The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your report of the DY71 sock or emulator. As I said to another user, I feel that the quiet blocking of these accounts is the best way of dealing with York - there is none of the drama that a checkuser request has - he is simply and quietly blocked. It's a block first, ask questions later case with York. ck lostsword • T • C 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you review the edits of Prester John ( talk · contribs) who's re-instating all the edits of User:Ultrabias - this one for example. Edit summaries appear to indicate a sock of DY71 ( [1], [2]). Thanks. → AA ( talk) — 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
ITAQALLAH I thought you did a nice job on the article - don't be discouraged by what others say. While there were some issues, I still maintain you did a good job of writing it - especially considering that it is very difficult when writing of the Prophet to separate religion from history. old windy bear 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have posted a proposed variation for this section please let me know your feedback. Also do have access to the Djihad article on EoI? I have a concern on whether the statement "Those who do not accept these terms may be enslaved or killed." is accurately portrayed in the current version or if it is a stray leftover from a redaction of a previous version.-- Tigeroo 18:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, this is exactly what I would have done sans this environment of bad-faith 3RR reports. Proabivouac 12:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you also consider restoring the Jihad section etc. from Tigeroo's unorthodox edits? I only restored Beit Or's recent edits to avoid another revert, after attempting to reverse Tigeroo's (apparently inadvertant) blanking…The Wikimedia software delay is wreaking chaos just about now. Proabivouac 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding religions other than Judaism and Christianity, Islamic law states that unless there is a pact between members of these religions and Muslims, they are to be fought and compelled to accept Islam.
This sentence
The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which is more easily initiated by the husband than by the wife.
is unsourced, vague and poorly written (passive language again!) Consider Beit Or's replacement:
The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which the husband initiates by pronouncing the word "divorce"(ref).
Accordingly, I've reinstated this improvement.
See Talk:Islam#Review of Beit Or improvements, where I've addressed these "disruptive" changes in their entirety. Proabivouac 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam 'alaikum bro, do you use AIM or MSN? I swear i'm not trying to stalk you. MezzoMezzo 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This proposal is currently on the table here. Not sure if you have a view you want to make known. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar | |
You worth is for your major works on the article Islam , have a nice day Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
Is it worth putting this forward for RFPP as I don't envisage the anons stopping the reverts or attempting to engage in discussion? → AA ( talk • contribs) — 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is now semi-protected for two weeks. But no sooner had it been done, a user pops up to revert it back again - as his 2nd edit. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam Bro. I've nominated this article as a good article. Please check it and put it on your watch page.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about reverting your edit it was an accident. It was my mistake meant to revert something else. Xecide 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam. I made a new template for salaf on the basis of Template:Infobox Muslim scholars and I used it in Salman the Persian. please check and improve it. Thanks.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam again. I've made a new task force( Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force) in WikiProject Islam and I invite you to participate in it because you active in relevant articles like Muslim history. God bless you.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As you have access to the EoI, could you see if the Bahira article can be expanded (since it's main source is the EoI) - when you have time :) → AA ( talk • contribs) — 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Dont remove this image again. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, as you've had some contact with this user, I'd appreciate your review of this report. Proabivouac 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Itaqallah. Thank you for your message. I would regrettably have to disagree with you, I beleive that Islam and Slavery and Banu Qurayza are very much related of Criticism of Islam. Personally I think that Slavery and Islam is overwhelmingly a question of criticism of Islam, but that is not really the point. Templates are put on when an article is a part of a series, which these are. Several articles are part of several series, because being in a series does not imply that the series is the only interest in that article, which seems to be your argument. I would be happy for a wider debate with other users if you disagree, however i think you will find that if an article is relevant to a series, then a template is considered appropriate. The template does not have to be shown to be the "main theme", as you suggest. N-edits 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
At least that is my understanding of it, but as i say a wider discussion would be completely appropriate if you wish. N-edits 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly "much of the article deals with slavery in Islamic thought, jurisprudence, and history, as well as apparently modern instances of it" but this doesnt mean that it is not criticissm. you claim "there is very little in terms of criticism in the article" but in any western society the article is understood as criticism since slavery is considered abhorrent. On the Criticism of Islam page, the criticism simply states that islam has slavery, and that is already a criticism in most countries. In addition I completely disagree that "very few" scholars criticise this aspect of islam, i have read much criticism of it.
I am afraid I still feel as I originally stated and I am really very unlikely to change my mind. I still feel you misunderstand the point of a template, and i am surprised you do think a reader of the article will not understand it as criticism unless they see the template.
If you wish to insist on your point, we will not agree, so I think the only solution is to put the matter to other editors.
Regards, N-edits 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Does everybody else agree on the current version or are willing to discuss changes without edit-warring? It looks to me that the banned user was the only one with a problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)
Though I understand your motivation for editing the way you have in our recent dispute, I call your attention to 33:40, which is the source of the negation of treating adopted sons as real sons in every respect. Arrow740 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary here, what is really needless is to trivialize the broad consensus found in the works of those western scholars that I found. Those scholars who display "evaluation presuming authenticity" in doing so indicate that what debate there is about the subject doesn't bear mentioning. This is very important to know. "EoI summary of dispute is quite fine" no, Welch is giving the background as a prelude to his own analysis, which is in agreement on the actual fact of the satanic verses. "is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention" is irrelevant, this article is about history, not biased opinions of it. Arrow740 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)The prophet was eager for the welfare of his people, desiring to win them to him by any means he could. It has been reported that he longed for a way to win them, and part of what he did to that end is what Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazī.
