User talk:Merzbow/Archive2

Re: What's up?

Hey!! Welcome back!!

I am good. I hope everything is going well with you. So glad that you're back again. How is everything going with you?

I am recently involved in a couple of articles such as criticism of the Quran, antisemitism and I have a hard time with some editors. But that's wiki-life. Anyways, Nice to see you around. --Aminz 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is Jacob Peters

I noticed that you and User:Jacob Peters have been having a discussion on Talk:Joseph Stalin in which Jacob Peters was desperately trying to prove that Joseph Stalin was not a dictator. I'm a part of the Wikipedia Israel Project and Jacob Peters has been spreading disinformation on our articles as well. He tried unsuccessfully to prove that Hezbollah does not target civilians calling the allegation that they do "a deranged Zionist POV which flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy" (Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 8). If you read the archived talk page, you'll notice the same kind of Alice in Wonderland logic that he uses on the Joseph Stalin talk page. Jacob Peters later claims that "'northern Israel' was in fact part of the Arab state in the ... 1947 UN Partition. If Hizballah wants to, they can fire rockets on what is rightful Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation" (Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 8). As any reasonable person can see, this is not only a lie, but also a contradiction of his earlier claim that Hezbollah does not target civilians. I thought you'd like to know. --GHcool 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... this guy may or may not be a sockmaster as well, he sure seems to argue in a similar matter to a user called Kiske and other users as well. There can't be THAT many pro-Stalinists around, can there? - Merzbow 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you ware interested to know, Jacob Peters has been repeatedly blocked for sockpuppeting [1]. But I don't think that he and Kiske are same person(I can be wrong about this of course)--Staberinde 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

You might be the only one participating in these discussions dispassionately. Though I take issue with some of the things you've said, I hope you don't give up. I'd rather argue with someone being thoughtful than otherwise. Arrow740 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Merzbow 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think faithfreedom is extremist? Arrow740 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Using Nazi comparisons, and I remember him saying on his site that Islam should explicitly be banned. - Merzbow 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow

Merzbow, I wanted to thank you for finally compromising and allowing us both to come to a desicion that would satisfy all of us. I want to say that I admire your dedication to this encylopedia and that I am terribly sorry of the personal attacks I made against you earlier. They were wrong, I should not have lost my temper, but I am truly satisfied that we have reached a desicion. I also wanted to tell you that even though we might have deferring views and opinions, in the end we are all "playing for the same team", as they say in America, the Wikipedia team, and we are all working to make it better and inform the people of the world. And just so you are sure, I am not Jacob Peters, I have never spoken to him and do not know who he is, but I am not him. I noticed you were questioning whether we were the same person on this very talk page, but check the IP numbers, we are not... there are many pro-stalinists and pro-communists around, but I do not want to get into those issues again. Thank you once again, and good luck. Kiske 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry about the earlier stuff. Wikipedia is a rewarding but sometimes stress-inducing hobby. In the end, it all probably doesn't matter as much as we think it does. - Merzbow 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sura like it -website

I dont agree with your decision to take out the site. What would make this website reliable enough to be included? What policy of WP is this website not following? For that matter there are 100's of other websites not reliable too and they are included in refs all the time. --Matt57 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS, see the "Self-published sources" section. This is a guideline, not a policy, which means it should be applied as appropriate for the type of article being talked about. For example, one isn't going to require articles on Pokemon to be sourced only to university professors. However, I think there is enough higher-quality criticism available for the Islam articles that we can easily do without websites like that sura one. - Merzbow 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the Barnstar. It was very kind of you. I hope everything is going well with you. --Aminz 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your outside view on RfC

I didn't mean to ignore it, and may well endorse it, though perhaps with some qualifications, as you've referenced many points of detail. I'll take a closer look tonight.Proabivouac 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another JP sock

Iskra1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be a new and fairly obvious JP sock (unwillingness to sign talk page comments is a dead giveaway). - Merzbow 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a request for checkuser (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Jacob_Peters). I would like to note that not signing talk pages is not really a dead giveaway; many new users don't do that. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Hi Merzbow,

Can you please help with that article. I would like to add this to intro [2].

