This article was nominated for deletion on January 23, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The English translation is a clumsy approximation (thus OR) and not an English lemma. It's POV too, indicating correspondence between an esoteric concept and exact science. I move it to Tai al-ardh. -- tickle me 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So how would you translate it TM, since eventually the phrase will have to be translated.--
Zereshk 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
{{sources}} because of sub-standard sources. Mostly it's OR too, so {{OR}} should be added. The article tries to establish superiority of Islamic science over it's western counterpart ("This concept has been around for centuries, and was in debate, long before its western contemporary counterparts surfaced in scientific and science fiction movies and circles) -> POV. -- tickle me 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
tm,
the POV tag doesnt belong here. There is no "dispute" about this topic, in the sense of being refuted. You yourself mentioned 1100 google hits. So the topic actually exists. The best thing you can do is insert {{ Fact}} tags in the text, if you feel that a particular statement needs to be sourced.-- Zereshk 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
tm,
All 3 tags are currently unwarranted. Unless tm has any other specific objection to present, or re-iterate his stance vis a vis the new changes.-- Zereshk 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"All 3 tags are currently" unwarranted. --
tickle
me 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Look tm, your less than decent tone isnt going to get anyone anywhere. Instead of sly remarks and repeatedly pointing fingers at what I do and dont know (which you have no clue of anyway), lets just focus on the topic, shall we? And I implore you to conduct a proper discourse instead of repeatedly using ad hominems as a device in your arguments. I dont care who you are and I expect you to be the same vis a vis me.
Now: lets discuss your objections one by one:
The title:
"Traverse in a glance". Fair enough. I have also seen such an expression here and there. But we're talking of a suitable translation here. And your expression is not what طی الارض literally translates to (which brings the question, do we even need a literal translation or not). e.g. how do you justify leaving out the word ardh from the translation? "Traverse in a glance" . Traversing what? time, dreams, ....what? Your proposed expression doesnt carry the full meaning of طی الارض while "teleportation" does a better job. "Teleportation" is not a trademark and does not have a patent or belong to anyone. Lets look at Meriam Webster's definition for teleportation:
Fits the bill right on target, I say. The definition is pretty clear.
Furthermore, I dont agree with your claim about "lemma --> OR". A lemma is (by M-W's def.) "an auxiliary proposition used in the demonstration of another proposition". Notice keyword: another, (meaning that youve already declared that the two are different). And how do you know the two are different? Just because it's a different language? Pascal's Triangle was independently invented by the Chinese, the Europeans, and Omar Khayam. Does that make their product different? Fine. So we dont have sources to back up my claim, for now at least. So it technically may count as OR. But I dont think it would be OR to mention similarities in meaning or parallels between طی الارض and "teleportation" in the article. After all, striver is right: When some lame Scifi flick or novel uses "teleportation" left and right, everyone's cool. But if the slightest reference of any precedent in the most speculative form is made of Islam in teleportation, then all hell breaks loose...Oh those retard muslims are now claiming they invented Quantum Mechanics!
I suggest that lets just keep the tai al-ardh title and add all the teleportation stuff in the text of the article.-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your superiority accusation:
You say the article is a show of superiority of Islamic science over western science because of the sentence:
and because "of the corresponding mapping of teleportation to the lemma". You hence claim this is the reason for the entire article being POV.
When I ask you to provide any evidence to back up your claim, you say "neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs".
That's not a persuasive answer tm. What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.'
As for the "lemma" thing, Ive already posed you a challenge, show us that "teleportation" is a different thing from tai al-ardh (aside from their geographic origins).-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Claims of article being unclear:
You say:
Please be more specific. Eaxctly which sentence? And obvious as in what?-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Be specific what you mean and where you mean it. You keep throwing accusations around without any specifics to back you up.-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your claim on not having reliable sources:
I'll ignore the sly undertone. I never claimed "QP is of islamic origin". Max Planck is immortalized in that respect, as are Wilhelm Wien and all the others who contributed to the Black body radiation. When one talks of "contribution" though, one has to admit that even QP rests on some foundations that were well developed and contributed to by Islamic tradition, among others.
