutrality in a criticism section is problematic. The section contains referenced and logical statements that are raised in criticism of Ar Wiki-- of course the criticized party won't agree with the statements, they are not supposed to. The points in the section are logical and commonly raised by critics (sadly, most of those write in Arabic not English!).
Anyway, I might rewrite the section as a paragraph if this is what it will take to end the discussion. Though I don't think this demand is properly founded based on the pages you referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 ( talk) 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the criticism section. Its sources are not accepted. The first one says that the content in ar wikipedia is weak. It does not say The Arabic Wikipedia suffers from heavy biased content, specifically in Islamic topics.The seconed one, Knol, is not a reliable source. Therefore, this section does not contain any acceptable sources. -- Osm agha ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Criticism section as it appeared and as النول insists on restoring it is invalid. It contained three statements: the first, that Arabic Wikipedia was "accused of bias, specifically in Islamic topics", and refers to an article at rnw.nl which does not mention neither Islam nor religion at all. The second statement reported the number of stubs in Arabic Wikipedia, referenced by the number of items in the Arabic equivalent of Category:Stubs. Fair enough but is this criticism? It's merely a fact, and the interpretation of this fact as "criticism" is done by the author, i.e. original research. The third statement is "One journalist claimed that the 2008 Wikimania in Cairo concluded that Arabic Wikipedia was the worst of all of the Wikipedias." It is not clear why the claim of that journalist is important enough to be included in this article. If it is indeed one of the official conclusions of Wikimania, then it would be more logical to refer to an authoritative report about Wikimania itself. Thus, the section did not contain any notable information and was deleted. -- Abanima ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
i'll emove the bot section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I just want to expose this in the En wiki, it's not my opinion after all, but of many Arabs (Muslims and liberals), in fact, I'm skeptical about the term Encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Old threads have been moved here to make management of the main Talk page easier, and has been protected from editing. If a matter mentioned here requires further discussion, please start a new thread on the main Talk page with a link to the conversation here. Thanks.
Shouldn't there be a note that the Arabic Wikipedia has a different background than the other Wikipedias? BirdValiant 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is User:Meno25 a bot? If not, it isn't necessary to be updating the article count every other day. Once a month would probably be enough. BirdValiant 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, somebody updated the article count 7 hours after the last article count update. It moved up five measly articles. Please refrain from updating the article count at least for a month or two, not 7 hours. Or if it increases a substantial number, like 2,500, or 1,000 at least. Not 5. BirdValiant 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Im doing a report on Arabic language wikipedia and umm, I need aloooot more informations, but the thing is I dont speak arabic. So, does anyone have any sources I could use? -- 20:10, 4 August 2006 User:Elatanatari
Out of curiosity, what was the 20,000th article? AnonMoos 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic Wikipedia has been trumpeting its hitting the 30000 mark, but my Arabic is rather poor, especially reading, and I can't make heads or tails of what exactly is going on. Can somebody take a look? Meanwhile, I'm putting Template:Update, just in case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lockesdonkey ( talk • contribs).
Unsigned-for security purposes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.1.51 ( talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You have seen (English Wikipedians) how OsamaK (a very very very proud muslim), an administrator in the Arabic wiki, and a wikipedian on the English one, how he has spoiled this discussion page, just to ban the freedom of speech. You can imagine his doings in the arabic wiki... -- Stayfi ( talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Stayfi, since you have joined Ar wiki and you are making troubles. Please do not make trouble here also. -- Qadsawi ( talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the Arabic Wikipedia. It is not a WP:SOAPBOX for complaints about the Arabic Wikipedia. It seems that some editors (who may be the same editor) think differently. Accordingly, I've fully protected this article until a checkuser can be run to find the source of these edits, and appropriate blocks issued. This may take a little time. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So, let me add references to the sunni wikipdia, as soon as possible. regards -- Stayfi ( talk) 09:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
--
Stayfi (
talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So far no serious discussion about adding sourced content has taken place. Not to repeat the flurry of socks (and a user editing without loggin in) I'd appreciate a partial protection when the full one expires. Санта Клаус ( talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
arabic wiki is no less, a sunni one, see th persian wiki. we'll see the point of view of rodhul, nd others i suppose, bear in mind, that i've no less than a year in the arabic wiki, they want u to write about spring or birds not about the caliph othman. nd u where one of them, u know, no need to defend it here, cos all admins here are not sunni, this to remind u, -- Stayfi ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Stayfi ( talk) 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Older conversations have been archived here.
