User talk:Zora

2004 Archive 2005 Archive

Hey there

Just wanted to let you know that I completely understand your frustration at the self-promotion thing, and will try, if the article is undeleted, to remind Edip that this is really not what WP is about. BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Striver etc.

If you feel like dropping me a line to let me know where there are egregious bias/composition problems, I'll be happy to try to lend a hand here. BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

Clothing Stuff

Hi Zora - Oooh, good work on sari. Thanks for pointing those chnages out. (Though I must admit I know very little about Asian dress.)

Today I am doing farthingales and panniers. Just got up the nerve to start uploading pictures - you can't really do historical clothing without pictures. - pk (PKM 2 July 2005 01:45 (UTC))

Striveriana

I had a look at Sahaba to get started, and my jaw dropped. The writing is really quite weak. I'm going to try to scale that mountain first and see what I can accomplish.

Not sure how to access the watchlist Mustafaa is putting together, but if you have a link to it, I'd like to get it. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

Urchid

Urchid is back to his own POV pushing biased edits in the Islam article. Reinserting Islam and Slavery even despite own article. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Oh, dispute solved now I guess; article has been protected. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I revised Sahaba

Hope you can take a quick look at it and perhaps help to defend this (hopefully, closer to NPOV) version against revert efforts that may materialize. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Sari new version

Hi Zora,

I liked the new version on sari that you have made. But I have tried to add those information that were given references. My english might be bad but I dont think that should be the reason to revert an edit. Or may be you reverted it because it was anon when posted. I dont know how I logged off (may be because I was writing for long and it automatically logged off.) anyway I have logged on and posted it again. Besides you have not given references for many of the statements that you have made. which could therefore be interpreted as POV. Vagab 3 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

dear Zora,

I am sad that you have got upset. This is wikipedia and different people are going to contribute and that means several points would be contributed by numerous people. Many a times these ideas might be conflicting with the views that people hold.

You asked me to re-add a picture of Indus valley figurine. Here I give you a link to several pictures from the indus valley including a picture of the figurine that is considered by many Historians as depicting a sari worn by a male Indus valley priest.

http://www.pitt.edu/~asian/week-1/week-1.html

(it is the picture of a male with flower patterns)

Zora, please give references for the passages that you have written and please do not get angry or upset. Vagab 3 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

List of Islamic terms in Arabic

Just to let you know: This isn't my organization; I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. I meant it simply as a reference for the definition I wrote (because that's where I got the info about its meaning in Sufism, and there's no article for the term yet). I have no strong feelings about the link being in the article or not, though, so no edit-war today. --Skoosh 4 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

Fires

Sahaba, no surprise, is still a mess. I know you don't want to get involved there, but I am trying to figure out who else I can recruit to take a look at this. He simply reverts everything. As for the chaos at Islam, I have to state my belief that the disruption there elsewhere is the work of a very familiar hand. Not sure where that should go next, but let me know if you have any ideas. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Muhammad

Thanks for the heads up. I will check in there. Zeno is a sockpuppet. What do I do about that? BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

Boy do I like this idea

Wikipedia should first of all disallow edits from anon IPs. All editors must be registered. Registration under two usernames, blam, that's it, you're out for a year.

Can you suggest a WP link where I can appropriately lobby for this?

In the meantime, a strategy question: does "outing" an obvious sockpuppet on the talk page produce, in your experience, better results than trying to reason with the person, all tactful-like, as though he/she weren't (in all likelihood) avoiding a user ban? BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

I should note that this (not allowing IPs to edit) has been proposed many times, and each time soundly rejected as being against the philosophy of Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you Jayjg. Can I assume that your strategy in dealing with these folks is not to try to "out" them on talk pages? How do you deal with edits you strongly suspect to originate from someone who has been banned? BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

Proving sockpuppetry

From what I understand, all the sockpuppets so far have been discovered by analysis of writing style and similarity of edits. Some editors have surprisingly long memories for abuses by certain members. There is, from what I understand, discussion to allow bureaucrats or sysops view the IPs for logged-in users. Developers, on request, will occasionally do a sockpuppet check...comparing the IPs for two users suspected of being the same person. Unfortunately, at the moment I can't find these discussions...I think one of them was something I spotted on Meta a few months ago. --MikeJ9919 6 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Sahaba

Zora, there is a dispute as to what you have said or agreed to on the Talk: page. Can you please help clear it up? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit; I'll try to see what it going on at the articles you mention. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit

While I understand that Dixit was a prominent actress, I felt that the article need neutralization. That is, it was too much in favor of Dixit's career. While I am sure that she is a fine actress, the purpose of a biographical article is to present the facts (not opinions) and let the reader come to a positive or negative conclusion. As for clearing out much of the article, I feel that the passages on her roles were a bit redundant, already being covered in the filmography. I am open for further discussion. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I revert to the original version and we discuss each part separately. I don't see any problems with that. I will prepare something on Talk:Madhuri Dixit. Also, I was planning on going through the other actress articles. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:42 (UTC)

About the second sentence, it seems that on of Bollywood's leading ladies is a bit too slang-y for an encyclopedia article. I believe the phrase has had a successful film career says the same thing, but in a more formal manner. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 9, 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Muhammad as a warrior

Much clearer. Many thanks. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

So he's pushed us into Lucy and Charlie Brown territory, eh?

Clearly, when Striver starts you channelling the Peanuts gang [[1]], things have gone too far...

:)

BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

It's pretty egregious behavior

I will back your play on a request for arbitration. Don't think RfC will change very much. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

And I'll third. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Striver is ridiculous. Something needs to be done. john k 8 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

The thing is, guys ... having observed a few arbitration proceedings, and having been peripherally involved in the one re Jguk, I'm really not sure I want to turn into the kind of person who frequents the arb committee. An atmosphere of mean-spirited attack is not my favorite place. Of course, that's what Striver is doing to the Islam-related articles, but still ... Zora 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

I agree that this particular edit is ridiculous and unprofessional, and have just urged him to calm down. However, I can only see 3 reverts by him so far. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

PS: if it becomes necessary, you could also try User:Mark Dingemanse, or dab of course. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

I don't think the problem with Striver is so much that he violates the 3rv rule as it is that every edit he makes is primarily about inserting extrem Shia POV into articles. This is literally all he does. I suppose that occasionally something useful might make it through, but it would have to be almost entirely coincidental. Unless we want to keep having to be janitors of everything he does, I think arbitration is the only answer. But an RfC would at least be a good place to start. john k 8 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

I agree... and he's one dedicated cookie. If you looke here this is what I think was the worst of his work. Making wikipedia a blatant attack on the personality of various people and sweeping statements. I'm sure that falls under Shia POV but the way it was done was more annoying and less subtle to me than those who add Ali Sina like edits. Each heading title is of the worst kind of POV. Not to mention that we still have dozens of individual Sahaba articles written a lot by him floating around. When I first saw those edits I stopped dealing with the Islamic pages for a while because it just seemed hopeless. He surely has more perseverence than I do. I didn't mind an attempt at expansion for Sahaba so much... but... Oh, and this rambling was just meant to say I might run away and not notice these things... but if there is something so blatant (which much of it is) I'll be sure to help revert or comment on whatever this arbitration stuff is. gren 9 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

So do we want to do an RfC first? As a prelude to arbitration? I can't imagine RfC generating anything constructive, and mediation seems equally futile. You simply cannot reason with the guy. But if they are necessary precursors, and you want someone to get the ball rolling, I'll do it. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

No problem

Happy to do this. So do we start with an RfC, then (despite its almost certain uselessness here)? Or do we move straight to arbitration? What's your thinking? BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Working on this now

Hope you can second it before you go offline, I will provide a link in a couple of minutes Godwilling. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Did I do this right? [[2]] BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Zora.

I know that we are on different sides regarding Wikipedia:Request for comments/Striver, however i feel i doesn't need to alienate our selves totally.

So, i have a request for a comment from you:

What do you think about this concept: Events with the Sahaba 1 ?

regards, --Striver 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, whe could include a disclaimer that presents the uncertanity you are refering to, wich is real.

However, its not complitly accurate to say that we have no idea att all of what happend, im sure you know that.

i mean, if you have studied Bukhari, then you know that ha hadith is more or less equal in the big picture and so, and its very much possible make a somewhat accurate reconstruction of event. For example, you remeber the "story of hunny"? Although it was like 10 hadithes from diffent people, it said preaty much the same thing, complmenting eachoter. That can be accuratly descrubed in a warning message in the begging.

The information is there, and it is belived to be somewhat accurat. And it deffinetly needs representation as it forms part of Muslim belif. If nothing else, it should be presented as what Muslim belive happened based on Hadithes. Wich it is.

Apart from the English and the formatting, wich i have no problem in having edited by anybody as long as it conveys the same information, why do you think "the very concept" is bad?

If we assume that it need representation, at least as Muslim belife, then why is the concept bad? I mean, assuming it needs representation, it cant be included in all the biograpies, that im sure you agree on :)

Regards, --Striver 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

i added this:

It is also important to note that the following event is neither intended not should it be viewed as a factual statement, rather it is to represent the Muslim reconstruction of the event, based on Hadith.

Comments?

--Striver 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: Whats the diffence between what i present to you and the Battle of Bassorah?

