User talk:Zora/2004archive

Khuzistan / Al-Ahwaz

Agreed but I was fuming when I saw the posting. It is one of the most cynical manipulation of historical record. It reminds me of Israelis statement that "Arab can go back to Arabia." They miss the fact the the overwhelming majority of Arabs are cultural Arabs who assimilated Arabic culture. Also they seem to forget that the Persians constitute only 50% of the Iranian population. By engaging in a Persian-first policy, Iran will break down along ethnic lines and like Iraq, It will be an easy target for external manipulation

Talk Islam

I didn't mean to imply that you are Jewish, not that it matters. I meant to point out the double-standards between the "Jew" page, where there is no tolerance for non-Jews critique of Judaism as a "nation", and the "Islam" page, where you were arguing that non-Muslims critique of the Qur'an, views that most Muslims find offensive, should take precedence over the views of Muslims. Alberuni 13:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like Alberuni's characterization of the issue. It's a fine line, though, in discussing any persuasion and its artifacts/canons/etc.--religious or ideological (as for communism, etc).

BTW, Zora, you mean you are a Bundist? How formally do you mean that? Where does one go for more information on modern (or should I say post-modern) incarnations of the Bund? I know there are people in the Bay Area, for example, that call themselves "anti-Zionist Jews"...—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm a totally idiosyncratic party-of-one Bundist. I had already worked my way out of believing in nationalism before I found out that there was such a thing as the Bund. The Bund didn't take it far enough, either. They were willing for other people to have nations, and just be a protected minority taking care of themselves. IMHO, it doesn't work for one group to control the government and others to be protected minorities -- the Islamic solution, BTW. All groups have to be equal under a completely secular, non-ethnic, plain-vanilla, minimal government. Under that government you have the various bunds (ethnic groups, religions, whatever people can agree on) which have their own family law and courts, their own charities. But the bunds are universal -- wherever you go, you're a member of your bund and under its care and jurisdiction.

There are already groups like this. Jews, Parsees, overseas Chinese, Mormons. Even Muslims in India, because they are allowed their own courts (which the BJP would like to take away from them, but that's another rant). Perhaps even the Muslim Brotherhood, before they engaged in violence. So I don't feel that I've really invented anything, just given a name to things that people were doing already.

But all this is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Wikipedia should allow a certain group to stake out a claim on a subject and censor any mention of critics. Zora 23:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not allow political interest groups to censor criticism or relevant information but articles about religious groups should be balanced and sensitive to the concerns of members of that religious group. It wouldn't be appropriate for articles to ridicule or criticize Roman Catholic beliefs in transubstantiation or the infallibility of the Pope, Jews' beliefs in the authenticity of God's discussions with Abraham and the circumcision for land contract, or Muslim beliefs in the inviolability of the Qur'an and the modesty of women. If these subjects are going to be discussed, it better be done with high degree of sensitivity - as if you are speaking directly to a group of true believers who use Wikipedia, not as if it's a discussion behind believers' backs among a group of hostile bigots with a political agenda. No offense intended. --Alberuni 23:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Alberuni, I've decided to try a section rewrite from scratch as perhaps working better than tinkering with what's there.

Stating that some people have some views is not the same thing as endorsing those views. I'm going to try to summarize different viewpoints on the Qur'an, without raising one above the other. I admit that it is harder to do justice to viewpoints that you don't share, but that's what collaborative editing can do.

But I absolutely insist on the freedom, nay the necessity, of mentioning critical views. It is not disrespect and insensivity to say that "some people believe X" -- even if X makes you see red. In fact, it's not wrong to say "I believe X", at least in Talk pages.

I'm not sure that you see the difference between being intentionally offensive (like the bigots who show up on the Islam page, delete sections, and insert racist remarks) and offending you by saying things with which you don't agree. There's a big difference between saying "Muhammed was a pedophile, nyuck nyuck!" and "It seems to have acceptable for older men to have sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls in the days of Muhammed, but this should not mean that the age of consent should be lowered to the age of 9, as was recently done in Iran." (I don't KNOW that you would disagree with the latter statement, but you might.) Ditto a difference between saying "The Qur'an is trash" and "The Qur'an is a collection of texts assembled by believers after the death of Mohammed".

It's against my beliefs to intentionally hurt people, but it's also my belief that speaking honestly and trying to find the truth are important too. Zora 04:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good luck. You are trying to criticize religious beliefs and call it academic critique. It's a fine line between being an honest critic of Islamic beliefs and and being an honest Islamophobe. Why do you feel the need to judge others and make proscriptive pronouncements, "this should not mean that the age of consent should be lowered to the age of 9, as was recently done in Iran." Do we countenance such POV statements about the Law of Return in the Jewish state or the death penalty in Texas? No, we say, "Some people disagree that the Biblical commandments should be the basis for death penalty laws in Texas" or "There is considerable dispute over whether Jews from around the world should have the automatic right to Israeli citizenship while Palestinian refugees born in present-day Israel are denied citizenship." and we can cite the sources for those disputes. Instead of trying to insinuate anti-Islamic opinions into the Islam page, perhaps you should create a separate page(s) on criticisms of Islam and carefully cite the Orientalist, Islamophobic, Christian Zionist, homosexual, etc origins for your Islamic critics so that the reader will be able to judge their legitimacy for himself/herself. --Alberuni 14:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, WHERE did I say I wanted to put that statement about the age of consent in Wikipedia? The verb I used was "say", as in general discourse, not as in "writing a Wikipedia article". I may not have been clear enough, but it's rather discouraging that you immediately jump on the worst possible interpretation of my sentence.

