User talk:Imad marie

OR

For this, see WP:OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your topic concerning WP:V

I'm unsure what you mean. The footnote cites about 20+ pages worth of material in these books; the statement is a summarization, not a quote, and therefore it is representative of the points expressed on these pages. It's unsurprising that you can't find these sources online, because they aren't yet in the public domain; that is to say, they aren't free, and you'll either have to buy them or look them up at the local library.

So, here's what I'm saying: the sentence in question is a summarization of the points expressed in these two sources, both of which are published and verifiable. "Verifiability" doesn't mean that you can look the source up online; it means that anyone can go to a library or bookstore (or the internet), and check that the text conveys the same information as the sentence given. I just thought I'd clarify, since you're a new user.--C.Logan (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the clarification, when "Verifiability" says "published" I thought it meant "published online" so that editors and users can check it easily; my misunderstanding. I guess I'll delete the section from the talk page now since it was based on a misunderstanding. (Imad marie (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Hey, no problem- I believe I'd thought WP:V meant the same thing when I'd first started editing. Wikipedia policy always needs a good look-over, because it's easy to misread things.--C.Logan (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments from talk pages

Thats not good. Please dont delete comments like that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you cant delete other people's comments from article talk pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Matt, Imad specified that he simply misread the policy, so he wanted to drop the issue and delete the section. Just to note, as my comments are involved, I don't mind deletion. To note, it would be good to elucidate the rules concerning comment editing.--C.Logan (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure

The tag I've added onto the Qur'an and miracles page a couple of times is rightfully there in my mind, because Wikipedia has various style guidelines with which we have to adhere. Although the set-up in use may be easier to read, it is not an encyclopedic format. We need to consolidate, rather than break into sections, the information presented in each respect. Aminz started to do so with his recent edit. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. We are encouraged to avoid bulleting, numbering, and placing into repetitive "Claim/Response" sections.--C.Logan (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3rr warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Arrow740 (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the (3RR) rule; I didn't revert, I deleted a criticism content when there is already a big criticism section. The change I performed is justified in my opinion, and the justification is written in the edit summery. (Imad marie (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Sourced content shouldnt be removed like that. That is very good sourced material. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I already wrote in the edit summery, making it look like Maurice Bucaille is the foundation of the scientific miracles believe, and that his believes are backed up by Saudi rich Sheikh is not good for the article. This believe is supported by many other well known Muslim scholars (Imad marie (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

It doesnt matter if it "looks" like Maurice Bucaille is doing all this work. It didnt like that to me. Zakir Naik also talks about miracles. You shouldnt remove this amount of sourced material without using talk. I will however support the idea that we have a summarized statement of Bucaille's criticms here and the rest of it could go into his own article. Sounds good to you? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good, as long as the criticism is about Bucaille opinion, and not his funders. Also I think that criticism should be put in the criticism section. (Imad marie (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I think it's important to note that one of the most significant criticisms against Bucaille was that he fabricated the whole thing for the purposes of payment (either by his own suggestion, or the offered patronage of others). I've read this numerous times, as many point out his own disinterest in converting away from his (disinterested) Catholicism to be one piece of evidence that he did not truly invest sincerity into his alleged miracle discoveries.--C.Logan (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this claim should be put in Maurice Bucaille article. (Imad marie (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Of course it should be there, but it would be extremely questionable to exclude even just a summary of such a criticism. It would seem incorrect to present such a viewpoint in extensive detail without noting one of the most damning criticisms brought towards Bucaille's book.--C.Logan (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Logan, in my opinion, this section should only focus on the claim and its criticism, please note that there are other notable scholars who claim the scientific miracles. In my opinion the criticism of the scholars motivations should be put in their dedicated articles. (Imad marie (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I've seen no context for the information (or links?), so I may agree with you. It depends on the presentation of things. Obviously, a digression is not advisable, but if any particular section focuses on these "Bucaille-isms", it would be wise to note the common criticism of his claims, which have been fundamental to Islamic apologetics in North Africa and around the world.--C.Logan (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however please note that I have read a couple of sources that says that Bucaille conversion to Islam is doubtful. I will proceed with the changes now, I will put any criticism material in the criticism section, and in the claim section I'm not going to concentrate on Bucaille at all. (Imad marie (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, I have too. That's why I'd removed the claim concerning conversion.--C.Logan (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it is interesting to note that although you posted the 3rr warning on my talk page, you chose not to participate in this discussion. (Imad marie (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I didn't have your talk page on my watchlist. Arrow740 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Both you and Arrow740 are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violation of WP:3RR on The relation between Islam and science. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|reason}} below. Sandstein (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed referenced content, calling it unreferenced: [1]. You also removed sourced content, labelling it "original research." Please self-revert or we can continue this discussion with admins. Arrow740 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, my modifications are justified:

1. <ref>Zaghloul El-Naggar, an Egyptian geologist </ref> is not a resource.
2. I didn't find anything that says "well-funded campaign" in http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm. (Imad marie (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

your undoing of my edit

That source is in the Quran itself. I will make the edit with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyMuslimWarrior (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

Im not going to quote someone who read the Quran when its plainly obvious the Quran is unlike the Bible in style and content, and therefore the Quran cannot be a rehash of the Bible. Its not the format to provide a citation for every single fact. If I say the sky is blue, I dont have to get a scientist to write a quote so I can cite it. Furthermore, you havent stopped people from using obscure, anti-Islamic authors as their sources when making ridiculous statements in Islam-related articles. HolyMuslimWarrior (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

When we move a page, we keep the redirect from the old page name. By the way, was there consensus for the change? I have my doubts on that, since "alleged" is considered opprobrious and is almost never used in titles--certainly not as a NPOV improvement. DGG (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles

An editor has nominated List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Imad, Sultan.org is not a reliable source. Please stop all of this Islam/science stuff. Very simply, you need reliable sources to be talking about this stuff if you want to include it. That means, people who are recognized to be an authority on Islam etc. If you include any website, ask yourself: does the standard I'm applying to Islamic website xyz, also apply to faithfreedom.org? If you include that unknown Islamic site then you should also include ffi.org. Please stop this propaganda type of stuff. We're not even sure Maurice B. should be included in Islam related articles, so Sultan.org is way off the charts. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

stop removing them

Wikipdai is NOPV and it will express all opinion about this issue.The articles by the way are very reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous link

Use WOT extension of firefox and you will get warning. Here you can download it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

elnaggarzr

Do you have any evidence of Naggar being a reliable source? Where are the 3rd party references where he's being cited? Are there any? If he's not known in the scientific community, that means he's not a RS. Anyone can get a PhD and start up his own website. Thats not the criteria for inclusion here. You should stop pushing him as a source here. We need confirmation from the general scientific community that he's qualified to speak on science and Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just ask Bless sins (talk · contribs) or Itaqallah (talk · contribs) why Naggar is not a reliable source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neos

Regarding this, when the source uses a neo, we use it too since we are quoting from the source. I think thats common sense. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Merge

Hi Imad,

Well, if you can show that the sub-article has enough information, we can have a separate article for it. If it is too short (as it is now), we can merge it to the bigger one. If it got large, we can re-create the sub-article again... So, I think it really depends on the size than the topic. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

answer

It say a little more than Muhammad was illiterate.Oren.tal (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Human rights in Israel

Wikipedia can be a bizarre place and the rules make very little sense to newcomers. Let me give you some advice: don't make any more reverts on that page for now. You're not going to force those changes through just by repeatedly editing them; either you will get blocked, or the page will be locked from editing.

I made the same mistake myself when I started working on WP, and the result is I didn't get anything accomplished on the first few Israel/Palestine pages I worked on, and even got blocked briefly.

Stay cool and use the talk page. Try and be objective. Everything you write on a controversial topic like this needs to be directly supported by the source you provide. If you've written something that doesn't appear in the source you've given, you should either modify what you've written, or provide additional sources that have the information.

Contact me on my talk page with any questions. Please believe me when I say that I'm on your side here and I'm not trying to make you give up on the article. Just telling you the best way to accomplish what you want to see done.

<eleland/talkedits> 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Imad marie. The next step is to get Okedem talking usefully on the article talk page. If he follows the usual pattern of "pro-Israel" POV-warriors, he will try and ignore you as much as possible, so that when the page protection expires, he can say that there's still no consensus to change. <eleland/talkedits> 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Imad. I used to edit Quran and Miracles, where I added miracles that are in the Qur'an, which I believe is something important enough to be in Wikipedia, in an appropriate article for the topic. However, you sent them to another article which now does not exist. I thought of asking you where this information should go, before you simply delete my edits again.Slsm07 (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew that that article was deleted, but my question is where should these miracles be added to now? the Quran and miracles page? Slsm07 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)