--Striver 00:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian royalty naming conventions

Hello, I'd like to solicit your input. I'm trying to initiative a conversation on developing naming conventions for Hawaiian royals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style and would appreciate your views on the subject. Mahalo nui loa, 青い(Aoi) 04:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jonadabs

Hi, do you know anything about this group? (it's just a hope) I put the article up for deletion because the sources listed by the author don't seem to be related.. I also searched on google and did a google print search and found nothing talking about Jonadabs in any kind of depth, they only seemed to list synonyms. I trust your opinion and don't want to unwarrantedly delete an article but it seems that Jonadabs is either unnotable or not what the author says. If you have time please comment on this for me. gren 05:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure there is enough about that concept to really expound upon it. It just seems like a definition in all of those sources. Do you think there is more information that will make the article less than a stub? If so, I'm not sure where I could find literature about it. My university's library didn't bring anything up under that search. Google prints had very limitted results. Your source doesn't seem to be any place of crediblity or authority about Jehovah's witnesses so I'm confused as what we should use to write it. I can't seem to find anything more than a few lines about it that is credible other than "the saved Jehovah's witnesses". I don't know, if it is kept how do you think the writing should go? gren 08:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think your rewrite is verifiable from what I can see in the context of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Thanks. I am not sure if I should change my vote to keep or if that should be merged into the Jehovah's Witnesses article. I don't want to lose your work if it gets deleted so I put it here in case you didn't save it. I don't think it's especially notable but I don't usually have too much of a problem with that, so what do you recommend I should vote for? Incorporation into another article or its own article? (We'd have to get it properly linked from other articles as well). gren 23:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Filmfare award

Hi, you are most welcome, and thanks for the appreciation. I would love to do more edits on topics relating to Indian films. Please continue to give me idea. You may also have a look at the article Bombay Talkies. Thanks again.--Bhadani 08:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Adding Arabic and Devanagari to Bollywood actor articles

You wrote the following inaccurate message:

I've noticed that you've returned to adding Arabic AND Devanagari versions to the names of Muslim actors, and Devanagari versions to non-Muslims. This seems to me to be coding the articles, so that readers will know who's Muslim and who isn't. I don't think either version of the names is necessary. Can you convince me (and Merovingian, who's gotten involved) that the scripts are necessary? I don't see them in any of the Bollywood sites and news articles I read. I'm thinking right now that the script should be removed. Zora 8 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

I did not return “to adding Arabic AND Devanagari versions to the names of Muslim actors,” because I never added a Devanāgarī spelling to any article before Friday when I did so only to Aamir, Salman and Shahrukh Khan’s articles, and I did so to test the waters and see how you and only you would react. And I have never added Devanāgarī script to any article (of a Muslim or non-Muslim) without the counterpart Urdu script, so please do not accuse me of having done so.

After you censored the above-mentioned articles saying the mere presence of Urdu was “provocative,” I specifically found the Devanāgarī spellings of their names only to comply with your unilateral rule (as if you were the ruler of the Bollywood articles). Upon complying with Zora’s rule, I see Zora has changed the rule. Now, because you “don't see them in any of the Bollywood sites and news articles I read” (and I should remind you that you cannot read Hindi or Urdu), you have deemed the Urdu and Hindi to be not “necessary” and threaten to censor the articles again.

Of course you don’t see Arabic or Devanāgarī scripts in any of the external articles you read; you are reading articles in English. What is relevent is what takes place within Wikipedia: Most every article with a title that came from a language that uses another script has the appropriate scripts presented as well. Please view the following articles: wonton, karaoke, dim sum, Myanmar, Lata Mangeshkar, David Schwimmer, Karachi, Moshe Katsav, Purim, and hundreds and hundreds of others and you will see this wonderful extension of Wikipedia at work.

However, you see coding of articles where it doesn’t exist and wish to censor only the Bollywood articles. Your point of view is specifically reactionary, trying to anticipate possible offense and then censoring relevent material as a result, doing so in a manner that contradicts the spirit of the majority of articles that wish to preserve the use of scripts other than Latin. Please help to maintain a neutral point of view in Wikipedia, and keep your reactionary point of view from altering the neutrality of articles. You do a great disservice to those of use who wish to (1) present non-Latin scripts for public consumption and (2) maintain neutrality in the articles.

Please direct me to comments by sixteen-year-old Merovingian that supposedly support you. The last time you quoted someone (Ankur) with regard to this issue, he did not so much agree with your premise as with the resulting censorship. (At the time, he did not believe any non-Latin scripts belonged in any Wikipedia article because supposedly “a lot of people in English Wikipedia can not even understand another language.”) Elyaqim 02:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Elyaqim. It is standard Wikipedia practice to give the foreign-language forms of foreign names wherever possible, as illustrated on articles ranging from Jerusalem to Fahd bin Abdul Aziz to David Ben-Gurion to Indira Gandhi; I don't see why actor articles should be an exception. - Mustafaa 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a central place to discuss this? Like a Wikipedia:Bollywood Notice Board?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Main page: Talk:Bollywood

I can understand your concerns, but if ethnic tensions' linguistic manifestations can be dealt with even on Israel-Palestine articles, I'm sure they can be kept minimal for Bollywood actors. Besides, we already do label people by ethnicity all over the place; to extend your "star" analogy, consider such Wikipedia articles as List of Jews. I don't see anything wrong with making people's ethnic background obvious. - Mustafaa 22:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Add both. I concur with Mustafaa. It should be mentioned that leaving out any Urdu script in the articles for Bollywood actors is not going to keep anyone from figuring out who is and is not Muslim. Most of the time, you can tell just from the name (usually derived from Arabic or Farsi; e.g. Aamir, Salman, Shahrukh).

I also wonder if Urdu-language forms of non-Muslim Bollywood actors' names can be inserted into the relevant articles, or if that would spark horrible edit-wars. Where are the lines drawn? Is there a policy on which forms count as "native language"? Are we talking about the same language with different alphabets, or different languages that just happen to pronounce these names exactly the same way? (I vote the former, but maybe that's just me.) Anyway, the issue of dual languages in a potentially politically sensitive environment seems to have been settled in articles about Chinese/Cantonese/Taiwanese/Chinese diaspora people and places - include both forms. If nothing else, it helps people searching for their native-orthography equivalent to find what they're looking for, just like lists of spelling variations. That makes Wikipedia more useful, which can only be a good thing. --Skoosh 03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I think it would be best to have both, but we don't have to delete contributions of only one version or the other. Personally, I have nothing against Devanagari script, and I think every Bollywood actor should have their name provided in Devanagari. It also seems noncontroversial to add Urdu/Nastaliq script to Muslim actors' articles (since it's perceived more as a matter of ethnic pride than stigmatization, and people from the region are likely to be aware of who's a Muslim anyway, based on names alone). Personally, I think it would be nice to also have Urdu script for non-Muslim actors' names as well, just so I (and millions of other users unfamiliar with Devanagari) could read them and get a more accurate sense of how to pronounce them. (I also wouldn't object to someone adding e.g. Tamil versions of non-Tamil actors' names; it's an official Indian language, no one's eyes will explode if they see it, and it makes Wikipedia more useful for those users). However, none of these versions needs to be deleted, and it's not an explosive enough situation that we need to wait for coordination; if an article has one and not the other, then eventually someone will come along to fill in the gap. --Skoosh 12:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Travel today, very limited time on WP for next 4 days

... but I did leave Striver a message and suspect I will have to bring arbitration against him when I get back. (Obviously, if you or anyone else decided to move on this in the meantime, I've got no problem with that.) I have abt 4 hours before it's time to leave for airport ... peace, BrandonYusufToropov 13:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Scripts in Bollywood

I will take a look.

For starters, please don't call it "Arabic script"—quite a few Urdu speakers can--or should :D--be offended by that. Or it might show a cluelessness about South Asian culture that doesn't reflect well on the credibility of the article or the writer. Will not instill confidence in people like me that we are dealing with someone that knows--or, frankly--cares much about the topic

"Urdu script" is fine. The script is actually closest to the Persian/Farsi script.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

sari again

Hi Zora,

If a piece of information is written in clumsy english then it has to be re-written by those who feel they know great english. deleting it is not what wikipedia is about. besides zora you have consistently failed to give references to the large edit that you have made. you are only using the reason of clumsy and bad english as an alibi to delete passages you do not like. If a cultural attire is rooted in its tradition then it has to be accepted not deleted. As long as references is provided for an information it is not Pov and should not be deleted. without references however an edit is Pov even if it is written in great english. Please give references Zora, and please dont show anger by saying shame on you. Vagab 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sari

