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. |
For this, see WP:OR. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure what you mean. The footnote cites about 20+ pages worth of material in these books; the statement is a summarization, not a quote, and therefore it is representative of the points expressed on these pages. It's unsurprising that you can't find these sources online, because they aren't yet in the public domain; that is to say, they aren't free, and you'll either have to buy them or look them up at the local library.
So, here's what I'm saying: the sentence in question is a summarization of the points expressed in these two sources, both of which are published and verifiable. "Verifiability" doesn't mean that you can look the source up online; it means that anyone can go to a library or bookstore (or the internet), and check that the text conveys the same information as the sentence given. I just thought I'd clarify, since you're a new user.-- C.Logan ( talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats not good. Please dont delete comments like that. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The tag I've added onto the Qur'an and miracles page a couple of times is rightfully there in my mind, because Wikipedia has various style guidelines with which we have to adhere. Although the set-up in use may be easier to read, it is not an encyclopedic format. We need to consolidate, rather than break into sections, the information presented in each respect. Aminz started to do so with his recent edit. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. We are encouraged to avoid bulleting, numbering, and placing into repetitive "Claim/Response" sections.-- C.Logan ( talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Arrow740 ( talk) 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Logan, in my opinion, this section should only focus on the claim and its criticism, please note that there are other notable scholars who claim the scientific miracles. In my opinion the criticism of the scholars motivations should be put in their dedicated articles. ( Imad marie ( talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
Both you and Arrow740 are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violation of WP:3RR on The relation between Islam and science. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|reason}} below. Sandstein ( talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That source is in the Quran itself. I will make the edit with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyMuslimWarrior ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Im not going to quote someone who read the Quran when its plainly obvious the Quran is unlike the Bible in style and content, and therefore the Quran cannot be a rehash of the Bible. Its not the format to provide a citation for every single fact. If I say the sky is blue, I dont have to get a scientist to write a quote so I can cite it. Furthermore, you havent stopped people from using obscure, anti-Islamic authors as their sources when making ridiculous statements in Islam-related articles. HolyMuslimWarrior ( talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
When we move a page, we keep the redirect from the old page name. By the way, was there consensus for the change? I have my doubts on that, since "alleged" is considered opprobrious and is almost never used in titles--certainly not as a NPOV improvement. DGG ( talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipdai is NOPV and it will express all opinion about this issue.The articles by the way are very reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Use WOT extension of firefox and you will get warning. Here you can download it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence of Naggar being a reliable source? Where are the 3rd party references where he's being cited? Are there any? If he's not known in the scientific community, that means he's not a RS. Anyone can get a PhD and start up his own website. Thats not the criteria for inclusion here. You should stop pushing him as a source here. We need confirmation from the general scientific community that he's qualified to speak on science and Islam. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, when the source uses a neo, we use it too since we are quoting from the source. I think thats common sense. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Imad,
Well, if you can show that the sub-article has enough information, we can have a separate article for it. If it is too short (as it is now), we can merge it to the bigger one. If it got large, we can re-create the sub-article again... So, I think it really depends on the size than the topic. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It say a little more than Muhammad was illiterate. Oren.tal ( talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be a bizarre place and the rules make very little sense to newcomers. Let me give you some advice: don't make any more reverts on that page for now. You're not going to force those changes through just by repeatedly editing them; either you will get blocked, or the page will be locked from editing.
I made the same mistake myself when I started working on WP, and the result is I didn't get anything accomplished on the first few Israel/Palestine pages I worked on, and even got blocked briefly.
Stay cool and use the talk page. Try and be objective. Everything you write on a controversial topic like this needs to be directly supported by the source you provide. If you've written something that doesn't appear in the source you've given, you should either modify what you've written, or provide additional sources that have the information.
Contact me on my talk page with any questions. Please believe me when I say that I'm on your side here and I'm not trying to make you give up on the article. Just telling you the best way to accomplish what you want to see done.
