Dude youre just being plain unfair. Sunni Muslims Do represent the vast majority of muslims in the world, approx. 90% and unlike shia muslims are not restricted to certain areas. You are more likely to meet a sunni muslim then any other kind of muslim. I am not insisting on completely removing shia views but rather confining them to certain sections entitled "The Shia view". because the shia are a minority you are reverse discriminating against us to protect their rights but really ure just being v.unfair to the rest of us. The articles are v.biased. u make it look as if the shia views are common beliefs of most muslims. as if they are infallible established facts being challenged by a sunni sect who are agents of tyrants who oppressed the shia. please reflect on this, dont just reply full stop....think about it. about the umar incident. when i first read it, i got a very negative image of umar. but when i followed the source and read up on the whole affair i got a very different picture of events. i suggest u do tht urself. i posted on the talk page about why i did it. its just purposively tries to protray umar as an evil man. this is the view of 5-10% of muslims and u can say tht in a separate section at the end. but overall the umar article was much better than abu bakr or the succession one which didnt give a balanced view at all. keep sectarian issues seperate. IMHO second-hand research is extremely subjective and not verifiable especially in issues such as this. im referring to the books u read bout these subjects. such as the rafidha issue. it is a fact tht muslims make a distinction between zaidi shias and rafidhi shias. rafidha means the ones that refuse. they approached zaid, the great grandson of ali, and asked him to curse Abu Bakr and umar in the friday sermon, which he refused. so they walked away from him so he said "rafadtamony" meaning "u refused me". thats how it came about. during the early period they were known as shia...or party. they were the first sect in islam, and muslims had never experianced such a thing before. and contrary to popular belief most shias in those days accepted the authority of Abu Bakr as religious duty but asserted the fact that Ali was more entitled to it. things kept on changing as times change. mujahid, the great mufassir of the Qur'an, who studied under ibn Abbas was one such shia.-- Blingpling 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm not boasting. I'm stating facts and helping you out. By the way, I have considered what you have said and I respect you a lot. But listen, we can't work this out through if we don't work together as a team. I compromised a bit and now I've made the page your way. Don't revert all my edits. Message me what you think is inappropriate and then I can give my feedback and somehow we will reach an agreement. Please look at the stuff I wrote more closely. Do compromise on some sections. I made the page a lot better. Trust me!
You can count her awards. There are six. Yesterday, I was watching television. They were talking about new records set at the Filmfare Awards. They talked about Black earning the highest awards ever beating down Devdas. They said Rani Mukerji made a record, tying with Nutan with 6 Filmfare Awards. They also said she was the first actress to ever win both the Popular Best Actress and Critics Best Actress at a single year for the same movie. Now, do you know more or the expertise in Filmfare Awards who do this as a professional job. Are you competing with them. I don't think you can do that. They have lived in India. They do this asa job and they understand the language. They have watched practically every movie released in Bollywood. What do you know? You're a foreigner. Please don't try to act smart and assimilate as an Indian. You'll be crushed down. I don't think you can take any criticism. You should because you need it big times.
Go to see this link and you'll see what she's called. I'll give you another proof once I find one. [1]
An Arabic word might not translate well to English and vice versa, as I am sure you know different languages. It will become particularly difficult when the words are close synonyms. While I agree with you "high" might be explained by what you said I did not think people would extrapolate it to "The High" when it is written capitalized like that. I have few suggestions: How about "The Supreme", "The Lofty","The Sublime", "The High Up". It is not really a big issue "The Exalted" is also good translation. At some point I will work on the 99 Names of God so that it will better formatted and understood. But yesterday I was working on Islamic Honorifics and I found that exalt most closely associated with Salla when people use blessing it closer to Arabic Baraka. Feel free to change it the way you like as far as I am concerned. Good Day TPW 17:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have quoted two islamic sources for what I have said, so what's the problem? hundred of hadith speak about the polytheists performing the Hajj.
I'm the anon that removed the image, I just forgot to log in. I removed it for a couple reasons. Firstly, its position at the bottom of the page was awkward and led me to assume someone placed it there as self promotion or for some other irrelevant reason. Secondly, I don't believe these women have anything to do with bhangra. They don't appear to be young performers on a modern collegiatee-level bhangra team that would have female dancers, and they're dressed in traditional giddha costume, not bhangra. A traditional institution such as Punjabi Virsa would not likely put on bhangra demonstrations featuring women, as bhangra is traditionally a man's dance. This image might be more suitable in the Giddha article as it in no way represents bhangra to me. Just because the caption says they're about to perform bhangra does not make it so. I suggest removing it in favor of an image of an actual bhangra team, preferably one that shows some form of the proper traditional bhangra costume of kurta, vest, lungi, pug, and turla. I'll leave it up to you to remove the image again. Hansahni
My apologies, I had no idea. In the Western world, that symbol is universally associated with Islam (note the adoption of the red crescent by the Red Cross). I definitely should've checked the talk page. Just as a side note, the domed buildings with minarets (not necessarily a mosque) is a terrible symbol (it would be akin to using a castle as a symbol for Christianity, I would think).— Kbolino 00:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
So sorry. My mistake.
