User talk:Peter Deer

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


Hi Peter,

Sorry for the Vandalism that was recored on my account! Honestly it was not me, someone must have hacked my account! Sorry for any abuse that my account caused and now have changed my password!

Yours Truelly,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by LtCol Carter (talkcontribs) 17:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi Peter,

I hope everything is going well with you. I just saw your userpage. Thank you for the trust you have in me.

Take care!!

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You should thank yourself rather than me. I posted that on there because your edits have been helpful, reliable, and have greatly improved wikipedia's coverage of articles pertaining to Islam.
While I know it's not your specific area of expertise, if you wouldn't find it offensive to do so, I would actually welcome your help editing and expanding upon certain Baha'i articles. I'm always a bit hesitant to try and completely overhaul a page even if it needs it, especially religious pages where you get fierce adherents on one side and devious polemics on the other. I have a couple specific projects in mind if you're interested. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Peter.
Of course there is nothing "offensive" about editing certain wikipedia articles. As you know I don't know much about Bahai faith so I am not sure if I can be helpful there. It also appears that you guys are already doing a good job there :)
Unfortunately I am also getting increasingly busy in the real life and am reducing my involvement in Wikipedia.
Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I ask you because you are experienced at editing and improving articles pertaining to religion, particularly Islam. As to being offensive, many Muslim jurists have strongly condemned Baha'is (both morally and 'to death') and have accused Baha'is of being a zionist political movement as opposed to a religion. So, yeah a few Muslims I've mentioned the Baha'i faith to have accused me of being a spy for Israel and stuff like that (being American probably didn't help in that regard.) so while I wouldn't have assumed you would be offended I do respect you and your right to believe or otherwise and didn't want to give you the impression that I was trying to hook you into my religion. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the unfortunate situation of Bahais in Iran.
I think accusations of zionist connections specifically may have their origin in Bahai pilgrimages to their holy sites located in a country, not recognized by Iran as a legitimate state (most Iranian people indeed have a pretty negative view of Israel as a state and how it was formed).
Anyways, I want to let you know that I personally have no negative feeling towards Bahais just as I don't have any negative feeling toward Buddhists, Hindus etc; I know one Bahai and he is a nice person. On the other hand, I simply do not know much about the religion so that I can contribute to its articles; this is exactly the same reason that I do not contribute to say Buddhism related articles. It might be better for me to read instead of editing or I will mess things up :) If there are however editors who are violating wikipedia policies on certain controversial pages, please do let me know and I'll try to help as much as I can. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe one day I spent some time studying the religion; at the moment however far important to me are topics like the philosophical questions of free will- how the physical laws and the spiritual world can co-exit - recent insights about the function of brain from neuroscience and their possible theological implication- Evolution - Materialism - Biblical Archeology etc. What is on the stake for me is not whether one religion or the other; it is a question that affects the whole concept of religion all-together. That's what I think about usually when I get free. Take care, --Be happy!! (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Some Answered Questions seems right up your alley. It's mind-blowingly advanced thinking for being a hundred years old. Peter Deer (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Why'd you remove my edit?--Angel David (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not fond of you editing my post in a way I felt gave an implication I did not desire to make. And I find it even more annoying that you felt the need to repeat your offense once I came by and undid it.
Elohim is but one word in Hebrew for God, just as Allah is but one name for God in Arabic. If you wanted to be specific regarding the name of God in both languages, it would be יְהֹוָה and الله respectively. But as I was speaking in English, and referring to one specific Being, I did not want it to be linked to two separate articles when I was referring clearly to God, the subject of the article.
Please refrain from editing others' comments in the future. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry--Angel David (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm here again, but with no apologies needed. As you can see, I don't go on Wikipedia that often. That was why I mentioned about the vandalizm on Pokemon Pikachu at such a late date. Now I have to do a school project on famous artists so, starting from now, I will be here a lot searching for information. Looking for vandalizm to clear along the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draconian24 (talkcontribs) 20:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, it's always good to have more active and dedicated contributors. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Peter Deer (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on pictures[edit]

I have been engaging in dialogue with other Shi'a Muslims in regards to pictures of Imams. While it is in the scholarship world permitted by most, there is still a cultural ensnare against them. Outside of that however, there is the contention that they are unrealistic. This is true. The debate occurs whether we should use calligraphy. I argue against calligraphy because I believe that to most non-Muslims it means very little, and even if they recognize it, it will only be a certain work of calligraphy. You are Bahai, so it may be different since you perhaps know some Arabic or Persian script, but still you are knowledgable enough and unbiased enough to help on this issue. I feel the use of pictures, using the phrase depiction to show that it isn't necessarily accurate, is the best route to go, and easier for non-Muslims (depictions of Imam Ali (AS), Imam Hasan (AS), and Imam Husayn (AS) are generally the same across the board, but not so much for other Imams (AS)). What is your opinion? Tell me what you think inTalk:Twelve Imams. --Enzuru 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you. It means a lot to me that you care about my opinion on the matter, and even more that you consider me impartial. I worry, however, that it is not entirely so, because as a Baha'i I do ascribe to the Shia mode of thought and believe that Ali was Muhammad's legitimate successor. Still, I shall do my best to set my personal beliefs in the matter aside and focus on the encyclopedic nature of the template. Peter Deer (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Anytime, you're a wonderful member. And on a personal note, I've researched the Baha'i Faith alot and read parts of its scriptures. I used to be especially interested in the Azali. --Enzuru 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been of the opinion that the Azali movement will see somewhat of a rise in later years because of the Bab's fairly clear appointment of Subh-i-Azal as leader of the Babi movement until the arrival of Him Whom God will make Manifest, and also because of persons who are predisposed against following the mainstream of any movement.
From my investigation I find his later claims to be preposterous and his actions to have been nigh-unspeakably treacherous, but I can see the reasoning by which people might assume his authority. Quite frankly, he seems historically to parallel Abu Bakr in many regards, with the exception that he wasn't successful and that he later claimed a loftier station.
Suffice it to say, I became a Baha'i for a reason. Peter Deer (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree exactly, the Azali will become popular because of some historical evidence and people who can't stand being mainstream, it's a very insightful view on your part. One thing I noticed with reading into the Baha'i Faith, especially with individuals such as Juan Cole, is a general dissatisfaction with how the mainstream faith is run. If you don't mind me asking (especially on Wikipedia, it's understandable if you don't want to voice your opinion on this), what do you feel? Such as the texts chosen to translate and not to translate (for example, the writings of the Bab which get rather militant). I mean, I feel discomforted personally when we Shi'a choose to translate tafsir and fatwas over actual sources of hadith. But, I know we need to because we'll have neo-Akhbari groups in Shi'asm, that do not maturely use sources that almost all scholars today agree are simply not accurate. --Enzuru 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as translations goes, it is quite true much of the writings of the Babi dispensation differ greatly from the writings of Baha'u'llah, but it bears noting that the Baha'i dispensation abrogated the vast majority of those laws (specific ones are generally referred to in the Kitab-i-Aqdas) and even the Bab Himself considered His dispensation and His laws to be beneath those of Baha'u'llah.

