User talk:Zahida2013

Zahida2013, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Zahida2013! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Haman

added a link pointing to Exodus

Haman (Islam)

added a link pointing to Exodus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of tafsir works

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of tafsir works, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of tafsir works

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of tafsir works, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the Qur'an moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The meaning of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source

In Islamic attitudes towards science, you wrote about Maurice Bucaille and cited his own personal observation in his own book. It wasn't even a commentary about Islamic attitudes, it was just about his own view that doesn't claim to be representative of Islamic attitudes, as far as I could tell. That is why I deemed it a primary source. In any case, after you've been reverted twice, if you really want this in the article, the WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for it on the talk page.

This source would be a secondary source that discusses Bucaille's views. Also [An illusion of harmony: science and religion in Islam] by Taner Edis mentions Bucaille (but I cannot find the complete work online). Those are secondary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Bucaille book available online and it was a blockbuster. it wasn't personal views but researcher with physician in man creation embryo . he even got a French award in embryology. who is Taner? is he higher than Bucaille? Zahida2013 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the article on Taner Edis yourself. He is a scholar, while Bucailles isn't (being a physician isn't the same). There are no levels of notability; either a person is notable or not.

The fact that a book was well received is irrelevant. It's still better to use secondary sources that discuss the Bucaillist viewpoint than to reference the primary source.

Also, please continue discussing on the article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Dr Keith Moore also reported the same thing. Bucaille spent tens of years studying bible and Quran and he is specialist in scripture studied it in school Zahida2013 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zahida2013, you need to look up what a primary source is. You cannot analyze primary sources yourself. Doing so is original research. That's why you need a secondary source, e.g an author who analyzes Bucaille's work. You've already been given one above. You added another source here, but it doesn't mention either the Quran or Bucaille. It's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. You combined two sources to reach a conclusion that isn't there. Please refrain from doing that. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i presented the scientific REVIEW! study 2022 by the father of that clay life theory that shows that the scientific Clay life theory was started in 1940 before Mr Bucaille studied medicine and have reported conformity of Bible and by proxy Quran Dust /clay origin of life statements to that scientific new discovery known to him or any student of medicine in his time! Zahida2013 (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in medicine and medical school basic medical sciences like biophysics and biochemistry is all about essentiality of water to life and how organic compounds become biochemical compounds.clay theory states that any given biochemical could not have happened in nature first without! being assembled in clay silicate orifices that make them all allo spatial ( the bullet proof evidence of clay because only clay crystals aka silica or silicate make allo reaction in nature) but this theory in its simpler form started in 1940 and been popular ever since, defeating RNA life theory because even RNA first in nature without silicate AKA clay ( regardless of evolution or creation theories) Zahida2013 (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. The problem is not with the source, but with your use of it. Since it does not mention the Quran or Bucaille, it cannot be used. The topic is "Islamic attitudes towards science", so the sources have to be about that topic. Also Bucaille's book appears to be self-published, so it definitely requires secondary sources for analysis. Apart from that, his claims about the Quran and science haven't gained any credence in mainstream science. Theologians are distinct from scientists. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenMacky1 Bucaille book was a blockbuster published in German and 12 languages. obviously not self published. publishers made large sums of money from publishing that book. Bucaille was awarded 2 highest level ( French noble equivalent) awards in history of Egypt and middle east and in medicine. his first books were blockbusters too. his main interest was the validity of the bible stories of Moses and creation and in later books he added Quran. why would France give him such honored awards?!.

he is authority. you can just query " cling"

into his book at way back machine to see what he said that the droplet transform into clinger (below naked eye vision) is a new discovery confirmed circa 1972.

Keith Moore also detailed more on same issue of droplet to clinger phase.

As for clay as origin of life theory he also mentioned the dust/ clay as new scientific discovery where I presented the review article that describe the history of clay life theory started with Bernal 1947, so to confirm correctedness of Bucaille statement. :

"in our view, the most promising theory to explain the origin of life is centered around the interaction of active sites on clay mineral surfaces with simple organic molecules. This idea was first introduced by Cairns-Smith in 1966

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880559/

Kloprogge JTT, Hartman H. Clays and the Origin of Life: The Experiments. Life (Basel). 2022 Feb 9;12(2):259. doi: 10.3390/life12020259. PMID: 35207546; PMCID: PMC8880559.