I propose merging Islamist terrorism into Militant Islam , Dar al-Harb into Dar al Islam & Offensive jihad into Combative jihad, please comment if you have thoughts on the matter . Thanks . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey there Zora - Happy New Year! Have been in Paris and switched off from life for a while. Meanwhile check out the funny goings on at aladin which is being ethnically cleansed and edged out as I write I think. Quite weird moves to delete. Can you have a look at the activities of the person nominating; all very odd. It's one of the better written and backed-up pages in the whole of the magic section too. Autumnleaf 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added sections on ethnic grievances in Khuzestan/Al-Ahwaz, particularly in relation to forced displacement of Ahwazi Arabs. This has all been referenced to UN reports and EU resolutions, as well as Iranian and Ahwazi websites. But it seems that some are determined to block these additions by putting POV on them and disputing small details. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia and just intend to concentrate on the issue of Al-Ahwaz. I know that we all have differences of opinion, but I am trying my best to keep my own opinions separate. It seems that there are some bullies who won't allow any factual evidence that could cast the Iranian government in a bad light. I therefore request your help on this, in case all my hard work is censored.-- Ahwaz 12:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have added more to the section and have responded to the request for more information on terrorism. Hopefully, we will not have a POV slapped on the article for some minor detail. Tell me whether you think it is water-tight and NPOV. Also, I'd like any suggestions on the pre-15th century history of Arab influence. There is an assumption in the article that Arabs were recent invaders (someone said in the discussion page that Arabs were immigrants!), but I think this is wrong as details of an Arab presence in Khuzestan can be traced back to the Parthian era. But I would nevertheless like your advice.-- Ahwaz 14:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed some of the POV statements in Sheikh Khaz'al and Khuzestan, while adding content that is properly referenced. These articles are a real mess and the English is sometimes appalling. The human rights section in Khuzestan was particularly bad. I have added proper references and added a summary of criticisms made by Persian nationalists and supporters of the Islamic Republic of human rights activism. I am waiting for the moment when all my work is deleted without discussion.-- Ahwaz 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Hajjagha is up to his old tricks. I have had to revert his massive deletions on Khuzestan and related articles and after every reversion he deletes more, claiming content is racist - even innocuous demographic information and content not opposed by User:Zereshk. He's done this three times today. I've asked him to either make reasonable changes or discuss his concerns, but he isn't listening. What is Wikipedia's policy on this and how do I take action to ensure this does not continually happen?-- Ahwaz 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- All the work that I put in on the background of ethnic conflict, demographics of Khuzestan and other information is now being systematically stripped from this article, without explanation and by users who have not bothered to sign up. I had no problems with the changes made by Zereshk to this article in the end, just that it is being allowed to be vandalised by others acting unilaterally. I don't even think that the content I wrote is a POV. I think this Wikipedia project lacks proper debate, it is ruled by those who have large amounts of time to devote to it and those with a different perspective are bullied out of it. I think Wikipedia is a lot of hype and I no longer trust any of its content due to the way it is poorly managed. So, I am not involved any more. No doubt it will become worse than ever after this process of unilateral editing by non-users is completed. Best wishes.-- Ahwaz 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora, I would only be able to add a line or two here and there because I have hardly any books with me the moment. On a spur of the moment, I ordered Stanley Wolpert's Nine hours to Rama just now. It is about the last hours of Gandhi's life and is banned in India. Tintin Talk 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora, thank you for your engaged discussion about Aladin. If you change your mind about this subject matter, and you may at any time of course, I'd be very glad to see it inside the discussion. All the best, Peter S. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delayed wishes for a happy new year. On second thoughts, 362 is much more than 3, so the delay shouldn't matter ;) Thanks a ton for starting the wikiproject - hope it snowballs into something big. btw, I think you shd. archive the page as - a) it is too long and b) that would complete the set of 2005 archives. -- Gurubrahma 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit removed a lot of other posts. It's been fixed, but please watch it in the future. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your last post to WP:AN/I deleted the responses of others in the thread, I presume accidentally. I restored them, but you might want to check that your comment is in the location you intended it to be, because I didn't know. Thanks! — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't know I had reverted all that. I intended to just revert an edit of an anonymous user who had been busy replacing "Hinduism" by "Brahminism" in numerous articles, and I was using his edit history to revert all those. It didn't occur to me that there would be more edits made after his edit. My apologies! deeptrivia ( talk) 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do a quick check on other articles I reverted in a similar way to see if I made the same mistake elsewhere. Thanks! deeptrivia ( talk) 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You uploaded the image Image:Big Quran page.jpg, a crop of Image:Oversized Koran folio.jpg, and tagged it {{ PD-self}}. I own the copyright to Image:Oversized Koran folio.jpg, and although I release it under the both the GFDL and the cc-by-sa-2.0 licenses, I still claim copyright. This means that the image is not in the public domain. Since Image:Big Quran page.jpg is a derivative work, it is also not in the public domain. Because of this, I have changed the image tag to {{ GFDL}} instead. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
hey, reworded the template. and got the image modified - it looks just great, 'coz an expert did it at my behest. btw, your comment abt Yahraj symbol - too mush <g>. just had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket, was zapped by it - we can probly have a similar list of participants, their country of origin, the place they stay in currently and their interests (Bengali cinema, Playback singers, Classics etc). -- Gurubrahma 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to the project page! -- Dboyk 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Really appreciated your comments on my discussion page. I have done as much as I can; we can edit the page in tandem as per usual once the vote is over. I just had an email back verifying both the Times pieces not that this cuts any ice with the discussion! Meanwhile - Lata awaits Lata's jewelled mercy dash. Autumnleaf 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trying to supress minority groups. i would like to cite Article 19 of the International Charter of Human Rights:
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
what would possibly make you think that i would give up on Wikipedia as an outlet for spreading the message of Quran Alone Islam? are you crazy?
your fixation with Islam is disturbing, being that you have no connection to it whatsoever. i would advise that you continue keeping my work in check, because GOD-willing i'm not going anywhere.
Firstly, I agree completely with the guy above. This is a place for proselytizing and geting your name out.
Secondly, have you ever heard the term Islamo-Leninist? Thomas Friedman uses it in this interview and apparently in his books. I found it interesting especially since we have had all of those fun debates about Islamo-nazism, Islamo-fascism... my teacher is an Islamo-democrat... it appears those Muslims run the whole gamut. gren グレン 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- One of my teachers is, on his own showing, an Islamist, a Marxist and an Arab nationalist... Palmiro | Talk 10:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Friedman is full of crap. There is no such thing as Islamo-Leninism.
Happy new year. Quick question for you. I want to add this image to the commons for inclusion in Hawaii-related articles, but I'm not sure about the name of the fishpond. If I had to guess, the photo appears to be of the Kalahuipuaʻa Fishponds on the big island. -- Viriditas 05:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Would love your help, if you have time and interest, in making the Robert Spencer article more balanced. I have removed myself from the page after getting too close to the topic (via discussions with an employee of Spencer's), but would love it if knowledgable third parties could take a look. -- Yalto 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora - Thanks for your response... I know what you mean about taking on more articles... -- Yalto 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you think? (Ie that that spelling is non-standard). It is by far the most common spelling in Pakistan, where the garment is most widely worn. Certainly in Sindh, at any rate; one does see your spelling in the Punjab. I think you are wrong. Masalai 10:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a question of fair or unfair. The shalwar-qamiz is a Punjabi item of apparel; but in India men wear western clothes in business contexts, and for that matter one seldom sees a shalwar-qamiz as such in India; the qurta-pyjama is much more common (and then in village contexts). In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is the national dress and is worn universally. How much travelling have you done in that part of the world? Masalai 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
(Further, the shalwar-qamiz -- also, be it said, spelt your way in Pakistan -- is the officially designated national dress of Pakistan and, since the administration of General Zia, mandatory apparel for civil servants. That is to say, there are 120 million-odd wearers of the shalwar-qamiz in Pakistan, a far-from-negligible number; it is not a matter that merits extensive discussion but I would suggest that your apparent acquaintance with the attire on the basis of online purveyors of it is less persuasive than having travelled extensively throughout Pakistan and North India. Masalai 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
From the talk page of Kaldari:
Kaldari, my take, as a non-Muslim, as to why the woman looking at the Qur'an image is controversial.
Note that it's a guy who claims to be a Saudi Muslim who is deleting the picture over and over. If he's Saudi, he's grown up in a culture in which seeing anything of a strange woman save her eyes and hands is shocking. People get used to that. I recall reading an account by a non-Muslim male who spent some time in the Middle East, surrounded by women in chadors and abayas, who said that he found himself absolutely riveted just by pictures of women's faces. Women in bikinis were just too much! Sensory overload!
If someone has that sort of socially-conditioned response to any sight of female flesh, the bare shoulder of the woman in the picture is arousing. Arousal and the Qur'an do not belong together. Looking at the Qur'an, touching the Qur'an, one must be PURE. That includes a complete bath after sex, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, whatever. This guy is fixated on the bare shoulder, and acting out his fixation. (Says the amateur shrink.)
Of course this seems absolutely weird to folks from countries where the woman's attire would be considered casual but not in any titillating. It would take a women in a bikini, or a naked woman, to trigger the "inappropriateness" sensors.
