User talk:Zora

• NAL

• 2004 1
• 2005 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• 2006 1, 2, 3, 4

Shi'a, Shiah and transliteration

Sorry for that abrupt change without consulting anyone. I realised i made a mistake when i saw the masses of back-links, but didn't have the time to do anything about it. I am glad that the erroneous Shiite is now replaced by Shi'a but i would still prefer Shiah. Anyway I guess this is an issue that will take some time to arrive at consensus on and views still keep changing. Paki.tv 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui

Well this guy User:Siddiqui has been taking down India-related articles and impregnating them with a distinct POV by dozen a day! He has been unilaterally editing wahtever he percieves to be "misinformation" and has started psedo-historical articles like Sakastan and completed hogwash like Kashmiri Freedom Movement (even though Pakistani POV is articulated on terrorism in Kashmir article). See this for some of his subtle vandalisms. I've tried to be as polite as possible but this guy simply deleting all criticisms from Talk page! history of his talk page. Do tell advise me on how to tavkle this, some articles are trhreating to decscend into Rajput-article mode all over again.

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I would like your advice. On the Talk page for Arabs of Khuzestan, user Dariush4444 has called me a liar and propagandist.[[1]] He has called the Arab population "refugees", which is not true, and he claims that I know nothing about the Middle East. He also denies that the Arab population has any ethnicity or culture distinct from the Persian culture. I want to know whether any of these comments breach Wikipedia rules and what I do about it if they do. However, as I have been reprimanded once by Wikipedia administrators, I do not think they will take anything I say seriously any more.--Ahwaz 18:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please...

Hi Zora! Could you please see this and help enhance the section? Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 19:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora! Yes I saw the two long lists of books and films at the end of the article.Even then I thought to add this section because I had plans to incorporate not only books and cinemas, but also other cultural aspects like cuisine, language, performing arts etc.However, your suggestion of moving out the long lists and start a break out article is really good.Just 2 or 3 sentences in Partition of India, and a separate article on Cultural impact of the partition of India would give a scope to discuss the effects widely , and without much concern to the size of Partition of India, which is already pretty large.Thanks for the suggestion. And please help me when the break out article is started.I will inform you soon when I/ anybody else starts the break-out article.Thanks a lot ! Bye, --Dwaipayanc 06:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! As per your advice, I have started the discussion in the talk page of Partition of India. Hope wikipedians will help to start and enhance the article.Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 08:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Artistic depictions of the partition of India does not look good at present, as both format of lisings are there. If you want to retain the list format, you can, but please take care that the short descriptions of all the entries are also retained. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Upset user

User:Zmmz has apparently been so disturbed by some of your edits that he has requested I "remind people to be civil to each other". I feel a bit reluctant to step in with such an obvious, yet potentially condescending request in what most likely is a heated debate where more than one part is pushing the civility border. But since he is upset by your comments I don't feel I can neglect his request. And after all, we can all do with a reminder to be nicer to each other. I'll tell Zmmz the same, and hope I'm not dragged into a who-said-what debate here. Thanks! Shanes 04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui RfC

I've filed an RfC against Siddiqui. Please support it by endorsing the RfC at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Siddiqui

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 08:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish politician category

Hey thanks for you keeping an eye on the Persian people article. I also thought you might be interested in this. Seems like another attempt to limit the expansion of Kurdish-related articles. Aucaman^Talk 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mullah

Checked it. The latter spelling is correct. (the older one wasnt).--Zereshk 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: accusations

Yes I will see what I can do about this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I know you're trying to help, but try not to have any discussions with User:Zmmz about things not related to articles' contents - especially on my talk page. If you want to leave me a message you can just press the "Leave a message" link I just added to the page. Sincerely, Aucaman^Talk 05:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Hawaiian language

I don't know if the issue has been resolved yet, but the language wasn't altogether "banned." The Hawaiian language was effectively suppressed by way of funding. In effect, the language was banned due to federal funding mandating english as its primary language. The schools that taught primary in Hawaiian started teaching in english so as to keep its funding.

I haven't looked at the page, but if you still need someone to try and add "balance," I'll start some research.--M.ana 07:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whee

Flame wars? On Wikipedia? Never. Okay, I'll get right on 'em, have them all cleaned up by tomorrow.

Incidentally, it's pajama pants and a t-shirt at the moment, thank you very much. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all the new users at Rajput are fishy, to say the least. I'm going to see what a checkuser will reveal. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ziyarat and Ziarah

Hi Zora. Would you agree that the articles Ziyarat and Ziarah be merged. The latter contains a much too restrictive definition (as 'grave visiting'). MP (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Siddiqui

Zora i think you misunderstand us. We are NOT trying to supress legitimate Muslim POV. But with regards to sensitive issues, factual information must take precedence over someone's POV. Its upto Muslims to accept the darker sides of their "heroes" and move on. If Shivraj Singh can be banned for revert wars on a single article, why not Siddiqui who has had revert wars on two dozen articles to his credit(judging by the current trend all over the world does this have to do with their religion?) . This guy is nice sometimes at others he acts plain queer. See this here he calls Ahamadis (an Islamic sect ) "kuttay" in article!!! Even you might know it means "dogs". He cant really expect sympathy from us if he keeps on deleting our edits without rhyme and reason and keeps humanising organisations whose sole purpose is destruction of Dharmic religions from Indian subcontinent. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh i should have thought of it before!! My only introduction to Asperger's has been the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. Well some of his edits especially the ones to the Third Battle of Panipat struck a personal chord with me as 3 of my female ancestors were killed/lost/enslaved after the battle. As for Muslim bashing, all many of us Indians may be guilty of mild-Muslim bashing here but again we are all billed as Hindutva cruft by our eager-to-brandish-liberal-credentials-brigade but god forbid if you accuse a Muslim of fundamentalism. It is these double standards at Wikipedia that pisses me off. The problem with non-South Asian origin admins is that they tend to see a Hindutva-vadi in every every reactionist Hindu while we percieve that Muslims get away with much of history revisionist crap of wikipedia. Surely they didnt take India-Pakistan chauvanism and the emitions it evokes into account while making Wikipedia. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora you have opened whole new can worms over the conversion issue there. People like Ghazni were may have been motivated by loot but what about Babur? In case you do not know, this motivation-because-of-loot theory is a contentious issue, i personally believe it is a part of history revisionism by certain political schools of thought. These people were specifically targeting the "idolators", following certain Surahs from Koran(9:27). If most people did convert to Islam to escape the caste system, then why are they not doing so today? Caste system is a unique feature of Indian society not only Hinduism. Yes some may have converted out of conviction BUT it is generally percieved that most converts were either forced or compelled by the socio-economic conditions. I'm quite open-minded about problems with Hinduism, i dont believe in Vedas nor Manu nor the trimurti still I call myself a Hindu. I'd suggest you read Elst or K.S Lal or even Sita Ram Goel (fountainhead of the nasty dangerous "communal" thought in India) for change may be they will give you a non-conventional perspective of Indian history. Though most of these historians are billed as right-wing, in India every one has an agenda (even good ole Romila Thapar). Lastly AFAIK RSS does not fight out of religious convictions, Jehadis do. And i do accept I do have a certain POV but i try to be as sympathetic to others POV as I can.

