User talk:PelleSmith/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



The guy is and has been since day one in the pockets of the Wahabi lobby. What I said is based on what Prince Alwaleed Bin Tala said as Esposito is just one of many Academic minions he finances and uses to promote Islam around the world.--CltFn 11:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks see your talk page for my response.PelleSmith 13:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"We" are those who think Esposito isn't a reliable source. That includes me and, it seems, CltFn, but it also includes others, as you can see if you look at the talk pages for some of the Islam-related articles. Arrow740 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"Thanks for the clearly logical response--the people who don't think he's unreliable dream of proving it." I don't think they're on the defensive yet, unfortunately. Arrow740 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah my mistake, I meant to write either "the people who don't think he's reliable" (as I had initially put it) or "the people who think he's unreliable" and managed to put both negatives in there completely altering the meaning of the sentence and in a confusing way I might add.PelleSmith 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslim views of Islam[edit]

Hi Pelle and thanks for your message. I have also read with interest your comments on the Islam talk page. My current thinking is that a section on "Non-Muslim views" is going to be easier to write collaboratively in an NPOV way in this introductory article than one on "criticism" only. So I would be very happy if some positive non-Muslim views were added. And of course much of the western scholarship is neither positive nor negative, just an external view. Similarly the section on "Contemporary Islam" should present a balanced overview of the the whole spectrum of thought, not reducing it to simplistic categories of "fundamentalists" vs "reformers". I am not strongly against having a "criticism" section though if it could be written well without endless edit warring. Itsmejudith 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good copyediting[edit]

Thanks for your work on the Islam in the US article. I always like being copyedited by someone who knows what he/she is doing. Zora 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello PelleSmith. Since you have dealt with user CltFn in the past, I would appreciate your comment here. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the United States[edit]

In response to your comment on my talk page. I see your point about making incremental changes and in all fairness I should have been more carefull in not wiping out some of your valid edits. But there are 2 ways of looking at this dispute , before I made what you call a wholesale revert, editors had wiped out my edits wholesale. Are you saying that its OK to wipe out my edits wholesale but not ok for me to revert back wholesale? My concern in this article is to be able to have all POVs represented in the article not just the one of any particular group of editors.--CltFn 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Snide comments are not helpful.[edit]

PelleSmith wrote the following on user talk:Getaway:

"Getaway. Please edit a bit more carefully. Also don't justify poor edits with snide comments like "7 million Muslims in the U.S.??? Who made up this number. It contradicts the next sentence and it contradicts reality. Removed permanently" and "That is still a huge range. And what is based upon? Someone's feelings?" as you did here. It makes good faith alot harder to imagine when you do that. As I mentioned those statstics come from the various estimates used below in the entry. If they don't exist then prove it and remove them. That would be helpful. I put the tag on the page so people would actually dig the references up. Thanks.PelleSmith 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)"

Your sanctimous comments would hold more water if you did not make snide comments yourself as you did on my talk page: "Those figures you decided to remove come from demographics in the entry. And here I was thinking you had actually read the entire entry.PelleSmith 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"
You action undermine your comments, leaving you with littel credibility. Now that we have pointed that out. I would like to point out to you that you don't own the article AND I will continue to edit the article as I see fit. Have a good day!-- 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Getaway, I welcome your edits, but just remember that this is a group project. Also remember that there is wide range of "editing" from good faith to bad, from vandalism to entry improvement, and editing as "one sees fit" could fall anywhere on this spectrum. If I, you or anyone else make edits that other editors think are unproductive to the encyclopedic quality of an entry then objections will be made, reverts may happen, changes and improvement may come about, etc. etc.. That's just the nature of this project. Regarding your last edits, I've posted on your user page about what in my humble opinion is the productive way to look into the demographic estimates on the page. Have a nice day.PelleSmith 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PelleSmith wrote on User:Getaway's talk page: "Touche. I'll gladly not leave such snide remarks on your page again. But my frustrated "And here I thought you had actually read the entire entry", was left on your talk page, in communication with you, and not in an edit summary. However, as you point out, it can easily be seen as snide. My deepest appologies. Now, please do figure out if any of those demographic estimates are wrong or not based on real surveys. That, again would be the productive way of working on the article, as opposed to simply deleting material. Also if you would sign your post on my page with your user name instead of that IP I would much appretiate it. If that IP isn't you, and you didn't leave that comment, then I will gladly delete it from my userpage and chastize them for impersonating you. All the best.PelleSmith 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)"

Generally, I find your comments long-winded and self-centered and as such they are unproductive. Once again, I will continue to edit as I see fit and you will just have to deal with it. Have a good day! And seriously, do not respond to me again because I don't find your comments productive. As far as I can tell you spend a huge amount of time justifying why your edits are the only reasonable choice when there are usually four, five, six reasonable choices. --Getaway 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


There is nothing related on talk page. It was removed just bcoz of some mistake.

There has always been, and I even reposted before I reverted, as I've pointed out on your talk page already.PelleSmith 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Just letting you know that he reported you for 3RR [1].--Strothra 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Did you mean to make this edit: [2]? It's quite confusing. Dahn 13:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem: it is indeed confusing that newer comments were made in an old section, and the text there has become quite large and repetitive - such errors are bound to happen. Dahn 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For real, don't you think this edit will give the impression that we endorse him having continued to be linked with the Iron Guard after 1940-41? Dahn 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is too much - consider that the introductory section is the basis for main page descriptions for featured articles, which are rather intricate in detail so as to be explicit on their own (it was not one of my priorities to edit text there, but since somebody did, we might as well keep it). This works for me, but I was just wondering if you would take the chance of letting it be understood that Eliade continued to sympathize with the Guard after it ceased to be active in Romania (granted, the other one was not specific, but it was specific enough so as not to harm the point of those authors who say otherwise). Dahn 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidents at Talk:Islam in the United States[edit]

Hello, PelleSmith. Just to let you know, there is a debate going on currently between User:Getaway and I over whether or not his accusation of you as being uncivil is justified. I think you have been not only civil but commendably patient in your discussion at that page. If you have anything you would like to contribute to the discussion, I invite you to speak up on my talk page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, PelleSmith, I just want to point out to you that Kuzaar has made threats against me and I wouldn't really join him in his attempts to threaten and control me. You would be engaging in Kuzaar's inappropriate behavior also.--Getaway 18:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for reference, I have not threatened Getaway- he is accusing me of this to avoid explaining his unjustified accusation of you of being uncivil. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any threats on Kuzars talk page. I'm not going to get involved here, since you are arguing about whether or not I have been civil, but in my humble opinion I believe Kuzar is trying to point out matters of policy to you. If he were threating you he would be saying that he's going to report you, that you will be punished, or something like that. It isn't abnormal on wikipedia for wikipedians to try to help other wikipedians stay within policy guidelines.PelleSmith 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do this much. I'm not going to pushed around by Kuzaar. It is inappropriate and I will not stand by allow him to get away with it.--Getaway 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Good job on Secularism. Both simplified and improved. Thanks. Student7 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

John Esposito[edit]

John Esposito, heads the International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University which is a recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia [3]. He has clear ties to Saudi lobbying interests and this should be mentioned to put his criticism of Bat Ye'or in the proper context.
As regards to your veiled threats "If you are going to proceed in this manner something has to be done about it", this could be construed to be a borderline violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--CltFn 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Could be" construed to be a "borderline" violation ... seriously? Is that how you are going to respond to an insistance that you refrain from consciously adding false information about John Esposito to wiki entries? You know as well as I do that "something has to be done about it" does not qualify as a personal attack. You also know as well as anyone that John Esposito is himself not a recipient of these funds. We have gone over this several times, and I have even mentioned it in the recent RFC about your editing. How much more clearly can this be outlined? How much more obvious can it be that you are disregarding this fact and consciously adding missinformation about Esposito to wiki entries? Esposito runs an institute at Georgetown University. A Saudi Prince gave this institute and Georgetown University a very sizable donation. Stop claiming that Esposito is the recipient of the this money. It is FALSE.PelleSmith 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not false information about Esposito, perhaps not clearly written , which I will correct . You keep talking about bad faith , no offense but it is you who repeatedly are displaying bad faith. --CltFn 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? Please explain to me how I am acting in bad faith? I'm more than eager to hear it. You can't dismiss it as poorly written when it is the exact wording that was explicitly discussed twice already and clearly established as presenting a falsehood. If you want to establish a connection between Esposito and Saudi funders then do so by representing facts accurately. How much clearer can this be?PelleSmith 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing making the statement accurate.PelleSmith 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. --CltFn 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion Demographics changes[edit]