"For all that hath been exalted in the Bayan is but as a ring upon My hand, and I Myself am, verily, but a ring upon the hand of Him Whom God shall make manifest -- glorified be His mention!" (The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 168)

I think generally the majority of concerns regarding the Baha'i Administration come from people who are upset that the Universal House of Justice does not abrogate laws laid down by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, or Shoghi Effendi, specifically the laws outlining that the members of the House be men and that homosexual relationships are forbidden, not taking into account that the House does not have the authority to abrogate the Law of Baha'u'llah. I'm sure there are others who have other objections and concerns, but those are the more controversial ones.
Another reason why many things have not been translated is the translation of Baha'i scripture is a very careful and meticulous process. By my understanding, it is seen to be preferable not to present the religious texts than to misrepresent them and pervert their true meanings. As Shoghi Effendi was the authorized interpreter of Baha'i scripture, his translations are used as models for future translations, both in their interpretations and in their presentation.
The Bab's work is being translated, but slowly, partially because of the meticulous translation process, and partially because of the meticulous authentication process. Much of the work of the Bab was dictated rather than written in His hand, so much work has to be done to make sure that the source is authentic, as Covenant-Breakers and hostile Muslim authorities have made attempts to pass off things as being written by the Bab before. Most of the authenticated and translated works have been compiled into Selections from the Writings of the Bab.
In conclusion, I have confidence in the good faith of the institutions who are translating the holy scripture. The primary objective so far seems to have been the complete, faithful, and accurate translation of the works of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, as they pertain directly to the laws and ordinances of the Baha'i dispensation. The Persian believers, however, do have the benefit of access to the Bab's writings in their original form and, largely because of the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, are now spreading and disseminating throughout the western world and bringing those teachings and modes of thought with them. And no, I do not mind talking about it outside of an article, in fact I enjoy talking with Muslims in particular because they are often more familiar with certain concepts pertinent to the Baha'i faith than I am (ask most Americans what Mahdi means, or who Husayn Ibn Ali is, or what the Qiblih/Qibla is, and they'll just stare at you) and frankly it's a privilege to speak with a Shia Muslim as, sadly, almost all of the few western Muslims are Sunnis. So I welcome your questions and even your opinions and commentary, as I am also personally interested in what the sane Muslims who aren't trying to kill us think of us. Peter Deer (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Understandable views, very interesting. As far as background on myself, I was born into a Sunni Muslim family, and I later reverted to Shi'a Islam. I was at one point very interested in heretical groups (and if they were the truth), so much of the Ismailism article can be attributed to me. Fortunately, through God's guidance I settled on orthodox Shi'a opinion. I won't lie, I do taqleed under Sayed Khamenei. My stance towards the Baha'i Faith is that, I understand why Iran is xenophobic about it, and in some instances it is more of a cultural stance than a religious one. However, I cannot condone the way the Baha'i are being treated, though I believe the persecution of Baha'i in Iran has been grossly exaggerated, however facts such as them not being able to attend higher education is almost verifiable. I understand why in Pakistan they went out of their way to label the Ahmadi negatively: the issue was that they were parading under the banner of orthodox Islam and taking advantage of illiterate or uneducated. The labeling of non-Muslim to them was very well an issue of self-defense, however, I don't condone the killing or burning of their mosques.
So, what do I think of the Baha'i Faith? It comes in two parts: why I am not Baha'i and my view of those who are. Well, I do not accept it because after reading its texts, and Bahaullah's own arguments, I cannot see how its metaphorical claims differ from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad nor any other claimant of the title (please feel free to respond to this, I know we can have a friendly conversation). Bahaullah for example says it would be ridiculous for us to wait for a lamb to sit with a wolf, and that is metaphorical. That is true, however, in many circles from what I understand it has long been understood to be metaphorical. Textual literalism may be even more recent, especially within Evangelistic currents. Same goes for Shi'a Islam. The Imam al-Mahdi (AS) will not literally break crosses, he will rather rise over Christianity. As for the Baha'i themselves, I quote Imam Ali (AS), "Whoever is not your brother in faith is your brother in humanity."
I suppose you have other questions towards me, like my opinions or understanding of certain Baha'i beliefs. I'd love to explore that with you. --Enzuru 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am interested in how you think that the persecution of Baha'is has been exaggerated. And do not worry about offending me, you are speaking honestly of your perceptions and I would be disobedient to God if I judged you for that.
I see you have been reading the Kitab-i-Iqan. Truly a marvelous book. I think you would also find "Some Answered Questions" to be of interest, particularly Abdu'l-Baha's explanation of the eleventh chapter of the Book of Revelation and how it pertains to the Umayyad dynasty.
Now as you are probably aware, we consider the occultation to have been a pious fraud for the noble intent of preserving the unity of the religion, but that the Bab was, in fact, the hidden Imam Al-Mahdi.
(Also, do forgive me if I do not use appellatives, such as SAWS, PBUH, AS, and so forth. I mean it not as a sign of disrespect to God or His loved ones, or to persons who choose to use the terms)
But I am indeed quite interested in your opinions regarding the Baha'is. You seem to have read the Iqan (or part of it at least) and you seem to be firm enough in your faith that you are willing to subject it to tests, and you have been courteous and respectful of my faith despite not believing. I am quite interested in your impressions and frankly your questions and concerns regarding Baha'u'llah's claims, if you don't mind sharing. I certainly am no hafez, and I do not have the works of Baha'u'llah memorized either, but I will do the best I can and look up things where necessarily. Peter Deer (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take what I say to be cruel or horrid in any way, I don't wish to hurt your feelings. In regards to the exaggeration, we have the death tolls for example. I believe it's been around two hundred in a span of thirty years, and this is Baha'i who could have been executed for reasons other than their faith. Way more than this amount was done in a single year in the execution of dangerous political prisoners in Iran. Yet, on a year-to-year basis, 200 divided by 30 leaves us with 7 deaths a year or so. Every human life is precious, but I cannot wrap my head around this as some massive persecution. More Shi'a (much beyond the proper ratio) have been executed in Iran than Baha'i during this timespan. I think most of the persecution will come from average citizens and their biases towards the faith than the government itself, with the exception of religious recognition and higher education.
I have actually read parts of "Some Answered Questions" and I double checked it right now. Abdul'Baha's view is actually parallel to a Christian view that the Book of Revelations was actually the foretelling of events in the Roman Empire. “And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” This verse, I think to most people, would be much closer to Rome than to the Ummayads, though I dislike the Ummayads much more. Egypt ruled over the Jews, as Rome ruled over the Jews, and the Romans engaged in homosexuality under Geek influence. But, to argue over interpretation could go on forever, it's pointless and meaningless what we say.
So, as for your final question about Bahaullah, I believe the burden of evidence is upon you, less so than me, just as the burden of evidence is for me to disprove Christianity, not for me to ask a Christian to disprove Islam. Now, what avenue can I actually go into this debate with? My hadith are suddenly metaphorical, and my sources may be valid or invalid according to you. Tell me, what common ground do we have to debate? --Enzuru 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Your numbers are accurate. 206 Baha'is, to be precise, including Baha'is who died in prison. their names and the dates, locations, and causes of death can be found here; you will notice that the majority of them were executed. Certainly the death tolls under the Islamic Republic cannot be compared to the tens of thousands of Babis and Baha'is massacred during the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties. And you are absolutely correct that the numbers of political prisoners killed in Iran are greater numerically (not counting of course the Baha'is who have been executed on charges of being 'zionist spies')
But a few things that should be considered instead of the death toll. The small number of Baha'is in Iran are (in far greater percentages than any other religious group) being arrested, tortured, killed, deprived of education, their homes burned, their jobs taken away, baha'i children abused by teachers, expelled from schools, and/or slandered in front of their classmates. Baha'i holy places are destroyed, Baha'i cemetaries bulldozed so that families will not even know the resting place of their loved ones. Because Baha'i marriages are not recognized Baha'i men are arrested as lechers and Baha'i women as prostitutes.
These things are temporary and shall pass away. I am certain that just as the persecutions of Christ and Muhammad and Moses that these persecutions shall strengthen and exalt the faith and that those martyred in the name of the faith shall be rewarded by God.
But what truly is an abomination is that these atrocities are committed in the name of Islam! Baha'is are called 'apostates' though if asked any Baha'i will willingly testify "There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger" and while on one hand calling Baha'is a perverse heretical sect they are on the other hand called a zionist political movement, not a religion, thus circumventing the law of the Quran in Sura 2:256.
I am an American, and here in America there is a great deal of hatred towards Islam, from Christians, atheists, and racists (who think all Muslims are Arabs). When I argue to them that Islam is a religion of peace, a beautiful divine religion, they point out to me the violent actions of some so-called Muslims, usually referring to terrorism, as their argument. They remain completely ignorant of the violence committed towards Baha'is, however.
I have in, two separate conversations, been called a zionist pagan by a Muslim for teaching the Baha'i faith and in the same day been told to "go back to your mulla paymasters in tehran" when I was defending Islam in an argument against what I suspect to have been a Zoroastrian. Not too long ago I was accused of being a Muslim and when I denied it I was met with the reply "I think you're a Muslim, you defend them way to much, you even defend the evil acts their pedophile profit committed. Islam is a religion of hate not peace."1 Muslims call me an infidel, infidels call me a Muslim.
On the corpses of Baha'is who have been murdered it is often written "enemy of Islam." I find the irony of it so confounding and maddening that I can scarcely find words for it.
But I'm sorry, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent there.
You ask about common ground upon which we can debate. I figure I should let you set the terms for the most part. Tell me, how and why did you come to follow Islam?
I am afraid if you want to talk Hadith I only currently have Hadith Qudsi and volumes 1-9 of Bukhari at my disposal. Quite frankly most of my knowledge of Islam comes from the Quran, I'm not really very studied in Hadith. I was raised agnostic, became atheist out of hatred for religion and zealots, and then ironically the Baha'i faith won me over to all the religions I had despised before out of ignorance and prejudice. I was so skeptical of religion but the evidences provided (usually compiled very nicely by a Mr. William Sears, one of the foremost Baha'i theologians and authors) was too convincing for me to reasonably ignore (I honestly tried.)
So I suppose I'm lucky, because if it weren't for that I would have been deprived of the teachings of God and would have continued on being a nihilist hedonist atheist.
But I suppose you have your own story, if you're willing to share with me. Peter Deer (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