< eleland/ talk edits> 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Imad. I used to edit Quran and Miracles, where I added miracles that are in the Qur'an, which I believe is something important enough to be in Wikipedia, in an appropriate article for the topic. However, you sent them to another article which now does not exist. I thought of asking you where this information should go, before you simply delete my edits again. Slsm07 ( talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Imad, the academia by its very secular nature favors the social and materialistic explanations for the emergence of Islam (or other religous or non-religous movements) as explained in Muhammad#Social_factors. So, I was trying to faithfully present that. But of course that is not an Islamic-friendly POV if one says or implies that the whole birth of Islam could be explained away by social and economic factors in a cause-and-effect way. So, I'll promise that I try to find something and add a sentence or two explaining the Muslim view.
The Qur'an in verse 3:159 does talk about the influence of Mohammed's character in his success and the academics do talk about his gifts but I don't feel it would be a good addition because the description of Muhammad's character varies from book to book. The differing descriptions can be included in some article but probably not in Muhammad article where there is not much space; we need to stick to the universally-accepted-facts instead of mentioning the opinions of a few scholars.-- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Alford Welch in Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam says:
That Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact of the movement he founded cannot be seriously questioned. How did his extraordinary success occur? One answer is theological: God chose Muhammad as His Prophet and was directly responsible for his triumph over polytheism and evil. Another is based on historical and other empirical evidence : Muhammad had remarkable leadership skills and a charismatic personality that enabled him to attract other strong leaders who were firmly committed to him, and together they were responsible for the early success of the Muslim community. These two views of Muhammad—one as the ideal person, the exemplar for Islamic orthodoxy and orthopraxis, and the other as the historical person, who first appears as a somewhat shadowy figure whose early life is little known, but who then gradually emerges into the light of history—are not necessarily incompatible, but they involve two separate inquiries, each pursuing its own path of investigation, each following its own methods of analysis. While the theologian and other believers seek to understand the role of God acting through the Prophet, the historian seeks the measure of the man himself. The theological answer is obvious and indisputable for the believer, but, if taken alone as the explanation of the Prophet's success, it runs the risk of diminishing Muhammad's greatness as a man by making him a mere agent of divine action.
-- Be happy!! ( talk) 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been the main contributor to that article for over five years. I am not making sudden new changes, but merely restoring a better written version that has been stable for a very long time. Please notice that I was able to integrate your constructive changes to the sections on his early career to the entry I have restored. Please use that entry as a basis for making changes. Regards, 172 | Talk 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I made this edit per the promise I had made [2]. Hope it looks more unbiased now. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In writing CIA articles, I've tried to indicate why a "see also" or "further" link exists -- some words about what will be learned by following that link. For example, your wikilink makes perfect sense if the Saddam article covers US-Saddam relations that did not involve CIA, as from Defense, State, or White House representation.
Would you mind adding the clarification? If that article does have CIA-specific information, perhaps some of it should be cloned/edited into the regional CIA article.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I am answering your question, although I certainly consider it an occupation. In this case, I believe that the controlling international law would be principally the Fourth Geneva Convention. Adjudicating status is difficult, but, in general, the International Committee of the Red Cross, rather than the UN, deals with the status of such things as the Occupying Power and the Protecting Power. Israel, as far as I know, has never accepted the status of Occupying Power, so there has been no movement to name a Protecting Power.
Unfortunately, customary international law does not deal well with situations where the participants are other than nation-states. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to get a consensus for such major changes, just writing a message is not enough. The status quo should remain until the discussions have concluded, and a consensus has been reached. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Imad, several users are opposed to the splitting of "The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq", but you're going ahead with it anyway without a consensus. Please be patient, allow discussions for some time, and try to achieve a consensus or a compromise solution before changing the original format. Otherwise, the changes will not remain on the page, and the article will remain unstable. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Imad,
Could you please take a look at my proposal here [3] (diff [4]). Thanks in advance, Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I prefer the earlier version, for several reasons. You may have noticed that very shortly after putting in a brief introduction to the U.S. section, another editor immediately put in more criticism of the U.S., and I reverted it. The criticism of individual countries belongs in individual country sections, with due regard that certain events involved multiple countries.