PelleSmith, please revert the whosesale changes that you made to the series of edits I made to the Religion article. While we may disagree as to whether the arithmetic calculations that I added to the Demographics section constitute WP:OR or not, most of what you removed was either strictly factual annotation as to the sources of the data presented in the section or a direct quotation from the main source, On what possible grounds have you removed those edits? --Ubarfay 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for input[edit]

As the only contributor other than User:Jeff3000 to weigh in on my RfC re the Demographics section of the Religion article, I am soliciting your input. We are otherwise deadlocked. Regards, --Ubarfay 08:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk to me in anyway.[edit]

Dear PelleSmith: I have been on an extended break and I have returned. But in the meantime I noticed that you have continued in your unwanted, inappropriate communication with me. Once again, I ask you to stop talking and communicating with me. I have nothing to share with you. I will not be pushed around by you. Don't communicate with me any longer.--Getaway 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about making personal communications with people on their talk pages. I'm pretty sure that this is what the user talk pages are for. What is innapropriate however is copy and pasting comments from user talk pages and putting them on the talk pages of entries as if the editors whose comments you copied left these comments on said entry talk pages. Not to mention the fact said comments had nothing to do with the entry you copied them to. I do find it rather ironic that you say "I will not be pushed around by you", while you demand that I no longer communicate with you. Believe me I try really hard not to communicate with you. All I have repeatedly asked is that you try to be more civil on an entry talk page, and in edit summaries on that entry so that a more productive environment can be enjoyed by all of us, however much we may dissagree.PelleSmith 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

re:Insinuating that the many editors who don't agree with some of your edits on Islam in the United States are sockpuppets, is not exactly the best way to kick off the new you. That article needs alot of work, lets try to go at it productively.PelleSmith 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect but I have stated what I observed and note that I said in the comment "suspect". However you have a point , it does not help the discussion very much and so I shall avoid making such comments outside of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎. --CltFn 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


PelleSmith left this unwanted note on my talk page: Getaway, Can I beg you to please refrain from using the term "BS" which is a well known acronym for a profanity, when editing Secularism, as you did here. The editing on Secularism has enjoyed a very civil tone (at least as long as I've been privy to it), one which I'm sure other editors there would love to preserve. Please don't take this as an accusation or a criticism but simply as an initial appeal to edit Secularism with neutral language. Thank you, sincerely.PelleSmith 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would take your complaints more seriously if I had not already been down the road with you on the Islam in the United States article, where you disagreed with just about any edit that I did and you made comment after comment after comment where you criticized my work, my motives, etc. You made outlandish and flat out incorrect statements such as "Also, I highly doubt that either World Almanac or Britnnica have ever commissioned studies that estimate this figure. I'm sure they both originate somewhere else in the first place." Or you have stated elsewhere: "Personally I think listing all of these estimates is completely unecessary, but if they are going to be listed I don't like the idea of one partisan group whittling them down to conform with their POV." This particular statement is a complete falsehood. I am not a "partisan group" and I was not "whittling them down to conform with" my "POV". That is was your BS comment. In this statement you accuse me of POV, which is ludicrous because I ended up tracking down the actual study, which was, contrary to your false statement, created by Britannica. And I tracked down the World Almanac listings and they were simply repeats of Britannica, contrary to your rantings that it is not true. And in the end, I used a larger number than was there when I started because that was the correct study, a 2005 study of the U.S., not Canadian, the U.S., and the Caribbean, as the studies listed previously did. You have been rude and uncivil when you stated: "Those figures you decided to remove come from demographics in the entry. And here I was thinking you had actually read the entire entry.PelleSmith 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)" At least you were not rude, just flat out wrong when you defended Zora's fuzzy math here: "The math is 100% sound and those figures are 100% factually accurate as means and medians of the estimates presented on the page, as of my edits." Once again, doing mathematical calculations on incorrect studies gives you BS. The underlining studies that Zora was using for her Original Research calculations were based upon numbers of Muslims in the Northern America, not the U.S., so her ultimate number was incorrect, but yet you had to defend her!!!! And you wonder why I believe that most of your comments are just designed to make sure that no one ever changes your work, not what the best wording of the article should be. I don't have time to go through all of the other comments that you have directed toward me where you and Zora question my motivation. I won't blame Kuzaar's actions on you because he interjects himself into all kinds of disputes between Wikipedians. You need to focus on your attitude and stop giving me lectures. I ended up proving without question that Britannica and World Alamanac were one and same, but I had to deal with you and Zora the whole way throwing brickbats just because neither of you wanted your work changed. When I find BS on other pages, such as Secularism, I am going to point it out too. For example, there is a commentary of a Wikipedian in that article that stated something to the effect that decisions are being made on stem cell research based upon religion, etc. What hogwash!!! It will be removed. That is just BS propaganda. I know you don't like me saying that but that is just your opinion.--Getaway 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions[edit]

I have posted to the other Entry Talk pages. Thank you for our suggestions. They were very helpful. Thank you as well for being fair. I know that you are motivated for good, as am I.

While it may seem like preaching to some, to my mind, I do not preach. Instead, I am only making available to others what we have been taught in our study centers. I always try to be as brief but as complete as possible. But my subjects are complex and generally misunderstood. And unfortunately, I know of no better way to get my meaning across.

Despite our differences, I am hopeful that we will be able to work together to do more good. Angel 04:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Angel, I hope you realize that I have nothing against your website, or your spiritual inclinations and that I wish you all the success in the world with your pursuits. However, there are rules and guidelines here at Wikipedia for good reasons. For instance, if we allowed anyone to promote their own spiritual path, via a link to a website or blog, then there would be an endless directory of links on the religion entry page. Also, if people use entry talk pages for purposes other than discussing the entries then they will become unwieldy and unproductive.PelleSmith 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your expurgtion of Dr. Knuth's lectures on the MIT God and Computers series[edit]

In the articles on Religion and God you unilaterally removed the "God and Computers" further reading piece ... "Please don't add a "further reading section" just to insert a non-notable point of view about a rather specific topic" and "revert: just because it is about "God" doesn't mean it should be linked here ... wikipedia is not a directory) " --- "which is not by a "non-notable" (say you) --- it was delivered by one of the best Computer Scientists and Mathematicians in the world, ever, Dr. Donald Knuth. You should have discussed this first before deletion. I ask you to further explain. I don't think you are familiar with the MIT lecture series or Dr. Knuth which makes you unqualified to delete it from the article. Geez. Give someone an eraser on a pencil and see how they overuse it ! ... Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) talk)

I just posted on your page about this. If we had a "further reading" section on either of those entries, and maintained NPOV, both entries would turn into directories of similar lectures, of books, journal papers, webpages, etc. etc. I didn't mean that the lectures aren't interesting or important. However, if we included all such lectures we'd soon run into trouble. Also, since you had to create an entire section "Further Reading" to put the link up, don't you think maybe it would have been nice to suggest the move on the talk page first? Also, if you look at the talk page of Religion you will see that there is an ongoing issue about the addition of links, and about SPAM. I hope that explains it. Thanks.PelleSmith 20:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pelle. I take your points as such and generally true. In this case, Dr. Knuth is not just anyone else. Okay. Let's see how to work it in somehow. I have asked one of the most senior editors I know what is thought of this question. I would suggest your not being so quick on the delete/revert button for other senior editors who have no history of impulsiveness. Not everyone is as accomodating as I am, modestly said. We'll see how it works out. Our responses did cross in the Wikimail aether. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