P.S try reading Pakistani history articles, they hardly mention country's historic conections with Hinduism, sadly no one seems to care.

P.P.S Kabir's origins are not certain. He was neither a Muslim nor a Hindu. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"When you get angry at Muslims, think of that song. (Goes for me too -- after all, I'm a kill-on-sight American to some jihadis.)"

Sorry for eavesdropping. Just wanted to add that the lyrics were written by Javed Akhtar. deeptrivia (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Corsets mythology

Can you write Corsets mythology or Mythology of corset?

• The legend of Catherine de'Medici
• 9-10-inche waist.
• more:......

missehund vovkat 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hajj

Thanks for catching that addition to Hajj. To answer your question (see, people do read edit summaries!) the edit was done here by NurulAhmed. Looks like we both reverted vandalism afterwards but missed it. :) [Note to self: read the whole article when reverting.] Turnstep 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman/Zmmz arbitration

Zora, Zmmz has gone ahead and had an arbitration request filed against Aucaman. What are your views, could you e-mail me? Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز ! Amir85 13:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ziyaret

Welcome! It's an interesting article. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I will create a list of Ziyaret sites in Pakistan.

Siddiqui 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora, My understanding is that a Dargah is the burial-place of a muslim devine, which becomes a place of prayer and pilgrimage. However, I find that "Dargah" redirects to Khanqah, and that page makes no mention of burial at all. Maybe others have favoured this redirection as the Mausoleum page has a lot of christian context, but is that not more appropriate? Please advise. Regards, ImpuMozhi 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

AFIK, a grave is necessary for a shrine to be called a Dargah, something not apparently a necessary feature of Khanqahs. This is the understanding in India, and of course every prosperous dargah will have buildings and religio-cultural activities around the place. Such for instance is the Haji Ali Dargah in Bombay. I know of other, very much smaller places that are called "Dargahs" and comprise only of a shrine housing a grave. People pray there, but AFIK, not in congregation. Hence my idea of association between "grave" and "dargah". I am definitely no authority on this and came to you for guidance! Regards, ImpuMozhi 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Happy Newroz! Diyako Talk + 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mosque.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mosque.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It means you want to release it in GFDL. If yes, then tag it with {{GFDL-self}}. If no, then choose a suitable tag from here. Thanks for the response. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood and plagiarism

I have filled in the information for Main Aisa Hi Hoon thanks to a review from Planet Bollywood which was pretty clear about the fact that it was a copy. But I disagree with the move to make this page in the first place, it will be hard to control the rise of unsourced claims and serious unjustified degrading of Bollywood itself and the movies that is produces. It could become just an unsourced POV mess that is unfit for Wikipedia, as the topic itself is controversial. Then again, it could become a decent source of information on plagiarism claims, although this wouldn't be very likely in my opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aisha and the previous engagement

Zora, I read your post on my talk. You say:

Ahmedayad, I reverted your edits to Aisha. I really feel that it's important to know WHY people continue to believe those hadith from Bukhari even though they seem to cast doubts on the character of Muhammad. The prior engagement is mentioned twice already; it doesn't need to be mentioned again.

There are two points:

1- I posted the reasons for the modification on the talk page of the article. The reason for removing these paragraphs was that they are unsupported by citation. They sound very much like "original research". I said feel free to put them back if you have some support for the argument. If you would like references, I can give you plenty in Islamic Fiqh where companions of the prophet openly disagreed with Aisha. A scholar - not a modern one - cited more than a 100 places where Aisha had the incorrect opinion (in his view). These opinions were regarding other far serious issues than her young age (see point 2 below). Simply being mistaken about her age in these narration is hardly a cause to cast doubt on the structure of Shari'a. Unless you can cite an opinion - even if a fringe one - who espouses such view (muslim views of course, since non-muslims doubt the whole structure on priciple), I think the paragraphs are unprecise to say the least.

2- The reason you say "they seem to cast doubts on the character of Muhammad" is exactly why I wanted to include the previous engagement in this context (I reduced the size to only a sentence referring to the previous paragraph in the introduction, despite my belief that moving the whole story to this section is the correct approach. I thought it won't be productive to start a revert war). As far as my knowledge, the issue was not a controversy until marriages with huge age differences and between people who we percieve as children became a modern faux pas (Ghandi was married at the age of 13 to a 13 years old). I can be wrong, but if so, I would like to know why I am other than being wrong by assertion. Before I added my modifications I did some quick research. When people ask prominent contemporary scholars about the perceived controversy in the marriage, I counted two replies both referring to the previous engagement as evidence that there was nothing out of the ordinary with the whole affair. There is little discussion in the replies about her age, since the view is that it was immaterial, and there is no question that Aisha at the time of marriage was past puberty. Bottom line, it is very relevant in this context.