I removed the Nathan Hurd material, as it is only a chronology, under an organization that no longer updates it, and was concerned with sanctions related to the 2003 war, not the Iran-Iraq war. It is certainly not a reliable or notable source to justify the assertion that the Iran-US "Tanker War" was undertaken, by the US, only to support Iraq.
There are over thirty countries involved, so there has to be a reasonably compact heading. Starting the section on generic support to Iraq with a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam does not seem NPOV to me; it suggests that the US was the most important puppetmaster. It might even be appropriate to arrange the wikilinks in a compact table.
Example:
Country | Support to Iraq | Support to Iran |
---|---|---|
France | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
United States | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
Singapore | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
Soviet Union | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
and so forth Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
By having separate articles, each country's actions -- or activities concealed from that nation's government -- can be discussed in detail. I believe this can be much more NPOV, because if there is more than a minimal link in the main article, some editors will keep expanding it to blame as much as possible on the US.
I will try to do Singapore next, as a good example of a non-obvious amount of support by a smaller country. Singapore is also relevant as a major supplier of chemical weapons precursors, and as the place where Italian firms moved their land and naval mine manufacturing after Italy imposed export controls.
The US draft in my userspace is difficult. I really want to try to keep the Tanker War separate from the very significant and complex financial and industrial transactions. Indeed, the BNL scandal, involving the US subsidiary of the largest bank in Italy, owned by the state of Italy, may have provided USD $5 billion in funding to Iraq, a good deal of which was spent in countries other than Italy and the US. By bringing in the Tanker War, it's too easy to obscure the commercial and governmental transactions.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm working on it now, do look the draft I'm saving frequently of User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Singapore support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Much detective work will be required to tell if Singapore was merely an intermediate shipping step here, possibly for chemicals originating in India or Germany. There are some side references in other countries suggesting, variously, that the chemical exporter in Singapore may have been owned interests in Dubai, possibly by Iraqi agents. Dubai itself is an apparent transshipment point for proscribed shipments.
It is that kind of background, with seemingly small places such as Dubai and Singapore, that a great deal of extremely critical material made its way to Iraq. In my younger years, I was a biochemist and had some technical experience with chemical and biological weapons -- that gives me an idea of the significance of what might seem a small shipment, especially of the hard-to-explain chemicals in Chemical Weapons Convention schedules 1 and 2. I would note, both for chemical and biological warfare, some of the custom manufacturing equipment, or materials for it, are the hardest to get. There are steps in nerve gas manufacture when the reaction has to be carried out in silver, platinum, or specialized Teflon (difficult to make) vessels. The hard part in biological warfare isn't getting the cultures, but getting the specialized fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers (freeze-driers), and refrigerated grinding mills. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, "I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."
Thank you, Imad. I think Islam related articles have moved forward quite substantially considering their state a few years ago (there were barely any good or featured articles). Things have improved somewhat since then, but there's still plenty of work to be done :-). Thank you for your contributions, too. I hope there will be many more to come. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
When you are using <ref name=XXX>{{citation..., you don't have to put the XXX in quote unless it has spaces in it. Hyphens work fine without quotes; I haven't tried other punctuation marks. Doing this saves a little time, but, more importantly, is one less thing to go wrong when using <ref name=XXX /> later in the article and missing a quotation mark. Note the space before the / in the latter example; as you probably already know, not having the space confuses the software. I had to learn this the hard way!
Cheers, Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Apparently, this was triggered by a bot that detected a copyvio of something I hadn't finished paraphrasing -- unfortunately, I took the text out of userspace too soon.
Now, the bot is happy, but several people seem convinced the subject can't be covered fairly. For those unfamiliar with the overall design of these articles, see User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You can see various drafts from that section; apparently, I have to be in better shape before moving to mainspace.