Okay, I am now viewing your 07:09, 15 July 2005 revision and Vagab's one right after that (current as of now). The first thing I noticed is agreeing with him indenting the Sari (city) area. Your intro paragraphs say about exactly the same thing, but yours is much clearer. If I didn't know what a Sari was like a "garment worn in special folds" would mean nothing to me. You say the "commonest" which I think, although correct, sounds better as most common, since it's less apt to trip you (or at least me) but rather unimportant. His edit in the Gond section has "worn by Maharashtrian women from Mul)" and in the tribal section "Coorg saris of Madikeri" if there is verifiable fact about those being the birthplaces of two important types of sari then I'd incorporate that into your writing, which was definitely more informative for those sections. For [t]he Nivi drape consists of/starts with section I believe yours is better written (he seems to trip over his prose adding redundancy with first paragraph). I will say that I don't think either are really giving me a picture of what the Nivi style is but that is because for clothing I am lost when reading about it often. I know I've heard kick-pleat, but I'm not sure what it is. I think if etymologically Nivi does refer to the flowering pleat then you should mention that more explicitly. You say the poets say that, but if that word also inherently implies that then it should be mentioned. The paragraphing of your version adds limited benefit for my high resolution, but I think it would be a great advantage in low resolutions. He wrote The sari is modestly sensuous and elegantly conservative. This balanced combination has led to its continuation for a very long time and you wrote Saree draping is an art requiring practice and an eye for style. For directions with pictures, see the external links listed below, your prose is much nicer there -- modestly sensuous is much more subjective than saying it takes skill to do -- but, shouldn't there be consistent spelling? (sari). And I do think mentioning that links have pictures is good... because, that helps me a lot. Origins and history time. Here he seems to become horribly redundant. I was going to critique you for now mentioning the Indus valley civlization (then I noticed you had) and he did twice. I'm not sure I like how you mention sari enthusiast twice. I think I understand the point, which is so that you aren't constantly using passive voice his like section... and I guess there's probably not better phrase. I tend to always like more information so I was trying to make sense out of the end of his origins paragraph but... I'm not sure it's relevant. Sthanapattam could be relevant, since it seems related to the sari? I'm not sure... I think it'd have to be redone... but it might be a relevant topic (I don't know). In the last differences section I was interested in his addition of in the form of a two-piece mundum-neriyathum, with a gold-bordered shawl but, I'm not sure if it's relevant or how to fit it in, or what it is.

I didn't check any references, however, I think that your edits use no more references than his. (One thing about the poets towards the beginning maybe... but that seems to have been explained later). So, I definitely like your style better. I write like Vagab and that's not a good thing, it's almost like stream of concious tripping yourself up. So, if it were between those two versions I'd take yours (especially your intro, which is so much better in every way). I think maybe you could incorporate some of those things he mentioned? But... I really don't know. Also, I hope Vagab is a he, because I've been calling him he, but I call you a he, and striver calls you a she, and well... who knows. Hope this helps some -- sorry about the rambling. Should I post it on Talk:Sari? gren 12:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just looking through the history to see if other versions should be looked at and I compared the current Vagab version to his most recent and they are the same. Then I compared your original (post-rewrite) version to your last revision and you changed a fair amount to try to help. Not budging is horribly annoying and not exactly a good thing for an editor, especially a new one. gren 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Do you by any chance have the feeling that the Islam articles are all kind of becoming insane these days? gren 02:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I need to start working on some articles that don't get vandalized or POVized, or whatever it is. I just got slightly frustarated on Talk:Jihad when there has been more blanket statements and then I saw the state of some of the sources... it's quite laughable actually citing the "Cruzan Family Homepage" which doesn't even seem to show where they got their sources. I think for articles like that we might need to at least demand paper sources, they aren't perfect, but you don't get the same kind of crap. I'm glad you found a good editor to work with... I've just been going into newpages some lately to do mindless work, or reading about the EU... people don't tend to hint at barbarism all of the time in that subject ~_~ gren 04:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The more I read Jihad, which I've been trying to talk with Zeno about, the more I see problem. I don't see how POWs is relevant, it's about warfare... which isn't exactly Jihad, related no doubt... and then Abdullah Yusuf Azzam is heavily quoted... which, is quote a problem... because... he's not mainstream. The last thing we need is more revert wars. How do you think the article should go and what is relevant in it? gren 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Ekshully..."

You probably thought nobody caught this dialect slip of yours on Talk:Muhammad, but I now know your secret identity. You are in fact Katharine Hepburn.

:)

Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NO, stay clear, stay clear for your own life... talk about an uphill battle. Whatever happened to IFaqeer and Mustafaa? gren 03:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I more or less share the same viewpoint as you. I think that Fazlur Rahman and the likes of him have good points to make but it still doesn't explain everything. Divine revelation in itself is an odd thing, especially when human written works show more compassion. I'm not sure a modernist with against warfare-typed jihad has to say their prophet was wrong, they just have to have a sense of moral relativity insofar as different needs for different times... or, deny a whole lot a tradition and historical assumptions. It's much easier for me and I'm glad I don't have to reconcile all of that. My problem is that the militant aspects are being heavily discussed. I really have a problem with a lot of the classical works and it's true that modern traditional thought draws heavily on that but they do discuss gradualism. You won't find modern Muslim scholars advocating slavery as far as I know whereas you will in earlier works. Zeno's problem as I see it is not portraying things in their time and context. Through history we have finally been able to do a better job of that with Christianity and granted Islam is slightly different case but not vastly different. Oh well, I just hope that no one was influenced to be a horrible bigot because of misconceptions about Muslims from any of our Islamic articles here. My goal is to not have these articles read as a big assumption that "if you meet a Muslim they'll be bad" -- which is what it borders on somtimes to me. gren 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've never read any Krishnamurti (I think you left out the 'n') -- in fact... it's all new to me as of two minutes ago. I think that point is very interesting (but I too agree that community is good). People want to think they know the truth. It never ceases to amuse me people who will say what they believe is true and then not know even their own scripture yet theology. And within (most) religious communities expression of doubt ruins your chances of doing anything in the hierarchy. It's much easier to exploit and make extravagant claims about your religiosity if you don't mind dishonesty or stretching the truth. I think I am probably too cynical in these matters but... oh well.

For some reason the mention of theosophy reminded me of anthroposophy a subject I wish to look more into just because I went to a Waldorf School until third grade and I thought it was great. Whether that was because of particular circumstances or the philosophy that governed it I do not know. I appreciate small parts of most things... but I'm guessing that verges on cultish. gren 04:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely understand, no problem

The unfortunate thing is, if things actually calmed down there for a couple of consecutive hours, we could all start working on the questions you raised recently there. But believe me, I don't blame you for laying low on this. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 03:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting in Muhammad article

I actually hesitated removing "the" from "had only the one wife". Mostly it was just gut feeling that it *sounded* better without "the" : ) Btw, I really admire your contributions, I keep coming across your edits, and you're a star Wikipedian in my view. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to be admin?

Would you like to be admin? Your work gives positive sign of quality and dedication. It would be easier for you to deal with vandals.

I can nominate you some day. While success is not sure (the voting seems to be infested by sockpuppets, trolls and various ... recently) one may try. Pavel Vozenilek 12:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your work. I bet you don't get many thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean of crap. "Loosing temper and being prone to confront people easily rather than jolly them into proper behavior" may be quite appropriate tactic when dealing with people who think anonymity allows them anything. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User Amir85

I 2nd to what Pavel Vozenilek says. Thank you for your action against Amir85! I am writing articles on hellenism and the like, which often concern Middle East topics, and I am like you driven to despair over much of what is written. Extremists and nationalists who frequently abuse Wikipedia for propaganda of the worst kind! There is no denying that the influx of people grown up in dictatures and taught only nationalistic and biased views of history and religion often is a severe problem. A user like Amir85 (he's Iranian) probably believes in the propaganda he writes, because he's never learnt to think critically about it!

Wikipedia must address this problem: in some way; IMHO the access to controversial subjects must be controlled, lest the dictionary should fall into disrepute. I would be glad to assist your work if there is anything I could do! --Sponsianus 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora and people who frequent Zora's page

Just a quick note to let you know that family problems necessitate a wiki-break. Thanks for all the help and hard work. Prayers, please; Godwilling I'll be back eventually. BrandonYusufToropov 15:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Advertisment?

Hello, Zora,

if you have time, have a look at this: There is this person (IP: 62.47.132.187) who creates links lots of Bollywood movies (for example, see Saathiya) (also on the German version of wiki) to the site SPICE, were you should be able to find information on Bollywood movies, only that the information there is very, *very* basic. Looks like someones trying to promote his/her site. Do you think it`s save to remove those links, since SPICE does not really give any information on the linked Bollywood movies/actors/actresses or should I leave it?

If you don't sign your messages, I can't reply on your talk page. Yes, that's linkspam, it's bad, I've been removing it when I see it. Now the guy is hitting pages that aren't on my watchlist. Delete on sight. I'll see about filing a vandalism report. Zora 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jihad page and YOUR vandalism

Zora, Farhansher's delusional ramblings clearly violate WP:No Personal Attacks and as such fall under [3].

I will not remove it any more today as I have already removed it three times. However, it has no basis to remain there.Existentializer 23:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam poll

[4] I thought you might be interested in this.Heraclius 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Qiyamah vandalism

I'm almost sure the various anon users who have been doing personal attacks and vandalizing this page are actually one person. I put this under vandalism in Progress. The page should be probably be protected...i doubt blocking these sockpuppets would do much good. freestylefrappe 19:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think you'd be interested in Universaliss's (the various anon users) talk page. Especially Dmcdevit's conclusion that Universaliss's comments on the Qiyamah talk page were somehow...acceptable... freestylefrappe 00:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Salam!

Take a look att this : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

Ma salam!