On the grounds of the academic seriousness and acedemic reverence due to the 1999 MIT series, and the interplay of the ubiquitous computer and technology and concepts of God and religion. For many computers have eclipsed their God which is a slippery slope for society perhaps. Dr. Knuth gives some salient insights into this. Confer: ... Please watch what you quickly delete when it is written by mature established Wikipedia editors ... and without discussion. Thanks very much and be well. Always glad to hear from you again. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten a bit out of hand. I meant well and was honest in what I said. I don't expect to be treated any better than any other editor, except I would ask someone to think before deletion, which you say you did and I thank you for that. I was trying to make another contribution to Wikipedia, and that's about it. If it doesn't fit in with the article, as you see it, so be it. There's no need for anyone to get out of sorts about it. I don't and am not. It's really not that big a deal ultimately. Thanks for your kindness and reflection and thoughts on the matter. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Spirituality Studies[edit]

Dear PelleSmith forgive me if this is not the appropriate way to communicate on Wikipedia. Perhaps I do not understand its etiquette. I refer to your criticism of the article Spirituality Studies. I am the author of this article. You are clearly a perceptive reader. However, I do not understand why you object on the grounds of notability (importance) or original research. There are many trivial entries in this encyclopedia (e.g. on rook and pawn endings in a chess game). But I enjoy reading some of them! The rules of notability have surely been met by citing a fair number of academic sources. You may not like the term "spirituality studies"--perhaps you have a view also on "women's studies", or "queer studies", I do not know, and do not mean to offend--but if the scholarship exists, so too does the field. There may be some originality in organisation of the materials referred to in this the article, but this is hardly objectionable, especially since you say "much of what is discussed in the entry is both interesting and in my own view important". I would ask you to reconsider your complaints. If you look at the original version of the article, you will find my contact details there. I would prefer to continue this discussion by email. Many thanks for your considered remarks. (p.s. I've not logged in because I've entirely forgotten how!)

Freya Aswynn[edit]

Re your concerns about the Freya Aswynn article, I remind you that policy states that self-published sources are allowable in an article about the publisher, within reason. Possibly you would prefer her bio at Llewellyn. [4] Also, as per the contested proposed deletion policy, PROD is not to be restored once removed. 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just submit it for AfD and see what happens. The process tends to bring advocates out of the wood work to source entries. - WeniWidiWiki 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded to you for making minor edits of the utmost quality. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard vs. soft[edit]

Thanks for that essay, it put things in perspective. As for the use of the terms "moderate" and "extreme" to parallel Kosmin's structuring of "soft" and "hard" I am not persuaded that it is a wise choice. It is significant that I was not the only one struck by it, or to attempt to change it.

"Extreme" is too liable to be associated with "extremism" and thus with radical, fringe, or irrational views. If you asked me what an example of extreme secularism might be I might point to the various Communist revolutions, which annihilated the power of the church, such as the wholesale destruction of the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, and murder of the monks. Now that's extreme and you will get no argument from me.

As to what pair of terms to use, maybe we need to elaborate instead of putting our faith in single-word qualifiers. Perhaps we could use "indifferent towards religion" (after Kosmin) and "rejecting of religion". Haiduc 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Try it and see how it works. Whatever best conveys the difference without interjecting value judgments. Regards, Haiduc 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for attempting to inject some of the often missing sanity and logical argumentation with respect to Wiki policies that is sadly lacking in discussion of articles such as Rick Ross. BabyDweezil 16:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service.

Awarded by Addhoc 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


You aren't the first wikipedian I have encountered who doesn't know how to add comments in the middle of a numbered list, without screwing up the numbering. So, I didn't prepare this Indentation primer just for you.

If you would like to know how to add comments in the middle of a numbered list without screwing up the numbering, take a look.

I'll fix the numbering screw-up you left on my talk page myself, this time. Geo Swan 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It told you so,I told you so[edit]

Finally, they removed the picture of the spread of religion in the religion section that you keep putting up. Oops, sorry if I went to far. I have to clean up myself also.

I'm simply speechless.PelleSmith 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD Salma Arastu[edit]

I have removed her convertion to Islam from the article and will not add it again. I hope that will satisfy you. --- ALM 09:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You didnt have to do that. Thats a notable fact about the person. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A notable fact about a person you're claiming is not notable? So what does it even matter Matt? PelleSmith 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is ONE thing that a persona is notable or not. The fact that someone has converted in or out of Islam is ANOTHER fact and is separate from the first. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of that. My question is why does it matter to you since you don't think the person is notable in the first place and wish the entry gone. Cheers.PelleSmith 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help in 72 virgins[edit]

People are deleting comments from a famous would-be suicide bomber in 72 virgins. Could you help improve this article or revert the vandalism? Also this article was nominated for an AfD by ALM_scientist, which was ofcourse a speedy keep. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. A resounding no thanks.PelleSmith 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask why? You do show a lot of interest in controversial Islam related topics.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Afraid you have that wrong. I don't edit or have an "interest in" 99% of those entries, and entries like Islam in the United States should not be controversial but unfortunately draw controversy from ideological extremists. I don't have anything to add to 72 virgins.PelleSmith 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

Please refrain from personal attacks like calling me an "idealogical extremist" as you did here. If I hear any more personal attacks from you, I will have you reported. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call that a personal attack. On the occasion when I feel that I have crossed lines I apologize. On this occasion I feel absolutely no need to apologize and if you want to report me go right ahead. Why are you so offended by the fact that you don't represent a majority perspective?PelleSmith 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Calling a user an idealogical extremist is a personal attack. If its not then I can call you a number of things I have in mind for you too, but we have to abide by WP:NPA. Please be more careful next time. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers.PelleSmith 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, PelleSmith. You deserve another barnstar. [By the way, you may want to display your barnstars on your user page.] Axl 09:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
PelleSmith, for ensuring the neutrality and quality of external links. Axl 09:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion and Government[edit]

Hi Pelle -- having seen many of your contributions on several of these articles, I was curious what you thought of the idea here. Cheers, Mackan79 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help us?[edit]

I need your help in Muhammad pictures dispute. Can you please improve this article and help me in filing an arbitration case? I have to file arbitration case in a week. Thanking you in anticipation. --- A. L. M. 09:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


You were reported at 3RR for edit warring on Secularity (non-religiosity). While I am not issuing any blocks or page protection at this time, I strongly suggest you both discuss instead of reverting each other, rather than discussing in addition to the revert war. You are both talking; quit telling each other to look at the conversation, and actually look at the conversation. Don't punctuate each discussion point with a revert - let the discussion go back and forth a few times. You can be blocked for 3RR even if you're trying to do the right thing, so remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your work on always giving clear and meticulous arguments in maintaining the quality of the Religion article -- Jeff3000 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My reverts to Islam in US[edit]

Hi Pelle, the intention of my revert is to restore the article layout which has been messed up since the last few edits. Even your current edit where in you reverted my edit has again messed up the layout. If you can see the article now, a huge chunk of the article has gone into the portion after the references (notes) down below. I do not know which portion I deleted, however my intention is not to delete any text. Its possible that some text might get deleted when I revert because its hard to restore the article again and compare back to what was added since the previous edits were made with the layout error. I am reverting again to a point where edits can be made without the layout error. feel free to add anything after that point. I intend to add something too and I will make an extra edit after reverting to the proper layout so that there is no confusion. thanks NapoleansSword 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pelle, I realized on comparing edits that while I was restoring the layout yesterday the "Islamic Relief" passage had gotten deleted. It was not my intention, just a oversight. Rest assured that the "Proper Layout" edit includes that passage and the previous edits prior to yours (since your edit had a bad layout too). I changed the language to accomodate your concerns. Feel free to edit but please make sure that your further edits don't damage the passage layout. thanks NapoleansSword 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect your commitment, but...[edit]