I'd like to get some precedent established that these sub-articles are intended to reduce rants currently on Iran-Iraq War, not to increase them. As you know, a similar sub-article technique helped reduce the sound and fury on the Central Intelligence Agency main page.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Imad,
I searched but couldn't find anything. Sorry. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As I'm sure you've noticed I've made a few edits, hopefully nothing too massive - just adding a few points and amending some of the existing text. Probably at the moment some of the more "positive" stuff needs building up, ie the condemnations and/or expressions of sympathy, maybe with a few more very brief direct quotes so long as it doesn't just end up a collection of them. But having said that, I'm not sure it's worth you, me or anyone else putting too much work into this until we know what's going to happen .. I guess we'll see. Maybe just post it pretty soon as a standalone, real page? That might encourage more people to work on it as well. -- Nickhh ( talk) 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:First intifada.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot ( talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where would you be after all without my guidance and leadership? Sorry, but that just made my Sunday morning! -- Nickhh ( talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will look for one but it will be hard to find something without copyright. I'm also not so good at understanding when copyright can in fact be waived. But I'll let you know if something comes up. Thanks for asking and happy editing. Tiamut talk 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had a stressful few days in the mundane world, and came back from a late meeting to find myself involved in a totally unexpected edit war. By some odd sequence of links, I wound up at your user page, and found your image of "Beautiful Amman" remarkably calming; I hope you don't mind, once my color printer is working again*, I put a hard copy on my wall.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 05:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You asked that only hight [sic] quality sources must be used and stated that this, this, this and thislinks are not reliable. So what's wrong with Secular Web? I'm going to revert your POV-edit. Abdullais4u ( talk) 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please fix the spelling error. Thanks. Novidmarana ( talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Imad - I see you've been moving a lot of articles. I don't object to standardizing the naming scheme, but I do expect you to fix the many double redirects you've been creating. Raul654 ( talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus for your unilateral re-namings, which removed the term "massacre" from over a dozen massacres of Israelis, but somehow missed similarly renaming the Deir Yassin massacre, Qibya massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Safsaf massacre, Arab al-Mawasi massacre, Eilabun massacre, al-Kabri massacre, Balad al-Shaykh massacre, Ein al-Zeitun massacre, etc. To ensure that your actions do not seem to be entirely one-sided, please focus your future re-naming efforts on the articles I have just listed. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Regard this edit - article Talk pages are for improving article content, not for attacking or otherwise commenting on other editors. The remarks you made are inappropriate, and you should strike them out. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi i am about to be banned by the zionist Okedem for simply stating the fact of Israeli continued inclusion into Lebanon which breaks international law and provokes the resiustance fighters Hezbollah. The Zionists and their neo-cons friends use the media and try to manipulate the public into beleiving their ruthless actions is justfield. Will you unban me so i can continue my quest for the truth to be revealed thank you ( talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 [UTC]
I can't follow your Ownership: "small group of editors here have managed to impose their will" argument/allegation. [5] 2 AfDs, an FTN post and a couple of merge proposals suggested that the community does not agree with the changes you suggested. A large number of uninvolved editors and admins registered their opinions and I disagree with this argument completely. I would suggest that you focus on content rather than uncivil commentary towards fellow editors. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Imad, I see it exactly as you do. One shall just have to wait. Two of us stood no chance of getting anywhere on this were it taken further, since this would quickly turn into a numbers game, and those who have managed to whittle down the lead on the capital to the Israeli position will defend it, as a textual conquest, at all costs. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.
One thing that is appallingly lacking in these I/P articles is detailed information from Arabic sources. People tend to focus hugh volumes of energy and concentration on minute points of language and phrasing that have political content, and rhetorical consequences. Of course one cannot splash these Arabic sources everywhere since it is an English encyclopedia, but just by providing hints on what is important in the Arabic histories of the towns, cities and regions of Palestine enables outsiders like myself to do research on the English literature regarding these points. We have noted for example that, apart from the Christian history, the Islamic history of the city is poorly shaped. I hope in the meantime that you can find time to note down lacunae of this type from time to time. Unless more effort is done in this regard, Wiki I/P articles will suffer what the land suffers from, i.e., a 'judaisation' of the history, which makes Palestinian realities even more marginal than they have become under Israel's preponderance of power over the past decades. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (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. |
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. |
For this, see WP:OR. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure what you mean. The footnote cites about 20+ pages worth of material in these books; the statement is a summarization, not a quote, and therefore it is representative of the points expressed on these pages. It's unsurprising that you can't find these sources online, because they aren't yet in the public domain; that is to say, they aren't free, and you'll either have to buy them or look them up at the local library.