--Striver 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#the Prophet

Ahhhhhhhhh-hh-, do you think I am justified in saying this? To me it's just mind-boggling. gren グレン 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure the extent with which you mean what you said... but. I do agree that many should be changed. Casual references shouldn't be "the Prophet" or "the prophet" I do think when the emphasis is on community beliefs then "the prophet" is appropriate because the emphasis is on the fact that he was a prophet. So, I was not against any changing but if you look at the changes that have been made by the new editors trying to "NPOV" our apologetic tone (~_~) it seems that it is just any use of that title is deemed to be POV. Good writing (or so I think) will change what he is called by the circumstance (talking about the Medina days it would be good to reference him as the leader). Of all the things to complain about it may not be important but I think it's indicative of the changing tide and how mass edits are coming and reason is leaving. I hadn't ever noticed it until now (realizing that you had not written Fitna) but now I see the war was referenced at First Islamic civil war. Congratulations man. uhh, flashback about sari wearing... I don't know, sorry, we're all androgynous here. Oops, I didn't want to strike congratulations -- that still stands... I'm an idiot. gren グレン 05:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Filmfare Question

Yes, youre right about the Filfare Awards page and I didnt even notice, I had just gotten it in my mind that it must be the film name and the director...and I do think that the director would make a good third column, how do you feel about it? I am assuming that producer is being put on there because theyre the ones who actually receive the award for best film??? Zephyrprince 16:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Idiocy and Contemporary Islam

Well, I fail at being humble and moreso at remaining un-annoyed but, at least I still have room for improvement else I'd just be bored and watch Devdas all day (or try to find the 1956 version). I wish I could take care of other's spiritual well-being but it seems there's a fine line between helping and hurting... I can't tell which I do.

I read your contemporary Islam section and I think it covers the spirit well... how there are very modernist movements and then ones like wahhabi and salafi which are against the western modern... and then traditional in the middle saying "what's happening". I do think it needs changes and while I thought Zeno was way off base in his outright criticism he does bring up some good points. dar al-Islam and Harb are very loaded insofar as their many definitions. Your usage would need to be clarified in that regard. As for Islamism I don't think you quite cover all of its strains because Islamism can be relatively unobstrusive and nonviolent. We typically don't see that in the west but it exists. I created User:Grenavitar/Contemporary Islam with your version in hopes that we can all discuss on talk:Islam and then hopefully make a good section that people agree on... I don't know if the page is a good idea or will work but I hope that it might lead to something agreed upon. Thanks gren グレン 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Cresent symbol and the Ottoman Empire

You have recently reverted the cresent symbol from Template:Islam without discussing it in the talk page. The idea that usage cresent symbol is limited to the Ottomans is false, as explained in the talk page. The cresent symbol is used by Malaysia in its flag, as well as by Pakistan - two countries that were never under Ottoman influece. Also, as proven in the talk page, the cresent symbol is also used in the holy mosque of the Kabbah, despite the fact that House of Saud fiercly opposed Ottoman rule and fought against the Ottoman Caliphate. I have pointed this out in your talk page not because I wish to debate this here, but because I wish to draw your attention to the fact that your point of view is contested in the talk page where your absense is noted given that you are reverting in the midst of an edit war. --Zeno of Elea 23:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Qiyamah

I have tried and tried to fight against the vandalism on Qiyamah. I was banned by User:Dmcdevit for my efforts. I really no longer have the patience to deal with this nonsense. I have contacted Striver for help, but I was hoping for your participation (and input) as Universaliss's comments towards you have been less than apropo'. Thank you for your help. -Freestylefrappe

If you want the whole story, read the talk pages of Universaliss, FSF, SouthernComfort (now), me, and the article (okay, tht sounds like a lot, but it just the same stuff repeated) I don't feel like telling you all again. It's fine if you want to get involved, I welcome others. But let me finish FSF's story, he was blocked for 24 hours (not banned) for personal attacks, while the real vandal was blocked for a week. Now, if you are serious about wanting my help at Talk:Sayyid etc., I read the page and it looks to me like there's serious personal attacks and racism going on. I'd suggest you report it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so the wider community can deal with it. I see that there are already at least two admins who have warned the anon, so I think it's being dealt with. Anyway, I just want to resolve anything with Freestylefrappe, or you or anyone amicably; let's try to make an encyclopedia. Regards, Dmcdevit·t 04:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

And now after looking at it, I've blocked 69.111.161.69 for 48 hours, see User talk:69.111.161.69. Good night, I really have to get to bed. --Dmcdevit·t 07:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kaaba

Aloha Zora !

Thanks for the positive comment on the Kaaba edits. Yes, all that new stuff has to be dealt with. I really don't like that huge list of links in 'people born in Kaaba' section - it's just too long and maybe even unnecessary. I'll take another look and see if I can at least shorten it somewhat. I was also hoping to find some better pictures (not computer generated ones) of the Kaaba, as the current one isn't too clear (IMHO). I think some of the links may have better pics. --Mpatel 11:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Islamic terms in Arabic

Saduj seems suspiciously like a strawman sockpuppet. If I have time Ill look over his contributions to that page. freestylefrappe 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Distributed Proofreaders

Hey. If you look here you will see an interesting discussion that I think you might be able to help me understanding. I think that the use of gutenberg through distributed proofreaders to get the Lane Arabic-English Lexicon in a free online format is a good idea... but, I only know about Distributed Proofreaders... well, I don't much. As I understand they take scanned images and run OCR and then proofread that OCR. Would their system work for Arabic text? I'm going to read their site some more to see but I figured you might know better. Also, I don't know what encoding Gutenberge uses (I was trying to view a Japanese text). Also, did you get my e-mail. Thanks gren グレン 13:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I went to DP-Europe and they were very helpful and the guy with the books scanned a page... apparently he didn't get Arabic OCR to work so we need to send it to the OCR pool to see if someone can get the Arabic working. I have the feeling that the guy would rather pay the 250-500 pounts he quoted to have it done professionally and quickly... and I think he's a good guy (as in wants to get this to people and fast for free) so I'm thinking that if he does that he would give DP-Europe the scanned images and end content if he has it so that they can still distribute it how they want. As for POD people, I'm sure people are getting more aware of PG for texts online (I know people can even find texts not out of copyright) so, just as many many people now know of wikipedia that didn't years ago... they will probably learn about PG and hopefully that will make those attempting POD releases will fail. Well, hopefully it will get online... I really don't have too much use to it... but I've see AJ Arberry's comments about its usefulness to Arabic linguists so I think it should be out there for people. Oh, actually, wheh you say pay on demand I assume you mean just for the etext. Are there any places that will print PG texts for you? If it could be done for about $5 that would be pretty nice. gren グレン 12:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, print on demand makes more sense than pay on demand... I looked at some of the books on Lulu and they seem like crackpots just writing because Lulu will Publish stuff... interestingly enough Amazon sells stuff from "Lulu Press" for a small markup. I wouldn't mind a place printing Gutenberg texts as long as they make a point of showing that it's free... I don't really have anything from PG I want printed though but I'm sure someday it will be useful... thanks for the tip. gren グレン 10:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thanks for fixing up Luakini. I was tired and the user had vandalized a few pages and I was too worn out to search for sources on it. I end up editting random articles I don't know too much about as well... it's amusing to see how I get from one article to another and how I ended up creating Hopi Reservation one day... After reading the sources I know more about it than the article says... I'm not very good at writing while sourcing unfortunately. I think Special:Newpages or whatever it is can be quite fun... half of it is mindless wikifying and then every once and a while you'll stumble onto something interesting. You really can't get into arguments when you do that and that's a nice feeling. gren グレン 10:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Prophet" removal

Hi there! Guess I'm the anti-Muslim activist you're referring to. I realize that there are some tricky issues here. The difficulty with "Prophet" Muhammad is that I think, like Jesus "Christ", it asserts a supernatural relationship with the divine. Nor should any of the biblical prophets be referred to as "The Prophet Joel" or "The Prophet Amos", and so forth. I have removed one "Prophet Abraham". I think even uncapitalizing these honorofic terms is inadequate, unless a qualifier is inserted. I think the the "prophet Joseph Smith" also asserts divine guidance. "The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith" is acceptable in a first instance for precision's sake, and after that just "Joseph Smith" is enough. I think we could follow the same pattern with Muhammad: if it's not clear which Muhammad we're referring to in the initial reference to Muhammad in an article, then for clarity's sake put something like "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"; and all other references to just "Muhammad".