My argument is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Thanks --Aminz 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I opened a voting on Talk:Dhimmitude. Please join in. --Aminz 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks complicated. I'll take a look. - Merzbow 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the voting. But I am not sure if an opposing view exists. Please have a look at The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, p.198, 2002, Oxford University Press (at books.google.com)

It criticizes Bat Ye'or for her exaggerations. Cheers, --Aminz 04:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement between Lewis and others that we should express in the intro is about the meaning of the word 'dhimmitude', not about how dhimmis were treated. Although I think Lewis is more correct about the actual state of dhimmis, I think Spencer and Ye'or are more correct about what is meant when people say dhimmitude - inequality rather than persecution. - Merzbow 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So, why did Lewis actually used the word "Dhimmitude"? Thanks for the suggestion BTW. --Aminz 05:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In the full Lewis quote he basically says that he thinks 'dhimmitude' refers to a state of "subservience and persecution and ill treatment", then he claims that state is was a myth. To him, the term refers to a state that didn't really exist, so in effect he's saying it's not a valid term. Hmm, now that I read the quotes more closely, I think Ye'or and Spencer actually place different emphases on the term between themselves. - Merzbow 05:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article

Hi Merzbow,

Hope everything is going well and Happy New Year!! It's again me :P

Some editors are disputing the very existence of a dispute on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [3] and see if that testifies existence of some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. Thanks. --Aminz 12:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you also. Without discussing the merits of the dispute (I don't want to become involved in that page), I think POV-tagging is justified only when there are two substantial camps of editors on both sides of an issue. It looks like here you're the only active editor on one side, while there appears to be many other active editors on the other side. - Merzbow 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

The image is unnecessarily inflammatory to have so early in this article, and perhaps in the article at all. The subject of "traditions of depictions of Muhammad" is important enough to have an article about it with pictures, and it does, but not important enough to creep into this main article. - Merzbow 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I really appreciate it. --- ALM 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just call em as I see em... - Merzbow 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly only extremist Muslims who are offended by depictions of Muhammad; from what I understand, the majority of them are, extremist or liberal. Would you also advocate including a picture of the infamous Piss Christ in the first page of the Jesus article? There are a million ways to compromise on this; why not include one of the depictions with Muhammad's face blanked out at least, and put the picture much further in the article? - Merzbow 09:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you once again :) . --- ALM 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Merzbow [4] was great work. Btw we are trying hard to make Islam and GA articles. Hence we need someone to correct any English/grammar mistakes in it. Can you review it please? We also need more pictures like a picture of Shahadah calligraphy because it lack good pictures. If you could help in this task then it will be a great service. --- ALM 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure... right now I'm cleaning up the footnotes on Muhammad, will probably do that for Islam also. Next task is to improve some of the references and re-read the text. - Merzbow 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, while I disagree with your conclusion, many of the points you've brought up are likely in the back of people's minds anyhow, and deserve to be put forth and discussed at the mediation. Would it be alright if we moved the discussion there, to keep this discussion in one place, and spare Talk:Muhammad from being flooded once more with this thread? We might also consider creating a subpage for discussing images, as was done on Jyllands-Posten, with a prominent link thereto.Proabivouac 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. - Merzbow 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a statement to the Mediation page to centralize my points. - Merzbow 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

A compromise, I submit, will inevitably entail that anti-censorship editors encounter a significant limit on images that they don't like, and that fundamentalist editors must encounter a significant number of images that they don't like. Some other ideas I've heard, such as allowing images to remain on the Depictions article, or worse to acklowledge that text isn't subject to similar religious litmus tests, aren't credible concessions as they only reiterate the status quo. Not that the corner you've chosen to represent must give away the moon the stars and the sun, but there must be some willingness to give meaningful ground. An upper limit on images to satisfy a particular religion, encoded into policy, as it were, is a major concession in itself.Proabivouac 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sealed Nectar

Full disclosure, I just forwarded a near-duplicate of this message to Str1977. I link this again with some comments I wrote several months ago that I can't think to improve upon:

Beginning with, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism," the book goes on to assert a wholly implausable account of the origin of Arab peoples, without reference to archaeology, population genetics or any other scientific methodology, but based wholly upon the Qur'an, which is taken as inalterable truth.