So, here's what I'm saying: the sentence in question is a summarization of the points expressed in these two sources, both of which are published and verifiable. "Verifiability" doesn't mean that you can look the source up online; it means that anyone can go to a library or bookstore (or the internet), and check that the text conveys the same information as the sentence given. I just thought I'd clarify, since you're a new user.-- C.Logan ( talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats not good. Please dont delete comments like that. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The tag I've added onto the Qur'an and miracles page a couple of times is rightfully there in my mind, because Wikipedia has various style guidelines with which we have to adhere. Although the set-up in use may be easier to read, it is not an encyclopedic format. We need to consolidate, rather than break into sections, the information presented in each respect. Aminz started to do so with his recent edit. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. We are encouraged to avoid bulleting, numbering, and placing into repetitive "Claim/Response" sections.-- C.Logan ( talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Arrow740 ( talk) 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Logan, in my opinion, this section should only focus on the claim and its criticism, please note that there are other notable scholars who claim the scientific miracles. In my opinion the criticism of the scholars motivations should be put in their dedicated articles. ( Imad marie ( talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
Both you and Arrow740 are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violation of WP:3RR on The relation between Islam and science. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|reason}} below. Sandstein ( talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That source is in the Quran itself. I will make the edit with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyMuslimWarrior ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Im not going to quote someone who read the Quran when its plainly obvious the Quran is unlike the Bible in style and content, and therefore the Quran cannot be a rehash of the Bible. Its not the format to provide a citation for every single fact. If I say the sky is blue, I dont have to get a scientist to write a quote so I can cite it. Furthermore, you havent stopped people from using obscure, anti-Islamic authors as their sources when making ridiculous statements in Islam-related articles. HolyMuslimWarrior ( talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
When we move a page, we keep the redirect from the old page name. By the way, was there consensus for the change? I have my doubts on that, since "alleged" is considered opprobrious and is almost never used in titles--certainly not as a NPOV improvement. DGG ( talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipdai is NOPV and it will express all opinion about this issue.The articles by the way are very reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Use WOT extension of firefox and you will get warning. Here you can download it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence of Naggar being a reliable source? Where are the 3rd party references where he's being cited? Are there any? If he's not known in the scientific community, that means he's not a RS. Anyone can get a PhD and start up his own website. Thats not the criteria for inclusion here. You should stop pushing him as a source here. We need confirmation from the general scientific community that he's qualified to speak on science and Islam. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, when the source uses a neo, we use it too since we are quoting from the source. I think thats common sense. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Imad,
Well, if you can show that the sub-article has enough information, we can have a separate article for it. If it is too short (as it is now), we can merge it to the bigger one. If it got large, we can re-create the sub-article again... So, I think it really depends on the size than the topic. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It say a little more than Muhammad was illiterate. Oren.tal ( talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be a bizarre place and the rules make very little sense to newcomers. Let me give you some advice: don't make any more reverts on that page for now. You're not going to force those changes through just by repeatedly editing them; either you will get blocked, or the page will be locked from editing.
I made the same mistake myself when I started working on WP, and the result is I didn't get anything accomplished on the first few Israel/Palestine pages I worked on, and even got blocked briefly.
Stay cool and use the talk page. Try and be objective. Everything you write on a controversial topic like this needs to be directly supported by the source you provide. If you've written something that doesn't appear in the source you've given, you should either modify what you've written, or provide additional sources that have the information.
Contact me on my talk page with any questions. Please believe me when I say that I'm on your side here and I'm not trying to make you give up on the article. Just telling you the best way to accomplish what you want to see done.