I'm rather astounded by your assumption that anyone who dares to criticize the conservative understanding of Islam is an Orientalist (which seems to exist mainly as a term of abuse), a Zionist, or a homosexual. Is homosexual a term of abuse for you? I'm not gay, but some of my friends are. You'd hate them for that? Oh my oh my oh my. Zora 19:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Islamic Dress and Hijab

I have started work on Islam and clothing and will also work on Hijab. Thought you might want to know.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 04:26, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk: Hijab.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Some more rewriting at Hijab. Needs reorg; the intro restates a lot of stuff in the sub-sections.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for work on Filmfare awards

Jay, thanks for all the work you did on Filmfare awards ... and other work you're doing on Indian cinema too. Filling out actors, movies, etc. is slow but extremely useful work. Zora 17:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you're welcome! Hows it that you know so much about Indian cinema ? Jay 10:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might know this

Hi Zora, I know you are into clothes and clothing, I thought you might know of a reference for me. The 'points' on a jester's hat, or the long end of a hat (like a loooong stocking cap) in Renaissance and Medieval costume is called a liliripe... can you verify the spelling of, origin of or any literary mention of 'liliripe' ? Or point me at another clothing maven that might know? thanks, keep up the good work.Pedant 20:14, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Thanks Zora! apparently you can find better info if you don't spell it wrong. You've been a big help. I thought you'd be good to get me started at least. Cheers!!Pedant 00:54, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Founders of world religions

There are only a few major world religions, so I don't think the list would get too long. Also, since what constitutes a major world religion is a question of numbers and geographic spread, do I think it's POV. As to why I added the links in, that's because it seems perfectly natural that someone reading about Muhammad might want to read about founders of other religions too.

A list of all founders of world religions wouldn't be a bad idea. I can't find one at the moment, can you? Maybe we should start one. jguk 13:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing Islam-related stuff

No problem. It's good working with you too; while vandals or crusaders often charge in on articles like these (there should be a vandalism counter at the top of Islam), it's rare to get someone who's actually interested in trying to figure out what happened. Between you, OneGuy, and the research I'm being forced to do to answer, I'm learning quite a lot from this round of editing! I don't know enough to really expand much on Muhammad's marriages, but I might try and learn, though not tonight. Some articles that I've been working on of relevance to the background for all this are the Suras, and less directly, Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions, and PERF 558. - Mustafaa 01:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zora, can you please do your majic over at Jihad, as it needs a makeover almost as bad as Muhammad?

Haabet's latest changes

Good grief, just when I'd thought that Haabet had got the message about not posting original research and taking care with his English, he's back to torment us again. I think the best thing to do is to refrain from making changes for a few days and hammer this one out on the talk page. I've already posted what I think is pretty comprehensive refutation, so we can wait and see what Haabet comes up with in response (and whether we can decipher his meaning).

And, of course, I'll be asking Haabet to discuss with us about this before making any more changes.

- Katherine Shaw 10:42, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

More on Guillaume

Is this accurate quote from Guillaume?

"[After the Muslims had defeated the Banu Qurayzah] `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, 'O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients' (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle's robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. He said, 'Confound you, let me go.' He answered, 'No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients." [Guillaume, "Life of Muhammad", p. 363]

Are the words in brackets in your copy? If yes, then see this:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=390

If what the author claims on the page is true, then Guillaume made a mistake here? I am not saying that Guillaume did it deliberately, but I have seen many negative reviews by Muslims who claim Guillaume inserted stuff in Ibn Hisham OneGuy 16:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

If Guillaume puts it in brackets "[]", then I don't think it's in any Arabic manuscript (otherwise he would not have used the brackets). Plus, what about the part "now they were allies of Khazra"? Qurayzah were allies of Aus. Qaynuqaa were supposedly allies of Khazraj. There seems some contradiction and confusion by Guillaume. OneGuy 18:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aisha

Hello. I see that there has been no explicit response to your request about your re-worked version, and I would really like to get the article unprotected as soon as possible. It doesn't look like all parties concerned are willing to accept a truce unless they've seen the finished product, discussed it, etc. You might want to consider creating a temporary subpage of your user space to post the new version so everyone can see it and discuss it. BTW, thank you for being the one to take the lead in trying to reach a compromise that everyone can accept. Much appreciated. SWAdair | Talk 03:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Aisha page