I'm eager to hash this out and come up with the appropriate solution. Like to hear more from you. Babajobu 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree with the notion that "Prophet" is a "religious role, like priest or shaman". I can a imagine a hypothetical religion in which "prophet" was a common clerical position like deacon or rabbi or whatever. However, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam "Prophethood" is very much an extremely intimate, very supernatural relationship with a divine being, in which the individual who prophesizes is in receipt of divine revelation. It is not a "position", and it is not the same as the more colloquial usage you sometime run across. When Mormons say Joseph Smith is a prophet, they don't mean that he "tells it like it is". They mean God spoke to him. Same for Jews with Moses, Christians with John the Baptist, and Muslims with Muhammad (among others, for all those groups). Babajobu 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough, I'll stop making changes for now. Babajobu 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

However, I ask that in the meantime you not revert any of the changes I've already made. Babajobu 23:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll watch the VillagePump entry as I can. As far as stylistic issues go, I really don't see the loss of "the prophet" as intolerable. Most biographical entries in Wikipedia are stuck with just the name and a third person pronoun. And, honestly, I think "the prophet" in lieu of "Muhammad" is much more jarring and loaded than "the prophet Muhammad", which I'm not crazy about either. So I'd have to vote against using "the prophet" as the full reference in that way. Anyway, we'll see what kind of comments the Village pump post attracts. Babajobu 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I don't see your question at the Policy section of the Village Pump. Are you sure it's there? Could you link me to it? Thanks. Babajobu 23:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Added a suggestion for some rough guidelines to the village pump section on prophet and POV. Interested to hear what you think. Babajobu 19:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:WivesMuhammad

Hi, I saw you commented on my talk page about my discussion with Zeno. I personally don't know much about the subject except that many Muslims do consider them proper marriages. I suggested that "Muhammad's Harem" could be used... and despite the unfortunate connotation of Harem... it does have the meaning of a close relationship that could either be marriage or otherwise? That was what I thought... what do you think? gren グレン 10:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten myself to the point where I don't see harem in that way... but, as I mentioned, I do realize it has another connotation. I don't see a problem with wives really but I was trying to be accomodating. I wish he'd show something notable that claims they are wives and not answering-Islam or FFI. gren グレン 10:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

birthday bida

You said "birthdays are viewed as innotvations"? Is that so... I thought it was mainly the practice of Muhammad's on how they did it and how it would raise him higher than he should be? I think that would be a rather strict view... whereas I think most just don't really celebrate Muhammad's birthday too much... but, they will recognize that it was... no? I guess I don't know so well but... gren グレン 08:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure, which is why I asked you first... because, this is just the impression that I have gotten from my readings... that Mawlid is forbidden by most because special remembrance of the prophet is the problem.... just like I don't remember your birthday... you aren't related to me except in this quasi world. But, when it comes to familial relations it's not a problem because that's family behavior and it's no competition to tawhid. I could be wrong. I was reading some on Mawlid... the section on Madih nabawi (something I know nothing about) is horribly generalizing... have you read anything you could cite about Islam and traditions with music? I have read some reasons why it some ban it... but I don't how pervasive that way of thinking is. Very soon... I have an exam on the economics of European integration... and... well, I should probably know what's going to be on it at least... that's followed by one on the American Western film... so, I'll try to look more into this when I'm done that stuff. gren グレン 08:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, too bad I don't sleep at night and fix up Asle Gronna instead of reading anything at all to do with what I need to know... but, yeah, I do learn more here, just not always the right stuff :) gren グレン 11:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Islam

What is going on here... If you like at how it is now it shows horribly garish colors... and Allah was removed and replaced by Abu Bakr and Ali... and somehow Heraclius believes Allah is biased because.... oh, just read the talk page please... I don't want to edit this because this is just inexplicable to me how one could think either of those changes are good. I want to know what you think about them while I try to pretend wikipedia isn't an uphill battle. gren グレン 20:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That is better... it's not my cup of tea but I can't use the word garish... I was happy with what we had... I'm not sure why it was changed?... but, thanks for making it better :) Yah, I'm not too knowledgeable about Shi'ism specifics soo.... and.... well, I agree with what you said. For the Shia bias... they are less important in the scheme of Islam... it's just true... and.... since the five pillars don't contradict it just seems silly. Also, I think Allah should be linked... far more important than Ali or Abu Bakr... and then I liked at the Sahaba article which links to the Shia and Sunni rankings... oh man. Anyways... I'm sure it will all work out. Thanks. gren グレン 04:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey tita!

Born & Bred: Honolulu. Studying far, far away at moment but back home nxt yr. Yay! Folks live in Honolulu, hope to work in family real estate business and then maybe go to grad school after dat. I am going through homesickness this week, I'll get over it. Thanks for the msg. Coqsportif 23:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A.R.Rahman

Regarding my revert, you're right that the original wording was clumsy. Thanks for the warning - it wasn't necessary though. Ambarish 10:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, the original wording "he continues to work out of there" wasn't mine, unlike what you seem to think. I didn't revert because you were editing "my" prose, but because I thought the edit was misleading. Just a clarification. Ambarish 10:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:WivesMuhammad

You might know more about this subject than I do from your work with some of them... and, well. Germen added successive titles like Muhammads wives and sex slaves, Wives and Concubines of Muhammad, and Muhammads wives and right hand possessions eventually settling on a concubine one... I removed the title completely which is not ideal but, a title is not truly necessary since if you read the articles of those women it will link them somehow. I think this is all ludicrous because it's on Muhammad's marriages and such... which should be harmonized with the template... but.... I'd rather not encourage them to edit anything. What do you think about this since it's a little frustrating having to deal with that. gren グレン 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I saw Are secondary sources preferred to primary sources? on Slim's talk page... I know I've commented on this when Zeno et al. try and interpret hadith... saying that you shouldn't be interpretting (and I've probably said use too) primary sources... I'm not sure of your exact problem but it's not correct in my estimation to have users interpretting hadith and calling it Islam... because, that's what the scholars did and they always had disclaimers on hadith saying that one must be well versed to interpret. gren グレン 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Unwanted Vandalism

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.--80.47.176.203 20:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Zora you may feel the edit is irrevelent but that is your opinion. If you want to add myths do so. Andycjp 2nd September 2005

Al Andalus

Looking for a third party's opinion on the revert war at Al Andalus, wondering if you could drop on by? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

new template

Care to comment my creation?

--Striver 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Economy and Bollywood

Dear Zora,

Thanks for your response. I apologise if the article isn't clear enough about its purpose, which I will fix. Its purpose is to document how the changes in economic policies have been reflected in Bollywood films. For instance, the dam in Mother India was a result of labour and capital intensive methods and was constructed from the top-down, a product of Nehru's planning. But in Swades, a small dam was built by the hero, without much help from the govt. and the film doesn't regard the market reforms/capitalist class as the root of all evil. I plan to list out the plots of such films (not doing any analysis/research) and list out the economical policy of the country during the period, the film was released.

As far as the POV of the articles are concerned:

• I can remove the theme column, since it is already covered by the details column and on second thoughts, it does seem POV.
• About the two films that I added, you are right, its about economic ideology rather than sound economics, but then, they reflect the economic policies and thinking of the country during that period. The POV here, is the films' not mine.

Feel free to flame/discuss/clarify further. regards. pamri 12:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam

Can you please take a look at this article? It's suffering from the same Nickbee style of long quotes and self-interpretations.Heraclius 18:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shia ranking of the Sahaba

Hey, I know you worked on Sahaba after Striver's edits... so, I figured this might interest you. Striver is screaming it's the mandatory deletion of anything Shia... but, it's also for the Sunni article... that was just less fleshed out and didn't use ranking as much so it was less important. Just be careful and see they delete isn't exactly te goal of that... but, just to perge the article of its changing qualitative description of Shia's into striver's quantative ranking. In any case I think it'd be worthwhile to vote on if you have the time. gren グレン 16:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, O_o in any case could you look at it and tell me if I'm justified? gren グレン 21:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ghazw

Hey, I just ran across this article today and I was wondering what you thought. (I saw you had come across Futuh) It seems kind of scathing... but, not in the bad sense that we've been getting around here lately... I thought that some word choices were inopportune and the portrayal of Jihad in some instances smacks of "Jihad is war"... but, on the whole I didn't really get the sense negative sense I did from Islamophilia or other horrible articles. It's just with things like purposes of conquest, plunder, or the capture of slaves it doesn't sound like it is at all trying to represent it the way Muslims would. I just want your thoughts... if like dab (and me to an extent) you're taking a break from too much discussion of Islamic articles just drop a quick note saying so if you will. gren グレン 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite understandable. Good luck, and hopefully it won't be permanent teeth grinding. You don't want TMJ. gren グレン 07:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan

i have left some notes in the talk page for this article; not trying to be unfriendly at all, just trying to help make wikipedia a bit better :) please feel free to comment, and edit!

List of founders of major religions

Greetings. I want to assure you that I am not advertising any guru when I made the edit you reverted. I just wanted to include an estimate of the date of Moses' life by a notable professor of Near Eastern languages and literature from the University of Michigan. Regards, Fire Star 23:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers! Fire Star 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Abu Bakr/Islam

Okay, I'll look at the former... the latter I don't find so bad... then I realized it is right at the top of the article. Everything else is fundamental. I have never heard of Islam anything but monotheist... it is undoubtedly Abrahamic... and following the Qur'an is following sharia... so... but Islamism isn't inherent. Normally I wouldn't even question the putting the Dome of the Rock on the article... but... considering some other things... all I can think about now is its to be controversial. Am I paranoid O_O? In any case, there's no talk area on Talk:Islam so I made one. I'm reading Abu Bakr now and I'll post on that talk page... there is too much crap on wikipedia to keep straight... I'm not totally against putting Islam [articles] in a stasis field for the next five years. gren グレン 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cronies, translations and links

Hi Zora. Grenavitar has already reverted the changes. What's the story with Zeno and his cronies ? I've recently been involved in an argument with Zeno regarding the nature of jinns (that's the most profound argument I've been involved in here on WP!) - you might want to take a look at the bottom of the Islam talk page. I initially thought Zeno had some good points, but I soon realised that I was wrong in that regard. Regarding the Arabic translations of the words, I don't mind if we include or leave out all of them (but must be consistent); however, if we include them, then there should be links to those pages, otherwise it is fairly pointless. Actually, I'll try this out right now, and see how it looks. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Hi Zora, thanks for your note. I wasn't sure whether you wanted me to get involved as an editor or admin. If I become involved as an editor, it means I can't take admin action in relation to those articles, at least not for a while. Also, I'm not sure I know enough about them to be useful as an editor, though I do know that this: " ... the English word Islamism has been coined to describe the political aspects of Islam" is nonsense, and thankfully I see it's gone now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I left this [5] for our anonymous friend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia - oops !