< eleland/ talk edits> 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Imad. I used to edit Quran and Miracles, where I added miracles that are in the Qur'an, which I believe is something important enough to be in Wikipedia, in an appropriate article for the topic. However, you sent them to another article which now does not exist. I thought of asking you where this information should go, before you simply delete my edits again. Slsm07 ( talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Imad, the academia by its very secular nature favors the social and materialistic explanations for the emergence of Islam (or other religous or non-religous movements) as explained in Muhammad#Social_factors. So, I was trying to faithfully present that. But of course that is not an Islamic-friendly POV if one says or implies that the whole birth of Islam could be explained away by social and economic factors in a cause-and-effect way. So, I'll promise that I try to find something and add a sentence or two explaining the Muslim view.
The Qur'an in verse 3:159 does talk about the influence of Mohammed's character in his success and the academics do talk about his gifts but I don't feel it would be a good addition because the description of Muhammad's character varies from book to book. The differing descriptions can be included in some article but probably not in Muhammad article where there is not much space; we need to stick to the universally-accepted-facts instead of mentioning the opinions of a few scholars.-- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Alford Welch in Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam says:
That Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact of the movement he founded cannot be seriously questioned. How did his extraordinary success occur? One answer is theological: God chose Muhammad as His Prophet and was directly responsible for his triumph over polytheism and evil. Another is based on historical and other empirical evidence : Muhammad had remarkable leadership skills and a charismatic personality that enabled him to attract other strong leaders who were firmly committed to him, and together they were responsible for the early success of the Muslim community. These two views of Muhammad—one as the ideal person, the exemplar for Islamic orthodoxy and orthopraxis, and the other as the historical person, who first appears as a somewhat shadowy figure whose early life is little known, but who then gradually emerges into the light of history—are not necessarily incompatible, but they involve two separate inquiries, each pursuing its own path of investigation, each following its own methods of analysis. While the theologian and other believers seek to understand the role of God acting through the Prophet, the historian seeks the measure of the man himself. The theological answer is obvious and indisputable for the believer, but, if taken alone as the explanation of the Prophet's success, it runs the risk of diminishing Muhammad's greatness as a man by making him a mere agent of divine action.
-- Be happy!! ( talk) 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been the main contributor to that article for over five years. I am not making sudden new changes, but merely restoring a better written version that has been stable for a very long time. Please notice that I was able to integrate your constructive changes to the sections on his early career to the entry I have restored. Please use that entry as a basis for making changes. Regards, 172 | Talk 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I made this edit per the promise I had made [2]. Hope it looks more unbiased now. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In writing CIA articles, I've tried to indicate why a "see also" or "further" link exists -- some words about what will be learned by following that link. For example, your wikilink makes perfect sense if the Saddam article covers US-Saddam relations that did not involve CIA, as from Defense, State, or White House representation.
Would you mind adding the clarification? If that article does have CIA-specific information, perhaps some of it should be cloned/edited into the regional CIA article.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I am answering your question, although I certainly consider it an occupation. In this case, I believe that the controlling international law would be principally the Fourth Geneva Convention. Adjudicating status is difficult, but, in general, the International Committee of the Red Cross, rather than the UN, deals with the status of such things as the Occupying Power and the Protecting Power. Israel, as far as I know, has never accepted the status of Occupying Power, so there has been no movement to name a Protecting Power.
Unfortunately, customary international law does not deal well with situations where the participants are other than nation-states. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to get a consensus for such major changes, just writing a message is not enough. The status quo should remain until the discussions have concluded, and a consensus has been reached. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Imad, several users are opposed to the splitting of "The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq", but you're going ahead with it anyway without a consensus. Please be patient, allow discussions for some time, and try to achieve a consensus or a compromise solution before changing the original format. Otherwise, the changes will not remain on the page, and the article will remain unstable. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Imad,
Could you please take a look at my proposal here [3] (diff [4]). Thanks in advance, Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I prefer the earlier version, for several reasons. You may have noticed that very shortly after putting in a brief introduction to the U.S. section, another editor immediately put in more criticism of the U.S., and I reverted it. The criticism of individual countries belongs in individual country sections, with due regard that certain events involved multiple countries.