That's what you did. You removed sourced criticism (and much less apologetics) and replaced it with material that it related to the issue, but not to criticism of it. So you are providing the response. That is original synthesis. Arrow740 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam 'alaikum akhi, I can see that you're quite busy improving on articles mashaAllah. I do have a small request, though. Recently,
User:Chubeat8 has made a number of erratic and suspicious edits to the articles on
Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz and
Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee. He has done so with both the above account and also the following IP addresses:
one,
two,
three,
four, and
five. I know these were his as some of his comments on the respective talk pages were left by these addresses as well but signed off as "chubeat8"; sometimes he logs in to respond, sometimes he uses one of these various addresses. You can review
Talk:Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee and ESPECIALLY
Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz for some background on the issue; the talk page for Bin Baz specifically is where I call him out for posting intentional misinformation. I also believe that he is guilty of both "Excessive lengthening" and "Sneaky vandalism" per the official
Wikipedia:Vandalism policy.
I'm not necessarily asking for any direct involvement (thought that would be welcome), just that you could brush up on what's going on and monitor the articles and talk pages so there's no more funny business. This guy has been warned repeatedly by both me and others and doesn't seem to be giving up. Any help you could give would be much appreciated, jazak Allah khair.
MezzoMezzo
20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Asslamualaykum,
Are you familiar with the procedure to produce a good article or even a featured article? Basically I want Islamic military jurisprudence to be evaluated by some experienced wikipedian and give suggestion as to how I can improve this article until it becomes a "good" one. Please advise on my future steps. Bless sins 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I intend to go through this list and nominate the listed articles for AfD as Wikipedia is not a textbook but would be interested in your views before I go ahead. Thanks. → AA ( talk) — 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Hadith of the stroke is apprently a famous hadith but has a cn tag on it. → AA ( talk) — 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete. Carlossuarez46 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can assist in the rewrite of this article (being attempted at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox) please do so and/or keep an eye on Talk:Fatimah to voice your opinion in moving it into mainspace following the re-write or in gauging consensus. → AA ( talk) — 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to give you a heads up, you accidentally made an article User Swapant instead of going to the userpage. I've moved it here accordingly. - WarthogDemon 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your report of the DY71 sock or emulator. As I said to another user, I feel that the quiet blocking of these accounts is the best way of dealing with York - there is none of the drama that a checkuser request has - he is simply and quietly blocked. It's a block first, ask questions later case with York. ck lostsword • T • C 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you review the edits of Prester John ( talk · contribs) who's re-instating all the edits of User:Ultrabias - this one for example. Edit summaries appear to indicate a sock of DY71 ( [1], [2]). Thanks. → AA ( talk) — 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
ITAQALLAH I thought you did a nice job on the article - don't be discouraged by what others say. While there were some issues, I still maintain you did a good job of writing it - especially considering that it is very difficult when writing of the Prophet to separate religion from history. old windy bear 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have posted a proposed variation for this section please let me know your feedback. Also do have access to the Djihad article on EoI? I have a concern on whether the statement "Those who do not accept these terms may be enslaved or killed." is accurately portrayed in the current version or if it is a stray leftover from a redaction of a previous version.-- Tigeroo 18:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, this is exactly what I would have done sans this environment of bad-faith 3RR reports. Proabivouac 12:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you also consider restoring the Jihad section etc. from Tigeroo's unorthodox edits? I only restored Beit Or's recent edits to avoid another revert, after attempting to reverse Tigeroo's (apparently inadvertant) blanking…The Wikimedia software delay is wreaking chaos just about now. Proabivouac 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding religions other than Judaism and Christianity, Islamic law states that unless there is a pact between members of these religions and Muslims, they are to be fought and compelled to accept Islam.
This sentence
The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which is more easily initiated by the husband than by the wife.
is unsourced, vague and poorly written (passive language again!) Consider Beit Or's replacement:
The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which the husband initiates by pronouncing the word "divorce"(ref).
Accordingly, I've reinstated this improvement.