Hi. What a goof that was! I think perhaps I spend too much time on WP... Yes, we could call it the Hijaz or something like that, but it might be better just to revert it (if that hasn't already been done). ---Mpatel (talk) 11:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Zora seems to have sided with the mainstream Muslims

Everytime i put something noteworthy and important regarding the Quran-only Muslims beliefs which obviously also fall under the category of Islam, Zora removes them saying im promoting myself. What im doing is stating facts and giving clear cut reasons while trying to avoid any possible bias. This however doesnt seem to be the case on her side and that of the mainstream "Muslims" of whom even some of them would go as far as to kill anyone who is an apostate IN THEIR VIEW. Now note this is important, IN THEIR VIEW because in reality i consider myself a real and true Muslim following Quran Alone and hence God Alone without any hypocritical innovations. In my view those "Muslims"are the kaafirs(unbelievers/rejectors). So as i said some of them would go and kill someone only if he says that he doesnt wanna mention Muhammad's name after God's or become so angry that theyd beat him up. They are obsessed with Prophet Muhammad as a human not as much as regarding the message he brought from God and this is the real problem. That's why we call them Muhammadans or those who worship Muhammad instead of God. A simple example. God in the Quran told the angels to prostrate before Adam. A simple question. Who were they worshipping??? GOD or Adam? Obviously the First(and the Last) i.e. GOD and not Adam. They obeyed God's command and hence worshipped Him only. Now the "Muslims" do it the other way around. They believe in God because of Muhammad hence they are worshipping Muhammad. See this now how Satan has successfully turned the truth 180 degrees. It happens all the time so please id like you to reflect on this for a moment. GOD Bless! user:idmkhizar

Back!

And still in one piece, alhamdulillah.

Anything interesting going on? BrandonYusufToropov 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember that scene in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK?

(Han blind, bound, to his fellow hostage Luke:)

Han: How are we doing?

Luke: About the same as always.

Han: That bad, huh?

===

Family is fine, all is well on the home front, alhamdulillah. Please make duas from there in the no-man's land.

)

So what should I look at first, do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-added OmniNerd reference on Muhammad article

I have replaced the reference that you removed from the Muhammad article. I used it to add considerable content to the site and, therefore, it must remain on the page as a reference. Please see the history for details. Uriah923 17:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Reed? Really? That's where I am right now! I haven't come across too many Reedies on Wikipedia, so aloha to you! Dmcdevit·t 23:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I know, I know! That's what everyone keeps telling me. But I'm just going to put on my blinders, learn all the (possibly useless) stuff I can, and face the consequences when (if) I get to the real world. :) Sometimes I think maybe I could stay in the make-believe world of learning useless stuff all the time if only I could become a professor. :) We'll see. Incidentally, I grew up right next to Berkeley (heard of Lafayette?) and both my parents went there. Small world... (Guess I'll go back to reading about Ming China now.) Dmcdevit·t 02:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You bitter old man! Shall I hang myself once I get out into the real world or just get it over with now? :) I prefer to think of it as more of a unemployed PhD, er, working together- er- match. But really, my mom majored in politial science with minors in women's studies, linguistics and Spanish (could you imagine a less saleable combo?). Then she got her masters in accounting, and then in library science. And what's her real job now? Doing software for a big construction corporation. It's a good thing I'm taking a computing class now; that way I'll be sure I'm not going to end up working in computers! Oh well, my sister's getting her masters degree in social work right now; I guess we're just a hopeless bunch. It's still fun though. And there's the interloping part, that's great. Although scurrilous is a bit strong... I'm more of an innocuous lurker. Of course, that's all assuming I survive Reed, anyway. And now both of the Reedies I've met on WP never finished there (do you know JesseW?). Well I thank you for that vigorous advice (and foreboding) I'm certainly taking it to heart. Oh yeah, and <enter actual Wikipedia discussion here> that OmniNerd guy is annoying me, too. Dmcdevit·t 06:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, woman, man, what's the difference? Actually, now that I think about it, you called me a young man without my ever giving you an indication as to my gender (I don't think). Sheesh, this Omninerd spammer is really prolific. I've now spent more than an hour of my life cleaning it up all over Wikipedia. And he seems to think now he should delete actual article content since he can't put in his spam. AHH! I need to study! Thanks for this discussion, it was really enlightening and actually a stress-reliever (and you're in a unique position to probably understand better than most the amount of stress considering it's my first week here). I'm trying to cut down on the Wikipedia...:) Dmcdevit·t 23:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

:o I didn't realize I was that much of a slacker. And I already don't interact with real people (well, you're real... I think) because of both studies and Wikipedia... I was out of contact for a few days when I moved here and I learned something chilling: It keeps going! There's an edit every few seconds. And if I stop, no one else stops. If I could just pause it it would be so much easier to let go. Dmcdevit·t 23:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, "sensible" thanks. I think I'm going to do some editing over the weekend in my free time and then cut it off cold turkey for at least all of next week so I can devote that time to studies. Some loose ends to tidy up right now, like I'm nomming Splash for adminship tomorrow if you care to vote, and this spam thing (I think I'm making progress with this one but at least they all stopped so we can talk this out. If you don't mind, see if you can help at all.) Ideally I will only be editing on the weekend in free time, but I haven't shown great self-control with respect to Wikipedia before... :) So thanks, and if I'm gone all of the sudden on Sunday night, you'll have to explain to everyone how it was your fault. And if it means anything coming from someone who's apparently the same age as your daughter, your quite the admirable 'Pedian yourself. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

On a (not) related note, since your saying we'd be losing a sensible admin trigered this in my brain, is there any particular reason why you aren't an admin? I can't believe no one's ever asked you before. I've actually seen lots of your work pop up on my watchlist before, since I have several Islam-related articles watchlisted because of the frequent (gross) vandalism. And, I just looked it up, you've been here since February last year. (That's longer that me!) What do you say? Can I nominate you? Dmcdevit·t 23:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ever hear of a guy named Rick? :) Ah well, if you don't want to, I guess you don't have too. Two more quick notes about it, though. First of all, it really is no big deal. You could go on editing in your normal capacity. And second, I'm 4-for-4 so far on admin noms (Uncle G, Spangineer, and now Beland and Splash, both shoo-ins). You sure? :) Dmcdevit·t 23:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I wish you luck in all of that. I guess we shall cut back together. :) Dmcdevit·t 23:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright in Iran

Thanks for supporting me. BTW, if someone claimed Iranian-copyrights-don't-count again, you can now safely refer them to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran. We now have a quote from Jimbo himself. roozbeh 11:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Refusenik (Muslim)

Hi, Zora. Thanks for improving that stub. BTW, I wasn't its creator, my single edit were was minimal. I don't remember ever editing Muslim, so it seems you have mixed me up with someone else. Otherwise, I agree with you on all points, especially on keeping NPOV. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Clothing origin

I repeat what I said in April: "A view held by so many deserves a passing mention, at least." I'm not trying to state it as fact, but as a common belief. Per WP:NPOV, religious POVs deserve mention - not equal mention, but mention nonetheless.

How about something like "Many Christians and Jews believe the account of Genesis, which states" etc.

I apologize if it seems like I'm just jumping in and out of an article you've obviously put a lot of time into. I forgot about the debate in April, and began again today when I saw another user adding a (inappropriately worded and placed) mention of Genesis. DDerby | Talk 22:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey... if the difference is that one section I don't have a big problem with it... I do think more or less "origin myths" should have mention... although not in as concrete terms as that section does. I don't think most modern Christians (at least Catholics) believe that, but it is of interest... and, it shouldn't be portrayed as if the clothing itself is central to the story. Before I comment do you think such myths deserve no mention or what? gren グレン 06:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Succession

Hi, I'm looking at it... haven't commented, sorry -- I just went back to school and I'm taking 6 instead of five classes and 3, 300 leve, 2, 400 level and 100 level... which, if you look at my past semesters (stuff listed on my user page)... at least means I must go to most every class whereas before I could skip a lot more... sorry. gren グレン 06:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Made some edits on succession article ...

Excellent stuff!

On another topic, I don't know how you'll feel about | this, but I hope you'll take a look. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 09:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Tupenu

Zora, I fixed the captions for the photos in the Tupenu article, you had them backwards.

User:IP4240207xx 05:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: You need to archive your talk page, it is getting to big!

• You first create a link to a new page for the archive material. This I have done for you, at the top of this page. NOTE: If you don't like what I named your archive pages, you might want to change them first, before you cut-&-paste. Next copy the entries you want on that archive page. I did yours by date. Some people do it by topic. Say "bioarchive", "geoarchive", "historyarchive", etc. You do it how you like. Date is the most common. If you have a lot of talk going on, some users have to do "talk2005Jan-Mar", "talk2005Apr-Jun", etc. I don't think you need to go that far. Now for the 2005 page you can copy the entries from JAN 1st-to-JUN 30th for now, then sometime next March, do JUL 31st-to-DEC 31st. I recommend you always leave about a two month lag time to easily view and work with recent entries. So, I would click "edit this page" at the top of this page. Find the first entry and then "scroll+drag" until you find the last entry for 2004; then do a "control+cut" (ctrl+X ; control-copy&paste [ctrl+C] if it makes you feel safer); click "Save page"; click on the link to new archive page; then do ctrl+v to paste (or edit paste) the text in. Repeat for the data from Jan 1st until how far you want to go. (If you do copy&paste, you now have to re-edit this page and delete the text entries that you have copied to the archive page.) Hope this helps. User:IP4240207xx

• • My cheek is wet from that smooch. I see you lived in Portland. How, and when, did you like that? I lived in Clackamas for a spell. IP4240207xx 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Now why would you think I wouldn't know where Beaverton was? I lived in Clackamas for 13-years. Hey, your not that old.