I'm not sure that you could get a Middle Eastern Muslim to explain things that way, since admitting that responses to clothing/lack of clothing are culturally conditioned is against the mindset that says "The Qur'an decrees hijab and it's the truth for all ages and times". Zora 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your generalizations are astounding, Zora. Where exactly did you
determine that the people removing the image were Saudi?
- Um, coz he said so. Seems to be one guy, with a lot of sockpuppets, plus various people who are scared of offending anyone. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Did the editors say they were aroused by the arm?
- What an absurd question. People are sometimes less than forthcoming about such information. They may cover it with, say, righteous indignation. BYT 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm guessing from his language, and from his monomania re the subject. He has GOT to be aware that the woman's attire is respectable in the US, where the picture was taken. Hence the problem is not her, but his response to her. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And one does not have to be pure to look at the Qur'an.
- OK, then why is he so upset? She's looking, not touching. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is your right to wear whatever you want, but I find it sick that you must mock someone else's culture to state that. You are asking others to be tolerant of a women's rights, but you fail to be tolerant of another culture. Ironic. joturner 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Tolerant means not burning him at the stake (as was the wont of Christians, long ago), it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize him or his interpretation of the Qur'an. There's a wide variety of views within Islam. You're new here, or you would have noticed that two of our more respected Muslim editors came down squarely on the side of tolerating the picture till we found something better. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where on the talk page is a Saudi man described? What language are you referring to? My reasoning as to why someone may be offended by the picture is on my talk page. I have no problem with you criticizing him; I have a problem with you unnecessarily mocking him and his culture (e.g. "Women in bikinis were just too much! Sensory overload!"), which can be perceived as a personal attack. And what makes you think I'm "new" here? Regardless of whether that's true, that's no reason to discredit my opinion. I never said anything about my opinion regarding the picture; it's irrelevant to what I'm trying to say about you post. Who cares what other respected Muslim editors have said? I can disagree with them if I want. joturner 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. Have you ever been to Saudi? I have. What Zora describes is absolutely accurate; that's what happens there. Men do stare at faces, and at accidentally exposed strands of hair. This isn't within a hundred yards of a personal attack. Please calm down. BYT 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I have not been to Saudi Arabia, but I'm not contesting whether the basis of what Zora is saying is true. I have a problem with the mocking tone in which it is presented. And as I said in my last two posts, I'm wondering where it is mentioned that the principle reverter is Saudi. I'm not saying she is making that part up; I'm saying I can't find the evidence. joturner 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, lots of guys have a problem with me. I'm forthright and self-confident in stating opinions when I think I know something about the subject. I hope that I'm equally deferential when I don't know much, and that I have the sense to know when I'm out of my league. I probably fail on the latter two counts often enough. I don't think I'm mocking you, however. I must admit to finding the hide-all-female-flesh guys risible when not infuriating. So? I think that's THEM, not Islam. If I were a Muslim, I'd be one of the Ziauddin Sardar/Reza Aslan/Muqtedar Khan/alt.muslim variety. Zora 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora, First things first: I'm dying to share this piece of hilarity with someone - here is an example of what our favourite encyclopaedia offers the Seeker by way of history, sociology, anthropology.
Secondly, about your recent quest for books: not long ago, I had offered on the rajput talkpage to point out the work seminal to the attitude now evidenced by the Brothers Singh, but DPS has beaten me to actually recommending the works of James Tod, who treated the balladers of his patron's court with a reverence that could only have astonished any residual sense out of them. His work constitutes a watershed in the study of historical perceptions; a before-and-after investigation of the image and self-image of Rajputs is warranted by the effect it produced both in Europe and in India. Tod's work is undoubtedly a work of great literature; his sheer language makes for a delightful read; you should read it if only for that. The ISBN is 81-208-0380-9 -- this is the only ISBNed book in Shivraj's reference list of 60 pamphlets; comparing his literary endeavours with Tod's language, I feel impelled to say what you did to DPS: 'you couldn't have read it'. Tod's 2-volume Rajputana work is expensive but available through the US public library network. Take care, ImpuMozhi 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why my links were removed. They are fan sites that I manage with big teams and we work hard to keep them updated with information et al. Why are they not appropriate to be added?
Here they are:
I'll see what I can do; unfortunately, the width is, in most cases, dependent on the image used in the box, which is usually set to 300px. — Kirill Lok s hin 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- We've tried that before; it doesn't work quite so well when you need two columns in the template ;-) — Kirill Lok s hin 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, just had the Quran pic debate pointed out to me. The article seems to have stabilized with the picture of the scandalous arm included, but the scandalous leg cropped out. Are you satisfied with that resolution? Also: why aren't you an admin? Do you want to have an RfA? Would be my pleasure to nominate you, if you're interested. Babajobu 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured you must have been asked many times before. What about on the other question? Is the Quran article stabilizing with the pic of the scandalous arms but no legs? Are you satisfied?
Babajobu 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please let me know if down the road there is a renewed push to remove the scandalous arm for modesty's sake(rather than for the sake of replacing it with a genuinely better picture. Babajobu 01:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora! Still whinning about the matter? Get yourself ready for the mop! Szvest 02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Hi Zora - I request your help in re-organizing and expanding the article Indian Muslim nationalism. I would much appreciate it if you could have a look. The main problem is lack of data, but there could be POV issues, etc. Even if you choose not to input anything, I would appeciate some much-needed advice on how to improve it.
Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Zora. Please consider reviewing my clean up to the article on Zaynab bint Ali. Thanks. -- AladdinSE 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I'm losing patience with the proliferation of Shi'a Polemic articles by the usual suspects. I just came across this one. It is entirely unnecessary, written atrociously, and unabashedly partisan. The article for Uthman has a "Shi'a View" section, and this stub should never have been created. You have experience in dealing with Striver, the originator. Please consider reviewing this article and if you agree, nominate it for merger with the parent Uthman article, with the POVs and unsubstantiated myths taken out, of course. Sorry to be increasing your wikiload, but that's what you get for accumulating all these accolades and barnstars :-) -- AladdinSE 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have created this policy proposal because of my recent observations about admin and community issues. Increasing vandalism and increasing admin disputes are not good. Just, see what you think and maybe tell others? I have no idea if anyone will like support this idea or if there is anything similar out there that I haven't seen besides Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges (I looked through the policy proposal cat and saw nothing). Just testing the waters. (stock text)
I know you don't really get involved in this type of thing too much. However, if you have any particular feelings about it feel free to chime in :) gren グレン ? 13:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Zereshk is seeking to have me banned from Wikipedia. What a prat!-- Ahwaz 06:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I also gave you (Ahwaz) the option to behave civil. Your choice.-- Zereshk 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I suggest you (Ahwaz) learn and adopt some of Zora's better qualities. Me and Zora have had some pretty vicious fights. I strongly remain opposed to some of her positions. There alot of enmity. But one thing I do appreciate about her, is that she has made mature efforts, many times, to keep the discourse civil. And I highly appreciate that.-- Zereshk 07:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- While you claimed she was Jewish when she wasn't - what was the purpose in that? Did you apologise? You deleted all the content I wrote that was verifiable and reverted it to content that was not verifiable. You were not willing to allow any information sourced from human rights organisations on the Khuzestan page. If you want to act unilaterally for your own political agenda, then I have no stake in being civil nor do I have any stake in keeping to Wikipedia user guidelines. By unilaterally censoring me, you are effectively banning me.-- Ahwaz 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll be waiting for one more of your personal attacks.
