Help request concerning a certain dispute over a translation from arabic to english.
As-Salamu 'Alaykum. Hope you're enjoying your time. Would you please give some help concerning a certain dispute over a translation from arabic to english? Regards. 18:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
- Dear CounterTime, waalaykum salam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Thanks for asking. Yes, sure, I'll try to add some value. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. So there's this long standing dispute here, would appreciate much your input. (Just look at the box, don't look at all the lengthy discussion,)
- So basically, the dispute boils down to a request by RLoutfy (talk · contribs) to show that a certain source (Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." to be precise) does indeed link verse 10:99 to apostasy. He insisted that I had made "POV translations" of this source and that it doesn't support that claim. To counter his accusations, I provided screenshots of the meant source: (see box below)
1. Page 91 : He mentions that there are a lot of Qur'anic verses that maintain that religious freedom in its entirety must be saved, and hence apostasy shouldn't be sanctioned. 2. Page 92 He starts mentioning them, and he starts by talking about the verse Q.2:256. 3. Page 93 He mentions many other verses amongst them 88:22. 4. Page 94 He mentions 10:99 in the 6th line. 5. Page 94 (cont.) He says that a group of people (qawm) distinguish between original unbelief and apostasy, and claim that the verses that give freedom of religion to non-Muslims do not apply to apostates. 6. Page 95 This is a continuation of his discussion, see it for the context.
List of Modern Day Muslim Scholars
May Peace be Upon You...
You've reverted a recent addition in the List of Modern Day Muslim Scholars. May I know about the criteria you are following for the list. I want to create a List of All Muslim Scholars, but the Title is being redirected to this article. Can you please guide me in this regards.
- Dear Mjadil, waalaykum salam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. The link was to a Wikipedia page that has no reliable sources to shows he's a Muslim scholar. The page is a terribly written fan-style page with no current value. Go in peace. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Mjadil, citations to reliable, authoritative, neutral and third-party sources are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. Your sources are entirely unacceptable because they are from the subject's own official site. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:ADMIN NOTICEBOARD and Bose talk section
Sorry, what is the problem and why have you reverted my edit? There is a talk page section where there is a reliable source that summarises what I have said.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
George I hope you realise collaborator here is a pejorative term, as I explained in the edit summary. Your professional collaborations and collaboration with an enemy agent are different things dont you agree?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally your edit was caught in a erdit to shorten the intro. But why are you repeatedly reverting my edits without so much as a look at the talk page?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
George forgive me, but you are coming accross as very hostile in your edits. You have now whole-scale reverted an extensive of mine to the intro.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Dear rueben_lys, my friend, there's no need for words like "hostile". I'm merely trying to keep a page I've followed for years as neutral and well referenced as possible. In my view you have unintentionally weakened the page, sorry to say. It's not personal. I'm not your opponent. I do assume your good faith. Let's now wait and see what other editors think. They may disagree with my edits. But either way, we must not enter an edit war. :-) Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And you didnt consider that my edit (in very very NPOV terms) to the intro section summarised his career in India, his career during the war, the controversy that exists around his political views, his social theories, his personal and family life, the Gandhi-Nehru rivalry, the controversies about what his movement did for India and on top of that highlighted that he is considered to have had an influence outside India, in Malaya and Singapore, and that he has been a topic and emotive subject in popular culture? You will notice there are elements not there in the version you reverted to.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Incidentially, Intro does not require references per WP:MOS, and it was as neutral as you will get (my opinion). You felt I have weakened the page so you have reverted five edits of mine within less than 48 hours, two of which removed referenced edits on Bose in popular media, one which introduced a very one-sided term (also cited in the talk page) and another that left word like"defiant patriotism" in the intro. I am not going to re-revert as this is becoming an edit war. I have asked for more eyes at the WP:India related noticeboard.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Dear rueben_lys, yes, that's the best thing: to let other editors take a view. I won't edit the page again either until we see what others think. I hate edit wars. I'm sorry you felt hurt by my edits. It was not my intention to upset you. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)