FYI, H-Bahai is a quasi-academic site made by Juan Cole, who was removed from the Baha'i community after he tried to influence elections. The website hosts a lot of content that is critical of the administration, and the user pressing for its inclusion is trying to bring prominence to negative information on the Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of that in particular. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Peter Deer (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008[edit]

Peter, my father was killed while on a business trip to New York on September 11, 2001. He was killed in the name of Islam. He was considered an infidel for what he believed and for what his country stood for. I have no tolerance for Islam and I now consider it evil. Judging by history, I think my opinions are more fact than fiction.--Lord Ferdinand (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying earlier, I did not see your comment. When you reply I have moved your comment to the bottom of the page (chronologically earlier comments are towards the top, newer ones are towards the bottom) so if you want to reply please post there.
May God watch over your father's spirit, and may He comfort you in his absence.
I shall address first your claims against Islam. If I killed and said it was in your name, would that make you evil? Let me elaborate further upon that, if you said "do not kill someone in my name" and I did anyway, would that be your sin, and the sin of your friends and family who care for and love you?
You have pronounced judgement against Islam based upon this logic. Now be honest: have you read the Quran? Or have you instead bitten into a rotten apple and now say all apples are horrible? If you were to read the Quran, the Book which defines the law of Islam, you would find quite clearly that it forbids murder, killing women children the elderly and unarmed and innocent bystanders in warfare, attacking when not attacked, and very clearly forbids compulsion in religion of any sort.
History only shows that people have disobeyed these laws, it does not show that Islam is evil but rather that those who have strayed from it have committed evil acts.
You have no tolerance for Islam and consider it evil because some who called themselves Muslims had no tolerance for Americans and considered us evil. Is this not just adding more hatred and intolerance to the world? Is this not, rather than meeting evil with a greater good, magnifying it with a similar evil?
But regardless of all these things, even if what I have said has no meaning to you, you still need to consider that this is Wikipedia and that your personal grievances with ones who call themselves Muslims should not be the motivation behind your edits. Edits on wikipedia are supposed to be from a neutral point of view, with accurate and verifiable sources and no personal assertions or original research.
It doesn't matter whether you are for or against Islam, your feelings (correction: our feelings) on the matter are irrelevant, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a personal blog, and thus should only contain cited, sourced, verifiable information not written by us. Peter Deer (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:uw-vand5[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-vand5, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Template:Uw-vand5 is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:Template:Uw-vand5]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Anomie 11:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Qu'ran[edit]

You reverted an edit of mine @ the Critique section of Qu'ran without taking the time of explaining why. I reverted the edit, because I believe it makes the article more NPOV. Should you decide to revert again, please show the common courtesy of explaining if what policy of Wiki you believe my phrasing violates. Rastapopoulos (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As you see, I started the discussion here. It is you who took it over @ my talk page, only to criticise me for answering to you there. How bizarre. Rastapopoulos (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Chisty2[edit]

excuse em peter sorry but some of the some where wrong no false accustion but to me I also know muslim and I read quran jihad is not fighting in one term or robbing sorry it actually means peace for religion if u dont mind. Sorry and please can edit little bit around because people think false on muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisty2 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is alright that you feel that there is some inaccuracies in the viewpoints expressed there. I sympathize entirely, I am quite familiar with the true nature of Jihad, and how it relates to a person's individual struggle against evil in their own hearts. I am also familiar with the terminology regarding the defense of an Islamic nation against aggression, and the laws of Islam prohibiting attacking or committing atrocities in war.
But regardless of this others have had (what I believe to be incorrect) interpretations of Jihad which they use as justification for violence. It is a notable and sadly a fairly widespread usage in this day and age. While it may not be a correct interpretation it is an interpretation notable enough to be commented upon and displayed in an encyclopedia without bias for or against it.
Also, I hope you will not find me rude in asking this, but is English your first language? If there are edits you would like to make I would not mind copyediting them for you to make them more suitable for the English wikipedia. Feel free to ask, I always like to help whenever I can. Peter Deer (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Of course he's got an axe to grind. You can tell from a mile away. Most of those disaffected folks rely on proof by assertion and appeals to emotion but really can't stand up to inconvenient facts. You're absolutely right: he's got to fit policy with his edits. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)