Wiki pages are supposed to be factual and relevant, in the most succinct manner. I believe my edits stick to these principles.

Finally, out of respect for your past edits to the page, I will not revert until we can reach some sort of agreement. I would hope you reply to me soon though (this is the second time I was reverted on the same subject within less than half a day of my edits).

Thanks

Hey there, thanks! Glad to help. — Deckiller 02:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

reverting the page on Islam

Zora, please tell us why you are reverting the page on Islam to your favourite version? For Example, it is one of the tenets of that Muhammad was the last prophet. Why then the insistence on calling the submitters as Muslim? Their religion can be said to based on Islam, but not Islam itself. peacedove 17:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Zora.

POV, Piety in Depiction of Muhammad

Zora, about the above topic where you are talking to joturner.

I may be mistaken, and I hope i am, but the words and the tone display a bias when you say this:

"You said that most Muslims agreed that depiction was wrong -- that is clearly not the case. Not only do Shi'a allow it, most moderate Muslims do too. Howling mobs whipped up by Islamists are not evidence for majority opinion."

My questions are these: 1. How do you define moderate Muslims? 2. How would you determine the percentage of "moderate" Muslims? 3. How did you come to the conclusion that "most" moderate Muslims allow pictorial depiction of the prophet?

You have said yourself that most Muslims are Sunnis, and Sunnis do not allow this.

I wonder if you have had enough interaction with real Muslims to make such a generalised statement. Have you read the newspapers and opinion surveys in major Muslim countries? Iam a Muslim, and have lived among Muslims for most of my years, and from what I see the pictorial representation is not allowed. For non-Muslim countries some Muslims may make an exception as the ban cannot be applied to them. peacedove 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair

Your usually fair in your opinions. Could I ask you to look over at the September 11 attacks page, the recent edits between me and MONGO, and the talk page, and let me know, either on my talk page or on the article talk page, on how you view the situation? Pepsidrinka 07:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have hoped from you that you wouldn't take a stand. I would consider this edit to the discussion page at the September 11 attacks article to be a borderline personal attack. It has nothing to do with the article in question and should properly have been placed on my talk page. I'm hoping that you don't repeat this kind of thing again.--MONGO 09:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization of Iran

Yeah the move by User:ManiF was not okay. But Arabization and Islamicization are two different concepts, so maybe now that we have an article on Ismicization of Iran you should create and article titled Arabization of Iran? You do have sources, right? Maybe it's just better for the two articles to be seperate? But if you think the move was a major violation you can set up an RfC on this or ask some admins about it. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization of Iran, or any such titles, would imply that Iran was Arabized which is totally inaccurate and POV, and I have countless sources to back up my facts. --ManiF 13:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman (convert)

I was reading this article today when I noticed the sentence, "who in March 2006 was arrested and charged in Afghanistan with converting from Islam to Christianity, which is punishable by death penalty under Sharia, the law of Islam." I was going to change it but I wasn't sure how to modify it and not seem apologist (because many forms obviously do call for death penalty) but also give a clearer view... such as many schools say under the caliph it's apostasy because it's treason, etc. I don't want to be long winded nor do I want to be overly simplistic. What's the best way to deal with that, do you think? gren グレン 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I just saw your vote here. I voted support before I saw your vote. Do you have any specific complaints about this user? Aucaman^Talk 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I checked some of his edits randomly and they looked pretty careful and NPOV. He also seems to have a good number of Talk namespace contributions, which is a good sign.

Also, have you seen any of the latest discussions on Iranian peoples? I sometimes feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. There are a lot of inaccurate statements in that article.

And then.... You might want to archive this page? Aucaman^Talk 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rajput

Zora, I disagree with you. Every Hindu knows that Rajput is synonmous with Hindu.

Raj2004 14:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC) In the Muslim Rajputs article, the article seems to mention that the Rajputs converted to Islam by Sufi missionaries. May be true but give me a break. Some were forced to convert or due to persecution. Where is that point of view?

Raj2004 02:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

William Gifford Palgrave

Dear fellow abeoholic; I have finally finished reading Palgrave´s: "Personal Narrative..." A very interesting book, IMO. Have you finished reading your copy? I have two questions. Firstly, I had thought of adding some of the informations in that book to his article. However, when I revisit his article I find this: [2] Hmmm. I certainly found nothing in the book that suggested that Palgrave had "the goal to convert the Wahhabi Muslims to Christianity"!! The whole passage is uncourced. Do you know anything about it? Also, secondly, my edition (1908) of the book has a map showing his route. Very useful! I was thinking of scanning this map and place it in the article, but I still have not gotten a scanner... I know you have a scanner ;-D ...do you have the map? (if yes: hint, hint ;-) ). Regards, Huldra 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I always claim: women are parallel computers, men are simply doing sequential computing ....(it can cause some problems, though, when you only have one Output Unit (a.k.a. "mouth"): I know I can be difficult to follow sometimes, when sentences pertaining to completely different processes comes out intertwined (PS: remember to buy milk, bread) and the listener must sort the sentences (NB: extend Palgrave (library), order Finkelstein) according to content. If you see what I mean.

Hey, what did you think of the anon´s edits on Palgrave?? I´m temptet to remove most of it... & I´m looking forward to you adding the map! I really enjoyed reading Palgrave, certainly a change to present day Saudi-Arabias one-dimentional image......ah, bad luck that the Wahabis came out on top of those internal strifes.... How was al-Rasheeds book about Saudi-Arabia, b.t.w.? Just think about it: if the Ottoman empire hadn´t collapsed (+been so unpopular) we migh have had a "Rasheedi-Arabia"!

Btw, I´m trying to find out more about PalestineFacts. The GuideStar can apparently be used to find those who fund it ((and those who funds www.middleeastfacts.com) ...but apparently you need a "GuideStar Premium" membership. Do you happen to know anything about it? These guys ( PalestineFacts etc.) really don´t sail under their own flag. I find the Middle East Media Research Institute-article quite illuminating. Cheers, Huldra

PS: talking about zealots, what about this: [3]? what are they thinking about??