- Zora did say "I like to tell people Im a Bundist". And after she clarified she wasnt Jewish, I shut up. Besides, saying that somebody is Jewish is not an insult. Therfore it requires no apology.-- Zereshk 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, please review another POV masterpiece, Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations. -- AladdinSE 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nominated it for a new AfD, in light of the current information . See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin_(2nd_nomination) -- Ragib 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, credit must be given where it's due. This award was long overdue.-- Zereshk 02:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to commend Zora for her work in preventing Persian chauvinists taking over some Khuzestan-related articles and for her well-written and well-researched work.-- Ahwaz 08:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora! user:Churchh did some good cleanup on 1890s in fashion to fit it into History of Western fashion, and I added small bits as well. Still needs work, but I'd like to know if you think the cleanup request can be removed... PKM 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
For a day or two, I wondered why you were not visible on the cinema project - then noticed your note on your user page; was worried that it would be enough invitation for POV-pushers to have a field day on articles in your watchlist. btw, how did the conference go? as an aside, I discovered that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films in existence already. We may have another WikiProject India cinema entry in the DYK this week, with Chemmeen. take care, -- Gurubrahma 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I respecfully disagree with your revert on this. The information is sourced and verifiable. Will certain editors like it? No. But those are facts that need to be part of the article if you truly want to get it balanced unless your goal is to only show the CAIR talking points in this article and suppress all contrary evidence -- CltFn 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Victorian game link! That's a hoot. PKM 17:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora wrote: "Anon, you seem to be propagandizing for your views and your website, and insisting that most Muslims share your views. I do not believe that this is true -- from what I've observed, your views are the minority ones."
- Well, you have your experiences and I have mine. As I am a Muslim, I feel (and know) that I have a much better sense of the Muslim community than yourself... be that as it may... my experiences as a Muslim in the US tell me that the vast majority of Muslims know that both hijab and jilbab (as understood in modern day context) are both required. Perhaps they do not all practice it, but nearly everyone acknowledges it is required and say that they are "too weak in faith" to practice it. After all, no one says not wearing hijab makes someone a non-Muslim... it just makes them a Muslim who is sinning.
- Unless you have any scientific proof of this not being the majority opinion... you have no right to say it is a minority opinion. I do have scientific proof. Walk into ANY mosque in the US... then go to the women's section... you will HARD-PRESSED to find EVEN ONE Muslim woman praying without a hijab and jilbab. The reason for this is that even though they may not all have the guts or strength to wear it when they go outside... when they pray, it is risking their prayer not being accepted... so they do what they know the rules say they have to do.
- That should be evidence enough. If you want more evidence... take a survey of which scholars (include ALL scholars of all schools of thought) say Hijab and Jilbab (as understood in modern day context) are required and which don't. If you survey the scholars of Islam (that are Muslim) all around the globe, you will find that over 99% agree, at the very least, with what I am saying. Many will call for something stricter.
- Furthermore, the website noted is not my website... but it details evidences for wearing the jilbab, and it is a reference (that was on the Jilbab page before, mind you, until you removed it...). I also presented 2 other arguments on different websites... one arguing for the face veil, and one arguing against it. I feel these references are very beneficial as they simply present the evidences... so the person can look at both sides and see for themself who they feel is correct. 18.90.5.22 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to comment in this dialogue, but as someone coming from the 3rd most populous muslim nation, I can definitely say that your (anon's) attitude is not shared by at least 130 million of Bangladeshi people. No, I'm not saying that people in Bangladesh are not religious ... they ARE quite so, but when it comes to the medieval notion of Hijab, most of the Bangladeshis don't agree. So, your opinion is definitely a minority one. Sorry Zora, to comment here uninvited, but if you need to show the anon statistical figures, show him the population of
Bangladesh according to the latest census. That ought to be enough. --
Ragib 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Salaam bro. In Bangladeshi mosques, do women pray without their hijab and jilbab? I think the answer to that question will put what you said into persepctive. I have many Bangladeshi friends, and they have told me the exact opposite of what you are saying... they say that Bangladeshis know that the hijab called for in Islam is the orthodox hijab (covering most everything but the face, hands, maybe feet, and maybe forearms) 18.90.5.22 06:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, don't confuse what I was saying... I did NOT say that most Muslims think they should cover their face... most Muslims DO NOT think so actually... but most DO THINK that they should cover everything but the face, hands, feet, and maybe forearms... 18.90.5.22 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to comment in this dialogue, but as someone coming from the 3rd most populous muslim nation, I can definitely say that your (anon's) attitude is not shared by at least 130 million of Bangladeshi people. No, I'm not saying that people in Bangladesh are not religious ... they ARE quite so, but when it comes to the medieval notion of Hijab, most of the Bangladeshis don't agree. So, your opinion is definitely a minority one. Sorry Zora, to comment here uninvited, but if you need to show the anon statistical figures, show him the population of
Bangladesh according to the latest census. That ought to be enough. --
Ragib 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you read a few Bangladeshi newspapers, see Bangladeshi TV news or other programs etc. Culture affects people's lives just as religion does, and often cultural values change religious practices. From my personal experince (being born, brought up, and immersed in Bangladesh, to be exact), only the minority fundamentalist elements of Bangladeshi society follow the doctrine you are advocating. Thanks. -- Ragib 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Salaam. But I am asking how the women pray... in the mosque... that is really reflective of what they think they should wear. Whether they always follow it or not is another question. How many Bangladeshi women do you know that pray without hijab and jilbab? TV is one thing... the mosque is another. And which doctrine am I advocating? That Muslim women are supposed to wear hijab and jilbab? I highly doubt anything short of the vast majority would agree that that is what they SHOULD do... Maybe you mean, only a minority really practice their religion to that extent... Again, I direct your attention to how women act when they pray, as here they always stick to what they think they should do. 18.90.5.22 07:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- They don't necessarily wear Hijaab or Burqa. Most women wear head coverings (The Sari works just