I removed the Nathan Hurd material, as it is only a chronology, under an organization that no longer updates it, and was concerned with sanctions related to the 2003 war, not the Iran-Iraq war. It is certainly not a reliable or notable source to justify the assertion that the Iran-US "Tanker War" was undertaken, by the US, only to support Iraq.
There are over thirty countries involved, so there has to be a reasonably compact heading. Starting the section on generic support to Iraq with a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam does not seem NPOV to me; it suggests that the US was the most important puppetmaster. It might even be appropriate to arrange the wikilinks in a compact table.
Example:
Country | Support to Iraq | Support to Iran |
---|---|---|
France | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
United States | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
Singapore | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
Soviet Union | link to support to Iraq | link to support to Iran |
and so forth Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
By having separate articles, each country's actions -- or activities concealed from that nation's government -- can be discussed in detail. I believe this can be much more NPOV, because if there is more than a minimal link in the main article, some editors will keep expanding it to blame as much as possible on the US.
I will try to do Singapore next, as a good example of a non-obvious amount of support by a smaller country. Singapore is also relevant as a major supplier of chemical weapons precursors, and as the place where Italian firms moved their land and naval mine manufacturing after Italy imposed export controls.
The US draft in my userspace is difficult. I really want to try to keep the Tanker War separate from the very significant and complex financial and industrial transactions. Indeed, the BNL scandal, involving the US subsidiary of the largest bank in Italy, owned by the state of Italy, may have provided USD $5 billion in funding to Iraq, a good deal of which was spent in countries other than Italy and the US. By bringing in the Tanker War, it's too easy to obscure the commercial and governmental transactions.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm working on it now, do look the draft I'm saving frequently of User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Singapore support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Much detective work will be required to tell if Singapore was merely an intermediate shipping step here, possibly for chemicals originating in India or Germany. There are some side references in other countries suggesting, variously, that the chemical exporter in Singapore may have been owned interests in Dubai, possibly by Iraqi agents. Dubai itself is an apparent transshipment point for proscribed shipments.
It is that kind of background, with seemingly small places such as Dubai and Singapore, that a great deal of extremely critical material made its way to Iraq. In my younger years, I was a biochemist and had some technical experience with chemical and biological weapons -- that gives me an idea of the significance of what might seem a small shipment, especially of the hard-to-explain chemicals in Chemical Weapons Convention schedules 1 and 2. I would note, both for chemical and biological warfare, some of the custom manufacturing equipment, or materials for it, are the hardest to get. There are steps in nerve gas manufacture when the reaction has to be carried out in silver, platinum, or specialized Teflon (difficult to make) vessels. The hard part in biological warfare isn't getting the cultures, but getting the specialized fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers (freeze-driers), and refrigerated grinding mills. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, "I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."
Thank you, Imad. I think Islam related articles have moved forward quite substantially considering their state a few years ago (there were barely any good or featured articles). Things have improved somewhat since then, but there's still plenty of work to be done :-). Thank you for your contributions, too. I hope there will be many more to come. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
When you are using <ref name=XXX>{{citation..., you don't have to put the XXX in quote unless it has spaces in it. Hyphens work fine without quotes; I haven't tried other punctuation marks. Doing this saves a little time, but, more importantly, is one less thing to go wrong when using <ref name=XXX /> later in the article and missing a quotation mark. Note the space before the / in the latter example; as you probably already know, not having the space confuses the software. I had to learn this the hard way!
Cheers, Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Apparently, this was triggered by a bot that detected a copyvio of something I hadn't finished paraphrasing -- unfortunately, I took the text out of userspace too soon.
Now, the bot is happy, but several people seem convinced the subject can't be covered fairly. For those unfamiliar with the overall design of these articles, see User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You can see various drafts from that section; apparently, I have to be in better shape before moving to mainspace.