I suspected it was something like that. Nuts! Totally. (Try searching for that "correct name" in abebooks!) Regards, Huldra 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work!! Great! The map is fine, IMO. I might try to add some inf. from his book later; I relly enjoy his first-hand observations of people and places. Regards, Huldra 17:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran

Hey, how are you?

If you want this page back you should probably stop arguing with these users and just file an RfC. What ManiF has done is certainly against the rules here. An alternative is to create a new article: Arabization in post-conquest Iran or Arabization in Iran. And I'm not sure why you said "I moved the page back" when it's clearly sitting there.

Let me know if you need any help. Aucaman^Talk 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review Kolkata

Hi! A request has been made for peer review of Kolkata. Could you please help improving the article? Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

<aside>Seems like it was very recently that you archived your talk page. Your now at 100+KB.</aside> Thanks for the support on the RfA. As you already know, it was a success. It's cliche by now, but I'll do it anyhow: If you ever need any assistance, feel free to let me know. There are many, many, many vandals that surround the Islam-related articles, so I'm sure you come into a regular contact with them, probably daily. Anyhow, thanks again. Pepsidrinka 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam article

Someone has asked to remove the "disputed tag" from the article. Could you please post your opinion there. Thanks, --Aminz 20:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Something for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Although I couldn't find any barnstar (or words either) that could match my gratitude, please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation. deeptrivia (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really supesius to these users. They use the same untrue logic. I want to ask for checking Xebat Talk + 05:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my userpage by the above user, which somehow escaped my notice! SouthernComfort 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship on Wikipedia

I can see from this requests for arbitration that the administrators are voting unanimously to ban user:Aucaman from Wikipedia because he contends that "Aryan" is a racist term. I am not particularly interested in that debate, but it seems that the extremists have stiched up a hate campaign on their bulletin board against a whole lot of people. user:Aucaman is their first target. You, me and some others are also targetted for an attack that is obviously led by those who have an extreme hatred of Arabs, Kurds and anyone else who does not share their racial profile. Can you tell me what I can expect from this nasty crowd? When user:Aucaman is banned, who is the next person on their list? Is this the usual way an "encyclopaedia" is compiled? I have no faith in Wikipedia because of what is happening to user:Aucaman and the campaign to run people out or run them down. I don't feel able to contribute any more because of the intimidation by those people. I had wanted to help expand the anti-Arabism article, but feel it will too become a target and I will again face racial abuse and accusations of supporting terrorism as I did before. I hate Wikipedia and I wish people would wake up and realise the kind of views of those running it.--Ahwaz 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Thanks for your message. I've blocked RedCrescent 24 hours and yourself 6 hours for violating 3RR at that said article. That said, I'm not inclined to be drawn into a revert war. I shall get a well-known Muslim editor (currently up for adminship nominated by me but failing as no consensus) to talk to RC, and to look through the revert war. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:32 UTC (2006-03-28)

Addendum, User:Sjakkalle lowered RC's block to six hours. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:55 UTC (2006-03-28)

And by the way, it is possile to edit your own user talk page while blocked ;) NSLE _(T+C) at 10:03 UTC (2006-03-28)

I hate to have to say this, but RedCrescent was possibly a total newbie AND he was changing his edits at Zakir Naik each time. The gist was the same, but the wording was different. Does that merit a block? Should we not bite the newbies even if they're acting like idjits?

I say "possibly" because I dunno if a complete newbie would know enough to track me to the article on Zakir Naik (a completely obscure article) and seemingly deliberately set out to piss me off. But it could be that I'm just getting paranoid and cranky :/ Time to go read a scholarly book and chill out. Zora 10:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Nakir

Hi Zora,

I know this may appear to be rude since it is none of my business, but when surfing I observed your debate with RedCrescent. To be honest, the Qur'an's main interest is not medicine. Though there is one verse saying that there is healing in honey and there are some other verses on wine for example that may be interpreted in a medical sense. There are also some verses on embryology which seems to be not relevant here. Many Muslims of course think that when God forbids something, it either should have some (medical or social or …) reasons or it should be a test as to see who will follow it (such as direction of praying, or maybe eating the food on which the name of God has been said at the slaughter). I think there should however be some Hadiths related to medicine. Muhammad is reported to have been interested in medicine first of all.

Based on my understanding of Qur'an, that statement that those who eat pork will become like pig in the biological sense has not qur’anic basis. Qur'an sometimes does use such sort of expressions but in a totally different context. It tries to show that the nature of some actions that we do is like those things: For example,

"Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies: They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!" (Qur'an 4:10)

" O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah. For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. " (49:12)

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (2:65)

I don't see any medical link here. The nature of sin is embodied like blazing fire, eating the dead body of brother and being apes. Anyway, that’s what I think. It may be wrong. Have nice times, --Aminz 10:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I think it's enough to say that most Muslims don't share Naik's -- to me -- strange views. He is coming up with theories intended to show that the Qur'an is rational and scientific. Those are theories just like the theories of Muslim theologians or commentators. I think most Muslims would agree that all of those things are not in the Qur'an or the Sunnah. But does that mean that they're wrong, or should be thrown out? Only if you're a Salafi. That's why all we can really say is that his ideas aren't shared. I put that observation there because some anti-Muslim editors were trying to make it seem as if all Muslims were silly because Naik said some -- to us -- silly things. It's only fair to most Muslims to say that they don't share Naik's views. Zora 11:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mutual aid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hurriyya_notice_board

I have set up a notice board to give collective support to those facing racism, nationalist bigotry and group intimidation while editing articles related to Middle Eastern issues. There are a growing number of people who are coming across the same problems with the same users, but are outnumbered and over-ruled. It is plain and simple bullying. They are being turned off Wikipedia because of this behaviour. I hope that we can all support each other.

