|
I tried to deal with your stated reason for deletion for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please re-consider your vote based on my edits diff diff. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Catholics etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. [[Karen Armstrong]. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow740 is once again vandalizing Safiyya. I've put up with this vandalism for several months (and you have too for a shorter period of time). Since Arrow740 refuses to discuss this issue on talk, I don't think an RfC or even mediation would help. THus what are your thoguhts on this?Bless sins 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i will take a good look at it. i do recall that some statements sourced to Stillman simply weren't there, but i think they may have got restored in all the revert warring. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is called meatpuppetry. Arrow740 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is called Wp:stalking.Bless sins 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is called a watchlist. Arrow740 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arrow, all i see is a good faith request to assess the situation on an article i have previously edited. he was asking for my thoughts, please don't make baseless accusations. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meatpuppetry" takes two, anyhow: if someone shows up and doesn't act like a meatpuppet, they're not a meatpuppet, even if their participation was solicited. Were this the kind of involvement Bless sins were seeking, I doubt he'd have come to Itaqallah.
- Similarly, Bless sins, I seriously doubt Arrow740 meant to "vandalize" anything. Such terminology is uncalled for and really unhelpful.Proabivouac 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assalamualaikum,
Can I ask you for help in polishing this article just before the peer review? JazakAllah Khair.Bless sins 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read before you revert. Arrow740 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- please do explain what you mean. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the material you reinserted is not connected (in the article at least) to antisemitism. Arrow740 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i see a substantial passage based on the premise of "Scholars on Islam (Lewis[1] and Jerome Chanes[2]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God...", i see other publications quoted such as that of Stillman where it is clear the topic of their work is antisemitism, likely the context in which they are discussing what the Qur'an etc. says about Jews. why are you removing this material? ITAQALLAH 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi, how are you.
I began recently to contribute in wikipedia. I did my best to clean up and to enrich the article Zionism and racism allegations, but I am still a new wikipedian and my English language is not as good as what it should be. I think I still need some help. I hope you will participate in developing that page.
Please be sure to see my edits in the article since I fear that they will be reverted quicly. --Aaronshavit 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you switch the content here? Arrow740 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- could you explain what you mean? the usual narrative is as i have written; please refer to the Encyclopedia of Islam articles cited. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says it's the "usual" narrative? What does "usual" mean? Arrow740 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lewis is more renowned and learned than usual. I have retained the EoI info, which looks useful; thanks for adding it.Proabivouac 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i'm not convinced that anyone bar Lewis holds the view that Muhammad intended to actually attack Mecca (dressed in ihram, poorly armed, with just over a 1,000 pilgrims? it is, actually, on this basis that Tor Andrae concludes that "it is hardly believable that Mohammed at first thought of attacking Mecca". similarly, Watt says: "He can hardly have hoped to conquer Mecca, for he must have known that the morale of the Meccans was still good, and his force was too small to overcome them in battle."), it contradicts what is found in the relevant EoI articles, in Watt, Peters, Andrae, and elsewhere. as such, i don't believe it belongs in a summary section such as this. ITAQALLAH 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. It's a pretty significant point, though, in the scheme of the biography, more significant than a lot of what's in the article now; perhaps we can find some space (say, two sentences) for this scholarly disagreement?Proabivouac 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that sounds acceptable. ITAQALLAH 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you switch the content here? What does "balance" mean? How is presenting the facts unbalanced? Why do you prefer to discuss the Meccans' emotions, instead of their need to respond to people who were raiding their caravans? Arrow740 02:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Attacks on the Meccan caravans continued, and the Quraysh were anxious to avenge their defeat at Badr." You have very transparently removed the connection between cause and effect that Lewis clearly states. Arrow740 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't know what you mean by "switch content." refer to the EoI articles, as well as Watt's work, who say that both were contributing factors. i'd go as far as saying their desire to respond to their shock defeat at Badr was the prime reason. ITAQALLAH 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more interested in Lewis' statement than in yours, frankly. You removed Lewis' statement that they were responding to the growing threat of Meccan brigandage, and replaced it with a desire for revenge (while conceding here that the motives were at least equally important).Arrow740 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as said before, see the Uhud and Muhammad EoI articles, as well as Watt's works. ITAQALLAH 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Watt says "To maintain their far-spread commercial operations the Meccans must make it clear to all their neighbors that this was only a temporary lapse" on page 132 of the later biography. Arrow740 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, he