I'd like to get some precedent established that these sub-articles are intended to reduce rants currently on Iran-Iraq War, not to increase them. As you know, a similar sub-article technique helped reduce the sound and fury on the Central Intelligence Agency main page.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Imad,
I searched but couldn't find anything. Sorry. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As I'm sure you've noticed I've made a few edits, hopefully nothing too massive - just adding a few points and amending some of the existing text. Probably at the moment some of the more "positive" stuff needs building up, ie the condemnations and/or expressions of sympathy, maybe with a few more very brief direct quotes so long as it doesn't just end up a collection of them. But having said that, I'm not sure it's worth you, me or anyone else putting too much work into this until we know what's going to happen .. I guess we'll see. Maybe just post it pretty soon as a standalone, real page? That might encourage more people to work on it as well. -- Nickhh ( talk) 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:First intifada.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot ( talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where would you be after all without my guidance and leadership? Sorry, but that just made my Sunday morning! -- Nickhh ( talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will look for one but it will be hard to find something without copyright. I'm also not so good at understanding when copyright can in fact be waived. But I'll let you know if something comes up. Thanks for asking and happy editing. Tiamut talk 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had a stressful few days in the mundane world, and came back from a late meeting to find myself involved in a totally unexpected edit war. By some odd sequence of links, I wound up at your user page, and found your image of "Beautiful Amman" remarkably calming; I hope you don't mind, once my color printer is working again*, I put a hard copy on my wall.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 05:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You asked that only hight [sic] quality sources must be used and stated that this, this, this and thislinks are not reliable. So what's wrong with Secular Web? I'm going to revert your POV-edit. Abdullais4u ( talk) 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please fix the spelling error. Thanks. Novidmarana ( talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Imad - I see you've been moving a lot of articles. I don't object to standardizing the naming scheme, but I do expect you to fix the many double redirects you've been creating. Raul654 ( talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus for your unilateral re-namings, which removed the term "massacre" from over a dozen massacres of Israelis, but somehow missed similarly renaming the Deir Yassin massacre, Qibya massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Safsaf massacre, Arab al-Mawasi massacre, Eilabun massacre, al-Kabri massacre, Balad al-Shaykh massacre, Ein al-Zeitun massacre, etc. To ensure that your actions do not seem to be entirely one-sided, please focus your future re-naming efforts on the articles I have just listed. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Regard this edit - article Talk pages are for improving article content, not for attacking or otherwise commenting on other editors. The remarks you made are inappropriate, and you should strike them out. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi i am about to be banned by the zionist Okedem for simply stating the fact of Israeli continued inclusion into Lebanon which breaks international law and provokes the resiustance fighters Hezbollah. The Zionists and their neo-cons friends use the media and try to manipulate the public into beleiving their ruthless actions is justfield. Will you unban me so i can continue my quest for the truth to be revealed thank you ( talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 [UTC]
I can't follow your Ownership: "small group of editors here have managed to impose their will" argument/allegation. [5] 2 AfDs, an FTN post and a couple of merge proposals suggested that the community does not agree with the changes you suggested. A large number of uninvolved editors and admins registered their opinions and I disagree with this argument completely. I would suggest that you focus on content rather than uncivil commentary towards fellow editors. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Imad, I see it exactly as you do. One shall just have to wait. Two of us stood no chance of getting anywhere on this were it taken further, since this would quickly turn into a numbers game, and those who have managed to whittle down the lead on the capital to the Israeli position will defend it, as a textual conquest, at all costs. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.
One thing that is appallingly lacking in these I/P articles is detailed information from Arabic sources. People tend to focus hugh volumes of energy and concentration on minute points of language and phrasing that have political content, and rhetorical consequences. Of course one cannot splash these Arabic sources everywhere since it is an English encyclopedia, but just by providing hints on what is important in the Arabic histories of the towns, cities and regions of Palestine enables outsiders like myself to do research on the English literature regarding these points. We have noted for example that, apart from the Christian history, the Islamic history of the city is poorly shaped. I hope in the meantime that you can find time to note down lacunae of this type from time to time. Unless more effort is done in this regard, Wiki I/P articles will suffer what the land suffers from, i.e., a 'judaisation' of the history, which makes Palestinian realities even more marginal than they have become under Israel's preponderance of power over the past decades. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (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. |