Archive Pages

WOW! You moved 100 topic entries and you still have 80 left. I try to keep mine no more than 50. If the page gets to big, it will bomb when you edit. Happy archiving!

Courageous

Popped up on my watchlist, and I saw a major POV change and deleting a whole section, looked at the talk page, and saw no prior consensus, so I reverted. I hadn't realized your previous edit was a first revert, or even that there was a conflict going on, and not just the usual on Islam articles... Might want to watch out for a strawman sockpuppet, as even most pious believers can manage a semblance of understanding of NPOV (and not quote scripture as an argument for how to act on an encyclopedia). But I'm on a WikiBreak remember? I'm trying only to come back for the RFAs... :) Hope you are well. Dmcdevit·t 21:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

Hi,

I see you've been involved in the revert wars at Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani. I believe there is much more to these changes than initially meets the eye and I would appreciate it if you could add evidence against this user and aliases at User:Sukh/Revert_War_Evidence. I'm compiling this for a RFC. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

ON spam - Uriah

Hi, I hope you don't mind a request, but I need your help. Uriah is up to his typical, try to save links to ON at all costs, and is spreading the conversation over a few different articles to avoid the opposition. If you could just give your thoughts on the following Talk:After Virtue, Talk:Routing, Talk:Comparison of operating systems, Talk:ITunes, etc. You may have to check his contributions in case he tries to spread this over every article, which he seems to plan to. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 19:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Every once in a while if you have a chance, check around to see if ON links keep getting added. It's quiet now, but I have a feeling he won't give up. - Taxman ^Talk 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Muslim

Hi Zora. Good job. The article looked crap indeed. I hope people would agree about the current version. I think the article should be a reference to Islam and not a podium. I only think that the introduction is still looking and sounding too heavy for ears and eyes. We'll try to make it good for stomach. Cheers -- Svest 21:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Maria al-Quibtiyya (Maria the Copt)

hello Zora,

thank you for contacting me. Well I encountered the article "Maria al-Quibtiyya (Maria the Copt)" by chance. At the bottom I saw that it wasn't categorised in any way. Considering the other wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) were all categorised as "Muslim women" obviously she could not be put under that category. I was thinking about creating a new category for "Copt", not sure about that though. Therefore the only one I thought best was "Christian Interfaith relations". There is another article about a Nestorian monk who also encountered the Prophet that is under that category. If you believe there is a better place, by all means I am always open to suggestions, this shall be no point of great contention. with kind regards File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 20:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am confused. Was she now a Copt or a Muslima? Because there seems to be disagreement on this. Muslim women as a category would be fine as well, however I am inclining to start a new Category for Copts or List in that case.. File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 23:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes apparently by one source she converted to Islam . However, how does she "enter history as a Muslim" and not also as a Copt? I mean the name (Maria the Copt) alone says it, doesn't it? File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 23:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are the relationships that bad? By adding her as a Copt I certainly don't want to cause any religious tension. I will try to find a Coptic User, maybe they can share some insights into this. I will leave this article for the moment, however if you have no issue with the creation of a new category for Copts, then I think we have settled this question to a mutually satisfactory solution? File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 00:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Aisha

I highly dislike the notion that articles can be protected --under claims of maintaining a "subtle balance" (i.e. "appeal to security"). In case you hadnt noticed, this is a wiki. My changes were substantive improvements over the previous version, which at least needed a cleanup tag at top. I happened to have more time. I will restore my changes. Any actual changes which may help the article will be welcome. Apologies if I appear curt with you, but Ive little patience for people who miss the entire point, fail to judge edits on merits, and use reverts instead of edits. -St|eve 16:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ive rolled back your changes to Aisha - your rewrite used a narrative "questions" style, which is improper for the encyclopedic form --just say what the controversy is, offer some context, etc. You also removed much material which was part of that section before I edited it --All I really added was an introductory sentence, and a little context regarding marriageable age. I would be happy to discuss the changes further. Sincerely, St|eve 16:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lomilomi massage

Zora, when you have a chance (no hurry on this) can you take a look at Lomilomi massage? I want to expand the page, but I also want to stay on track, so your critical eye is appreciated. Please make any changes you feel are necessary, or offer suggestions on the talk page. I know you are pretty busy, so thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 11:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're a fantastic editor, and you have every right to be proud of your work on the Nordhoff text. Let me know when your book comes out so I can buy it. --Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi. Please refrain from speculating about editors' motives, phobias, etc., in edit summaries. Regards, El_C 07:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Prophet of Islam

To be honest, I'm okay with "prophet of Islam" as an alternative to "Islamic prophet". It sounds a little hokey, but I don't think it must be interpreted as asserting anything supernatural or divine about Muhammad or his experiences. There may be a reasonable aesthetic objection to it, but not enough of one to get me waging a wikijihad against it, as I would against "Prophet Muhammad". Regards, Babajobu 13:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's POV about using "prophet of Islam," as there is a page on Wikipedia entitled "prophets of Islam," but thanks for leaving a comment explaining why you changed it. Emiellaiendiay 19:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not spam

Hi Zora

The sunna website is not mine and it is not spamming. What i am pasting are legitimate links. A lot of what is being propagated on some of the pages are one sided and the links are one sided. The sunna links provide a balance. Please stop removing them even if they represent a different view than yours. Shafi3i 03:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Hi Again

i have read your advice, thank you. I am trying to have a fair share by writing and editing many articles but please stop removing the external links i paste. A lot of external links are one sided and provide one point of view. Have you read the external link in Shahada ? it said " He should, as a practice, dissociate himself completely from the unbelievers and refuse to be influenced by them, both in worldly and religious matters." How come that we "should" as a practice to dissociate ourselves from non believers? and how come we should refuse to get influenced by them in worldy matters? So we stop going to the universities here? and stop working with them ? Muslims in the west work with them like i do and my supervisor is a non muslim woman too. This link provides the one view of wahhabi about such matters. I pasted another link which provides a more balanced view about this matter. I read the external links and sometimes i really get disappointed.

I am spending a lot of time on another section in wikipedia and i am trying to have a fair share here and to contribute in authoring a lot of articles. Let me contribute to the english section and let me have a pleasant time and i assure you that if you keep hunting down the links i provide will greatly discourage me.

And about the grand plan of imposing the website. I pasted around 5-6 links in five-six different articles. How would it be a grand plan of imposing?

Thank you

Shafi3i 04:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Hi Again

you said "but linking your sect's site to as many Islamic articles as you can is linkspamming" i agree that this is one definition of link spamming but you are not being fair in categorizing what i have done as link spamming that falls under this definition. I have not linked the site to as many article as i can. They were 5-6 links of different subjects each linked to the relevant article in wiki. Please stop distorting the truth. Shafi3i 05:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Note;

Do not threaten me with adminstrators. I can talk to them too. Shafi3i 05:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Zora, what is the problem here and which articles specifically were 'spammed'? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

My, my. What have you been up to tonight. I've protected your user page since every time that anon gets reverted and blocked he comes back with another IP. This is intended only as a very temporary measure. Sorry about all this crap. I guess it's the Qur'an vandal as well. Dmcdevit·t 05:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay it's been half an hour and the vandalism stopped on Qur'an 30 minutes ago as well, so I guess it was that vandal's bed time. Your user page is now unprotected. You should definitely check out the history of Qur'an when you get back online though for a tribute to WP's self-correcting nature! :) Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Urgh. Hm, by some twist of fate the anon came back to vandalize Qur'an just as I was typing the above message. After two more reverts I vprotected Qur'an. I would be on the look out here, but it (vandals aren't people) didn't return here, I didn't reprotect. Now that you mention it, my first hum paper was due yesterday! I've been sitting here with me Chinese history book in my hand most of the day catching up on the reading I neglected because of it, and just took a break to WP after finishing a chapter. I was actually out of action for nearly all of last week too, and will be starting in a few seconds as well, :) I was really about to get off when this popped up. (PS, not another linkspammer! I never would have guessed that Islam-related articles were such a hot spam target.) Dmcdevit·t 06:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Impression

I do not know why i was under the impression that you are a Muslim and a Woman. Ok. That impression was wrong. Now i understand. Since we agreed on prevent bias then i think we can work together, time permitting. But i insist that what i was doing was not link spamming. Shafi3i 17:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

ok. Things are clear from my side. Since you are bossy i will be waiting for your orders. :P Shafi3i 03:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