The title is "Hurriyya", which means "freedom".--Ahwaz 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hurriyya_notice_board

Hadeeth

Ok, I'm going to leave the hadeeth in there since I still believe that Sunnis view Fatima in a good light; not only Shias. I won't replace the hadeeth with another because by placing it in there, in the first place, wasn't to provide a POV (even thought it's under the Sunni View section) but only what evidence from a authenticated Sunni hadeeth presents...I am worried though that you brought this up twice, meaning that other readers might also think the same thing, but Sunnis and Shias are not divided upon the issue of her father's lover for her, which the hadeeth simply states.

And sorry about your crankiness, a few edits should cure that up right quick.:) -Stoa 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for checking out IPTA

Hi Zora! How are you? Could you please check out Indian People’s Theatre Association? I had trouble creating the article and also categorizing it. There is IPTA Mumbai seperately now, distinct from, but related to this IPTA. May be you know about more films/ dramas churned out by the this movement. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Du'a

I have stopped writing the artcile and I am gonna am gonna let other people add to it if they like. In my opinion it is an important topic within Islam. Maybe not outside of Islam, but there have been thousands of books written on the topic of du'a. Maybe from a non-muslim perspective many people are not interested in the topic. Anyway, tell me what you think off the article I wrote titled Islamic Rulings. Levae your opinion on whether if it is to POV or not on my talk page. MuslimsofUmreka 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also zora, I read that you havent read about dua in Islam yet because nobody has talked about it in any other artcile. I dont know why they havent. Its a big important part of Islam. THe first surah of the Quran is a du'a, surah fathiha or the opening as it would be translated into english. In Isalm the because component is that you ask nobody for help except Allah. I am gonna talk to those people you mentioned to see why they havent mentioned it. MuslimsofUmreka 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Husayn vs. Hussain

Apparently User:Salman01 moved Husayn ibn Ali, Ali Asgar ibn Husayn, and Sakinah to Hussain ibn Ali, Ali Asghar ibn Hussain, and Sakina binte Imam Hussain respectively. While the latter seems like a complete copyvio, I was wondering your thoughts on the spelling of Husayn. Since you seem to be exposed to how they do it in academic sources and such, I was wondering your opinion. Pepsidrinka 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khomeini

Could you watchlist this article? I've added some new stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people try to change the sectioning or claim the information is not true. Aucaman^Talk 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Masjid Al-Aqsa image on the Muhammed page

Hi Zora, Muslims only identified Dome of the Rock as "the furthest mosque" much later, the original Al-Aqsa mosque remained the same, shall we change the caption and include the picutre, because I think its important and adds value to the article. Mystic 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar for your very helpful work on Saudi-Arabia related articles Huldra 08:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How do I respond to this ? i mean is there a place where i can reply to the message sent ? And the coverage i have done Geeta Bali, Shammi Kapoor, Amitabh, Dharmendra, Nasir Hussain is MOSTLY FACT, there is hardly any rumor part apart from a part of what I have added about Amithabh and Mithun And none of the stuff like place of birth , marriage is gossip or rumor.

Also on the comment to work on older bollywood, none of these people are current though Amitabh still has a current status, I do understand that you need verification but on a lot of pages i saw nothing that showed the verification, if i say that Filmfare said so does it become verified ? Would you not need the date and article details ? I do not see that kind of stuff anywhere so how do i do the verification ?

Haphar 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look first thanks for taking the time out for speaking to a moron ( ie can't write can't spell) but sticking to the topic- in Raj Kapoor's biography Nargis is given as "his real life love interest". But a comment on Amitabh having an interest ( the well written grammatically correct and good english part can be covered seperately )on his article becomes gossip ? so is this not double standards ?

Please understand that i am on wiki since yesterday and am learning on the fly, but i cannot see how verification can be done for some and not for others ? Or is the thumb rule do not talk about the living if the fact is not pleasant ?

The movies is a huge list, and my attempt is to first get some movie stubs in there and then work on them. So if I cannot comment on RD Burman's music being influenced by Santana (even if his ex wife has aknowledged it in print and on tv) then it takes a lot of the flavour out of the knowledge. maybe the solution is to have an opinion/unverified portion on personalities.

Now Coming to the language part, i guess that's why they have editors like you out there to tweak the stuff into shape. :-)

Haphar 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced Gossip ?

Also Amitabh's mother Teji being a Sikh is not unreferenced gossip, so even that got edited out. Why ? Haphar 12:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A considerable effort also went into adding links to movies in Dahrmendra's page, so if you did not like my english why did even the links ( for close to 200 movies is VERY tedious work) have to go ? There was no english involved there ? Also his being married to Prakash ( the first wife) is also not rumor or unreferenced, that too went. So there is no selective editing , everything has to go if you do not like one part of it ?

Haphar 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What of complete lifting of articles and posting them on wiki ? For Amitabh's article is a straight lift. here are the links -

http://www.danceage.com/biography/sdmc_Amitabh_Bachchan http://www.articles-hub.com/Article/48067.html Also this is the ONLY article that says Amitabh was a FTII graduate, he was not, his wife was. This article wherever it is repeated is the only one making this claim, so that is a lot of bad stuff flating on wiki, and i had deleted it but it's back. Also here are the links supporting Teji being a Sikh. http://ganeshyamalabittu.tripod.com/heroes/id25.html http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=46087 http://india4u.com/Bollywoodnew/bachan_continue.asp

So should verification not be done before deleting stuff too ?

Haphar 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, with the utmost respect, I do think User Haphar deserves an explanation, or a restoration of his edits. It does seem odd to delete, revert or rewrite whole pages if you do not like one bit in someone's edit. I wonder, too why the other users are so meek as not to revert Zora's edits back to their own versions. peacedove 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Hey Zora, do you think the article requires semi-protection from anon IPs and new users? Is it getting too difficult to manage? deeptrivia (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right -- it's just about one or two editors. Let me see if there's something I can do that won't add to the chaos. Your reference to Chick comics reminded me of this funny page from a children's coloring book that I saw a few days back. Hopefully they don't publish such things any more. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood Barnstar

Hello, Zora, thanks for the Barnstar. :) --Plumcouch 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Zora, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Qu'ran' Judeo Christian origin

Modern day philologists view it as an eighth century Arab compilation and adaptation of earlier Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions, that had spread to Arabia in the Aramaic and Syriac dialects .[4][5].