PelleSmith, you must understand that you are dealing with a active base of Wikipedia editors that ideologically do not even recognize the existence of anti-Islamic sentiment or views. One need only check the Wikipedia article on Islamophobia to see what I mean. The very existence of prejudice against Muslims is actually contested there, and heavily reflected in the article. There no longer exists a category of "anti-Islamic sentiment", and the likes of Ann Coulter are seen not as a bigoted individual who views to Muslim-Americans as "ragheads"(her own words and writings, many a time), but as "critics of Islam". In other words, how can one expect to argue with those that hold such singular and preset prejudicial views and beliefs? The answer is that you cannot, and there is little point in trying. I admire your efforts to remove bias from the article, but it is sadly in vain. Padishah5000 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. The request is malformed, and I provided clear reasoning for the reversions (as well as a lot of discussion about them), so I would be surprised if it was followed up on at all. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. MSJapan 05:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

re: your message on my talk page: Could you use talk before making major changes to cited text?[edit]

Why did you completely alter the lead to History of Islam in the United States without so much as mentioning it on the talk page first?

I tried to make a introductory statement that was honest and not misleading as it currently is.

Your stated rationale is dubious since the text that references the lead is certainly notable. When intending to change the substance of a text the notability of a reference isn't the issue either and you know that. Also, weaselly phrases like "in earnest" don't belong in the entry, certainly not in the lead. I'm sure there is a neutral way to convey the fact that large scale immigration didn't occur until the period you mention. If you think the lead should be fleshed out with more detail about the three periods of contact then by all means do so in a neutral way. If you don't agree with the content in the entry, all of which is sourced, then as I have already asked you to do, please bring it up in the talk page for discussion. Of course when you do so sourced counter claims would be helpful.

I am currently assembling sources and materials to properly reference my edits

As it stands I will openly admit to what you already know, that I have little tolerance for deceptive edit summaries.

I have no intent to make deceptive edit summaries. My apologies if this is how it appeared to you.
Instead of just tagging every sentence in the "Slavery" section with that ugly tag "[dubious ]", how about starting a real discussion on the talk page?
The tags were to indicate the points of contention

I tagged the section as a whole and removed those individual tags since you clearly think every sentence, sourced and unsourced, is not accurate. Again can you bring some sourced counter claims in on the talk page so that civilized discussion can be had?

I am going over materials now. There is quite a bit . I will add sources shortly.

--CltFn 05:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please dont delete stuff[edit]

If you delete stuff like you did here, you should move it to the relevant article. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If it is NOT appropriate in that entry then there is nothing wrong with simply deleting it. If you are interested in editing the other entry then by all means do, but I am not and there is no reason why I have to.PelleSmith 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you take this to Talk:Islam in the United States? There seems to be a dearth of explanation coming from your side of the fence on this issue, why don't you help elucidate it.PelleSmith 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The deal with that article[edit]


An editor requested temporary undeletion and userfication for the purpose of content review. These requests are in the upper portion of the DRV page, are routinely granted (unless the content violates WP:BLP or otherwise creates serious concerns for the Foundation), and are not archived outside of the page history at DRV. The content will be redeleted after a week or two; as I said, content reviews are temporary. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested temporary userification of the article. My recollection was that several references that I supplied, during the {{afd}} complied with WP:RS. My recollection was that their removal was hasty. I wanted to check. I also wanted to more fully check the merits of other references which were removed, to see if I thought their removal was overly hasty. I wanted to check my recollection that there were flaws in this {{afd}} that might merit a {{drv}}. If I think I can complete a version of this article that addresses the concerns raised, I will initiate a full deletion review.
If you wish, I will invite your comments, and those of the closing admin, prior to initiating that deletion review.
Cheers! Geo Swan 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I reply to your comment, I have reviewed the article. I have prepared another version.
I left a note on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about one of the first references you expressed concern about back in March.
I was in the process of giving you a heads-up about this note.
What kind of input would I welcome from you? Well, civil comments on User talk:Geo Swan/working/Religious conversion and terrorism (fixed). User:Geo Swan/working/Religious conversion and terrorism (fixed) is in my user space, not article space, please don't edit it.
I recognize that the version I just prepared has some weaknesses. I'll address those weaknesses below.
What is missing from the version I just prepared -- I don't know how to say this tactfully than this -- are your "improvements". Your excisionwere, IMO, were disruptive and counterproductive.
IMO, you removed a lot of stuff you were concerned about, when, instead, you should have raised your concern first on the talk page. Adam Gadahn, for instance, you removed his entry because you thought the reference didn't back up that he was associated with terrorism. Is he actually a terrorist? Maybe? Has he been accused on being a terrorists? Has he made the most wanted list? Repeatedly, by American security officials. This is one of the instances where your excisions that was highly disruptive.
I won't burden you with a laundry list.
What weaknesses remain?
Some might argue that an article that helped readers find notable converts who became terrorists would be worthwhile. One of your early criticisms of this article was that it focussed on one academic study of converts who then progressed to terrorism. I didn't see where you offered an explanation of what was wrong with that. It looks like there are a number of academic articles on this topic. My personal preference is that article do one thing -- not two.
I'll admit, since our dispute, my idea of what constitutes an acceptable reference has evolved. When I prepared the version of the article in my user space I concentrated on your contributions. I am not sure about some of the older references.
The usual next step after an article is restored, following a deletion review, is for it to be sent straight to another {{afd}} -- kind of like when a mistrial is declared in a court of law.
If I initiate a full deletion review I won't do so until I feel I can defend all the references. This version has plenty of references. Losing a few shouldn't be a problem.
Since you told the other guy you were unfamiliar with deletion review, I will tell you some more things about it. What the rules spell out is that the discussion is supposed to be confined to whether there waa a flaw in how the deletion policies were followed. The discussion is not supposed to touch on the actual pros and cons of the article in quesiton -- that is why the step following a restoration is normally to open another {{afd}}.. But in my limited experience the aspect of the policy is routinely ignored -- even by very experienced wikipedia administrators -- who should know better.
The administrator who temporarily userified and restored the article said he thought two weeks should be long enough. That would have been last Friday. But I expect to ask some more questions about some of the references you expressed concerns about, over on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'd prefer that the temporary content review was not teminated before I ask those further questions.
As with my first question I will do my best to confine my question to the issues, not personalities, and refrain from painting you as a villain.
This will be longer than I originally anticipated, but I had some other things consume some of my free time, and, frankly, going through your excisions took me a lot longer than I thought it would.
BTW, I saw that in one of your recent contributions you admonished one of your correspondents for confining their replies solely to the edit summary, without offering longer explanations in the talk page. I'm glad to see I convinced you of something. 8-)
Cheers! Geo Swan 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't worked on it because I have been busy.
I haven't asked for it to be deleted because I thought you and I both might need to consult it, if and when it comes to a deletion review.
I think the working version has sufficently valid references that it can continue to remain in my user space.until I get more time. Do you have a problem with that? If not I will ask for deletion of the restored version.
Cheers! Geo Swan 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template deletion[edit]

Not to be terse, but if so many people agree with each other that I shouldn't have deleted that template, I would be happy to participate in a DRV. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 13:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained myself when it comes to this deletion. The template namespace is only for article-specifiable templates which provide useful, categorical information, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and lists of closely related topics. Templates are also allowable to allow regular updating of complex pages which change frequently, such as the main page, or to post messages of fixed content across huge numbers of articles. The Taliban Bounty template consisted of an image with a caption and nothing more. It did not refer to the specific article is was being used on, it did not provide categorical information, and it did not link to other pages where it was used, nor would any of these changes have been appropriate. In short, an image with a caption is not appropriate for the template namespace. Note that I did not say it was inappropriate content, I have actually offered to assist the template's author in re-adding the material, and neither did I delete the image used in the template. The only thing that influenced my decision was that this was not appropriate content for the template namespace. To quote from Wikipedia:Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Because of this basic violation, the arguments raised in the TfD were completely irrelevant, even if there had been 1000 keep votes. As I said to Geo Swan, factually accurate, notable, sourced articles have a basic right to exist on Wikipedia, whereas templates, even those which fulfill the preceding characteristics, do not. I hope you find this explanation sufficient. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the US and A[edit]