Demographics of Islam

Hi Zora! I just noticed that you are working on an article called "Demographics of Islam", and re that article, there is a couple of things that I'd like to mention to you. The first thing is that the figures from Bangladesh of course is quite inaccurate.. The other thing is that I wanted to make sure that you have seen this article, that was created some time ago: Islam by country. I thought that you might find some of the content of that article useful, and that it might help you to aviod any kind of double work. Of course it doesn't have the Sunni-Shi'a-Ibadi figures, but I just wanted to be sure that you already knew that it is there. -- Karl Meier 11:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And now that I am talking to you anyway, could you please consider deleting this painting: Image:Miraj2.jpg. I added the {{nowcommons}} tag several weeks ago, but nothing has happend yet. The new version that I have replaced the old version at commons with, is in my opinion much better than the version that is currently used in the article. -- Karl Meier 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Shab-e-baraat

Wondering if you can help in any way with Shab-e-baraat. Also, thinking of making a template with each of the months in Islam, and then making an entry for these months which gives a brief overview of the religious events, festivals, etc that occours in these months.. Good Idea/bad Idea? --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Idea in acton

That Muslim month idea.. well I've already started on it, I've onlt began with Muharram thus far, so can you have a look and tell me how it can be improved? Thanks! --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Najd

I know virtually nothing about the history of Najd (which has generally been on the fringes of civilisation, and as such of comparatively little interest to chroniclers, Arab or non-Arab), but whenever I need to do some Arabic-language research, http://www.alwaraq.com/ is my first port of call; it has a wide variety of medieval histories and geographies (and a few post-medieval as well.) The nasab books - genealogies of the Arabian tribes - might also be a source of information (also found on alwaraq.) In addition, I know that a number of Saudi scholars have gotten to work on the history of the area, examining such sources as graffiti and oral traditions in addition to the obvious written sources. Bruce Ingham might bear examining on the oral history sources. - Mustafaa 10:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever came forward with one clear evidence that the memoirs of Mr hempher is a forgery. The facts of the british spy was mentioned by religeous scholars who died more than 150 years ago who authored books refuting Ibn Abdul wahhab like al Mina7 Al wahbiya fil radi 3alal al wahhabiya. <-- Good book also for the history of najd.

Add those books if you like to your folder.

1- Al Sawa3iq Al ilahiya fil radd 3ala al wahhabiya. It was authored by sulayman bin abdul wahhabi the brother of Mohammad bin abdul wahhab. Mohammad ( may Allah give him what he deserves) sent a person to assasinate him while he is praying but God saved him.

2 - Al Durar Al saniya fil raddi 3ala al wahahbiya.

3 - Misba7b Al Anam wa jala2 al thalam fil raddi 3ala bida3 al najdiy.

The three aforementioned books are excellent sources about the history of najd but very detailed and at an expert level.

If you would like more just ask. Shafi3i 04:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

You might like Patricia Crone, ‘Ninth-Century Muslim Anarchists’, Past and Present: a Journal of Historical Studies, no. 167, 2000, pp. 3-28, about the Najdiyya (an anarchist Kharijite sect). Unlike most Muslim sources, she seems to rather like them. - Mustafaa 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

hi, I request you to please give your opinion about Shweta lal. Thanks.

Bhangra

Liar! I have never editted it. But, you make a good point and I put it under my watch because you are definitely right... there's no apparent rhyme or reason (besides his view) as to why he ordered the way he did. I don't know too much about Bhangra, I get my news when this kid I know shows me videos of the national competition and I stare with a lack of understanding at the dancing. gren グレン 05:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[[Talk:Caliph#{{Islam}} for each "caliph"]]

Could you look at this and give me your opinion -- it's about using {{Islam}} for each caliph from Ummayad to Ottoman. gren グレン 08:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam

Hey. How's it going? Can you take a look at talk:Islam under section "beliefs of Muslims". This anon proxy editor fails to understand Jesus' second coming in Islam. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should calm down

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you.

Please do not engage in edit wars. This is regarding the edit war between you, User:Anonymous editor and User:70.21.180.97 regarding the insertion of some controversial comments by User:70.21.180.97 about Muhammed's marriage to Aisha on the Wikipedia article, Muhammad. Thank you. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Aisha

Er, Zora. What is POV about saying "final prophet of Islam"? That is Muhammad (pbuh) position in Islam, regardless of what others think. It is factual that it is his position, not opinion. Please reply, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see Talk: Muhammad for my response. Btw, the pedophilia anon IP was the same adolescent which I was trying to get through to on Talk: Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Mughal-E-Azam

I won't disagree that Mughal-E-Azam is a noteworthy movie. However, we must keep in mind that we are writing for Wikipedia here, which is not a place for movie reviews. Some liked it and others hated it. There's no movie that absolutely everyone loves.

The main problem is this paragraph: "The film is excellent on many counts. The acting is top-notch, the score, by Naushad, is memorable, the singing and dancing are well-done, and the cinematography (by R.D. Mathur) is stylish. The film evokes the glorious days of the Mughal empire, with its lavish palaces, Persian-style gardens, jeweled costumes, and courtly dialogue (in poetic, Persian-influenced Urdu)."

I'm sure there are people who feel the acting isn't "top-notch," that the score isn't "memorable," and that the days of the Mughal empire were not "glorious." (I sense something of a pro-Persian bias in this, as well, since the Persian influences on the gardens and on Urdu are noted twice.)

Frankly, if you just remove that paragraph and add a spoiler warning earlier (or, change the plot outline so that you don't give away the ending), the rest of the article is fine. --Hnsampat 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Troubled Waters

I seem to be on the outs with Anonymous Editor. In the last couple of days he has been making edits that I feel are pietistic and POV-pushing. I revert them, explain why I did so, try to make nice, post on his talk page, and he just reverts back, and THEN SOME, just to show me who's boss. I am now the secular enemy, who must be defeated in the cause of Islam. I suppose this means that I'm doing OK at being neutral, if I can be an Islamofascist bitch AND an enemy of Islam. However, it's discouraging to be on the outs with AE, whom I had off-handedly classified as a "reasonable" editor. I am reassessing that judgement.

I really don't LIKE fights. I often find myself in them, but I really prefer collaborations. It's lovely when a bunch of folks can work together to make something that's better than any one of them could do individually. Can you help us do so? Zora 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, Zora you are taking this way overboard. I was not fighting you and I never called you any of those things. I do think you are neutral, but taking it so much to the extreme in articles where Islamic beliefs are being mentioned very scarcely is falling right into the hand of the anti-islamic editors who use the guise of being "secularists". I don't think you are a secular enemy nor do I think you are not a "reasonable" editor. This was the case in the Muhammad article. As I said before, the prolonged material in the Battle of the Trench section can go into the battle article; it does not need to be in the Muhammad article. I wasn't trying to be the boss; note the minor differences between your version and mine. [6] Perhaps Brandon will comment on this too. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiya

The arabic article about ibn taymiya is less biased than the usual stuff about him on internet but still in some parts making him a big shot. I am leaving somewhere outside the country for work and wont be back for a week or so, so i wont promiss something i can not deliver for now.

My personal opinion which is shared by many sunnni: Ibn Taymiyah is the most dangerous man on Islam in the last 700 years or so. But if i want to translate something i will be honest in my trasnlation. One of his most dangerous statements is that he believes that the kind of this world is eternal which is very close to atheism. The decres issued by Sultan Ibn Qalawoon the muslim ruler at that time really exposed how filthy and dangerous his beliefs are. do you believe that he liked the saying that God if he wanted he would have sat on the back of a fly? and he said Allah himself is above the throne and below the throne at the same time? As if he velieves that God is rubber-like? read his book "Sharh Hadith Al nuzool" page 264 and you will see exactly this statement. he made even the cow worshipers laugh at him.

Allah will give him what he deserves. Shafi3i 07:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC).

Muhammad, final prophet of Islam

I don't really have a problem with this as long as it's only used once per article. The key point for me is that it specifies that he is a prophet in Islam. If it said, "Muhammad, the final prophet", I would remove it immediately. Babajobu 10:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

You have joined the revert war on Criticism of Islam started by User:Anonymous Editor, siding with Anonymous Editor in deleting about 9000 bytes of content that I added. Consequently the article has been protected. You have not explained your reverts in the talk page of the article - I invite you to engage in discussion in the talk page now. -- Zeno of Elea 23:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib

Thank you for the clean-up you did in this article! It was much needed and a definitive improvement. Also: I have a question about a "missing"(?) granddaughter ..-would you care to take a look at Talk:Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib? Thanks, Huldra 00:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving comment from your main page

Zora, I don't know who you are and why you have created a Vendetta with me. You are NOT Indian and you don't speak Hindi. You are a moslem lady who lives in Hawai. Doesn't your religion teach you to be different from the disbelievers??? Then why are you so fascinated by Hindu Cinema. Why don't you come down to Bombay so we can show you how to really play Holi. Then you will understand that you shouldn't write about something you don't know. Thanks for the input!!--Harprit 03:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(Zora, I took the liberty of moving this comment left on your main page to here. Hope that was the right thing to do. gren グレン 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC))

Ah, so I should see the film. I don't really get to the theater much but I'll try. I trust your recommendation... and if you want a sequel that badly. By the way User:Adamcaliph made a bunch of edits to Shia Imams, not really changing content (which I won't assert is NPOV in the first place... but didn't seem bad) but adding headers with the bad style of "His birth" instead of "Birth" and also adding "Persecution". I don't know about you but, it just seems to be an attemp to smash in the image of Shia being persecuted. I left a talk message saying Persecution will be noticed through the facts of what happened, not by us using words like that to elicit reactions. In any case, if you run into that... tell me what you think. Have a good day, Cheers. gren グレン 12:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)