fine). So, a women wearing a Sari would typically use it to cover her head during prayers. Or they will use a Shawl to cover their head during prayers. In Bangladesh, women rarely pray in mosques. Most pray at home. You are free to believe whatever you want, the reality says otherwise. Thanks. -- Ragib 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- You said it yourself my brother, they cover their head when they pray. Also, Islam advises women to pray at home rather than the mosque, which is probably why they do... It makes no difference if they cover their hair with a separate cloth or a sari... they cover their hair, and that is basically the end of it... when they pray, they cover their hair, cuz they know they should according to Islam... You may also believe what you wish... but the reality of their beliefs are shown in their prayer... the reality thus contradicts what you are saying, my brother. Wassalaam 18.90.5.22 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since this is becoming a discussion between you and me, it would be better if you take any further replies to my user talk page. Thanks. -- Ragib 07:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Zora. I hope to review the Buddha article later this week. All the best. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your condolences. Babajobu 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Which do you think the title should be? Just curious. gren グレン ? 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Dude youre just being plain unfair. Sunni Muslims Do represent the vast majority of muslims in the world, approx. 90% and unlike shia muslims are not restricted to certain areas. You are more likely to meet a sunni muslim then any other kind of muslim. I am not insisting on completely removing shia views but rather confining them to certain sections entitled "The Shia view". because the shia are a minority you are reverse discriminating against us to protect their rights but really ure just being v.unfair to the rest of us. The articles are v.biased. u make it look as if the shia views are common beliefs of most muslims. as if they are infallible established facts being challenged by a sunni sect who are agents of tyrants who oppressed the shia. please reflect on this, dont just reply full stop....think about it. about the umar incident. when i first read it, i got a very negative image of umar. but when i followed the source and read up on the whole affair i got a very different picture of events. i suggest u do tht urself. i posted on the talk page about why i did it. its just purposively tries to protray umar as an evil man. this is the view of 5-10% of muslims and u can say tht in a separate section at the end. but overall the umar article was much better than abu bakr or the succession one which didnt give a balanced view at all. keep sectarian issues seperate. IMHO second-hand research is extremely subjective and not verifiable especially in issues such as this. im referring to the books u read bout these subjects. such as the rafidha issue. it is a fact tht muslims make a distinction between zaidi shias and rafidhi shias. rafidha means the ones that refuse. they approached zaid, the great grandson of ali, and asked him to curse Abu Bakr and umar in the friday sermon, which he refused. so they walked away from him so he said "rafadtamony" meaning "u refused me". thats how it came about. during the early period they were known as shia...or party. they were the first sect in islam, and muslims had never experianced such a thing before. and contrary to popular belief most shias in those days accepted the authority of Abu Bakr as religious duty but asserted the fact that Ali was more entitled to it. things kept on changing as times change. mujahid, the great mufassir of the Qur'an, who studied under ibn Abbas was one such shia.-- Blingpling 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm not boasting. I'm stating facts and helping you out. By the way, I have considered what you have said and I respect you a lot. But listen, we can't work this out through if we don't work together as a team. I compromised a bit and now I've made the page your way. Don't revert all my edits. Message me what you think is inappropriate and then I can give my feedback and somehow we will reach an agreement. Please look at the stuff I wrote more closely. Do compromise on some sections. I made the page a lot better. Trust me!
You can count her awards. There are six. Yesterday, I was watching television. They were talking about new records set at the Filmfare Awards. They talked about Black earning the highest awards ever beating down Devdas. They said Rani Mukerji made a record, tying with Nutan with 6 Filmfare Awards. They also said she was the first actress to ever win both the Popular Best Actress and Critics Best Actress at a single year for the same movie. Now, do you know more or the expertise in Filmfare Awards who do this as a professional job. Are you competing with them. I don't think you can do that. They have lived in India. They do this asa job and they understand the language. They have watched practically every movie released in Bollywood. What do you know? You're a foreigner. Please don't try to act smart and assimilate as an Indian. You'll be crushed down. I don't think you can take any criticism. You should because you need it big times.
Go to see this link and you'll see what she's called. I'll give you another proof once I find one. [1]
An Arabic word might not translate well to English and vice versa, as I am sure you know different languages. It will become particularly difficult when the words are close synonyms. While I agree with you "high" might be explained by what you said I did not think people would extrapolate it to "The High" when it is written capitalized like that. I have few suggestions: How about "The Supreme", "The Lofty","The Sublime", "The High Up". It is not really a big issue "The Exalted" is also good translation. At some point I will work on the 99 Names of God so that it will better formatted and understood. But yesterday I was working on Islamic Honorifics and I found that exalt most closely associated with Salla when people use blessing it closer to Arabic Baraka. Feel free to change it the way you like as far as I am concerned. Good Day TPW 17:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have quoted two islamic sources for what I have said, so what's the problem? hundred of hadith speak about the polytheists performing the Hajj.
I'm the anon that removed the image, I just forgot to log in. I removed it for a couple reasons. Firstly, its position at the bottom of the page was awkward and led me to assume someone placed it there as self promotion or for some other irrelevant reason. Secondly, I don't believe these women have anything to do with bhangra. They don't appear to be young performers on a modern collegiatee-level bhangra team that would have female dancers, and they're dressed in traditional giddha costume, not bhangra. A traditional institution such as Punjabi Virsa would not likely put on bhangra demonstrations featuring women, as bhangra is traditionally a man's dance. This image might be more suitable in the Giddha article as it in no way represents bhangra to me. Just because the caption says they're about to perform bhangra does not make it so. I suggest removing it in favor of an image of an actual bhangra team, preferably one that shows some form of the proper traditional bhangra costume of kurta, vest, lungi, pug, and turla. I'll leave it up to you to remove the image again. Hansahni
My apologies, I had no idea. In the Western world, that symbol is universally associated with Islam (note the adoption of the red crescent by the Red Cross). I definitely should've checked the talk page. Just as a side note, the domed buildings with minarets (not necessarily a mosque) is a terrible symbol (it would be akin to using a castle as a symbol for Christianity, I would think).— Kbolino 00:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
So sorry. My mistake.