I can also provide examples of very tendentious statements that have been justified on the grounds that they are sourced to this pile of nonsense. We are not talking about a book that happens to be written by a Muslim from a Muslim point of view.Proabivouac 09:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What article is this is reference to? - Merzbow 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat, and some others. Some examples from one or another version of Muhammad as a diplomat:

• "The spirit of brotherhood as insisted by Muhammad amongst Muslims was the means through which a new society would be shaped."
• "Having been beset and pursued out of at-Ta'if, Muhammad, who at one stage was bleeding profusely, sought refuge in a nearby orchard. It is here that he invoked Allah, seeking comfort and protection."
• "Asked by Heraclius about the man claiming to be a prophet, Abu Sufyan responded, speaking favorably of Muhammad's character and lineage and outlining some directives of Islam. Heraclius was seemingly impressed by what he was told of Muhammad, and felt that Muhammad's claim to prophethood was valid. Despite this incident, it seems that Heraclius was more concerned with the current rift between the various Christian churches within his empire, and as a result did not convert to Islam."

The last of these is perhaps the most pernicious, as, while the others are likely to be dismissed as pious nonsense, this fabricated claim about Heraclius might be believed. All were defended on the straightforward ground, "That's what the source says!" That's why I hold that we must treat such sources "with caution" (at least) per WP:RS, not "without reserve" as Itsmejudith would have it, and as others have done.Proabivouac 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like something that should be treated more as a primary source instead of a secondary source. - Merzbow 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A circle of editors have convinced one another that this is a regular academic source, that the Islamic University of Medina is a respected university, that awards from Islamic organizations equal scholarly acclaim, etc.; see User talk:Proabivouac#a feeling of déjà vu...Proabivouac 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding handling personal attacks

Since it seems that our mutual viewpoints on personal attacks are substantially different, I wanted to save the poor MFD page some space and talk with you here about your viewpoints regarding this issue. I understand your concern that personal attacks may drive editors from the project, and the expectation that there is a means to deal with them. I think we differ mostly on the time scales involved. How quickly do you feel that personal attacks should be able to be dealt with? Do you feel that time scale differs for attacks of different character or severity? I would like to understand your point of view better so that we can move towards a compromise or consensus, not just for the future (or lack thereof) for PAIN, but also for interpretations of key policies like WP:CIV and WP:NPA (you may also be interested in looking over my proposed cleanup and refactoring of that policy). I know I'd appreciate your feedback. Serpent's Choice 05:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am firmly on the side of having all clear personal attacks dealt with quickly and firmly (with an admin warning or block if an attempt at discussion between the parties immediately shows no progress). I'd say no longer than a day or two. I've seen first-hand the kind of train-wreck that happens when this isn't the case (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency, which only ended in a firm outcome because I was the last editor left standing who was unwilling to take any more crap from this guy). I think people who are afraid that editors may be driven out by over-zealous application of the NPA policy are missing the obvious counterpoint, that it is far more likely and in fact far easier for malefactors to take advantage of lax NPA enforcement to drive out editors with their personal attacks.

Therefore my concern is that there be a clear way for personal attacks to be reported, a way that is documented to provide such a response time. You're going to get some people trying to wikilawyer, of course. But I think this can be partially alleviated by changes to the PAIN boilerplate; the wikilawyering that remains will just have to be dealt with as the cost of providing a needed service.

But let's say we do change the boilerplate and the volume on PAIN goes down by half. That will still be too much for ANI to handle, I think, but these (higher-quality) reports shouldn't be ignored for the reasons I've stated above. So barring reformation of other forums like 3O and mediation, I see no choice but to keep PAIN.

(As far as the proposal goes, from the talk page it seems the main difference is that responding to personal attacks on article talk pages is explicitly discouraged. But I feel this is somewhat redundant, since responding directly to PAs is already discouraged in general.) - Merzbow 07:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of my concern over PAIN in particular and fast action in general is that people lose their sense of scope. I know how vituperative some people can get, and those people obviously have to be dealt with. But on the other hand, recent PAIN reports have included demands for action based on personal attacks such as "You're crazy" ... "dumb logic" ... "You're pretty cocky." When does a personal attack require immediate intervention as opposed to allowing a longer discussion process to suffice? I'm less concerned about attackers who are persistant and pernicious, because that is disruption, and then can and should be dealt with as such. The critical issue is the circumstance where someone tells another user they're "an idiot" ... do we really need or want that to go a messageboard at all?