is saying that Mecca needed to maintain its prestige after its loss, for its status amongst the other tribes was vital for its economic prosperity. the loss at Badr made a response inevitable: "Consolidation of his position in Medina, however, was only one of Muḥammad's tasks. Another and even more urgent one was to get ready for the Meccan riposte that was now inevitable. The prosperity of Mecca depended on its prestige." also see p. 140: "This aim they completely failed to achieve. They had indeed killed about seventy-five Muslims for the loss of twenty-seven of their own men, and thus more or less avenged the blood shed at Badr (though according to some versions there would still be an excess of Meccan dead). But they had boasted that they would make the Muslims pay several times over for Badr, and now they had at most taken a life for a life." ITAQALLAH 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me why you started this post with a "yes." Your vague reference to "Watt's works" was an irresponsible (and, it turns out when I actually checked the source, wrong) justifaction for the removal of sourced material. Arrow740 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- please don't make spurious accusations, especially as you have failed to check the sources i had referred you to thoroughly - including the EoI articles which i assume you haven't yet reviewed. as i have explained, my attribution to Watt - though not incorporated by me in the article- was quite accurate. if you want to discuss "irresponsible" editing, then i'd recommend you also resolve the issues surrounding your own tendentious quote-mining and pointed behaviour. thank you. ITAQALLAH 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main motive Watt ascribes to the Meccan counterattack is the desire to protect their commerce. Perhaps you should provide the full quotes from the EoI articles, since you were so wrong about Watt. For the record, were Medina and Mecca in a state of war before Muhammad arrived? Please answer this question. Arrow740 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't believe that was the main motive according to Watt. they wanted to maintain their prestige; which had been lost after Badr- that's why the post-Badr riposte was "inevitable". both Mecca and Medina performed raids upon eachother. please do demonstrate from my comments how i was "so wrong" about Watt. Robinson, in the Uhud article of EoI writes:
Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, and incited not only by tribesmen and tribeswomen who had lost relations at Badr (e.g. his wife Hind b. ʿUtba), but also by those whose goods had been plundered, the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat. A large force (often numbered at 3,000 horsemen) was assembled... [narrative continues into the events of the battle]
- and in the Muhammad article:
In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr.
- -- as we can see, both reasons are mentioned, with the Uhud article giving prominence to the revenge motive. don't give undue weight to one over the other. ITAQALLAH 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Watt says that the needs to restore prestige was predicated upon the fact that they could not trade without having that prestige. The need to protect their commerce was the primary motive. I already including "anxious to avenge." The first does not say why they resolved to avenge their defeat, it only gives the fact that they had done so. In the second, it says they saw the necessity, without saying why they viewed it to be necessary. It is fortunate that you provided these extracts, as you were wrong again. Arrow740 01:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first does not say why they resolved to avenge their defeat" - non sequitur. try reading the passage again: "Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb... ...the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat." they resolved to avenge their defeat - defeat referring to Badr - hence the reason for the Battle of Uhud - not merely because of the continued "brigandage". the second source says they felt it necessary to "reveng[e] themselves for Badr". i'm not inclined to pay attention to the spin you add to sources (they are quite clear without), nor your baiting. ITAQALLAH 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The need to protect their commerce was the primary motive" - yes, and their commerce depended on their prestige. their prestige had been stripped at Badr, hence the need to regain it, and hence the "inevitable" riposte after Badr. ITAQALLAH 01:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<reset>Watt and Lewis make it clear that their prime motive was to protect their trade. The two sources you are cherry-picking do not state their motives explicity. I quoted from Watt (which you originally claimed supported your ideas) and Lewis. I even incorporated your "anxious to avenge." Arrow740 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- fighting to protect their trade, according to Watt, was the inevitable consequence to having lost their prestige at Badr. and, according to Watt, revenge for Badr was a motive. there's no need to conflate Watt with Lewis. as for the EoI material, i think you're clutching at straws. they both clearly said the battle was due to their wanting revenge for Badr; and that's what's been related in the article. if you're still interested in disputing what the sources quite plainly say, take it to Talk:Muhammad for others to comment. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both these motivations seem to me plausible and referenced. The Meccans wished to protect their commerce and avenge their loss at Badr…is there some contradiction I'm not appreciating? I'm really surprised to see this dispute grow so heated.
- Can we move this discussion (as in cut and paste the whole thing) to Talk:Muhammad?Proabivouac 19:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, why is she unreliable, I do not understand? I have never heard any controversy associated with her? Because of her views, which happen to be pro-islamic, there is concerted effort in Wikipedia to disqualify her. I have read many of her books, and they are amazing. Personally, I am not a big fan of her, but wrong accusations are wrong. I don't mind accepting her as unreliable, provided someone provides me the source (not Daniel Pipes like Merbow did). Otherwise why should then she be accused??? ~atif - 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