I propose merging Islamist terrorism into Militant Islam , Dar al-Harb into Dar al Islam & Offensive jihad into Combative jihad, please comment if you have thoughts on the matter . Thanks . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey there Zora - Happy New Year! Have been in Paris and switched off from life for a while. Meanwhile check out the funny goings on at aladin which is being ethnically cleansed and edged out as I write I think. Quite weird moves to delete. Can you have a look at the activities of the person nominating; all very odd. It's one of the better written and backed-up pages in the whole of the magic section too. Autumnleaf 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added sections on ethnic grievances in Khuzestan/Al-Ahwaz, particularly in relation to forced displacement of Ahwazi Arabs. This has all been referenced to UN reports and EU resolutions, as well as Iranian and Ahwazi websites. But it seems that some are determined to block these additions by putting POV on them and disputing small details. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia and just intend to concentrate on the issue of Al-Ahwaz. I know that we all have differences of opinion, but I am trying my best to keep my own opinions separate. It seems that there are some bullies who won't allow any factual evidence that could cast the Iranian government in a bad light. I therefore request your help on this, in case all my hard work is censored.-- Ahwaz 12:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have added more to the section and have responded to the request for more information on terrorism. Hopefully, we will not have a POV slapped on the article for some minor detail. Tell me whether you think it is water-tight and NPOV. Also, I'd like any suggestions on the pre-15th century history of Arab influence. There is an assumption in the article that Arabs were recent invaders (someone said in the discussion page that Arabs were immigrants!), but I think this is wrong as details of an Arab presence in Khuzestan can be traced back to the Parthian era. But I would nevertheless like your advice.-- Ahwaz 14:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed some of the POV statements in Sheikh Khaz'al and Khuzestan, while adding content that is properly referenced. These articles are a real mess and the English is sometimes appalling. The human rights section in Khuzestan was particularly bad. I have added proper references and added a summary of criticisms made by Persian nationalists and supporters of the Islamic Republic of human rights activism. I am waiting for the moment when all my work is deleted without discussion.-- Ahwaz 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Hajjagha is up to his old tricks. I have had to revert his massive deletions on Khuzestan and related articles and after every reversion he deletes more, claiming content is racist - even innocuous demographic information and content not opposed by User:Zereshk. He's done this three times today. I've asked him to either make reasonable changes or discuss his concerns, but he isn't listening. What is Wikipedia's policy on this and how do I take action to ensure this does not continually happen?-- Ahwaz 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- All the work that I put in on the background of ethnic conflict, demographics of Khuzestan and other information is now being systematically stripped from this article, without explanation and by users who have not bothered to sign up. I had no problems with the changes made by Zereshk to this article in the end, just that it is being allowed to be vandalised by others acting unilaterally. I don't even think that the content I wrote is a POV. I think this Wikipedia project lacks proper debate, it is ruled by those who have large amounts of time to devote to it and those with a different perspective are bullied out of it. I think Wikipedia is a lot of hype and I no longer trust any of its content due to the way it is poorly managed. So, I am not involved any more. No doubt it will become worse than ever after this process of unilateral editing by non-users is completed. Best wishes.-- Ahwaz 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora, I would only be able to add a line or two here and there because I have hardly any books with me the moment. On a spur of the moment, I ordered Stanley Wolpert's Nine hours to Rama just now. It is about the last hours of Gandhi's life and is banned in India. Tintin Talk 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora, thank you for your engaged discussion about Aladin. If you change your mind about this subject matter, and you may at any time of course, I'd be very glad to see it inside the discussion. All the best, Peter S. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delayed wishes for a happy new year. On second thoughts, 362 is much more than 3, so the delay shouldn't matter ;) Thanks a ton for starting the wikiproject - hope it snowballs into something big. btw, I think you shd. archive the page as - a) it is too long and b) that would complete the set of 2005 archives. -- Gurubrahma 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit removed a lot of other posts. It's been fixed, but please watch it in the future. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your last post to WP:AN/I deleted the responses of others in the thread, I presume accidentally. I restored them, but you might want to check that your comment is in the location you intended it to be, because I didn't know. Thanks! — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't know I had reverted all that. I intended to just revert an edit of an anonymous user who had been busy replacing "Hinduism" by "Brahminism" in numerous articles, and I was using his edit history to revert all those. It didn't occur to me that there would be more edits made after his edit. My apologies! deeptrivia ( talk) 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do a quick check on other articles I reverted in a similar way to see if I made the same mistake elsewhere. Thanks! deeptrivia ( talk) 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You uploaded the image Image:Big Quran page.jpg, a crop of Image:Oversized Koran folio.jpg, and tagged it {{ PD-self}}. I own the copyright to Image:Oversized Koran folio.jpg, and although I release it under the both the GFDL and the cc-by-sa-2.0 licenses, I still claim copyright. This means that the image is not in the public domain. Since Image:Big Quran page.jpg is a derivative work, it is also not in the public domain. Because of this, I have changed the image tag to {{ GFDL}} instead. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
hey, reworded the template. and got the image modified - it looks just great, 'coz an expert did it at my behest. btw, your comment abt Yahraj symbol - too mush <g>. just had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket, was zapped by it - we can probly have a similar list of participants, their country of origin, the place they stay in currently and their interests (Bengali cinema, Playback singers, Classics etc). -- Gurubrahma 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to the project page! -- Dboyk 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Really appreciated your comments on my discussion page. I have done as much as I can; we can edit the page in tandem as per usual once the vote is over. I just had an email back verifying both the Times pieces not that this cuts any ice with the discussion! Meanwhile - Lata awaits Lata's jewelled mercy dash. Autumnleaf 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trying to supress minority groups. i would like to cite Article 19 of the International Charter of Human Rights:
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
what would possibly make you think that i would give up on Wikipedia as an outlet for spreading the message of Quran Alone Islam? are you crazy?
your fixation with Islam is disturbing, being that you have no connection to it whatsoever. i would advise that you continue keeping my work in check, because GOD-willing i'm not going anywhere.
Firstly, I agree completely with the guy above. This is a place for proselytizing and geting your name out.
Secondly, have you ever heard the term Islamo-Leninist? Thomas Friedman uses it in this interview and apparently in his books. I found it interesting especially since we have had all of those fun debates about Islamo-nazism, Islamo-fascism... my teacher is an Islamo-democrat... it appears those Muslims run the whole gamut. gren グレン 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- One of my teachers is, on his own showing, an Islamist, a Marxist and an Arab nationalist... Palmiro | Talk 10:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Friedman is full of crap. There is no such thing as Islamo-Leninism.
Happy new year. Quick question for you. I want to add this image to the commons for inclusion in Hawaii-related articles, but I'm not sure about the name of the fishpond. If I had to guess, the photo appears to be of the Kalahuipuaʻa Fishponds on the big island. -- Viriditas 05:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Would love your help, if you have time and interest, in making the Robert Spencer article more balanced. I have removed myself from the page after getting too close to the topic (via discussions with an employee of Spencer's), but would love it if knowledgable third parties could take a look. -- Yalto 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora - Thanks for your response... I know what you mean about taking on more articles... -- Yalto 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you think? (Ie that that spelling is non-standard). It is by far the most common spelling in Pakistan, where the garment is most widely worn. Certainly in Sindh, at any rate; one does see your spelling in the Punjab. I think you are wrong. Masalai 10:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a question of fair or unfair. The shalwar-qamiz is a Punjabi item of apparel; but in India men wear western clothes in business contexts, and for that matter one seldom sees a shalwar-qamiz as such in India; the qurta-pyjama is much more common (and then in village contexts). In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is the national dress and is worn universally. How much travelling have you done in that part of the world? Masalai 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
(Further, the shalwar-qamiz -- also, be it said, spelt your way in Pakistan -- is the officially designated national dress of Pakistan and, since the administration of General Zia, mandatory apparel for civil servants. That is to say, there are 120 million-odd wearers of the shalwar-qamiz in Pakistan, a far-from-negligible number; it is not a matter that merits extensive discussion but I would suggest that your apparent acquaintance with the attire on the basis of online purveyors of it is less persuasive than having travelled extensively throughout Pakistan and North India. Masalai 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
From the talk page of Kaldari:
Kaldari, my take, as a non-Muslim, as to why the woman looking at the Qur'an image is controversial.
Note that it's a guy who claims to be a Saudi Muslim who is deleting the picture over and over. If he's Saudi, he's grown up in a culture in which seeing anything of a strange woman save her eyes and hands is shocking. People get used to that. I recall reading an account by a non-Muslim male who spent some time in the Middle East, surrounded by women in chadors and abayas, who said that he found himself absolutely riveted just by pictures of women's faces. Women in bikinis were just too much! Sensory overload!
If someone has that sort of socially-conditioned response to any sight of female flesh, the bare shoulder of the woman in the picture is arousing. Arousal and the Qur'an do not belong together. Looking at the Qur'an, touching the Qur'an, one must be PURE. That includes a complete bath after sex, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, whatever. This guy is fixated on the bare shoulder, and acting out his fixation. (Says the amateur shrink.)
Of course this seems absolutely weird to folks from countries where the woman's attire would be considered casual but not in any titillating. It would take a women in a bikini, or a naked woman, to trigger the "inappropriateness" sensors.