I understand that your direct involvement with His Excellency has given you an unfortunately unique perspective. In my eyes, that does not underscore the need for faster response times to individual attacks so much as better committment to following through on actions taken against disruptive users. That anyone is allowed to run up such a block log, including multiple indef blocks, and then be allowed to continue posting without any sign of contrition or reform is a wider community issue that would be little-impacted by the existence or nonexistence of PAIN.

As for the proposal, that late addition is certainly one change, and while its certainly redundant in some ways, its also not often heeded, so it doesn't hurt to spell it out. The other two substantial changes were:

• an explicit endorsement that users may choose to simply ignore attacks if they desire -- the current policy implies that esclation is expected, and is (in my opinion, at least) causing problems when relatively minor comments become major NPA issues.
• A general copyedit to make this look more like polished policy and less like something cobbled together from tacked-on ideas.

--Serpent's Choice 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to go back and compare the proposal to the existing policy in more detail. I still think reforming PAIN is the better option, because it gives us a platform to quickly guide users before they report what they think is an actionable personal attack. Without PAIN, we'll have to put more detailed instructions in WP:NPA or we'll continue to have low-quality reports that will just go to other places like ANI. - Merzbow 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that tweaking NPA doesn't fix what's wrong at PAIN. I view them as separate, but related issues. A better NPA won't stop people from getting in a tiff if they get called "dumb", but suggesting that not every attack needs dispute resolution might calm some of the recent escalation-spawned furors. Also, NPA bugged me in part simply because I don't think official policy pages should look like they are written by committee, even though, in the Wiki sense, they are. Regardless, I'd absolutely appreciate your input ... I have not had the misfortune of being a principle member of an ArbCom case on the topic, so your experience may help ensure that I don't propose something inadviseable. Serpent's Choice 11:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemy in dhimmi

Merzbow, you are right that claiming that the Leviticus passage is the origin of the Muslim prohibition of blasphemy would require a source, and you are right that my original wording would have constituted OR without such a source -- thanks. However, the revised wording "...consistent with the Old Testament law saying that those who speak blasphemy 'shall surely be put to death'" seems reasonable to me. Otherwise the passage leaves the impression that the Muslim treatment of blasphemy was somehow exceptional, whereas it is comparable to Jewish and Christian law at many times and places. --Macrakis 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison is overly simplistic, which is why it's so important to source these types of analyses back to scholars. And it's controversial - any comparison of the "laws" of one religion directly to the claimed laws of another needs to be impeccably sourced. - Merzbow 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to enter discusssion

Can you bring your contributions to the following:

Aga Khani Islamic Cults

Thanks

trueblood 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, two AfDs... I'll make my votes (whatever they may be). - Merzbow 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable critics

Those evangelicals are notable critics of Islam. OBL is primarily concerned with violence, not dawah or islam as an object of study, while those evangelicals are in fact primarily proselytizers and leaders of religous congregations, and are experts in their field of evangelical Christianity. As such their repeated, public criticism of another religion, Islam, is more notable than Osama Bin Laden's criticism of US foreign policy, as he is not a foreign policy person for some other nation. We should also separate Franklin Graham from the other two. I read recently that he plans to oppose Islam in just the manner that his father opposed Communism. Arrow740 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You went to the root of the matter with your last response. I suppose you're right. Arrow740 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Calipha

Yes, Iranian Shias usually reserve the word Calipha for the four Caliphas. The "Amir Al-Momenin" meaning " ruler of the believers" might be problematic but not Calipha I think. Shias do have the concept of "khalifata allah fil al-arz": The Khalifa of God on the earth (Qur'anic examples: Man in general and in a specific sense David) but I think using Kalipha should be fine. --Aminz 08:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

encyc. sect in biblio

first and foremost:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, User:Itaqallah, award you the Working Man's Barnstar for the much-appreciated and much-needed work on helping sort out the messy references and bibliography sections on Islam, Muhammad, and probably elsewhere.

i wanted to ask about the editors of the online vers. of EoI. the list of editors that most articles citing EoI have down are those whom i just inserted into the encyc. bibliography. the difference may be due to the updating to Brill's website (if that's where you got the list from), where they may have updated their EoI online version too. ITAQALLAH 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! If you don't object, I'd like to move the Barnstar to my main page, so it doesn't get lost when I archive. I'll see what info I can find on the EoI editors. - Merzbow 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

no problemo. of course i don't object! ITAQALLAH 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Merzbow, I am trying to find more sources on sincerety of Muhammad from Islamic historians. Here is what I found:

I found this but didn't understand its meaning [5]

In books.google.com, I found an incomplete sentence from the book: "Introduction to the History of the Muslim East: A Bibliographical Guide" by Claude Cahen and Jean Sauvaget saying:"Needless to say, whether one subscribes to the Muslim faith or not, one should study the life of Muhammad with the sympathy due all great and sincere ... " but I couldn't see "..." in book.google.com.