Luxenberg is not the only one holding that view, I would even advance the notion , that a majority of the Non-islamic, Non apologist academic community ( which I will not list here ) , including philologists and historians subscribe to that view which is supported a great a great deal of hard evidence. I think I read somewhere in a talk page that you were busy reading reading Ibn Warraq's books. If you have read Origins of the Qu'ran or What the Koran Really Says or Quest for the Historical Muhammed, then you will see a fairly large representation of the non muslim near east studies academic community subscribes to that line of research, which echoes all through the modern day western thinkers like Pipes, and Spencer and many others. Furthermore major media like time magazine, newsweek , and the Atlantic have carried articles including cover pages on this view. --CltFn 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Link

A good link on bollywood, though the coverage is limited, however has a lot of details on AB if you want to polish your page on him. http://www.3to6.com/final_retro/lamitabh1.htm also has good write up on Madhubala

Haphar 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Help?

Can you help me please? How can i do inline citations to specific chapters in books? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini

This is the latest point of friction. Your help would be appreciated. Aucaman^Talk 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

can you help me

see whats wrong here [[6]] and correct it Mystic 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood articles

Well, if there is a good thing in all of this he made a few stubs that can be cleaned up that other we wouldn't have had the impetus to make. Although, cleaning up film articles that were already established is less fun and less rewarding. gren グレン 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

Regarding this edit: Remember, on wikipedia, discuss article content, not other users. It is disruptive to the project as a whole and, in contexts like this, calling another user "Iranian" could quite easily be taken as an attempt to pidgeonhole at best, and a blatant attack at worst. Even if someone else makes a jab at you, simply report them to someone, and do not respond in kind. --InShaneee 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing my best to help keep these discussions neutral, but I can only deal with what I see when it happens, which is why I recommend again bringing obvious infractions to myself or another admin when they happen. As for how calling someone "Iranian" could be considered an attack (even when it's true), consider this: suppose I edited a page, and another user reverted it, saying, "This is just the kind of garbage I'd expect from an American editor". Now, I was born, raised, and am currently living in the US, there's no disputing that, but the other hypothetical editor was using that label to make a broad jab at all editors from America, myself included. The simple explination is just that it goes against the policy of discussing content, not editors. So, in the future, no matter what, just keep your cool and take these things up through the proper channels. --InShaneee 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's a matter of how you go about things. If they are colluding based on their nationality, well, that's not an inherently bad thing. If this is causing harm to an article, than this is what must be discussed, not neccisarily their reasons (and even if it does get to the point where it's enough of a problem that it must be addressed, the article talk page is not the place to discuss it). I do commiserate with how awkward it feels having to bring every personal attack to an admin's attention (as I was faced with this sort of dilemma a few times before my adminship, and felt the same way), but that is the only thing that can be done. Done enough times, this usually brings about enough admin involvement to resolve the issue, one way or another. It is simply not acceptable for regular users to try to take this type of thing into their own hands. --InShaneee 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you once again to stop making accusations of another user's nationality as you did here, as it is considered to be innapropriate. --InShaneee 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry InShaneee, I must disagree here. I find Zora's comment absolutely unobjectionable. Talking about what one believes to be another editor's motives in preferring one thing or another is, for me, a very legitimate part of dispute resolution. And in the case of the Iranian disputes, it must be painfully obvious to any outside observer that much of the conflict is in fact due to nationally motivated feelings of the kind Zora describes. Zora's comment was to the point and worded civilly. That said, with all due respect for your efforts at remaining neutral and just towards all sides, I'm a bit concerned that your own role - encouraging people to bring ever new complaints about personal behaviour to you and then trying to act as a judge in each case - may be growing to a point where it may cease to be as helpful as it is meant to be. Wikipedia standards of behaviour are not an end in itself but a means for ensuring smoother resolution of disagreements. There may be a point in a heated disagreement where enforcing such standards in an overly strict way may end up heightening ill will on both sides and inflame feelings even more than if you just let people speak their minds as they must. I don't think it's a healthy thing if people are encouraged to take every minor real or perceived instance of aggressiveness as an opportunity to "run to the admins". And it certainly isn't helpful to try to prevent people from calling a spade a spade. Just a thought. --Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lukas is welcome to his opinion, but Zora, my statement remains: if you have a problem with another user's edits, simply discuss what you believe is wrong with them, and perhaps suggest an alternate wording. Making accusations of another user based upon what you believe may be their nationality solves nothing, and is innapropriate. --InShaneee 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree here too. Sometimes we need to understand each other's biases & cultural worldview if we are to work towards an effective compromise and/or resolution of our conflict. Zora can be pretty hardnosed about it at first glance, but although I have been in a bit of a disagreement myself, I find Zora's style to be one which draws out understanding. Sometimes what's wrong with another user's edits is their national/cultural bias - once you understand that bias, you can start working forward. Bridesmill 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above sentiments regarding the assignment of motives or worldview to another; it is, in my view, fundamentally opposed to the spirit of mutual collaboration and cooperation that Wikipedia is built on to focus on the personality, and indeed personal attributes, of Wikipedia contributors; in my view there is never any excuse for ad hominem discussion relating to editors when content is in question. I believe the spirit, albeit not the letter, of Wikipedia:No personal attacks would suggest that personal accusations as a whole should never be made, even if they may be founded in truth. Since article edits must be made to conform to the WP:NPOV policy - a well-entrenched tenet of our community - ultimately individual biases become immaterial as we are all striving towards the common goal of neutral editing. In regard to Lukas' point that it is advisable to allow people in heated disputes to "speak their mind as they must" - Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech, as per WP:NOT, and I could not disagree more. Wikipedia is a place to work on an encyclopaedia, not engage in arguments with those whom one considers to fall under a particular mindset or ethnic origin. I endorse InShaneee's comments above. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In many cases I would agree. When we are talking intercultural conflicts, however, although WP might differ in opinion, the generally accepted practice is to start with defining our respective worldviews, and that includes me saying what I *think* your worldview is. One needs to be civil, but also honest and direct - there is real danger in not understanding the person we are dealing with. I am afraid that in these cases, it is blind adherence to and insincere application of WP:NPA which can be most destructive. We must Assume good faith (even when someone calls me a bigot or whatever). Bridesmill 02:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking over why nationality is important here and it's because ManiF, Kash, Zmmz, and the other editors with whom I'm clashing do not seem to be approaching the topics from an intellectual POV. They revert and just say "That's wrong" or "Goes against consensus", and if they do say anything on the talk page, it's "The Encyclopedia Britannica says it so it's true". You can give them counter-examples and quotes and arguments till you're blue in the face, but they just say, "Experimental" or "Not mainstream" or just ignore you. They are not engaging on any level. It's just brute force. We have more people so we can revert anything you say, so there. You can't even put up a disputed tag because we'll remove it, so there. I think that evidence of a nationalist team IS important here.