I'm not sure that you could get a Middle Eastern Muslim to explain things that way, since admitting that responses to clothing/lack of clothing are culturally conditioned is against the mindset that says "The Qur'an decrees hijab and it's the truth for all ages and times". Zora 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your generalizations are astounding, Zora. Where exactly did you
determine that the people removing the image were Saudi?
- Um, coz he said so. Seems to be one guy, with a lot of sockpuppets, plus various people who are scared of offending anyone. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Did the editors say they were aroused by the arm?
- What an absurd question. People are sometimes less than forthcoming about such information. They may cover it with, say, righteous indignation. BYT 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm guessing from his language, and from his monomania re the subject. He has GOT to be aware that the woman's attire is respectable in the US, where the picture was taken. Hence the problem is not her, but his response to her. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And one does not have to be pure to look at the Qur'an.
- OK, then why is he so upset? She's looking, not touching. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is your right to wear whatever you want, but I find it sick that you must mock someone else's culture to state that. You are asking others to be tolerant of a women's rights, but you fail to be tolerant of another culture. Ironic. joturner 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Tolerant means not burning him at the stake (as was the wont of Christians, long ago), it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize him or his interpretation of the Qur'an. There's a wide variety of views within Islam. You're new here, or you would have noticed that two of our more respected Muslim editors came down squarely on the side of tolerating the picture till we found something better. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where on the talk page is a Saudi man described? What language are you referring to? My reasoning as to why someone may be offended by the picture is on my talk page. I have no problem with you criticizing him; I have a problem with you unnecessarily mocking him and his culture (e.g. "Women in bikinis were just too much! Sensory overload!"), which can be perceived as a personal attack. And what makes you think I'm "new" here? Regardless of whether that's true, that's no reason to discredit my opinion. I never said anything about my opinion regarding the picture; it's irrelevant to what I'm trying to say about you post. Who cares what other respected Muslim editors have said? I can disagree with them if I want. joturner 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. Have you ever been to Saudi? I have. What Zora describes is absolutely accurate; that's what happens there. Men do stare at faces, and at accidentally exposed strands of hair. This isn't within a hundred yards of a personal attack. Please calm down. BYT 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I have not been to Saudi Arabia, but I'm not contesting whether the basis of what Zora is saying is true. I have a problem with the mocking tone in which it is presented. And as I said in my last two posts, I'm wondering where it is mentioned that the principle reverter is Saudi. I'm not saying she is making that part up; I'm saying I can't find the evidence. joturner 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, lots of guys have a problem with me. I'm forthright and self-confident in stating opinions when I think I know something about the subject. I hope that I'm equally deferential when I don't know much, and that I have the sense to know when I'm out of my league. I probably fail on the latter two counts often enough. I don't think I'm mocking you, however. I must admit to finding the hide-all-female-flesh guys risible when not infuriating. So? I think that's THEM, not Islam. If I were a Muslim, I'd be one of the Ziauddin Sardar/Reza Aslan/Muqtedar Khan/alt.muslim variety. Zora 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora, First things first: I'm dying to share this piece of hilarity with someone - here is an example of what our favourite encyclopaedia offers the Seeker by way of history, sociology, anthropology.
Secondly, about your recent quest for books: not long ago, I had offered on the rajput talkpage to point out the work seminal to the attitude now evidenced by the Brothers Singh, but DPS has beaten me to actually recommending the works of James Tod, who treated the balladers of his patron's court with a reverence that could only have astonished any residual sense out of them. His work constitutes a watershed in the study of historical perceptions; a before-and-after investigation of the image and self-image of Rajputs is warranted by the effect it produced both in Europe and in India. Tod's work is undoubtedly a work of great literature; his sheer language makes for a delightful read; you should read it if only for that. The ISBN is 81-208-0380-9 -- this is the only ISBNed book in Shivraj's reference list of 60 pamphlets; comparing his literary endeavours with Tod's language, I feel impelled to say what you did to DPS: 'you couldn't have read it'. Tod's 2-volume Rajputana work is expensive but available through the US public library network. Take care, ImpuMozhi 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why my links were removed. They are fan sites that I manage with big teams and we work hard to keep them updated with information et al. Why are they not appropriate to be added?
Here they are:
I'll see what I can do; unfortunately, the width is, in most cases, dependent on the image used in the box, which is usually set to 300px. — Kirill Lok s hin 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- We've tried that before; it doesn't work quite so well when you need two columns in the template ;-) — Kirill Lok s hin 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, just had the Quran pic debate pointed out to me. The article seems to have stabilized with the picture of the scandalous arm included, but the scandalous leg cropped out. Are you satisfied with that resolution? Also: why aren't you an admin? Do you want to have an RfA? Would be my pleasure to nominate you, if you're interested. Babajobu 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured you must have been asked many times before. What about on the other question? Is the Quran article stabilizing with the pic of the scandalous arms but no legs? Are you satisfied?
Babajobu 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please let me know if down the road there is a renewed push to remove the scandalous arm for modesty's sake(rather than for the sake of replacing it with a genuinely better picture. Babajobu 01:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora! Still whinning about the matter? Get yourself ready for the mop! Szvest 02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Hi Zora - I request your help in re-organizing and expanding the article Indian Muslim nationalism. I would much appreciate it if you could have a look. The main problem is lack of data, but there could be POV issues, etc. Even if you choose not to input anything, I would appeciate some much-needed advice on how to improve it.
Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Zora. Please consider reviewing my clean up to the article on Zaynab bint Ali. Thanks. -- AladdinSE 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I'm losing patience with the proliferation of Shi'a Polemic articles by the usual suspects. I just came across this one. It is entirely unnecessary, written atrociously, and unabashedly partisan. The article for Uthman has a "Shi'a View" section, and this stub should never have been created. You have experience in dealing with Striver, the originator. Please consider reviewing this article and if you agree, nominate it for merger with the parent Uthman article, with the POVs and unsubstantiated myths taken out, of course. Sorry to be increasing your wikiload, but that's what you get for accumulating all these accolades and barnstars :-) -- AladdinSE 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have created this policy proposal because of my recent observations about admin and community issues. Increasing vandalism and increasing admin disputes are not good. Just, see what you think and maybe tell others? I have no idea if anyone will like support this idea or if there is anything similar out there that I haven't seen besides Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges (I looked through the policy proposal cat and saw nothing). Just testing the waters. (stock text)
I know you don't really get involved in this type of thing too much. However, if you have any particular feelings about it feel free to chime in :) gren グレン ? 13:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Zereshk is seeking to have me banned from Wikipedia. What a prat!-- Ahwaz 06:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I also gave you (Ahwaz) the option to behave civil. Your choice.-- Zereshk 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I suggest you (Ahwaz) learn and adopt some of Zora's better qualities. Me and Zora have had some pretty vicious fights. I strongly remain opposed to some of her positions. There alot of enmity. But one thing I do appreciate about her, is that she has made mature efforts, many times, to keep the discourse civil. And I highly appreciate that.-- Zereshk 07:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- While you claimed she was Jewish when she wasn't - what was the purpose in that? Did you apologise? You deleted all the content I wrote that was verifiable and reverted it to content that was not verifiable. You were not willing to allow any information sourced from human rights organisations on the Khuzestan page. If you want to act unilaterally for your own political agenda, then I have no stake in being civil nor do I have any stake in keeping to Wikipedia user guidelines. By unilaterally censoring me, you are effectively banning me.-- Ahwaz 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll be waiting for one more of your personal attacks.