See Talk:Islam#Review of Beit Or improvements, where I've addressed these "disruptive" changes in their entirety. Proabivouac 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam 'alaikum bro, do you use AIM or MSN? I swear i'm not trying to stalk you. MezzoMezzo 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This proposal is currently on the table here. Not sure if you have a view you want to make known. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar | |
You worth is for your major works on the article Islam , have a nice day Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
Is it worth putting this forward for RFPP as I don't envisage the anons stopping the reverts or attempting to engage in discussion? → AA ( talk • contribs) — 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is now semi-protected for two weeks. But no sooner had it been done, a user pops up to revert it back again - as his 2nd edit. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam Bro. I've nominated this article as a good article. Please check it and put it on your watch page.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about reverting your edit it was an accident. It was my mistake meant to revert something else. Xecide 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam. I made a new template for salaf on the basis of Template:Infobox Muslim scholars and I used it in Salman the Persian. please check and improve it. Thanks.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam again. I've made a new task force( Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force) in WikiProject Islam and I invite you to participate in it because you active in relevant articles like Muslim history. God bless you.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As you have access to the EoI, could you see if the Bahira article can be expanded (since it's main source is the EoI) - when you have time :) → AA ( talk • contribs) — 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Dont remove this image again. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, as you've had some contact with this user, I'd appreciate your review of this report. Proabivouac 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Itaqallah. Thank you for your message. I would regrettably have to disagree with you, I beleive that Islam and Slavery and Banu Qurayza are very much related of Criticism of Islam. Personally I think that Slavery and Islam is overwhelmingly a question of criticism of Islam, but that is not really the point. Templates are put on when an article is a part of a series, which these are. Several articles are part of several series, because being in a series does not imply that the series is the only interest in that article, which seems to be your argument. I would be happy for a wider debate with other users if you disagree, however i think you will find that if an article is relevant to a series, then a template is considered appropriate. The template does not have to be shown to be the "main theme", as you suggest. N-edits 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
At least that is my understanding of it, but as i say a wider discussion would be completely appropriate if you wish. N-edits 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly "much of the article deals with slavery in Islamic thought, jurisprudence, and history, as well as apparently modern instances of it" but this doesnt mean that it is not criticissm. you claim "there is very little in terms of criticism in the article" but in any western society the article is understood as criticism since slavery is considered abhorrent. On the Criticism of Islam page, the criticism simply states that islam has slavery, and that is already a criticism in most countries. In addition I completely disagree that "very few" scholars criticise this aspect of islam, i have read much criticism of it.
I am afraid I still feel as I originally stated and I am really very unlikely to change my mind. I still feel you misunderstand the point of a template, and i am surprised you do think a reader of the article will not understand it as criticism unless they see the template.
If you wish to insist on your point, we will not agree, so I think the only solution is to put the matter to other editors.
Regards, N-edits 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Does everybody else agree on the current version or are willing to discuss changes without edit-warring? It looks to me that the banned user was the only one with a problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)
Though I understand your motivation for editing the way you have in our recent dispute, I call your attention to 33:40, which is the source of the negation of treating adopted sons as real sons in every respect. Arrow740 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary here, what is really needless is to trivialize the broad consensus found in the works of those western scholars that I found. Those scholars who display "evaluation presuming authenticity" in doing so indicate that what debate there is about the subject doesn't bear mentioning. This is very important to know. "EoI summary of dispute is quite fine" no, Welch is giving the background as a prelude to his own analysis, which is in agreement on the actual fact of the satanic verses. "is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention" is irrelevant, this article is about history, not biased opinions of it. Arrow740 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)The prophet was eager for the welfare of his people, desiring to win them to him by any means he could. It has been reported that he longed for a way to win them, and part of what he did to that end is what Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazī.
That's what you did. You removed sourced criticism (and much less apologetics) and replaced it with material that it related to the issue, but not to criticism of it. So you are providing the response. That is original synthesis. Arrow740 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam 'alaikum akhi, I can see that you're quite busy improving on articles mashaAllah. I do have a small request, though. Recently,
User:Chubeat8 has made a number of erratic and suspicious edits to the articles on
Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz and
Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee. He has done so with both the above account and also the following IP addresses:
one,
two,
three,
four, and
five. I know these were his as some of his comments on the respective talk pages were left by these addresses as well but signed off as "chubeat8"; sometimes he logs in to respond, sometimes he uses one of these various addresses. You can review
Talk:Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee and ESPECIALLY
Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz for some background on the issue; the talk page for Bin Baz specifically is where I call him out for posting intentional misinformation. I also believe that he is guilty of both "Excessive lengthening" and "Sneaky vandalism" per the official
Wikipedia:Vandalism policy.
I'm not necessarily asking for any direct involvement (thought that would be welcome), just that you could brush up on what's going on and monitor the articles and talk pages so there's no more funny business. This guy has been warned repeatedly by both me and others and doesn't seem to be giving up. Any help you could give would be much appreciated, jazak Allah khair.
MezzoMezzo
20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Asslamualaykum,
Are you familiar with the procedure to produce a good article or even a featured article? Basically I want Islamic military jurisprudence to be evaluated by some experienced wikipedian and give suggestion as to how I can improve this article until it becomes a "good" one. Please advise on my future steps. Bless sins 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I intend to go through this list and nominate the listed articles for AfD as Wikipedia is not a textbook but would be interested in your views before I go ahead. Thanks. → AA ( talk) — 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Hadith of the stroke is apprently a famous hadith but has a cn tag on it. → AA ( talk) — 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete. Carlossuarez46 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can assist in the rewrite of this article (being attempted at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox) please do so and/or keep an eye on Talk:Fatimah to voice your opinion in moving it into mainspace following the re-write or in gauging consensus. → AA ( talk) — 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to give you a heads up, you accidentally made an article User Swapant instead of going to the userpage. I've moved it here accordingly. - WarthogDemon 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)