I was contemplating deleting all uncited material, what do you say to you doing it instead? ;) Beam 02:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna mark it all up first, give it a little bit, and try and look up a few easy-to-find resources first (encyclopedia of Iran, Britannica, etc.) and then delete anything even remotely dubious. Peter Deer (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I'm too busy now. Please ask Enzuru to help you.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I'd be happy to help out with regards to improving the template and the article itself. I'll have a closer look at the article soon. Regards, ITAQALLAH 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the recent addition in 'See also' of 'Desposyni'? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

caps for institutions[edit]

I can see some of what you are saying but it's a gray zone - an "assembly" or a church or a temple yes but consider a House of Worship? It makes little sense to speak of a "house of worship", no? A "local spiritual assembly" seems like an phrase of adjectives - an assembly or group of folks that is local and spiritual - as opposed to an institution defined by specific rules (elected, etc.) One speaks of Boards and boards.... hmmm... Operationally these are approximately or literally translations of proper nouns which would be capped, no? We refer to States or states but they aren't the same thing exactly - the first connotes the members of the United States whereas the second is a organizational unity between city and nation on par with provinces or similar. A university in general but any official University perse?? Hmmm. I guess there will have to raise a consensus at some point....--Smkolins (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well insofar as that is concerned specifically a Baha'i house of worship would be a Mashriqu'l-Adhkár in Arabic, but I'm not sure in that regard as the Manual of Style doesn't cover whether things like Church, Mosque, Synagogue etc. should be capitalized or not (so far as I can see). Perhaps asking for that specification in the talk page of the MOS is in order? Peter Deer (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


I'll help you with this and also shoot you that long overdue e-mail in a bit. Some things have come up. --Enzuru 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to forgive, my friend. Take as long as you need, Wikipedia will be here when you get back :) Peter Deer (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shia Islam[edit]

Im really confused because the passage says that the Sunnis follow the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then it says, Shia Imams it doesn't really make any sense. Plus it is not true of what we Sunni Muslims believe, the source is from a book - such a claim! to be used on Wikipedia. Assalamu Alaykum!

Wa Alaikum As-Salaam.
The way you stated the sentence was (in abridged form) "Sunnis, unlike shias, follow Shia Imams." I reverted it to state that Shias follow Shia imams. My apologies if the warning template was a bit of a cold response, it was not intended as such but was out of inconsideration on my part, for which I am quite sorry. Peter Deer (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Twelver template[edit]

What do you think of this modeling of the Twelver template: Template:Twelvers2 --Enzuru 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that while an article with lots of generic information like Template:Islam might be like Template:Buddhism, an article with information that has lots of specifics should be more like Template:Judaism. What do you think? --Enzuru 22:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a better idea of the direction we should go in than me. What do you think overall we should do? In detail as well. --Enzuru 08:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I did an update and condensed it. Tell me what you think: Template:Twelvers. We can revert it if there are issues. --Enzuru 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There is some controversy about it. We need your opinion: [1] --Enzuru 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty anti-piracy myself, except in some situations. I was even more hardcore when I was younger. Anyway, you should adopt more opensource software. Get the GIMP. --Enzuru 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Peter,

Sorry for getting back to you late. I am very busy in real life and am staying away from wikipedia for some time.

Hope things are going well with you.

--Be happy!! (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjectIslam Collaboration[edit]

Salam bro,

Don't you want to participate in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Collaboration. Please participate in collaborative improvement of Sources of Islamic law, which is nominated as GA.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi everyone and thanks for keeping it together.

Judaism had a tough time, show some respect. Christianity had a tough time, show some respect. Islam had a tough time, show some respect. We should all peacefully join together and celebrate syncretism so that we can live in peace, lets celebrate syncretism. Phalanx Pursos 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jesus in Islam[edit]

Hi Peter. Regarding this edit, just so you know the citation is available at the end of the next sentence (namely, the Encyclopedia of Islam). As far as I know, all of the content in the article is verified, as I tried to make sure of this in preparation for its GA nomination. Regards, ITAQALLAH 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahl al-Bayt[edit]

Hi, There is some disagreements between me and Itaqallah. In this case like every other case we have different views based on different sources. I think we are not here to write all of them but we should emphasize on the most important ones. Thus I reverted some parts of Itaqallah's edition and put a comment on the talk page. Please write your idea there.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Setting the foundations for future Islamic articles[edit]

Join us here: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam --Enzuru 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful point, I added both information. From here on, if you see any things that need to be added or any changes that should be made, definitely go ahead and make them. I think you have enough knowledge on the topic to make unhindered independent decisions. --Enzuru 08:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Occultation[edit]

My brother from another mother, help me with The Occultation, at least with the Baha'i view (and at most with everything else)! --Enzuru 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I need to get going now, thanks for everything. If you could keep protecting and improving the Shi'a articles, I'd appreciate it. I'd also ask you to protect the pictures and templates from vandalism, but obviously you need to follow your own views on the subject. Take care of yourself. --Enzuru 01:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


If you look at the history you will see that there has been discussion and i have tried to make compromises by referencing only the sources, which seems to be illegal in the fatima article and warrants threats of blocks. I have not claimed ownership over the article. I have simply stressed one point, SOURCES! quote the ORIGINAL sources rather than secondary sources. Why would you quote the EoI when you have the Hadith? It would akin to sourcing a Christian encyclopedia when the source is already in the Gospel.Al-Zaidi (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit of Ali[edit]

Hello, I was hoping to discuss your edit and Wikipedia policy. It is true that the Shia perspective supports Ali's claims and considers him to be the Prophet's successor in authority over the Muslim world. However, to delete that his predecessor in the Caliphate was Uthman is unencyclopedic, and gives the impression of a POV edit. I would suggest broaching the issue in talk. Furthermore, adding honorifics after the name of the Prophet is unacceptable in articles (though it is quite acceptable in conversations) and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject. I suggest reading the Manual of Style and particularly the Manual of Style for Islam-Related Articles. If you have any questions do not hesitate to inquire of me on my talk page. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Sorry to be late..
For this purpose, I will do some changes it by specifying the successor and the predecessor of the Imam Ali (as) in Sunni and Shia view. I see that a huge number of wiki-edits (templates and articles) related to islam, focus only on the sunni opinions.
-- Zaynaby (talk) 12:05, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Controversy Surrounding Shoghi[edit]

Hi Peter,

I am very new to Wikipedia, so please excuse any mistakes in guidelines which I may have overlooked. And, of course, feel free to correct and inform me of them.