This was not right. The title of the article is Islam in the USA. Does American views on Islam belong in this article? Ofcourse. Please stop deleting content just because you dont like it. You've done it again. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are the unverifiable "secret" views supposedly held by some investigators at the Pentagon and they are not about Islam in the United States at all. We already have information about American views on Islam. The shameful thing here is that both sources are explicit about not being able to authenticate the information publicly, meaning that on top of being irrelevant it is also unverifiable. Please see your talk page and the one on the entry. Cheers.PelleSmith 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Islam in the United States. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please see WP:BRD -- you changed, someone reverted, now you discuss until consensus is reached, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look into this a bit further[edit]

With all due respect I not only made several separate edits to Islam in the United States I also explained them on the talk page. Those who are reverting all of these edits in one fell swoop are not engaging any of these explanations. That is pretty disrespectful. Am I to assume that they will? Also, why should we discuss many different edits made to different ends all at the same time just because someone has chosen to revert them all at once? Finally I didn't blank anything so please be more careful on your edit summaries. All I'm asking is that you look into this a bit more before making those kinds of pronouncements. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not disrespectful. It's policy. See WP:BRD. You may have explained your edits, but that doesn't mean that people agree with your reasoning. Disrespect has nothing to do with it. And yes, it's blanking -- you're removing content. Please discuss on the talk page and come to consensus, before reverting again, or you may end up violating the WP:3RR, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of one edit, or of "removing information." Several edits were made and mostly to rearrange information. How can it part of the process to simply lump them all together in a wholesale revert? Also where do I go from here? If they never answer my comments on their talk page or engage the entry page? I make changes, explain them in edit summaries and on the talk page and they just get to revert without as much as explaining themselves? Lets say I do what you're suggesting. I don't revert again. I've already said my piece on the talk page what's the next step? Please tell me.PelleSmith 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW the page you sent me to says this at the very top: "This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Consensus. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page." What is the actual policy here?PelleSmith 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BRD is a pretty dead end process with these editors and its not policy at all. What's the policy?PelleSmith 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So I was wrong. It's actually not a policy; more of a methodology. But it is the way we try to act, and the way you should, too. The only policy that may end up being violated is the 3RR, and a number of editors disagree with you as well. Mass removal of sourced content whether in one edit or many Should truly be discussed, rather than mentioned, first. Plus, if you take a look at the talk page, someone's trying to discuss it with you; there's your "next step". So discuss and I'm sure you can come to some sort of consensus. Gscshoyru 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Look I think this method surely works well in certain situations but I wish you would stop misconstruing the situation. It was not mass removal of content. Clearly you don't edit this entry and you don't want to spend the time deciphering the edits--I understand that. Very little actual content has been removed however, so I don't appreciate the misleading cursory glance turning into pronouncements like that. I repeat very little actual content was removed. The reason why more than one editor disagrees, or has reverted me at least, is because those editors always "disagree" in tandem. They tag team revert war. Another thing you would know if you looked into the edit history of that entry. Context is something that zealous policy, guideline and "method" hounds sometimes overlook. I understand that you may not have the time to dig into the edit history but if you don't then I wonder if its actually productive to involve yourself as you have. Thanks.PelleSmith 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If multiple people disagree with you, and revert without discussing it with each other, then how is that tag-team? Whatever. In any case, there are people who don't like what you've done, and someone is waiting for you on the talk page. You should go and talk to him. That would make by far the most sense. Gscshoyru 11:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You have proof they don't "talk to each other?" Look into their edit histories. Tag team simply means they support each others edits by reverting those who don't, and they do this without any effort to discuss their choices (at the most one of them will discuss). I've tried "talking" to these editors my entire career editing this page. I'm just happy I don't edit the other Islam related entries they ravage with their edit warring. Again you've stepped into something here that you don't (and why would you) fully comprehend contextually. What will happen now is barring some serious help they will game the system and flush every edit i've made on that page down the toilet without ever really explaining why. I'll read their generalizations on the talk page and their justifications to revert everything based on a small percentage of the edits, etc. In the end, because of methods like this one, I'll lose since there are, as you the casual observer has said, "multiple" of them. Thanks.PelleSmith 11:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's more than one of them that disagree, then how are they conspiring? You're looking for something that may not be there. Come to consensus on the talk page, and if they revert you after consensus and don't discuss, I'll revert them back. Ok? Gscshoyru 11:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you just reverted the wrong thing. The thing you reverted were changes made after yours. Gscshoyru 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow. That's what conspiracy is. Like minded people working together (conspiring) to further an aim. HOWEVER, I'm not saying they are conspiring, simply that they represent a rather contentious ideological position vis-a-vis Islam and support each other's edits without even considering them or the work they may be reverting much. Do they know each other off wiki and do they communicate? Very possibly but I don't know that and I would never claim that. Its the on wiki behavior that amounts to thoughtless tag teaming. Look into it.PelleSmith 11:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If they communicate off-wiki, then we have no way of looking into it. And I don't think they do. Whatever. As you said, I don't understand this, but you do, so please discuss with them, and don't edit war. Discuss directly with them, if necessary. Gscshoyru 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at their talk pages ... pay good attention to Arrow's. I have, this time and in the past attempted to discuss with him directly. Also note his lack of presence on the talk page of the entry (despite contentious reverts and edit warring). All he does is show up and support the edits of Yahel (formerly Sefringle), Matt57 (as of yesterday blocked for a month), and in the past CltFn. He never engages in discussion, never explains his edits. The last time he taunted me with one line on the entry talk page "I'll have to think about this one for a bit." Sefringle/Yahel will discuss but he will also game the system by discussing generalizations or a fraction of a group of edits in order to revert a whole slew. It is that particular behavior I find appaling and that's why I used the term disrespectful. If he cares enough then he should do his due diligence and work with me and not simply blank hours of work ... much of which ironically i doubt he'd find disagreeable. Again I would really appreciate it if you took a few moments and had a look. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think this is a serious problem, take it to WP:RFC. I have neither the experience or understanding t understand this fully, but I will keep and eye on it, and see if a pattern emerges. Work within the system, even if you think they don't. Gscshoyru 12:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Would you please do me the very gracious favor of checking up on the entry, the entry talk page and the relevant user talk pages in a few days so that you can see for yourself how this plays out. I really would appreciate that quite a bit. Like I said, I'm going to do my darnedest to try working this out without revert warring. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching. We'll see how this works out. Gscshoyru 22:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior and personal attacks[edit]