Unblocking of Arabic wikipedia in Syria was on February 13, 2009. I made a mistake last time. -- Ciphers ( talk) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Several administrators are trying to remove the criticism section because they believe it violates the "good faith" policy. Of course, this is a misunderstanding because this is not a talk page but a criticism section in an article. In a "criticism section" you get criticism, there is no assumption of good faith here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.178 ( talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you will need to prove that the points listed under criticism are really trivia and not neutral.
First, technically, your claims are invalid since the criticism section is very coherent (it is not a listing of miscellaneous points) and the points listed under it are all directly related to the clearly meaningful title of the section, which is "criticism." You need to show how this is a trivia section? You seem to know the titles of the laws but not how to apply them in real situations.
Your other claim, neutrality, is even less valid, because this is a criticism section-- if it were neutral then it would have deserved to be deleted since it would not make sense. The section simply lists critical points.
Now to the discussion of your ulterior, emotion-based motives. How can you call by trivia such serious criticism as accusing the encyclopedia of having systemic bias in Islam-related topics, and noting that over 60% of its articles are stubs (which usually means they contain nothing at all but the title), etc. You are obviously biased yourself since you're an administrator in Wikipedia, but the Arabic Wiki is nothing like the English Wiki at all, it is just 100,000 empty pages with administrators who mostly do nothing but enjoying trips to the Wiki conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 ( talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided anything new; what you say is just a reiteration of the previously refuted claims; though in a less organized fashion this time.
Again: first of all, Wikipedia:Trivia sections is irrelevant to this discussion since, as it clearly says, it deals with lists of miscellaneous information. I fail to see the relation between this and the criticism section.
Your rather personal statement that "a list is not an efficient manner of presenting information" is, besides being weird, not mentioned in any of the pages you referred to. We need to see a clear text saying that lists should be avoided-- "lists" not "lists of miscellaneous information," don't jumble things.
Your definition of neutrality in a criticism section is problematic. The section contains referenced and logical statements that are raised in criticism of Ar Wiki-- of course the criticized party won't agree with the statements, they are not supposed to. The points in the section are logical and commonly raised by critics (sadly, most of those write in Arabic not English!).
Anyway, I might rewrite the section as a paragraph if this is what it will take to end the discussion. Though I don't think this demand is properly founded based on the pages you referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 ( talk) 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the criticism section. Its sources are not accepted. The first one says that the content in ar wikipedia is weak. It does not say The Arabic Wikipedia suffers from heavy biased content, specifically in Islamic topics.The seconed one, Knol, is not a reliable source. Therefore, this section does not contain any acceptable sources. -- Osm agha ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Criticism section as it appeared and as النول insists on restoring it is invalid. It contained three statements: the first, that Arabic Wikipedia was "accused of bias, specifically in Islamic topics", and refers to an article at rnw.nl which does not mention neither Islam nor religion at all. The second statement reported the number of stubs in Arabic Wikipedia, referenced by the number of items in the Arabic equivalent of Category:Stubs. Fair enough but is this criticism? It's merely a fact, and the interpretation of this fact as "criticism" is done by the author, i.e. original research. The third statement is "One journalist claimed that the 2008 Wikimania in Cairo concluded that Arabic Wikipedia was the worst of all of the Wikipedias." It is not clear why the claim of that journalist is important enough to be included in this article. If it is indeed one of the official conclusions of Wikimania, then it would be more logical to refer to an authoritative report about Wikimania itself. Thus, the section did not contain any notable information and was deleted. -- Abanima ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
i'll emove the bot section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I just want to expose this in the En wiki, it's not my opinion after all, but of many Arabs (Muslims and liberals), in fact, I'm skeptical about the term Encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)