I am a Baha'i who recently came to realize there was a controversy surrounding Shoghi Effendi and Abdul-Baha's Will. I was wondering if, perhaps, you would help educate me on this and Ruth White.

I would prefer to keep this off of Wiki, however, I will "listen" any way you feel is acceptable. You may feel free to email me at

Thank you so very much. Many Blessings, Terri Terri3891 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a new bahai and am interested in what he is talking about --Binaryhazard (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia can wait[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia can wait, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia can wait and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia can wait during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sufi Saints of South Asia[edit]

Hello Peter Deer. I notice that you are interested in Sufism. I have put forth a request on the Reward Board for assistance in bringing the Sufi Saints of South Asia article to at least B-class. All meaningful contributors will get barnstars. The article is in dire need of being developed. It is an important article in relation to the Islam in South Asia. Please help in developing the article. Regards--Shahab (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation required[edit]

Please explain how my edits constitute as vandalism? I have added the correct reference for that sentence, please view my contributions first then think whether it is vandalism or not, don't misuse your power. HaireDunya (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I completely misread what was posted, it had appeared to me that you had blanked a large portion of the page and that was an error on my part, tallied the other warnings per the prescribed measures, and left the template which I mistakenly felt appropriate to the situation. I apologize for my mistake, I took the liberty of placing strikethrough tags around my warning which you naturally are free to delete if you so desire. Peter Deer (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Peter Deer, if you had actually read the sentence which you keep reverting, you can see there is a citation at the end of that sentence. You keep removing content which is sourced and cited, and that is disruptive. Please revert yourself. warrior4321 14:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The information which you insist upon is not encyclopedic, it is not in a neutral tone and it is not adequately cited. Take it to the talk page. Peter Deer (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is it not neutral? They burned and looted the cities, they killed many people who did not convert to Islam. If you found it not neutral, then why didn't you try to fix it? There's a source at the end of that sentence? How is it not properly cited? warrior4321 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is this not a subject worthy of the talk page, I wonder? As for fixing it, I did, I removed the unencyclopedic content. And just because there is a source at the end of the sentence does not mean that you can add unencyclopedic content to the sentence and it makes it okay. If you are going to quote a specific someone stating POV things then that requires the proper citation of an attributed quote. There is nothing whatsoever neutral about "(with its concordant slaughter, enslavement, looting and destruction)" as an aside, not only is it an extraneous point, something that should by all rights be included instead in the Muslim conquest of Persia page instead, but the very way that is stated is so nakedly POV that it defies every convention regarding neutral tone and neutrality in general, as well as plenty of other perfectly attribution and encyclopedic guidelines.
In conclusion, I ask for the last time that you take it to the talk page and develop a consensus on it, and not keep ninja-editing it in and ignoring everything I've been saying. I've cited to you several important guidelines that it breaks and you are simply refusing to heed them. Please, stop edit warring, I'm not the only one who has had to revert your clandestine POV additions, and it's getting to be an issue. Peter Deer (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
When and where have you given me "important guidelines". I don't see one wikilink to a guideline in any of your comments. The source that is added there is by Mary Boyce, an authority on Zoroastrian/Iranian studies. Many other sources on the the end of the Sassanian empire and Zoroastrianism will direct you to these facts. There is not only one person who states this fact, and thus does not require a quote. If news agencies state that 3 soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in Afghanistan, are you going to add 3 soldiers were killed in a bomb attack on 3rd July 2009 in Kandhahar, Afghanistan. <ref> </ref>. You wouldn't say CNN states that 3 soldiers [...], Afghanistan. When many sources state one thing, there is no need to state which one say the fact.
Why does this to be taken to the talk page. Why can I not discuss this with you. Is there need to establish consensus on your removal of sourced material? I don't see how the material can be made "neutral". There was mass manslaughter, looting and burning of cities. That is the fact that is stated. How can that be made neutral? warrior4321 21:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This should be taken to the talk page because it's not just between you and me, and in fact should never have been in the first place, this is regarding the article and the guidelines for wikipedia articles. And if you can't see how it can be made neutral, then you should be looking it up not just re-adding non neutral material, or talking about it on the talk page which you should have been doing in the first place.
You ask which guidelines I have posted but if you insist I can provide a list of guidelines you are failing to take into consideration: WP:NPOV, WP:TONE, MOS:QUOTE#Quotations, and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid for starters. Something you should consider from the start is the point of the citation. Now look at the sentence right before and you'll see that it is quoted (though now I notice that it should probably be attributed in-article to Boyce, but that's a copyediting issue) whereas yours while also unattributed was unquoted and in parenthesis as an aside, which is patently unencyclopedic, using non-neutral tone to describe something irrelevant to the actual point of the sentence.
What you don't seem to understand is that there is a place for this information on Wikipedia, and more than likely in this article, but not where it was and how it is stated, and I really wish you'd consider discussing this in talk so that it's not just you arguing with my perspective but allowing the perspectives and input of all the people who work to improve and maintain this article. Is that really too much to ask?
Oh and in response to the article citation you quoted, that's a statistical piece of information out of context, whereas what you cited was using the wrong kind of language, the wrong kind of citation, and was in the wrong place altogether. The fact that "other sources" would say this is irrelevant as they're not cited and it's directly quoted from a specific source. Can you accept that? Peter Deer (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


-) Smkolins (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


The hadith page itself is somewhat of a mess - especially the views section. I think the banner directly under the section heading mentioning the absence of references is sufficient - although in theory I agree with all of the flags you put up. Looking at the history of that page it seems that the views section is the result of some POV battles a few years ago. Supertouch (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The overlap in content on the pages: Hadith, Science of hadith, History of hadith and so on has me a little bewildered at the moment. I have a pretty clear idea in mind as to what to do with these pages but it requires a lot of effort. Honestly, I think the Science of hadith and History of hadith pages are looking a lot better - its funny that the "mother page" hadith is such a mess. Supertouch (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The 'Views' section of the Hadith page frustrates me to no end. First of all, for the 'controversy' section of any page to be outweigh the page itself... it seems that the page itself is simply a battleground for opposing views. Even if everything were referenced, I think we could safely remove half of the material in that section. Honestly, I don't think you will find references for the majority of it. I joined Wikipedia at the tail end of the POV battles between User:Striver and User:Zora a time when I think most of the views section originated. It has been my aspiration to add to that section, but I generally avoided that page. I thinks my first step would be to trim down the views section and then step back and tack a look. Also, I have a hard time excepting that every Islamic denomination has to be represented on a page like hadith - I think that was User:Zora's attempt at NPOV. Supertouch (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Please Help! - I am looking for the support of ballet and dance enthusiasts on Wikipedia, to help me prevent the proposed merging of Ondine (Ashton), into an article about the ballet's music. The music for this ballet would not have been written had it not been for the choreographer Frederick Ashton, who commissioned it specially for this ballet. This ballet was one of Ashton's most famous works and it would be a terrible shame for this article to be merged into an article that focusses primarily on the music and the composer rather than the ballet and the choreography.

See here: - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Straw_Poll

Please vote to oppose this change, as this music would not have been written had it not been for Ashton's ballet!!!