I have also replied to your comment on Islam talk page. Please have a look. Thanks --Aminz 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment regarding Islamic ethics section. I had recieved so many negative comments. --Aminz 23:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I think it would be good to know the context in which the RfC was filed: Comments like "Alright, I accept that he's made an ass of himself on his own; shame on him", "Scratch that, thanks to a revert and some unseemly bullying from User:FayssalF on your behalf, you can do that. Shame about the encyclopedia". Pro also commented on two admins page writing against FayssalF using the same language. He was removing the Islamic ethics section. --Aminz 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, if those posts are indeed the basis for the dispute, how is it that Fayssal's purported "attempt to resolve the dispute" predates them?

Thank you for you commentary, Merzbow, which I shall endorse shortly.Proabivouac 07:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not the basis for the dispute. You over-reacted to FayssalF and made incivil accusations against him and tried to make other editors have a negative view of him. He was a respecful editor.--Aminz 08:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the RfC or its talk page is a better place to discuss this. - Merzbow 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of slavery in Islam

Please look at my comments on the talk page and explain why you reverted. Arrow740 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to comment at this request for comment. Arrow740 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Merzbow, I would rather to see the set of statements we have from reliable sources and then decide on the name of the section. Thus I am waiting for the information you would like to present on the negative effects. If there is none, then I would say the current title is the most accurate. On religous freedom, I would like to make a comment: The pact of Omar doesn't date back to Omar.

Early Muslims "lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare" (ref. both Esposito; Lewis mention this)

Quoting from Lewis:

Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."

I am happy to include the situation of religous minorities in early Islam. --Aminz 08:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not this is true, it's not something Muhammad did, since he died long before the major Islamic incursions into Byzantine lands. Stuff that happened after he died but that was influenced by him properly belongs to a discussion of Muhammad's legacy, and Islamic history in general. I'll look for more sources about additional changes to Arab society that came about during his lifetime. I think the situation of the Jews in Arabia may have gotten worse in general (certainly in several particular cases). - Merzbow 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, you are right. This is not what Muhammad did and that's why I haven't add it there yet :) BUT my point was that it is not clear that Muhammad's legacy on the treatment of religous minorities was something for worst. The fair and usual definition of tolerance, Lewis says, in pre-modern times was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce."

Yes, it is an intolerant idea to our eyes but not in its context. Giving strict equality was a sign of weakness, not a virtue --Aminz 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Hi Merzbow

I have made a comment on talk: dhimmi about looking at the reliablity of the publication rather than that of the author. Another point I wanted to raise is that you mentioned al-Hibri's lack of notability. To my mind that is not an issue. Many good scholars are not notable in WP terms; they just get on with their work and publish in obscure journals. WP may have an unconscious, systematic bias towards scholars who have come to public attention for one reason or another but I believe that is something we should try to overcome. I was interested in what you might think about these issues.Itsmejudith 10:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of science in the Criticism of the Qur'an article

Hi Merzbow,

Your input on the this would be appreciated. --Aminz 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ball

Hi Merzbow! Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus#Dr._Ball_was_Professor_of_Climatology_for_28_years has some of the gory details of this dicussion.--Stephan Schulz 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Hi Merzbow,

Please have a look at the following link [6].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is unbiased in this business... Esposito is funded extensively by the Saudis and makes lots of anti-Israel remarks. Nevertheless I grant that Esposito's works are more reliable because they are university-published, and thus should be allowed in non-Criticism articles, unlike Spencer's. - Merzbow 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are 100% right Merzbow. Nobody is unbiased. But those who publish their books in university presses are reliable for wikipedia. Cheers, --Aminz 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