I will argue endlessly (!) with someone who argues, and often enough change my views when given relevant evidence, but I can't deal with people who don't discuss, don't compromise, and seem uninterested in any sort of intellectual discourse. The only solution is going to be to insist that they allow more than one view in an article. I would be happy to have their views there (I'm sure they represent a fair number of people) if other views could just be there too. Zora 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Although on Wikipedia we may assume good faith, it is likewise the duty of all participants to remain civil and cooperative regardless of the issue being debated or the reason for the debate - especially regardless, I might add, of the ethnic origin of the participants. I see no reason, although we shall assume good faith were humanly possible, that it is necessary Wikipedians should have to simply bear personal attacks without that individual making them being hindered from doing so. Tabulating worldviews is a fair enough goal, but I cannot see how that extends to speculation - nay, accusation - towards an individual being of a particular ethnic background. We are meant to cooperate together; it is a mutualistic requirement that good faith is assumed, yes, but likewise for it to be possible for a good faith editing environment to exist people must not make personal attacks. One cannot have one stipulation without the other, as invariably at least one, or indeed many, participants will feel wounded by the discourse of the dispute. Interpersonal relations, to be blunt, should be left at the door when arriving to edit on Wikipedia, as should be personal biases and opinion. I am not of the school of thought that believes NPOV should be accomplished through integration of multiple worldviews; I believe NPOV is accomplished by its own specific state of balanced thinking, which is the modus operandi of science and respectable academia at large. This cannot be inculcated in an environment where personal issues are levelled, requiring refutation or argument for the sake of mere restoration of face on the part of those who disagree with the accusation. Clearly, such defence could never have a direct bearing on article subject matter, since regardless of who writes it the aim of the article is the same: to present the article in an NPOV manner. And that is why I believe that personal accusations must be treated thus - never made - and that there is no excuse in which they may be made on Wikipedia. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I not say to you "Nicholas, your POV seems very Polish to me - is that why you support X?" because your answer to that question may well help me understand why you have the POV you do, why you think the way you do, and potentially convince me that yeah, maybe this explains your POV and I need to cut you some slack. I agree with you in some ways - BUT its not a B&W world out there. Yes, I shouldn't call you a Pom or whatever, but to politely say "are you a product of public schools?" seems to me a perfectly proper way of figuring out your dialectic. (actually, seems to me in some ways we may be invading Zora's space - shud this be moving elsewhere?) Bridesmill 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it's here. As someone said recently, "Zora, your talk page looks like World War III".

As for introducing someone's nationality being a personal attack -- if there's evidence of a nationalist cadre, why is it wrong to mention it? We have the evidence, in the form of organizing on the noticeboard. How is it wrong for me to call someone an Iranian when he uses "we" when talking about Iranians? That's descriptive! If someone calls me an American, that's not an attack; that's the nationality on my passport. If he says that all Americans are red-necks, that's an attack.

BTW, I'm a heretic anti-nationalist American. Zora 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:InShaneee

This user blocked me for 24 hrs for my comment here. As you can see User:SouthernComfort was using some provocative language telling me to "review WP:CIVIL" for an edit I had made. I responded saying I wouldn't respond to his "trolling" (which I thought meant "provocative comments") and I was blocked for it.

Since then he's been threatening me with more blocks due to clear errors (the comment he's referring to on my talk page was not written by me - I was simply replacing it after someone took out). He has also blocked User:Xebat for 1 month for calling him a child. I'm about to go ahead and set up an RfC on his conduct and blocking behavior. Would you care to tell me what he has done to you? Aucaman^Talk 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

help requested

Zora,

Someone came in and merged Sialk (the name of a place) with the Protoelamite article (name of a dynasty or group of ancient people). Obviously theyre not the same thing.

And he did it without even discussing, so far as I know.

Could you please help reverse that change? At least it could have been voted on before anything. I'm not sure how to undo such changes.

Thanx.--Zereshk 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it needs to be re-written. That's just way too drastic of a change. It only has one section to begin with anyway (A ziggurat that is here, is that old, and was built by so and so). Nothing fancy and elaborate like your Islamic conquest article.

It's just that in its present format, at worst, it's factually incorrect, and at best, it's misleading because Sialk was also inhabited later on after the proto-elamites.

It's not life threateningly important anyway. I'll wait for his reply and see what he has to say.--Zereshk 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the info from the site you refer to. It's fine with me. However I think we shouldnt throw out the Ghirshman info either. Ghirshman is the only westerner to have studied the structure in detail for a long period of time. No other westerner has done a similar study. I am even willing to bet that the info on that webpage you refer to is actually extracted from Ghirshman's studies. Seriously.