"...Engaging in proper research...". Meaning exactly what tm? Why dont you just spill it out clearly that you have a problem with the sources already used? or more candidly, that you have a problem with Islam being even mentioned when it comes to the history of science? because it seems to me that your objections all seem to be coming from that direction (which also would explain the rude undertones you keep directing at me and Striver).-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"27:40: "Said one who had knowledge of the Book: ". I have heard a knowledgeable person state that it should be ""Said one who had some knowledge of the Book: ". Can anyone confirm? -- Striver 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"When I ask you to provide any evidence to back up your claim, you say "neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs": I'd have to backup my claim if:
However, you are supposed to prove your POV, when you introduce it to the article - which you did.
"What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.": underlining doesn't make it any better, you are to present authoritative sources stating so, else it's your OR - and here we have the fundamental twist to the whole discussion again. -- tickle me 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a valid reference but it's in Persian . مهر تابان. This is told by Allameh Tabatabaei. Therefor it's valid.-- Sa.vakilian 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverted. What's the problem with the following?
Tay al-Ard is analogous to, and shares roots with, miraculous teleportation in other religious traditions originating in the Middle East: notably Kefitzat ha-Derekh ("the jumping of the road") in Judaism, and the "miraculous transport" of Christian religious figures.
From its simple description - figures in religious narratives teleporting - "analogous to" is accurate. I believe there are Buddhist analogies too. As to "sharing roots", the first accounts concern religious figures - notably Solomon - common to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Tearlach 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone who's encountered this article as a casual reader, the following things aren't clear to me:
Not trying to step on any toes - the above is just what would have helped me as a reader to follow the subject matter of the article! DustFormsWords 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the deletion process on this article since it does not appear to exist in the record and I am actually astounded at the presence of this article. Teleportation in Islam? Seriously? Encyclopedic? Um... No. Not notable, perhaps a hoax. Ogress smash! 08:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Most English language Wikipedia users don't speak it. So please translate. -- 92.229.144.205 ( talk) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Prem phaltankar Prem phaltankar ( talk) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on January 23, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The English translation is a clumsy approximation (thus OR) and not an English lemma. It's POV too, indicating correspondence between an esoteric concept and exact science. I move it to Tai al-ardh. -- tickle me 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So how would you translate it TM, since eventually the phrase will have to be translated.--
Zereshk 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
{{sources}} because of sub-standard sources. Mostly it's OR too, so {{OR}} should be added. The article tries to establish superiority of Islamic science over it's western counterpart ("This concept has been around for centuries, and was in debate, long before its western contemporary counterparts surfaced in scientific and science fiction movies and circles) -> POV. -- tickle me 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
tm,
the POV tag doesnt belong here. There is no "dispute" about this topic, in the sense of being refuted. You yourself mentioned 1100 google hits. So the topic actually exists. The best thing you can do is insert {{ Fact}} tags in the text, if you feel that a particular statement needs to be sourced.-- Zereshk 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
tm,
All 3 tags are currently unwarranted. Unless tm has any other specific objection to present, or re-iterate his stance vis a vis the new changes.-- Zereshk 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"All 3 tags are currently" unwarranted. --
tickle
me 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Look tm, your less than decent tone isnt going to get anyone anywhere. Instead of sly remarks and repeatedly pointing fingers at what I do and dont know (which you have no clue of anyway), lets just focus on the topic, shall we? And I implore you to conduct a proper discourse instead of repeatedly using ad hominems as a device in your arguments. I dont care who you are and I expect you to be the same vis a vis me.
Now: lets discuss your objections one by one:
The title:
"Traverse in a glance". Fair enough. I have also seen such an expression here and there. But we're talking of a suitable translation here. And your expression is not what طی الارض literally translates to (which brings the question, do we even need a literal translation or not). e.g. how do you justify leaving out the word ardh from the translation? "Traverse in a glance" . Traversing what? time, dreams, ....what? Your proposed expression doesnt carry the full meaning of طی الارض while "teleportation" does a better job. "Teleportation" is not a trademark and does not have a patent or belong to anyone. Lets look at Meriam Webster's definition for teleportation:
Fits the bill right on target, I say. The definition is pretty clear.