Thank You

Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:33, 6 Nopember 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, but I'm afraid I do not feel comfortable bringing in my opinion on this article, firstly because of Wikipedia's policy against canvassing, and secondly per my lack of experience in this article and the matters involved, as my area of dance experience is in ballroom dance, not ballet. Peter Deer (talk) 08:57, 7 Nopember 2009 (UTC)

Quran, Koran, Qur'aan, Qur'an, Quraan, Coran[edit]

IT seems that the matter has been resolved, as in the absence of consensus the page remains. I started a new section on the talk page (Reality check) stating my feeling about the matter at the time. However, upon noticing two things I feel somewhat strongly that the page should remain as it is - Qur'an. The first thing I noticed was someone claiming the word Koran was an English word. This gave me the feeling that at least some of the sentiment behind the suggested move may be xenophobic. Secondly, I noticed after a cursory glance that those most adament about moving the page have few or no edits on the Qur'an page leading me to believe they are people just looking for an argument. Supertouch (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Five Fillars of Islam[edit]

In the article under the title Five Pillars of Islam, I once added an information about the Alevi people who really do not accept the Five Pillars of Islam. Is there a speciphic reason why you removed the following phrase from the article:

 The five pillars of Islam are not accepted by all the Moslems such as Alevi community in Turkey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 

All good[edit]

Sorry. All good now? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed quote from Salah[edit]

Dear Peter,

I have added the hadith quotation on the Qada heading of Salah, but it was removed, however it was related to the article and did not mix up the conclusion. --Ibne Adhi (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image of Ali[edit]

Hi Peter. I've reverted your revert of Redtigerxyz's edit to the article about Ali. The editor didn't actually delete an image, but removed a reference to an image which has been deleted for some reason. Thus we are not dealing with one of the many attempts to censor articles in this general area, but with non-controversial house keeping. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

lol yes I got the message on my talk page ;) honest mistake on my part. Peter Deer (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Peter Deer. I noticed your edit here while I was trying to clean up some formatting problems created by a string of brand new accounts, each of whic duplicates the words of Nimesayy (talk · contribs). I just wanted to thank you and ask if you could help me keep an eye on things over there. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

mevlana is TURK. This is real. You must accept. mevlana say, "My ethnic group is Turk." You look Mevlana's statements. And this is not as ridiculous as at the Nasrettin article.Also Nasrettin is turk. I hope, You know this.... BABP (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture on the Islam page[edit]

I would like your feedback on the new discussion regarding the Islam page. Do you think the page needs a picture of Zaik Nakir or any other religious figure on the page? In my opinion it will just lead to differing along sectarian lines... What do you think? Supertouch (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's Zakir Naik. He is the only Muslim in Islam's 1,400 years history to start a global Islamic TV channel. He is the most recognized face in the Muslim media. Also, he doesn't represent any particular group or sect. All I'm trying to do is help improve the article, and by putting his picture it also adds information about how Islam is spread today by media.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting that you should ask me, considering I'm not vastly familiar with his work nor do I have any particular opinion on it (though I suppose that helps in one regard). From what I gather Zakir Naik is an extremely prominent media figure in the Muslim world and in relations between the Muslim world and the international community. I looked at the Islam article to see if such a person had a particularly relevant place in that article, and try as I might I did not see a place that seemed particularly appropriate. On the Muslim page, however, which is sorely lacking in imagery (and could use some expansion as well) it seemed a choice place for such an image. Does that seem reasonable? Peter Deer (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter, if I might make a suggestion, perhaps this discussion should be copied to the Islam/talk page. Just for the record, I am very unfamiliar with current Islamic lecturers/speakers myself, but I don't object to WHOSE picture is placed on any page, I object to the picture of any individual or group or center being posted in a manner that implies that that individual, group or center is representative of an entire religion. Even on a page like Muslim I think it is inappropriate. A choice picture in my mind would be one of numerous Muslims at the Ka'bah or on Hajj or in a big Masjid or something along those lines. Supertouch (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My position is somewhat similar to above. Moreover Zakir Naik is nowhere representative of even the Indian Muslim community. (Also see this). (He is an Indian BTW.) He is just an Muslim evangelist, I'm not even sure whether he has any real scholarly works to his credit.-Shahab (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection should anyone wish to copy this conversation over to the article page.
As to your points I completely understand what you mean. While he's not particularly controversial or polemic that I'm aware of, it would be similar in principle to putting up a picture of Pat Robertson on the Christianity page, something which many Christians would undoubtedly find objectionable as a representation of their religion.
The difficulty in this regard is Wikipedia policy is not absolutely explicit from what I've seen, and the question comes down to the main one: does this make the article more encyclopedic? The conclusion I come to in that question is that Zakir Naik's image seems like something that I could entirely expect to read in a Brittanica article for instance. The issue, as I stated above, seems that it doesn't seem as appropriate for placement in this article, simply because of the article's content and layout. Peter Deer (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Peter, Yes everything is fine. That is the reason i deleted my post on your talk page. Appreciate the effort you put in. --Riddleme (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Islam page[edit]

Peter, I just noticed your edit on the Islam page regarding the image with Allah in arabic writing. While your edit was on point, this drew my attention to the image itself. Allah would be written: الله, however, in the image it is written لله, without the initial hamzah al-wasl. This actually changes the meaning from beginning simply the name Allah, to a construction showing ownership - the lack of this hamzah (also referred to as an alif) indicated a doubled (mushaddad) lam, or in English, "L", which is referred to as a Lam Milkiyyah, indicating ownership. Since I don't know how to work with images I thought I would bring this to your attention as well as post a similar comment on the Islam page talk page. Supertouch (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am used to the response being slow on most Islam related pages, so if you know anyone who can fix it, that would hopefully speed things up. Supertouch (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just looked on the Allah page, and there is correct rendition, perhaps a little fancier - I don't know the policy and would have to look it up- but do you think it's ok to cut and paste it to the Islam page? Supertouch (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assistance[edit]

I am inviting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion who work with NRM in on the discussion of Move/name change/notability/merge discussion on New England Institute of Religious Research Currently 3 users seem to have reached a roadblock in discourse with Cirt (talk · contribs). Any help would be appreciated! Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Islam article[edit]

Hey Peter, I saw this and per your see talk couldn't find any explanation there...I guess one should provide a valid reason for placing such tag on a featured article... Gulmammad | talk 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

`Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West[edit]

Several of us have for some time wished to lengthen the journey's article. Still lots to do but it's been suggested to go ahead and post it so more hands can easily access to improve. Smkolins (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamic View of Adam[edit]

Hi Peter! I changed the style of citation in Islamic view of Adam. I would request that you continue the discussion so that we can improve the article. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cookie Time![edit]

Farjad0322 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, what is this devilry... Peter Deer (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
'Devilry' or 'Delivery'? Its a are suppose to eat it (not really)...they are meant to lighten the moods of wikipedians who can get tired of all the contributions. Farjad0322 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
And it's even got no sugar content! The best sweetness only! Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to bribe me with digital snacks are we? Why I oughtta... Peter Deer (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I swear it has no poison. (I had to actually go to dictionary to check meaning of 'bribe'). Oh and if I had to bribe you, I would have served a doughnut instead. :P Farjad0322 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I...okay, fess up, just how did you know about the donuts? Peter Deer (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
From here...Doughnut...I guess. Now what is the meaning of fess? I am not a native English speaker. Farjad0322 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Short for "confess" Peter Deer (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dance[edit]