But that aside, I dont understand why youre so adamant in erasing everything about Ghirshman. What is it about him that irritates you? As far as I can see, there is nothing on the Sialk page that even hints at Persian nationalism. Please please please...dont go around erasing material. If Ghirshman was not a credible source, he wouldnt be referenced 87 times (and Im not exaggerating, I actually did a count) in Pott's book on Elam. Let us not judge what is correct for others to read and what is not. Let us just report what is there in the literature.--Zereshk 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

File:AbdolSamad Natanz.jpg

Abdol Samad Sufi monastary

That may very well be. And he wasnt alone on this. Almost every other archeologist that excavated Iran did the same. Thats why we had almost every tablet excavated at Persepolis show up at U-Chicago, and every artifact from Susa at Louvre. Entire sites were emptied. When I visited this Sufi monastary in Natanz last summer, for example, I found the interior almost completely bare. I asked my ICHO guide why. He said it had all been emptied by some French expedition, in the Qajar era. The tiles, the ornaments. They had even taken out the original wooden handcrafted doors.

But Ghirshman's sweeping style of archeology doesnt negate the conclusions he made, does it? That's why he's mentioned as reference in every major work and publication on the Elamites. In the Sialk article, there really is nothing specified about what he thinks about Sialk. Nothing mentioned there is from him. The three platforms, well, you can easily see and count them as you stand on top of the structure and look down. The article only says he was there and did so and so.

I dont think this article is that important. Once we separate the proto-elamite material back into its own article, youll see that there is actually not much in the article to talk about. You can even help me expand it.--Zereshk 22:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that being said, the Sialk article mentions nothing about what Ghirshman thinks about Sialk anyway. I moved back the article to its proper title, and deleted out the irrelevant parts (which Im sure you would agree to) as well.--Zereshk 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How are you?

Hey Zora,

How are you doing? I apologize if I have not acted with civility toward you in our discussion on the talk page of Muhammad. I promise to start/help on the page [Islamic views of Muhammad's nature and character] as soon as I get rid of my midterms. There is an prayer attributed to 11th(10? 9?) Imam of Shia which I think explains it well; I can not remember the exact name. Dua Nudbah, I remember also provides some details: [7] Take care --Aminz 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hapa

Hi Zora. Yeah, the external links section there is a bit of a mess. I'm really don't know much about the subject, and I don't presently have the patience to sort them all out. I'll happily defer to anyone else who wants to keep or remove any of those links. For now, I'll go ahead and move the lot of them to the Talk page, maybe keeping the Realhapas site per your recommendation. --Alan Au 07:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, short on time, I'll revert for now. --Alan Au 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop

You are a wahhabi spy. 65.206.41.240 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop 2

And you are a Canadian! Stop immediately with your pro-Canuck views!! I just wanted you to have another racial epithet for the collection. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, socialized medicine is part of the slur! -- Samir (the scope) 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

fundamentalism

I thought you opposed fundamentalism. Why are you helping these people who are trying to say that all Muslims must be Islamists? No confrontation intended, just curious. And I hope I didn’t anger you the other night - rest assured, if someone else had gone after your contributions (as they proved to be), I would have challenged them likewise. I am so exasperated with the iconoclasts. p.s. this user had earlier made a fuss about me eliminating the obnoxious frame around one of his/her comments, claiming space without allowing any.Timothy Usher 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd assumed your comment about breaking up previous discussion posts to refer to the talk:Islamism page.Timothy Usher 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Corinthians

On a totally unrelated note, do you see any similarities between the teachings of Buddha and St.Paul's letter to the Corinthians? Never would have considered it myself, but last year I had a religious experience of sorts, opened my bible to this book - I'd always disparaged St.Paul on theological grounds, as per the Islamic critique, but for some reason my heart was open and I saw something I'd never noticed, something so obvious...Timothy Usher 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of letting go of the self, of love, and how these relate to one another. And, how attachment to one's desires is the cause of suffering. Not that the message is precisely the same, and I am glad it is not because we'd have only one source of wisdom. But, closer than what I'd seen previously.Timothy Usher 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Zora every single day i write the story of the Battle of Khaybar but these two (Timothy Usher and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg)keep on deleting my stuff. I think that they are playing around with the Islamic war aticles. I don't know what the really want, why don't you try editing the article, ok! user:Salman01

Victorian fashion

Thanks for your comments re: Victorian fashion. I actually have a rather selective and completely impractical interest in fashion history. I have some stuff off Wikipedia at http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pembfun/victcfsh.html and http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ppbrokil.html , etc., but adapting it to Wikipedia has proved to be surprisingly slow and painful. Churchh 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Shi`ah

I tried to bring it up on the talk page and got no response. Cuñado - Talk 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Reed

Hi Zora,

I was referred to you by User:Dmcdevit, whom I asked about Reed, where I am thinking of applying. He said here that going to Reed was "the best possible decision [he] could have made." I thought I'd ask you for your opinion, if you're not too busy.

Was the reputation for "extreme academic workload, a sink-or-swim social ethic, and a reputation for heavy recreational drug use" (Reed College) accurate when you were there? I don't mind a "reputation as politically left-wing," but were other viewpoints encouraged and welcomed? How did you get your parents to let you go to such a crazy place? And did you switch from Reed to Berkeley, or vice versa, and why?

Thanks, TheJabberwock 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kakashix3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalising your userspace recently, creating User:Zora/2004archive among other things. I removed your signature from User talk:Kakashix3 after he changed your message. TheJabberwock 16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lanai

Just wanted to inform you that an anonymous user made some very strange edits to Lanai. If you ever some free time, could you take a look? See the section "64.75.209.2's edits, from February 4, 2006" on Talk:Lanai. The edits were originally reverted by CambridgeBayWeather but PseudoSudo restored them in good faith. —Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's Marriages

Hi Zora, thanks for your comments. Yes I was quite sure that sex (even for pure pleasure, as opposed to procreation) within marriage is highly encouraged by Islam. Thanks for the reaffirmation. Nazli 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

j'accuse

you of being unCanadian! if you were canadian, you would make a point of using the word colour in your work, and you would compromise quickly and for no really good reason, rather than continue to effectively & passionately debate. (with best of respect - just seems as if you need more for your collection ;-))Bridesmill 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)