- Zora did say "I like to tell people Im a Bundist". And after she clarified she wasnt Jewish, I shut up. Besides, saying that somebody is Jewish is not an insult. Therfore it requires no apology.-- Zereshk 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, please review another POV masterpiece, Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations. -- AladdinSE 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nominated it for a new AfD, in light of the current information . See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin_(2nd_nomination) -- Ragib 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, credit must be given where it's due. This award was long overdue.-- Zereshk 02:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to commend Zora for her work in preventing Persian chauvinists taking over some Khuzestan-related articles and for her well-written and well-researched work.-- Ahwaz 08:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zora! user:Churchh did some good cleanup on 1890s in fashion to fit it into History of Western fashion, and I added small bits as well. Still needs work, but I'd like to know if you think the cleanup request can be removed... PKM 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
For a day or two, I wondered why you were not visible on the cinema project - then noticed your note on your user page; was worried that it would be enough invitation for POV-pushers to have a field day on articles in your watchlist. btw, how did the conference go? as an aside, I discovered that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films in existence already. We may have another WikiProject India cinema entry in the DYK this week, with Chemmeen. take care, -- Gurubrahma 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I respecfully disagree with your revert on this. The information is sourced and verifiable. Will certain editors like it? No. But those are facts that need to be part of the article if you truly want to get it balanced unless your goal is to only show the CAIR talking points in this article and suppress all contrary evidence -- CltFn 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Victorian game link! That's a hoot. PKM 17:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Zora wrote: "Anon, you seem to be propagandizing for your views and your website, and insisting that most Muslims share your views. I do not believe that this is true -- from what I've observed, your views are the minority ones."
- Well, you have your experiences and I have mine. As I am a Muslim, I feel (and know) that I have a much better sense of the Muslim community than yourself... be that as it may... my experiences as a Muslim in the US tell me that the vast majority of Muslims know that both hijab and jilbab (as understood in modern day context) are both required. Perhaps they do not all practice it, but nearly everyone acknowledges it is required and say that they are "too weak in faith" to practice it. After all, no one says not wearing hijab makes someone a non-Muslim... it just makes them a Muslim who is sinning.
- Unless you have any scientific proof of this not being the majority opinion... you have no right to say it is a minority opinion. I do have scientific proof. Walk into ANY mosque in the US... then go to the women's section... you will HARD-PRESSED to find EVEN ONE Muslim woman praying without a hijab and jilbab. The reason for this is that even though they may not all have the guts or strength to wear it when they go outside... when they pray, it is risking their prayer not being accepted... so they do what they know the rules say they have to do.
- That should be evidence enough. If you want more evidence... take a survey of which scholars (include ALL scholars of all schools of thought) say Hijab and Jilbab (as understood in modern day context) are required and which don't. If you survey the scholars of Islam (that are Muslim) all around the globe, you will find that over 99% agree, at the very least, with what I am saying. Many will call for something stricter.
- Furthermore, the website noted is not my website... but it details evidences for wearing the jilbab, and it is a reference (that was on the Jilbab page before, mind you, until you removed it...). I also presented 2 other arguments on different websites... one arguing for the face veil, and one arguing against it. I feel these references are very beneficial as they simply present the evidences... so the person can look at both sides and see for themself who they feel is correct. 18.90.5.22 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to comment in this dialogue, but as someone coming from the 3rd most populous muslim nation, I can definitely say that your (anon's) attitude is not shared by at least 130 million of Bangladeshi people. No, I'm not saying that people in Bangladesh are not religious ... they ARE quite so, but when it comes to the medieval notion of Hijab, most of the Bangladeshis don't agree. So, your opinion is definitely a minority one. Sorry Zora, to comment here uninvited, but if you need to show the anon statistical figures, show him the population of
Bangladesh according to the latest census. That ought to be enough. --
Ragib 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Salaam bro. In Bangladeshi mosques, do women pray without their hijab and jilbab? I think the answer to that question will put what you said into persepctive. I have many Bangladeshi friends, and they have told me the exact opposite of what you are saying... they say that Bangladeshis know that the hijab called for in Islam is the orthodox hijab (covering most everything but the face, hands, maybe feet, and maybe forearms) 18.90.5.22 06:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, don't confuse what I was saying... I did NOT say that most Muslims think they should cover their face... most Muslims DO NOT think so actually... but most DO THINK that they should cover everything but the face, hands, feet, and maybe forearms... 18.90.5.22 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to comment in this dialogue, but as someone coming from the 3rd most populous muslim nation, I can definitely say that your (anon's) attitude is not shared by at least 130 million of Bangladeshi people. No, I'm not saying that people in Bangladesh are not religious ... they ARE quite so, but when it comes to the medieval notion of Hijab, most of the Bangladeshis don't agree. So, your opinion is definitely a minority one. Sorry Zora, to comment here uninvited, but if you need to show the anon statistical figures, show him the population of
Bangladesh according to the latest census. That ought to be enough. --
Ragib 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you read a few Bangladeshi newspapers, see Bangladeshi TV news or other programs etc. Culture affects people's lives just as religion does, and often cultural values change religious practices. From my personal experince (being born, brought up, and immersed in Bangladesh, to be exact), only the minority fundamentalist elements of Bangladeshi society follow the doctrine you are advocating. Thanks. -- Ragib 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Salaam. But I am asking how the women pray... in the mosque... that is really reflective of what they think they should wear. Whether they always follow it or not is another question. How many Bangladeshi women do you know that pray without hijab and jilbab? TV is one thing... the mosque is another. And which doctrine am I advocating? That Muslim women are supposed to wear hijab and jilbab? I highly doubt anything short of the vast majority would agree that that is what they SHOULD do... Maybe you mean, only a minority really practice their religion to that extent... Again, I direct your attention to how women act when they pray, as here they always stick to what they think they should do. 18.90.5.22 07:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- They don't necessarily wear Hijaab or Burqa. Most women wear head coverings (The Sari works just fine). So, a women wearing a Sari would typically use it to cover her head during prayers. Or they will use a Shawl to cover their head during prayers. In Bangladesh, women rarely pray in mosques. Most pray at home. You are free to believe whatever you want, the reality says otherwise. Thanks. -- Ragib 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- You said it yourself my brother, they cover their head when they pray. Also, Islam advises women to pray at home rather than the mosque, which is probably why they do... It makes no difference if they cover their hair with a separate cloth or a sari... they cover their hair, and that is basically the end of it... when they pray, they cover their hair, cuz they know they should according to Islam... You may also believe what you wish... but the reality of their beliefs are shown in their prayer... the reality thus contradicts what you are saying, my brother. Wassalaam 18.90.5.22 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since this is becoming a discussion between you and me, it would be better if you take any further replies to my user talk page. Thanks. -- Ragib 07:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Zora. I hope to review the Buddha article later this week. All the best. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your condolences. Babajobu 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Which do you think the title should be? Just curious. gren グレン ? 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)