Hey! I am trying to revive WikiProject Dance and am contacting all members to see if they are still available. If you are interested in continuing, please let me know so I can keep you on the members list. If not, let me know and I'll move your name to the inactive members. Please respond on the project talkpage within seven days or you name will be labeled inactive. Please don't reply here. You can always rejoin if you forget to respond. Also, if you have any knowledge on how to design pages, please note that. Thank you! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 15:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Paraclete and the Edit war on Prophets in Islam[edit]

I have similar opinion and have considered all of those that you mentioned on my talk, but could not avoid being on war on the ground: "the inclusion of the term "paraclete", it does not seem appropriate in light of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines to include that right next to His name without qualification or context". Try reading: what I posted on article talk. --» nafSadh did say 06:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Adean.jpg The Religion Barnstar
I award you this all-inclusive Religion Barnstar, in recognition of your many edits over the years to articles related to Islam, Bahai, and other topics. Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha Steven is from my home city of Portland, I met him before he moved to SF, I recently became a Bahai and I saw this barnstar and thought "what a small world" --Binaryhazard (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For context, I was browsing a list of people who recently made their 1,000th edit to articles, and your username popped up. Thanks for contributing so much to the free encyclopedia. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll be. Thank you, it hadn't even occurred to me! Peter Deer (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Bismillah any foundation presupposes faith in it. To be neutral since Wikipedia rejected-refused to admit the purity of Islam even so much on the issue of pictures of Muhammad by obscurantism for anybody can take a cultural-archeological find from syncretism and be incorrect in their interpretation when it is outside the framework of custom then logically it must either delete in totality the reference on Muhammad or the position of neutrality of Wikipedia. One deliberate misrepresentation of Muhammad in word or fact is your seated choice in the domain with its range of fire. On Islam any is free to express that history in point and counterpoint.

syncretism |ˈsi ng krəˌtizəm| noun 1 the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. 2 Linguistics the merging of different inflectional varieties of a word during the development of a language. DERIVATIVES syncretic |si ng ˈkretik| adjective syncretist noun & adjective syncretistic |ˌsi ng krəˈtistik| adjective ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from modern Latin syncretismus, from Greek sunkrētismos, from sunkrētizein ‘unite against a third party,’ from sun- ‘together’ + krēs ‘Cretan’ (originally with reference to ancient Cretan communities).

obscurantism |əbˈskyoŏrənˌtizəm; äb-; ˌäbskyəˈran-| noun the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known. DERIVATIVES obscurant |ˈäbskyərənt| noun & adjective obscurantist noun & adjective ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from earlier obscurant, denoting a person who obscures something, via German from Latin obscurant- ‘making dark,’ from the verb obscurare.

What a book does naught contain a man will--UMAR BIN ABDUL-'AZIZ

(Read Blooded (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC))


Why did you revert the edits I made? (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Peter Deer. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome!  Brendon ishere 15:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If the cookies are still warm after six years, I'm pulling out the geiger counter. Welcome to you as well, mate. Peter Deer (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Geiger counter? Hahaha!!! Cheers, mate.  Brendon ishere 04:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peter Deer. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images.
Message added 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I appreciate your nice reply. Thank you for taking the time out to openly discuss it with me,  Brendon ishere 11:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peter Deer. You have new messages at Talk:Prophets_in_Islam.
Message added 02:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shaad lko (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Can you please specify the problems in the Jahannam article? (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed the citing style and changed the 'tone' of the Jahannam article, if you think it's okay now then remove the citing style is unclear and the informal tone template. What do you mean by independant authors and third party publications? Where are the false citations in the article? (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You've done well to clean up citation style issues, and I would not object to that portion of that template being removed. The article's tone still seems somewhat non-neutral, but I'll leave it up to your judgment whether to remove that portion of the template. There seems, however, to be quite a bit of badly synthesized primary source material, which is still of some concern, and most of the citations are from the Qur'an. To get this to anywhere near good article status those basic issues (which, sadly, seem to plague Islam-related articles along with copy-pasted Hadith) need to be addressed.
Let's continue what conversation we may have on this subject on the article's talk page, though. Peter Deer (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have once again updated the article; please reply on article talk page (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Please WP:DTTR. My actions on Muhammad al-Mahdi were to revert the unexplained deletion of a section of the article[2], in this I was supported by two other users[3][4]. User DrAlyLakhani, the user making the unexplained deletion, blind reverted twice [5][6]. User DrAlyLakhani's edits were discussed at ANI [7] From this it seemed reasonable to me that consensus favored keeping that section of the article. 2 1/2 weeks later, an IP deleted the section again, though they at least provided an edit summary. I restored to the version I believed had consensus. When User Penom blind reverted me, I restored the section, again feeling I was acting to restore community consensus on the article. Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Can you please check out the changes I've made to the Iblis page and tell me if they are correct? (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the changes I made to the Islamic views on sin. (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to check the sources via google books, but the citation style seems to be correct. A few minor notes, you redundantly linked Jinn twice, and some of the style (such as capitalization of pronouns regarding God) is not in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
Shaytan should be translated to Satan. I'm not sure regarding Iblis, however.
In the second article, you did well to change the Qur'an citation template. Was this what you meant as far as correctness or did you mean in terms of factual correctness/accuracy of synthesis? Peter Deer (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the jinn link and changed the pronouns regarding God, please check them. I would also like to ask you if there is a limit to the number of times an article can be linked? Not sure I understand what you mean about the second article. (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please also check the changes I made to the Salvation#Islam Thank you in advance. (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be only one internal link to a given subject, at the first reference in the article.
As for the second statement, I was merely saying you did the right thing in putting the Qur'an citation templates in conformity, and I was asking if I had properly answered your question. Peter Deer (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the compliments on the second article; what about the salvation article; can you give any tips on how to improve that article? Also I would like to ask you if we should use the english names for Islamic terms or names like David for Daud, or Jibrael for Gibrael (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The link you gave me redirects to a section rather than a full article, is that intentional?
English translations should generally be used except where there isn't a sufficient English equivalent (for instance, Allah -> God, but Muhammad should not be translated as "The Praiseworthy". It should be Jesus instead of Isa, but Suleiman the Magnificent should not be changed to Solomon).
This style guide is immensely helpful and I use it regularly. Peter Deer (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your help. Secondly, yes it was supposed to redirect to a particular section. Third, when I have done editing any other article, I will ask you to verify it, what did you think of the salvation article? (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be expanded with more secondary sources, in its present condition it's dependent on contentious interpretation of primary sources. Peter Deer (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