Click here to see the proposed page. Zora had posted the full page here on the talk page, but just so that this area can be left for messages, I've moved the text to a temp sub-page. (Zora, after the page is no longer needed, you can list it for speedy deletion since it is now a subpage of your user space). SWAdair | Talk 08:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi Zora - you like reducing the piety level of religious articles apparently... I wonder if you would be willing to have a look at Jerusalem#Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism and see what you think? - Mustafaa 19:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aisha unprotected

I found a moment to check things, even on vacation, and saw your message. I have unprotected Aisha but I will leave it to you or someone else to copy/paste the compromise version. If I did that, it might seem as if I have an interest in that version of the article. The only interest I have is in stopping the edit war that was in progress, and I don't want to do anything that might seem to compromise my integrity. I have to basically keep a "hands off" approach as far as content is concerned. Thank you for your efforts in creating a version that hopefully everyone will be able to accept. Although I'm on vacation, I'll try to check every once in a while to make sure the edit war hasn't resumed. SWAdair | Talk 09:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert wars

I'll see if I can manage to defuse this a bit. Unfortunately, Alberuni's fuse is extremely short - and it doesn't help that a fair bit of his Wikipedia experience has been with people as trigger-happy and source-short as himself, with the 100% opposite POV. - Mustafaa 02:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pename RFC

Would you be willing to certify the RFC? Please, I'm not asking to pressure you. I won't be upset if you don't :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni arbitration

You may or may not be interested in Requests for Arbitration:Alberuni, which is currently under consideration. --Viriditas 03:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maui

Yes, I'm on Maui. In the last two days we've had some incredible lightning storms. On the evening of the 23rd, it was totally clear except for a few clouds over Kaho‘olawe, and for about three or more hours, the sky flickered with pink flashes of lighting over the water and the island. It was amazing. I've never seen pink lightning before, especially late at night. I suppose the color could have been caused by the cane fires earlier in the day. Now the storm has moved east, and is hanging over Haleakala, but it's still dry in south Maui. --Viriditas 09:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good luck trying to tame your feral. Heh. I've already taken in one feral on Maui, and I know how hard it is. Speaking of cats, I don't know if you know this, but the feral cat population on Maui is out of control. Iao Valley is literally teeming with starving feral cat colonies. --Viriditas 09:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

168.209.97.34

I submitted an arbitration on this guy here. Let's see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests_for_Arbitration

OneGuy 09:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Partition of India

You restored:

While Pakistan eventually chose to be an Islamic state, India continued to exist as secular state. Almost all the Hindus in the Pakistan were driven away from Pakistan, notably from Sindh. However there is still a sizeable Muslim minority in India. In fact, there are more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan.

You don't think that, even on the face of it that reads like POV? "In fact..." doesn't read like something that belongs in an encyclopedia, does it?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Early sources on Islam

You might find [1] interesting. It certainly makes Crone's more extreme hypotheses seem pretty untenable... - Mustafaa 17:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the book recommendation! It sounds very interesting. - Mustafaa 00:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tightlacing article is listed for deletion

Yikes! And also, sigh. Because Haabet has been unable to convince me that 'Victorian' corsets are unhealthy and that he knows what kind of corsets are healthy, he's listed the page on Votes for Deletion. Just thought you might like to know (and maybe vote...*grin*).

- Katherine Shaw 10:08, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for voting and tweaking the article. Sometimes I think I'm completely losing my persective!

- Katherine Shaw 10:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Haabet

I'm surprised there hasn't been any mediation, RFC, or arbitration, yet. Is this guy serious, or is he trolling? --Viriditas 11:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He's getting himself into more hot water on the VfD page. Is there an RFC yet? --Viriditas 22:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Thanks mate :-)

You also suffer from depression? It sucks, huh? But it has a few good points: I can empathise with people who are suffering much better now. And it means that I can look after those people when I'm not non-functional (like I am right now)... but hey, if you ever want to let off some steam, use the email me function and I'll respond as soon as I can. Us depressives have got to stick together! :) Ta bu shi da yu 22:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

(note that I'm sending this message to a few people as a general call for help) Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:WivesMuhammad

Zora!

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I just fixed the spelling, and I'll move the article+fix links later. About making the template wider and squarer? Are you sure that is a good idea (atleast if it is to remain on the top of these articles)? Anyway, feel free to change the template in whatever way you like! I am still a bit new here, and this is my first attempt at creating a template. I did my best to make it right though. Mahay 21:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW. Please notice that I now changed the template, so that more distance is created from the text section of the articles. It IMO help quite a bit on the layout of the articles. I also moved the "Aisha" article around a bit. Mahay 22:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I don't know anything about HTML eighter... I just turned my brain on, and stole the code from other templates... I properly should be banned for screwing around too much! But I am happy you like the template now, and it's pretty descent I guess... Oh, and by the way, Happy New year! Mahay 22:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note to myself, for private use

[2]