Furthermore, I dont agree with your claim about "lemma --> OR". A lemma is (by M-W's def.) "an auxiliary proposition used in the demonstration of another proposition". Notice keyword: another, (meaning that youve already declared that the two are different). And how do you know the two are different? Just because it's a different language? Pascal's Triangle was independently invented by the Chinese, the Europeans, and Omar Khayam. Does that make their product different? Fine. So we dont have sources to back up my claim, for now at least. So it technically may count as OR. But I dont think it would be OR to mention similarities in meaning or parallels between طی الارض and "teleportation" in the article. After all, striver is right: When some lame Scifi flick or novel uses "teleportation" left and right, everyone's cool. But if the slightest reference of any precedent in the most speculative form is made of Islam in teleportation, then all hell breaks loose...Oh those retard muslims are now claiming they invented Quantum Mechanics!
I suggest that lets just keep the tai al-ardh title and add all the teleportation stuff in the text of the article.-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your superiority accusation:
You say the article is a show of superiority of Islamic science over western science because of the sentence:
and because "of the corresponding mapping of teleportation to the lemma". You hence claim this is the reason for the entire article being POV.
When I ask you to provide any evidence to back up your claim, you say "neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs".
That's not a persuasive answer tm. What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.'
As for the "lemma" thing, Ive already posed you a challenge, show us that "teleportation" is a different thing from tai al-ardh (aside from their geographic origins).-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Claims of article being unclear:
You say:
Please be more specific. Eaxctly which sentence? And obvious as in what?-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Be specific what you mean and where you mean it. You keep throwing accusations around without any specifics to back you up.-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your claim on not having reliable sources:
I'll ignore the sly undertone. I never claimed "QP is of islamic origin". Max Planck is immortalized in that respect, as are Wilhelm Wien and all the others who contributed to the Black body radiation. When one talks of "contribution" though, one has to admit that even QP rests on some foundations that were well developed and contributed to by Islamic tradition, among others.
"...Engaging in proper research...". Meaning exactly what tm? Why dont you just spill it out clearly that you have a problem with the sources already used? or more candidly, that you have a problem with Islam being even mentioned when it comes to the history of science? because it seems to me that your objections all seem to be coming from that direction (which also would explain the rude undertones you keep directing at me and Striver).-- Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"27:40: "Said one who had knowledge of the Book: ". I have heard a knowledgeable person state that it should be ""Said one who had some knowledge of the Book: ". Can anyone confirm? -- Striver 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"When I ask you to provide any evidence to back up your claim, you say "neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs": I'd have to backup my claim if:
However, you are supposed to prove your POV, when you introduce it to the article - which you did.
"What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.": underlining doesn't make it any better, you are to present authoritative sources stating so, else it's your OR - and here we have the fundamental twist to the whole discussion again. -- tickle me 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a valid reference but it's in Persian . مهر تابان. This is told by Allameh Tabatabaei. Therefor it's valid.-- Sa.vakilian 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverted. What's the problem with the following?
Tay al-Ard is analogous to, and shares roots with, miraculous teleportation in other religious traditions originating in the Middle East: notably Kefitzat ha-Derekh ("the jumping of the road") in Judaism, and the "miraculous transport" of Christian religious figures.
From its simple description - figures in religious narratives teleporting - "analogous to" is accurate. I believe there are Buddhist analogies too. As to "sharing roots", the first accounts concern religious figures - notably Solomon - common to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Tearlach 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone who's encountered this article as a casual reader, the following things aren't clear to me:
Not trying to step on any toes - the above is just what would have helped me as a reader to follow the subject matter of the article! DustFormsWords 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the deletion process on this article since it does not appear to exist in the record and I am actually astounded at the presence of this article. Teleportation in Islam? Seriously? Encyclopedic? Um... No. Not notable, perhaps a hoax. Ogress smash! 08:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Most English language Wikipedia users don't speak it. So please translate. -- 92.229.144.205 ( talk) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Prem phaltankar Prem phaltankar ( talk) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)