Hi, PelleSmith. It is unfortunate that I have to ask you once again to refer to WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. Your behavior is totally inappropriate, rude and uncivil. You have made a personal attack on me on User_talk:Matt57 saying that I "do not have a problem making absurd arguments". On requesting you to maintain civility you gesture that until I start making arguments which make sense to you (i.e. say things and make edits thatYOU LIKE), you will continue your uncivil behavior and keep making personal attacks. Now you are being rude to me and accusing me of trying to drive you mad on Talk:Islam in the United States. You have done this in the past too and has happening and is happening time and again. I also remember you indulging in name calling by starting inappropriate sections on the talkpage of Islam in US like "Amateur Hour" and "Amateur Hour redux" where in you had accused other editors of being amateurs. The reason I am pointing out your past history is to show that your behavior hasnt changed at all. You seem to start getting aggressive and personal when you do not "like" other person's edits. I can see that some other editors also have noticed and pointed out the uncivil manner in which you conduct yourself here on wikipedia. Please do not disrupt the cordial and community editing we do here. Please take your personal attacks and anger elsewhere. Thanks.NapoleansSword 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for that summary of horrible behavior on my part. My frustrations come when you disregard the issues presented to you about entry content, instead acting like they don't exist and then resorting to these behavioral comments. I would never ask you to make edits that "I like." What I would like is for you and Matt and the rest of the gang to deal with the issues instead of tag team reverting like its the best thing since peanut butter and doing so with utter disregard for civilized discourse. What I don't like are blanket reverts of hours of work without much of any explanation. Also what I don't like, and this is more pertinent to you, is dancing around the problems presented by the inclusion of irrelevant content and hiding behind what amounts to tag team edit warring. That said I'm trying really hard not to let this get to me and to give other editors a chance to engage in civilized discourse. You're not going to goad me into adding any more fodder to your rather dismal list. I've been less than civil a few times, I'm not going to pretend to be a saint, but what you are trying to do isn't going to work. Nice try.PelleSmith 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop revert warring on my discussion page[edit]

I have every right to remove any comments from you from my discussion page. In this case I have already stated my reasons: I believe they are threatening and disrespectful. I don't need that on my discussion page, and I don't need you to be revert warring there. Please stop. -- Karl Meier 11:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well as it goes one is allowed to remove comments from one's discussion page, but it isn't a "right," it is a privilege. What I take issue with is your comment there that it was trolling and your further comment here that it was "threatening and disrespectful." Also its not revert warring if I revert once. For the record I will reproduce my comment here. I find it exceedingly unfortunate that instead of engaging in constructive dialog about content issues you've chosen to make these kinds of claims. To each their own I guess. Here are my "threatening and disrespectful," and "trolling" commentsPelleSmith 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC):

Islam in the United States

Thanks Karl..for standing up for neutrality and against the removal of sourced factual content on Islam in the United States. unfortunately, some editors have recently removed, moved or censored factual content (all sourced) to change the article to a certain POV. There is little discussion with most of it going to a different tangent for no apparant reason and also some editors making you repeat your points again and again. There is certainly no consensus as a couple of editors other than me have voiced their concerns in the past. It becomes difficult for editors who want to keep factual accuracy with such edits. I tried to revert them but since they are more than one, I am sure that they will use the policies like WP:3RR to get me blocked. This article really needs some good editors. Thanks for your support. NapoleansSword 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact very very much discussion ongoing about all of this. There have also been several appeals for editors to challenge specific content changes on the talk page so that we can have further discussion as opposed to generalizing (see above). No discussion can be had unless we know what we are discussing, and as I said all of the specific content disputes that have been brought up have been heavily discussed already. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Discussion


Thanks for you comment on Talk:Islam in the United States. I would like to point out to you however that there has been an ongoing discussion about the material in question for some time now on the very same talk page. I can see how you were unaware of this given that you haven't been editing the entry or engaging the talk page. However, if you are going to come in and revert it would be helpful in the future if you made yourself acquainted with relevant discussions first. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to you that I have already made a comment on the discussion page. I suggest that you take you concerns there, instead of coming here making insinuation against me. -- Karl Meier 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course you did, and that's exactly what I meant by "thanks for your comment on Talk:Islam in the United States." Cheers.PelleSmith 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Origin of religion[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Origin of religion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. Thank you. Vassyana 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Instead of placing general tags all over, why not specify the exact sentences that you dispute. If you do that I can provide all the citations that you request. The article has over 21 references, so it is well referenced in my opinion. Muntuwandi 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

The reference issue is a very small problem, the bigger problems are with the synthesis of original research that isn't notable. Why did you remove those tags?PelleSmith 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While you disagree with the content, you have not cited any sentence in particular that you believe is factually incorrect. Everything in the article is cited. Muntuwandi 01:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive".

I have not attempted to influence anybody. But it seems many people are surprised at recent findings in evolution so I am looking for more experienced people for their views. I have no idea whether editors will be supportive or not, but I'll respect an informed decision. Muntuwandi 05:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I actually got the idea from you [5]. Muntuwandi 05:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Steven Mithen[edit]

there are a number of other scholars in the article origin of religion such as Barbara King or Matt J. Rossano who do not have articles on wikipedia. I haven't created articles for them to prove a point. Steven Mithen is a notable scientist with plenty of books and publications. The creation of the article was out of convenience because he should have an article. Muntuwandi 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't create an article. You only listed his publications and highlighted the two you wanted to highlight while mentioning that he is an archaeologist with an appointment at such and such university. You also conveniently created the Origin of religion entry right before you re-added contentious information to Religion, only this time you had a "main entry" link to go with it. If your edits were deemed controversial the first time around why not come back to the talk page and say, hey I made this new entry and I think its pertinant, lets talk about getting some of the information into Religion. I'm sorry, and you may feel self-righteous about how you are editing, but it is simply disruptive to edit in this fashion. Again see WP:Point and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.PelleSmith 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I have decided to seek informal mediation on the case. If you are interested the case is open at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


why did u create a page in my discussion and left it blank... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably a mistake.PelleSmith 19:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

development of religion[edit]

Why don't you just revert his content? It seems like all the discussing has not made him understand the things that are wrong with his content. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right and I should probably have stopped trying to discuss this content a long time ago. However, I also don't want to simply revert war of this material. It's probably clear that I'm running entirely out of patience so I guess its best for me to stop this endless and non-productive discussion. Thanks.PelleSmith 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Religious Violence article[edit]

You have breached 3RR on the Religious Violence article. I'd suggest you do a self revert to avoid any potential repercussions. Moreover, I think the edit is particularly unwarranted as the article plainly appears to be a synthesis and the tag says it "may" be a synthesis.Mamalujo 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page urging me to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, please check that discussion, I have posted there. As to your assertion that you have not violated 3RR, you plainly have. You removed the SYN tag three times today. Your basis appears to be that since no citations are made that it can't be a synthesis of "published" (as the tag states) material. It is not a well founded reason to remove the tag. Otherwise editors could engage in all kinds of synthesis as long as they didn't cite the published materials they were synthesizing. There is no doubt that the article sourced, accurately or not, uncited published materials. And I don't think any of those sources treats all of these varied ideas as related. That is a synthesis. Mamalujo 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't because the entry does not claim a relationship between them that published sources don't. Please read the entry and see my response. BTW I'm pretty sure 3RR means making more than three reverts in 24 hours.PelleSmith 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K. then. If that's your position, then I'll do my third revert, too.Mamalujo 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not my position, that's simply what the 3RR rule states. The reason why you should resist reverting is because you're simply adding a tag that doesn't belong, but then again I've tried pointing that out several times now so what more can I do.PelleSmith 02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice[edit]

Hello PelleSmith. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic User:PelleSmith. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

----Dynaflow babble 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA move[edit]

Well, he's addressing "the most virulent and nasty of CAIR's critics (or supporters)" so he won't be getting responses from all others. (SEWilco 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

If he is violating the WP:NPA policy or is being uncivil then have it dealt with through the proper channels. My first suggestion would be asking him nicely to edit his comments to remove the aspects you consider uncivil. Either way you certainly should not "move" pertinent content based comments from an entry talk page just because you don't like the tone of voice you're hearing from an editor.PelleSmith 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Coming[edit]

Could I get some of your help in the Second Coming article. An anonymous user is adding a self-published non-notable book, and I've done my three reverts. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion[edit]