and

| title = Clays And The Origin Of Life: The Experiments

| url = https://astrobiology.com/2023/01/clays-and-the-origin-of-life-the-experiments.html Zahida2013 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A book being popular does not necessarily mean that it was scientific. The reason why Bucaille's source is scrutinized is because his claims have been scrutinized by other reliable sources (like sources by Taner Edis, Helaine Selin and etc). Even Moore's claims weren't exempt from scrutiny. I'd advise you to start a thread on Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science, so that other editors can share their opinion too. As it was pointed out to you already, you are obliged to try to gain consensus about the content there. The content about Bucaille can potentially be returned with a reliable secondary source, but it has to conform to NPOV. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenMacky1 Bucaille is way higher than Taner. did Taner get high awards like Bucaille? to criticize Bucaille somebody needs to be higher than Bucaille in medicine , middle eastern history, scripture ( Hebrew and Arabic). Bucaille have studied those in school. Taner does not have educational credentials nor awards nor highly read published works near Bucaille. To criticize a physician malpractice in court the judge have to choose somebody higher in knowledge credentials and years of experience than that physician. Zahida2013 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make your case on the article's talk page. These arguments do not appear to be convincing. By the way, I'm not opposed to including content about Bucaille, but it has to be accompanied with secondary sources and the wording has to conform to NPOV. By the way you should really check WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. A source's reliability on Wikipedia is not determined by the popularity of a source, the number of awards the author has and etc. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenMacky1 since Bucaille was the first to connect those Quran verses to latest scientific discoveries, it is unfair to cite someone who made the connection after him such as Dr Keith Moore and other NIH Pub med hub studies

like:

Moore, Keith (1986). "A Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an". journal of Islamic medical association of North America ::::::::::::. 18 (1). doi:10.5915/18-1-8693. The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D.,or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |journal= at position 57 (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Saadat, S. (2009). "Human embryology and the holy quran: an overview". Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 1: 103. PMC 3068791. PMID 21475518..

are these two secondary sources acceptable to you?

NIH national institute of health hub online for authoritative Research ( not editorial) cited Bucaille, M for over 50 articles see online pubmed. however Mr Taner is a teacher in a third grade university public school, has no published studies in any field in NIH hub.

he is a Turkish man specialist in physics far away from Arabic Hebrew languages and scriptures medicine embryology and history . Mr Bucaille does. Zahida2013 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Here's your original suggested text: [1]. You then made these three reverts in the past 24 hours: [2][3][4]. One more and you will have crossed the bright red line of four reverts. But please remember that 4RR is just a bright red line, and that any amount of edit warring can be considered disruptive. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative encyclopedia and knowledge should not be dependant on consensus of unknown wiki editors of unknown backgrounds but on sound scientific references peer reviewed like Schuenemman study 2017 that added 2 previous DNA studies to their scientific analysis. so all DNA studies confirmed their conclusions. I added my grievance of arbitrary complete removal of my contribution of multiple secondary sources. Zahida2013 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, you are free to start your own online encyclopedia. But we have core policies here, which include WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. I will note, however, that even your own source doesn't agree with you. The authors are in fact very careful to discuss the limitations of their study, and fully recognize that there is much geographical, chronological, and sociological diversity in ancient Egypt which their results simply cannot inform us about. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative my contribution only reported info taken verbatim from the citations I included ( the study itself Schuenemman 2017, the report by max blanck website who made the study, another study from Nature journal, and Parabon. Zahida2013 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also started a topic at the page talk but you did not respond there or the others chosing to argue me on my talk page instead of the article talk page!?

so I am going to transfer this topic on my talk page to the article talk page Zahida2013 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, Zahida2013, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Viibird (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom I will check. I am not aware. Zahida2013 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zahida2013: You used the two accounts minutes apart to create the illusion of support [5][6], which is a form of deception that is extremely harmful to the project. Your claim that you weren't "aware" is not credible. Please see our policy on "sockpuppetry" for further details. Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that you are using two accounts to create an illusion of support. There is conclusive evidence here. Check the policy on multiple accounts and take this as a warning. Next time you violate this policy, you will be blocked. Best, MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab diseases

Borgio, JF (27 December 2021). "Heterogeneity in biomarkers, mitogenome and genetic disorders of the Arab population with special emphasis on large-scale whole-exome sequencing". Arch Med Sci: 765–783. doi:10.5114/aoms/145370. PMC 10259412. PMID 37313193. {{cite journal}}: Text "19(3):" ignored (help); Text "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259412" ignored (help) Zahida2013 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]