Please view the Islamic view of Moses page and tell me how it is. Can I remove the verification template? Thank you in advance (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There's still many unverified statements on that page, is there not? I suppose I would not object to the top-of-page template being removed in favor of inline {{fact}} tags. Peter Deer (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point out the unverified statements? It would be helpful in improving the article. (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is difficult, then please add {{Fact}} tags where you think there is a lack of references. (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the page, but in doing so I realized there was a lot still uncited or improperly cited so I left the top-of-page template as well.
Also, as an aside, with how much editing you do you should probably create an account. It would make it easier than talking back and forth across a variable IP. Peter Deer (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article, if you find any more uncited material, please add a tag, I'm going to add two new sub-sections just like I edited the 'The Israelites and The Cow' section, please view the new section. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've created another section Meeting with Khidr, please check and add uncited tags where you find them necessary. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job citing, actually. It seems some of the stuff in the article might do better with attribution, but I don't understand the policy terribly well. Peter Deer (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be similar to the verfiability policy, how about the writing style and tone I used in the Islsmic view of Moses article? Raymond Phoenix (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well again, the issue is kind of one of attribution. There's this commentary on what such-and-such person believed or thinks happened or thinks something meant, some of it seems to merit in-line attribution to the source. Peter Deer (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you please offer an example? It would help in understanding the policy and please explain how to correct the problem. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An example of in-line attribution would be
According to so-and-so, fact synthesized from source material. "Quote from source material," so-and-so adds, "is attributed like this."
This is not always how it should be done, usually for things that are the sources of possible contention. An example would be you would not put "The Gospel of Mark is a forged mythology", such a statement is obviously deeply contentious and does not stand merely on the fact that someone said it. You would (in a relevant article) put something akin to "Philosopher Bruno Bauer alleged that the Gospel of Mark is was a forged mythology".
Conversely, something like "A kilometre is 1000 metres" would not have to be written as "According to Bob Saget, a Kilometre is 1000 meters." because it is not a source of contention at all, nor are such statements as "The earth is round" despite the fact that there are some people who contend with it. Peter Deer (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay so which part of the Islamic Moses article needs attribution? Raymond Phoenix (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the above examples to tell which need them and which don't. There's a lot of things from the works of specific scholars, from primary sources, etc. where there's potential for misunderstanding or contention if it just says "such-and-such happened" as if it were an established and undisputed fact. Peter Deer (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I was able to locate a few unattributes sources (haven't corrected them yet), but as you said that there was a lot of unattributed stuff, can you please add Template:Attribution needed tags? Just asking for further clarification when you say attribution you mean something like: "He was Shuyab or Jethro according to Ibn Kathir.", so you want an open statement confirming the event or narration by a specific author instead of a reference, right? From what I understood of the attribution template, it is most likely needed in situations where there are conflicting views by scholars, regarding a certain subject. Most of the content of that article consists of undisputed facts, excluding some. Please add attribution needed tags where you find them necessary, I hope I'm not bothering you or anything. Thanks in advance. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you having some problem in adding the tags? You haven't replied or made any edit. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have again updated the article please check it and tell me how it is now. Is the attribution fine now? Raymond Phoenix (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


What do you say about merging the Prophets and messengers in Islam article with the Prophets in Islam article? The Prophets and Messengers in Islam page seems unnecessary, the difference between messengers and prophets is more accurately explained in the Distinguishing between prophets and messengers section in the Prophets in Islam article. Besides, the Prophets and Messengers article has a number of problems including too many quotations, wrong tone and writing style, it is also has only Quranic references which you can see in it's respective article. I think we should merge the two, what do you think? Raymond Phoenix (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, seems clear that the articles ought to be merged. Make the merge proposal and I'll gladly contribute to that discussion as well. Peter Deer (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed the merge, please check the proposal and tell me if it's done properly. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe you have done so correctly. I responded on the talk page as well. Peter Deer (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess we wait until there is a reply or we wait for almost three weeks then we can use the Wikipedia:Silence and consensus to justify our change. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it'll be that much of an issue. I'd give it a week, tops, and unless there's objections I'd just go ahead and do it. Peter Deer (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, we wait a week before merging the two article. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we merge the two articles now? Raymond Phoenix (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be fine. Peter Deer (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Really good to see you reply,:) I thought you were angry with me for asking you to put attribution tags on the article (hope I haven't bothered you or anything). So should I merge the articles or would you prefer to do it? Also I added the Golden calf article in order to improve it's Islamic view since it was written with an inappropiate tone and lacked any references, please check it also should I remove it's tone template now? P.s: I hope I'm not bothering you by asking this question but what about the Islamic Moses article? Raymond Phoenix (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing of the sort! I was not mad at you, I was just not feeling the drive that leads me to edit Wikipedia. Sort of a little wikibreak, that's all. Peter Deer (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay nice to hear that, do you want to enjoy some more? It's alright if you want to (P.S: Next time can you please add a wikibreak template if you want to take a break). Whenever you're done, please check the Islamic view of Moses article and tell me if the attribution is alright now. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments on the article "Imam." I believe that I'm following the right procedure in opening further discussion on the Talk page for that article. Religionista (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so, but can you remind me to what comments you're referring? Peter Deer (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 diplomatic missions attacks[edit]

Left a response on the talk page. Can you check it out ASAP?

I won't be around for a few hours, as its nearly dinnertime, Downunder.

P.S. That article seriously needs watching for idiocy. That one was mine....

Amandajm (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with an article I'm trying to post[edit]

Looking over your credentials on the Interfaith Wiki, I think you're the person most likely to be able to help me. I just inadvertently ran into the page on "Pre-existence." If you know the Babi and Baha'i Faiths (looks like we have similar backgrounds), the School of Transcendent Oneness mentioned in the Kitab-i-Aqdas has always been a very powerful image for me, so, since the page lacks an entry for the Baha'i Faith and what it has to say about pre-existence, I thought I'd throw in my two tumans' worth. I was trying to enter it as "New section" and keep ending up on the talk page. I realized I don't know as much about formatting footnotes as I thought I did, nor do I know how to get the section listed on the menu. The article, unfortunately, now appears there twice because I thought maybe the first time I had left it on the "talk" page rather than the "new entry" page and was trying again---and now, of course, I can't get rid of the duplicate entry. Also, although I would have had 5 footnotes (got the notes in, just couldn't figure out how to do the superscript number to indicate what went with what), by my name at the bottom, I see only two numbers in brackets thusly: [1][2]. I did use only two books, but both are canon. Can you please help me figure out what I did wrong (or didn't use properly)? Was this when I should have used the sandbox?

Thanks, Karen/minissa I don't know if my ID gives you a home email, but here you go: Minissa (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


<<Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgment that is inappropriate to Wikipedia.>>

I see the article holy_trinity keeping a biased used of the word holy. I tried to fix it but they redo it. can you help on that? (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Peter Deer! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal infoboxes in relation to patriotism and nationalism[edit]

Hi Peter,

I saw your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination#Participants listing.

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Citizenship suggesting a change of emphasis to a Citizenship entry from the Nationality entry.

The idea is to give more facilitation to Patriotism instead of Nationalism and also to allow more freedom of expression in regards to terminologies used.

Contributions are welcomed but may be worth checking last edit to check progress first :) Regards Gregkaye (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)