I have made some comment here for which I would appreciate a response. You always sidestep this important question. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well lets be clear about one thing first. The Incident Noticeboard is not the right forum for that question. Besides that fact I have dealt with this question, or similar ones a bunch of times. I will happily dig out those responses and look at it anew, but I want to reiterate that the issue over there, despite how you may wish to perceive it, is not about the entry title or about the entry content but about your behavior. Entry content was discussed endlessly on entry talk pages, at AfDs and DRVs. What is now at issue is your refusal to take the answers you were given by a larger community during those processes. I will get back to you as soon as I can on this.PelleSmith (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You took the discussion to the incident noticeboard. Not me. Administrators there are only familiar with procedural issues, they have no idea about content. Naturally they will side with AFD and DRVs. It is very much expected. I have been trying to get an academic view which is why I had earlier on posted to the anthro page for comments. Bruceanthro who is independent of this controversy made some useful comments. I am not bothered even if one thousand people disagree with me, if they fail to provide justification. People like Hitler were able to woo millions, just because a million people agreed with him does not mean they were right. The AFDs went succesfully against me. But none of the voters had read any of the books cited to verify whether what was said was actually correct. I recall on the single origin hypothesis, you disputed content but when you read Buller's book, you found that was exactly was quoted. The only difference is we have now attributed the quote to the writer. Basically AFDs can be flawed if the people involved have no knowledge of the content. Because I have read the books and the voters haven't I am 100% confident that they were wrong. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No I did not take the discussion there, I asked for them to take a look at your behavior, as I already noted above (something quite different). They are not meant to comment on the content issues which is why it is ridiculous that you have now "brought the discussion" there. Also you have resisted every academic view that has ever been given you. As I said I will respond to your question about naming but you will no doubt be as unhappy with this response as you have been with all others. BTW, Bruceanthro suggested that you rename the page "earliest evidence of religion," which is pretty much in line with putting it all in Prehistoric religion in the first place, since clearly the prehistoric period covers all the dates of the "earliest evidence of religion." His suggestion also strikes at the heart of your naming problem, which is exactly that you are not presenting "theories" on anything, evolutionary or otherwise, but a mish mash of evidence of religion in the prehistoric period. I will get to that again in my answer. If you are willing to wait.PelleSmith (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And for the record you recollection of the fiasco at Recent single origin hypothesis is entirely wrong. If you go to the relevant section on the talk page you will see that upon reading the book I found out exactly how you were misusing it. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


I wont bother reiterating all the initial problems that other editors had with your entry, but it would be good to remember some prominent ones. Many editors felt that there was extraneous information in the entry about human evolution in general and that some other information was misrepresented. Taken together these things had the effect of presenting a laundry list of information that wasn't exactly to the point. What people felt was that you were not presenting theories about the origin of religion but simply one liners from various sources. Upon reviewing the sources again, I can confirm that this is exactly the case and it causes what is really the most problematic issue with the entry. It presents no theories, certainly no evolutionary theories, it simply provides tid bits of information from the fossil record and one liners about things like language being a pre-requisite for religion and or intentional burial probably signifying religious belief. Meanwhile the sources you reference tend to contain actual "theories of the origin of religion" that utilize evolutionary mechanisms in their explaining. Nothing regarding these theories makes it into the entry at all however. No mention of Barbara King's notion of "belongingness," nothing about Wade's use of Roy Rappaport and the relationship between religious truths, the evolution of language and the human capacity for lying, and so on. Of course you also refrain from even mentioning the three most notable contemporary theories of religious origin that utilize evolutionary mechanisms, and those are the ones by Lewis Wolpert, Pascal Boyer, and Richard Dawkins--a Google search will readily confirm their relative notability. Why is that exactly? Because those three don't have one liners about religion evolving in Africa? This brings me to some important points regarding the name of the entry.

  1. When one searches Google for "origin of religion" most of the hits don't relate to human evolution or evolutionary biology at all, but the ones that do are almost entirely represented by the three scholars I just mentioned above (Wolpert, Boyer and Dawkins). Ditto goes for "evolution of religion."
  2. When one searches JSTOR for "origin of religion" what one gets is a lot of book reviews and journal articles from the turn of the 19th-20th century engaging the theories of R.R. Marrett, E.B. Tylor, L. R. Farnell, Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, etc. Ditto again, for "evolution of religion." There is virtually nothing that comes up from the genre of literature that you are using. Of course Boyer appears, and another contemporary named James McClenon (whose theory it is that religion evolved out of the shamanic healing practices of early homo sapiens), but that is pretty much it.

What these two facts tell us is that your entry title is clearly not correct for the information contained within it. Certainly, "Origin of religion" on its own would encompass much much more than you wanted it to sot that is out. "Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" doesn't work either because you are not interested in the various evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, as I noted above, but instead you wish to present a small list of information from the fossil record and from archeological finds, buttressed hear and there by one liners. I'm sure this is why Bruceanthro suggested the name "Earliest evidence of religion," instead of the one you are currently pushing. As I have already pointed out above, however, if you are really only going to talk about evidence of religion in prehistoric times, and not evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, then Prehistoric religion is really the best place for the information. It should also be noted that actual evolutionary theories on the origin of religion are highly speculative and highly divergent. Actually doing justice to a Wiki entry that presented them would be very difficult. I've said pretty much all of this already, but I hope this time it clear. If it is not then I'm not really sure if you'll ever get it.PelleSmith (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are inserting your own opinion and avoiding the question.If you recall, I had included a whole section on Barbara King's empathy and "meaning making" with regard to her work with Chimpanzees and Gorillas. To use prehistoric religion is not a reflection of the sources cited. The authors confidently use the term "origin of religion". You haven't addressed why we should use a different term from what the authors have used. Every scientist has an individual theory on the factors that lead to religion. Even creationists have their own opinions. This is why when you use google to search, you will get all kinds of entries. I have avoided those theories because they are based on opinions of the authors, be it Durkheim or Boyer or the Pope. I have just focussed on the archaeological record, because the physical evidence is indisputable, the interpretation is disputable. There is a lot more work to be done, but unfortunately I have to keep defending the article's existence, one could include some of Boyer's notions that are testable for example, but those are included in the Evolutionary psychology of religion. Your answer has focussed on the internet in general, and not the specific sources that have been cited. This is relevant because you want to move the very content to an article with a different name. Please provide an answer that is focussed on the sources that I listed on the noticeboard. Muntuwandi (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think my answer is clear and you somehow don't. Why am I not surprised? Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Title moved[edit]

FYI, someone changed the title of this page you made. I'm not sure what to name it myself. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not really sure what to call it at all. I just piggybacked on "prison religion," but I actually don't think the term I used, "prison Islam," is notable at all.PelleSmith (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


I believe it is polite to sign your name with four tildes (~) when you leave a message, and not do so anonymously. Also, I feel that Magick/Theurgy certainly is prominent enough to merit at least some mention in ritual. It has been one of the primary places where ritual has been studied by scholars, and a cursory glance at any scholarly book that discusses ritual will most certainly include a section, if not a whole chapter (if not the whole book), on magick. Yours respectfully, Yeshuahasochek (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from your talk page) Please assume good faith in regards to my lapse in not leaving my signature above, since it was just that, a lapse (one most people make once in a blue moon) and you have my sincerest apologies for it. The entry on ritual is not a space in which to simply list examples of practices that include ritual components, however heavily they may do so. When the entry does bring up examples of specific practices it does so to illustrate a more general aspect of ritual practice, and it also does so while drawing from very common examples. Despite what you claimed on my talk page Magick and Theurgy are not common, and do not factor into academic texts on ritual. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that there are popular texts and manuals available on these practices in at least the bookstores of the English speaking world. Could you give me an example of a scholarly text about ritual with a chapter on "Magick?" Mind you that Magick (popularized by Crowley) is not a synonym for the more general term magic (which can be found in historical and early anthropological texts about ritual). Scholarship on the latter does offer some unique insights into ritual theory, and has certainly been seminal in the early history of said body of theory, in no small part through debates over the very usefulness of the category. Now, please understand that I mean no disrespect to those who practice these things, but they simply are not all that notable, and they are not given the attention you claim in academic texts. If I am wrong about the latter assertion then please enlighten me by providing some sources. Thank you kindly, and best.PelleSmith (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your answer, PelleSmith. I sincerely appreciate the respect and depth with which you answered, and I myself have undergone the lapse of not signing my name, so I accept your good faith. I submit to your decision on this issue, as you seem more well versed in the topic than I. I also thank you for quite correctly pointing out the difference between Magick and magic. I in fact meant that magic, not Magick, was an integral part of the history of ritual, but perhaps even so my knowledge is not sufficient. I shall leave the matter as is, therefore, and thank you for your insight and interaction. Perhaps in future I shall make a deeper study of the subject, and if magic should then, based on that scholarship, still be included in ritual, I shall do so in a way that pleases everyone, and with your co-operation. Thank you for helping me learn Wikipedia. Yours respectfully, Yeshuahasochek (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I think we were having a good debate on religion when it was ended on the grounds of being discussed in the wrong place. I want to ask you a personal questions, unrelated to any article in Wikipedia, if that's alright: I don't understand your rejection of the analogy between knowing that Thanksgiving occurred by following its related practices back in time until we reach the actual event and doing the same thing for the Exodus from Egypt. (My reference to Menachem Begin was nothing but a substantiation of the fact that it was not my analogy, but one that has been used by many others -- but it's quite irrelevant, I suppose.) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A little help![edit]