I completely disagree with your removal of VirtualEye's "personal attack". It wasn't an more problematic than your thought experiment. He used you as an example because you created the forum. In any case, I have removed your name and replaced it with [someone]. I know VirtualEye can be very argumentative--but in this case I really don't think he did anything improper. gren グレン 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, HighInBC removed it. I left a message on his page. If you care to look. gren グレン 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* well, this isn't going to go anywhere... but, his only point was to use your thought experiment about Muhammad back at you with your sister. In general he is confrontational and problematic on many levels... but, I just don't see this as one of his worse offenses... gren グレン 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw no reason to extend him an ounce of good faith on that diff based on his previous behavior. If he is really here to edit and not to troll, the ball is in his court now to demonstrate that. - Merzbow 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me like you were taking advantage of an easy shot on a subject you could have ignored--but as you say, he has done too many other things for it being worthwhile to take my defense any further. See you in mediation :) --gren グレン 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An easy shot on someone who speculates on what my sister looks like naked? Sorry, anyone who brings my family into it is going to get their comment removed by me and issued a warning. I respect you a lot gren, but I think you're just way off base here. - Merzbow 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a natural response to you questioning what his prophet looked like naked. His point was "what would I think of using a picture of Muhammad naked? How would you feel if someone famous drew your sister naked." His answer was if you're offended to the idea with your sister it's the same with Muhammad. As it stands it was imprudent. Had he done it without any text it would have been a personal attack. It wasn't just to speculate about your sister and he has no idea if you even have a sister. He was just asking you to think about someone close to you being put into a compromising situation. It was bringing up the idea of your family to get a reaction and hopefully that reaction would make you think that doing it with Muhammad would be problematic. I just wanted to make the point that he wasn't trying to insult your family; he was trying to make you think about it in terms of the article. I don't know... it was a provocative question... I just want it to be known that if I had thought his goal was to insult you or your family I would have reverted and probably blocked him--but I didn't. gren グレン 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I credit your interpretation of what VirtualEye was trying to say, but it was incivil, and he's received many warnings. The problem here may be language comprehension: the level of anger suggests that he believed Merzbow was proposing to add a naked depiction of Muhammad. Even so, he's got to realize that we are aiming for a neutral encyclopedia, and it's inappropriate to consistently personalize discussions about content. He has every right to think of Muhammad however he likes, but he's got to detach himself a bit to contribute usefully to this space. People do and will disagree, and will occasionally - perhaps even often - say things with which he doesn't agree about subjects that are very important to him.Proabivouac 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

There really is no way to improve the section. You should read the article from which the accusation comes, and then see why I am excluding it [7]. It isn't a notable attack, firstly because of its scurrilousness, and secondly because nobody (not even Juan Cole) took note of it until it was posted on Wikipedia [8]. -Thucydides411 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cole page is frequented by a group that is very hostile to Juan Cole, which is why it has been reverted several times. The casual reader is not the one reverting it, since they would be unaware of the section's prior existence - those reverting it have evidently been checking the artile's history for some time, or else they would not be acquainted with the dispute. Before you reinsert the section, however, could you take some time to respond to my objections? The most basic reasons are directly above, and you can find a more lengthy argumentation in the discussion and mediation pages. -Thucydides411 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is notable because the source is impeccably reliable - Efraim Karsh, a professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London. You may consider it "scurrilous", but that's your opinion; it is nonetheless reliably sourced, even if you may disagree with the attack. And now that Cole has in fact noticed it and replied to it, it is even more notable, regardless of how he came to have seen it. - Merzbow 06:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Hi Merzbow

I would hate to drag you into controversies unnecessarily but some of your wisdom on primary vs secondary sources could usefully be applied to the above article, especially on the section on the Qur'an. If you've got a minute, anyway.

Cheers

Itsmejudith 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

response

You are correct that it can make it hard to follow my contributions in a conversation. That said, I would recommend that you move your comment off that page so that it does not have the effect of "derailing" / "disrupting" that conversation unnecessarily. You mention that you want to include me in determining consensus, but it may be best to follow the example of how IP editors are weighted in an AfD, they are barely taken into consideration at all in making final decisions, but their arguments, ideas and sources are at least read by others. Wikipedia should be about finding appropriate and creative solutions to such complex issues in the service of better informing our readers, not just polling to find a lowest common denominator style consensus. But feel free to ignore me, I won't mind. (<-- To avoid confusion, that last sentence isn't meant as sarcasm.) --64.230.124.26 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas will be read and considered, but in the end determining consensus is a matter of numbers, by definition. - Merzbow 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Rachel Marsden BLP issue? They eventually found a creative solution to it that resulted in a real consensus. You can read about it here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_on_undeleted_Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case. (I did favor your previous solution with CSTAR's edits, although it has changed again for the worse. We were so close there.) --64.230.124.26 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the paragraph aside from the first sentence. We can discuss that while agreeing to leave alone the Karsh section, which you're apparently fine with. - Merzbow 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmi

Good edit on the Dhimmi Intro. Thanx --67.175.242.13 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Antisemitism

Hi Merzbow,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article. If not, that's perfectly okay. There is a dispute here [10]. Cheers, --Aminz 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps... I'll see if I have time, I know it's a very controversial locus of articles. - Merzbow 05:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow. I don't think the neutrality problem could be solved unless new editors join in. --Aminz 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Hi Merzbow,

Arrow has started removing sourced material. [11] --Aminz 08:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad Can you please edit the sequence and headings we should have while presenting our case. We will add text later on but right now I am concerned about the right sequence we should use in presenting our case. We should breifly describe each and everything. So far you have helped a lot in this regard which I really appreciate. It is the last step and I need your help in this last step. --- ALM 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Merzbow you are confusing arbitration. We are not filing arbitration against any individual but reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration also deal with dispute that we are failed to resolve in mediation. Hence content dispute also come under arbitration. I can get confirmation from some arbitrator. I just wish to apply policies on the article and do not wish anyone to get banned etc because of this process. I need your help in all of this :) please. --- ALM 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Danger of edit warring

You are in danger of edit warring on the Muhammad/images page, please be careful. Stubbornness is not an editing tactic that works here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I would revert TharkunColl's latest change, but ALM scientist has (believe it or not) reported me for such things in the past.Proabivouac 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how I feel about TharkunColl's latest change, however it does seem to reflect a clear consensus. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For two reverts? Physician, heal thyself - I count at least three days in the past two weeks in which you've reverted that page multiple times also. - Merzbow 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I noticed you reverted my restoration of a section by claiming it is original research and copied from answeringislam, which is nonsense. I cannot say anything about the first part (you may remove that, if you deem it necessary), the second part however I personally translated from the sources mentioned in the footnotes.

Please check the sources before boldly removing such a large chunk of text. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Answering Islam is not used as a primary source, the site only hosts a version of Nöldeke's book. The link could be removed, but not the text itself! The book cited is a scientific work, so mentioning its author, title, publisher and year should suffice. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, information about the book is included in the footnote. The link was merely provided to allow the reader to check the original version. I see no harm in that. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery revised lead proposal

Dear Merz, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel Bryant 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad/images

Merzbow, could you take a look at this and join the discussion? Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. TharkunColl is really a laugh and a half, isn't he? Sigh. - Merzbow 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I expect that he'll be banned for exhausting the community's patience before too long. (→Netscott) 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless efforts in defending the principals of Wikipedia. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll put a copy on my front page with the others also... - Merzbow 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by banned user

Hi Merzbow; I'm going to remove His excellency's comments on the community notice board as comments by a currently banned user, and I plan to remove your reply to him as well - not because I think there is anything wrong with your reply, just because it would not make sense out of context. Please let me know if you would rather I handle it another way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure... I was gonna leave them up as an example to new readers as to why he was banned in the first place, but I'm fine with removing them also. He can always go to the unblock mailing list or email an admin if he wants to contest the ban in the future. - Merzbow 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery intro

Would you please write an intro for it? I think we would all seriously consider something you come up with. Arrow740 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... actually the current intro is not bad, except for the fact it is too long. I'll attempt a straightforward compression of the intro. - Merzbow 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. Arrow740 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed the sentence I had about the racist theologians. I think it had the same status regarding the lead as the sentence I objected to on the talk. Arrow740 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

About Avicenna, al-Kirmani etc calling certain people, 'slave by nature'. I think I removed it because they don't relate to or justify their comments their comments by Islam.DavidYork71 08:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Merzabow. Could you please answer the questions so we can move forward. There are 4 votes already. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually could you delete my RfA page? I never wished to be nominated in the first place... Aminz meant well but he jumped the gun. - Merzbow 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohh. I haven't seen your comment at the RFA. Ok, i'll do that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)