Please give me your 5 minutes (or less):

Thank you so much. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - the user has been putting this message on every Wikipedia user he knows and has been deleting my comments. I replied already and so far he doesn't appear to have read it. I don't know what's this, trolling or extreme stupidity. Anyway, disregard this. Herunar (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I got a bit hot-headed with the user as I assumed he was trolling (ignore my replies, give me warnings, spam..that's a common pattern). Now I realize he wasn't, he's just totally ignorant of Wikipedia policies and social skills. Herunar (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Second try - Moving off topic commentary from Talk:Religion[edit]

(moved) By the way, I'm not against reminding editors about Wikipedia policies on talk page, which is exactly what I did regarding Angelo. My impression from you is that you assumed authority over the discussion a bit too hastily, before you have any idea what is going on, and decided that neither of us here is worth your respect. Speaking of civilty, a quick glance of your talk page (w/o the archive) reveals four users who have warned you about civilty (say, your comment at the end of this and two more about 3RR (say, [6]). It is really not your place as an editor of scarcely more than 2000 edits to judge my behavior. You did remove your comment, which is a good thing. But that doesn't justify having done it so many times[7] Herunar (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you took my suggestion as a "judgment" on your behavior. My suggestions along those lines have only been to keep this type of conversation off the entry talk page (where it does not belong). It seems I've failed miserably at accomplishing this. I did not assume any authority, I tried to help focus the conversation on content issues when you and Angelo were clearly upset at each other and saying ... no your version stinks ... no your version stinks ... instead of answering content problems. My apologies, sincerely, for what you have interpreted as a "judgment" on your behavior. Can I ask you please one last time to remove all of this from here? It does not disrupt the flow of the conversation at all to remove this particular strand of discussion. I delineated the outlines of it it for you by removing it and then reverting myself. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies that you could not see my intent of discussing in the thousands of words I have typed above. I seriously couldn't make my points clearer, and would suggest you to re-read the arguments I laid out above and below again and again. No, this discussion stays on the talk page because it was initiated here, by you. I see no reason to remove it. Herunar (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that my suggestion to stay on topic here was an initiation about a conversation about my editing history. This is what I wrote: "Also, to both of you, please stop the "no one likes your edits," and conversely that mild personal attacks. Discuss content only here." I will happily change that sentence if you feel that I was personally attacking you with it, but my intent was simply to keep things "on topic." So can I alter the sentence and move this now please?PelleSmith (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You told me to be on topic. I told you I wasn't off topic. It's the same discussion. Herunar (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And that has what to do with my editing history? Asking someone to stay on topic is perfectly normal, discussing that suggestion, while being on the topic of the suggestion, is not on the topic of the entry. Again I have offered to remove the ontopic suggestion, will you then remove the rest of this?PelleSmith (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The above needs to be moved from here per WP:TALK. I tried to do so myself but you have reverted my attempt. The fact that users I have been in content disputes with have decided to warn me about civility when I was not incivil, or that I have on occasion given into a hot headed comment or two has no bearing at all in any discussion of the contents of this page. Same goes for the fact that someone once reported me for 3RR, for which I was not blocked, nor have been blocked to date. Again, none of this has any bearing here. Certainly the last diff you just presented in which I removed someone else's rant from an entry talk page not only has no bearing here but also doesn't say what you thought it did when you assumed in that edit that I was removing my own "personal rant" and not someone else's. All I want is to discuss the entry contents. Will you please move this to my talk page or yours.PelleSmith (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No. The discussion started here, it ends here. It is not irrelevant - discussion about your, mine and Angelo's conduct will be important as a whole for anyone who wishes to understand what's going on. Herunar (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
1) Digging up diffs from my edit history that are unrelated to this page is completely irrelevant here. 2) Commenting on editors and not content is against basic guidelines in general. 3) Entry talk pages are for discussing on topic content issues only, and that's policy. No one involving themselves with content issues here needs to see this kind of commentary as it has no bearing on content. Anyone who needs to understand "what's going on" in terms of editing behavior can do so on user talk pages, and do not need to do so here. Please, I'm asking you one last time to move this to the appropriate venue. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
1, 2) My diffs are a response to your suggestion that I abide by Wikipedia policies. If anyone was irrelevant, it was you, and you should have put it on my talk page in the first place. Since this discussion is started here, it is only logical that it continues here. We cannot separate the discussion - we will have to cut certain comments into half and put one part into user talk pages, and there are three users involved. This is an impossibility. 3) Moving certain comments which is a continuance of a discussion into a talk page is not a policy. I don't understand your insistance to put it on the talk page - it really creates a whole lots of problems for users trying to know what's going on. Furthermore, the discussion really should end here as there is nothing more to discuss. Herunar (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You left me hanging[edit]

(Copied) Dear Herunar, I made a suggestion about how to deal with the geographic specificity in Islam and Christianity but at that point you seem to have lost interest in our content discussion. I wanted to mention that the entry has been unprotected, and though I do not agree with your version, I want to keep the discussion going before just jumping in and altering things without hearing from others. Will you return to the talk page? Thanks and best.PelleSmith (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear PelleSmith,
I have no intention of discussing with a user who displays no basic comprehensive ability. Feel free to add it back, I don't care. You defy logic and intelligence. Yes, there's such a thing called WP:NPA, but NPA is moot when a person's ignorance makes it impossible to improve Wikipedia. Here's what I've been wanting to say for an immense period of time: You're dumb, simply dumb. Herunar (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(copied)Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not suggesting we "add it back," but suggesting that we start with essentials and build up. All of which will be sourced of course, which I believe was your main point of concern. You spent an inordinate amount of time digging through my edit history and commenting on my request to stay on topic, but when I got down to trying to make a reasonable compromise that incorporates your concerns, instead of commenting on it you've decided that I'm dumb. Well I'm still more than open to discussing this with you, but if you'd rather not then cheers, and good luck avoiding blocks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fitna Discussion[edit]

I thought I would point out that I have recently ported over the discussion page entries for the unusually large number of IP addresses used by the anon you just posted to. You might want to re-check the page to see if there are topics there already brought to the user's attention in previous incarnations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As well, I thought I would point out that deleting disruptive (personal attacks, incivility, etc) cannot really be refactored out of article discussion, whereas redundant or random off-topic posts can under limited exceptions. I would suggest that you might want to avoid escalating matters with the anon user (trust me, he's got quite the little temper) and simply report the behavioral concerns to AN/I. They already know who he is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added to your complaint while dealing with his own, continued attack of me in AN/I. Sigh. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tie a knot and hang on[edit]

I've heard you were getting frustrated and at the end of your rope. If you want to have a listening board, please feel free to drop me a line via my talk page or wikimail - I am a pretty good listener. Don't let yourself get too knotted up, Pelle - we can work out what's bugging you. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)