User talk:Merzbow/Archive3

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

The assertion that the work of someone who has edited an article cannot be used in the article is ridiculous. On what basis does activity on Wikipedia disqualify an otherwise reliable source? Guettarda 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Explained in the talk page. It is an obvious conflict of interest to cite the blog of someone who heavily edits an article, IN the article. - Merzbow 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Problem With Your User Name

I have requested a review of your username at RFCN[1] on the basis that you're just using the nom de plume of a famous individual. Please feel free to join the discussion. TortureIsWrong 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN - Notice

Merzbow, your username has been identified by another user as potentially violating WP:U due to the fact your username is that of a foreign musician. You can change your username if you so choose at Wikipedia:Changing username. You are welcome to participate in the RFCN should you choose to allow it to follow through. Thank you. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would recommend following this policy and adding a hatnote to your user page. Just my opinion - RJASE1 ^Talk 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and added the disambig notes - feel free to remove if you disagree. Peace - RJASE1 ^Talk 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - Merzbow 04:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Hi Merzbow,

Could you please watch over this article. Thanks --Aminz 08:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange confluence of interests

On his userpage, "This user is a member or supporter of MoveOn.org."Proabivouac 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL. - Merzbow 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy/Pasting "The guy up there, a Christian, tells me "I'm easily offended"

Merzbow, regarding this diff: [2], is it a problem with wikipedia website or you actually made that edit? --Aminz 06:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a problem with Wikipedia, as the effects of the summary are not reflected in the version.Proabivouac 06:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Wikipedia bug, yup... I puzzled over that for a while also. - Merzbow 06:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, that diff togther with this one [3] has offended Khorshid. I think he deserves an explanation from you that to the effect that you haven't made that edit and that the other diff wasn't good. --Aminz 06:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest with discussing anything with him until he can interact in a civil manner. Once he issues an apology, then he'll deserve a response. - Merzbow 06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me the diffs. Is it only the angry comments on the talk page of Criticism of Islam? --Aminz 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And the edit summaries to CoI. If his contribution history didn't show otherwise, I could swear he sounds and behaves exactly like another sockpuppet of H.E. - Merbow 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The anger and confrontationalism of this edit is quite unhelpful, and the reference to various editors' religious backgrounds is divisive and inappropriate; see WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:NOT. It contributes nothing but bad feelings and strife. The proper course of action towards this kind of material is probably to remove.Proabivouac 06:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. Anger and confrontationalism is unhelpful. --Aminz 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

<r> Khorshid should have really talked to Merzbow first instead of bothering 3 admins. Do people realize that admins are very busy people? It is sad that they are bothered regularly with Islam related issues. They should put a cold straightforward stop to this and for example, make people follow the procudures (DR, RfC etc). This makes Wikipedia suffer. --Matt57 12:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Thank you.Proabivouac 05:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. My patience with editors who just come to articles to throw bombs is at an all-time low. - Merzbow 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a culture developing here wherein trolling is not tolerated. I don't mean a place where problem diffs are treasured and hoarded for future use against their posters (for we have that now) but where the trolling itself is targeted and aggressively removed. Punishing trolls while allowing (even restoring!) trolling makes no sense at all.Proabivouac 04:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Please don't accuse others users of trolling, as you did here and here. Such an accusation is considered incivil, and it's important to always assume good faith. What appears to be going on is a content dispute, I don't see any evidence of real trolling at that article. Thanks, Khoikhoi 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I apologize for using the word "trolling". But his edits were provocative and disruptive; they contained insults against other editors' religions and implied that they are bigots, which makes this far from a content dispute (see [4] and [5]). A bit of investigation shows that he's recently been making similar accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry and racism against others, frequently by name, including me now. Since you seem to be one of his best friends on Wikipedia (judging by the frequency by which you post to each others' talk pages), I am disappointed that you chose to intervene in a dispute where you are clearly not neutral, as you must have been aware of his ongoing behavior, but have not warned him about it, as far as I can tell. If his actions continue, then I will file an RfC. I notice he just barely escaped having one filed against him by admin TShilo12 (see [6]). - Merzbow 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought he has only accused a pastor who said Muslims are devil and Bat Ye'or of racism. Can you please provide diffs where he accused you of being anti-Muslim or racist. Thanks --Aminz 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary: [7]. - Merzbow 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. this diff [8]is certainly bad but please note that he thought you have copy/pasted the phrase "I'm easily offended" all over the place [diff seems to have been removed] (which was a system error). It was also made after this edit [9]--Aminz 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It was most certainly not made after that edit, look at the times. His provocations on that article and accusations are nothing new; as I said above, there are numerous examples of it against other people and in other articles, in even harsher language. - Merzbow 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Aminz, this was not made after this. This has gotten really quite perverse: somebody comes onto the article to make some extremely confrontational and uncivil remarks, Merzbow calls it trolling, and now we're going to spend the next several days discussing who was at fault? This is an excellent example of why such posts ought be immediately and unceremoniously removed, so their posters have a another chance to say what they mean to say in a civil tone. Such behavior will continue to earn Khorshid enemies and cause strife whether you defend it or not; that's not good for Khorshid, or for anyone else. - Proabivouac 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Just curious, is your username related to the Japanese musician of that name? (Or maybe even you are him?) Raymond Arritt 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is I don't even like the band... just ran across the name in a music magazine once and thought it was interesting. - Merzbow 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, just thought I'd ask. He's not all that well known so it jumped out at me... Cheers, Raymond Arritt 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the comments of others

[10] Read: WP:TALK: "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed. Exceptions are: Removing personal attacks and incivility." According to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA the comment you removed was neither incivil nor a personal attack, meaning you were wrong to remove it. Your threat in you edit message isn't helpful either. 151.151.21.104 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That diff is most certainly a personal attack. If you continue making them, you will be blocked. - Merzbow 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, according to policy it was not a personal attack. And I didn't make the comment. 151.151.21.104 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just sayin'

• WP:DFTT; Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, I know. Sigh. - Merzbow 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

Hi, Merzbow. I'm with you (at least partly) on the Dominionism thing. I really think the best way to resolve this is to make the Dominionism article neutral by supplying text supported by sources from the other side. Then the template can be approached from the consensual text in the article, which, I believe, will demonstrate that the subject is clearly more controversial than some of its proponents are making it out to be. OTOH, I think continuing on the template talk page will amount to little more than banging your head against a wall. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no point; the entire "movement" is an invention of left-wing writers and activists. "Dominionism" has no mentions in neutral magazines, newspapers, or scholarly publications of any kind whatsoever. This doesn't seem to stop those who throw around accusations of "disruption" at anyone committing the thoughtcrime of claiming that there can be reliable sources from the other side. This is one article best left to die of neglect. - Merzbow 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your second and last sentences, and I want to work (and hope you will join me) to make that article a truer representation of what Dominionism is -- viz. a faulty extrapolation by some lefties. The Dominionism article is not the only problem here; it's every article into which the Dominionism template is unfairly inserted. But the only way to fix the latter is to first fix the former.

As for reliable references, there's no such thing as a truly "neutral" source. I think most would agree that the NYTimes is left-leaning and the WSJ is right-leaning through selection of what they cover and word-choice, though both seek to present a "balanced" or neutral account. In any case, both are considered reliable for citation here, as are Harper's and Salon. On the other hand, the utter dearth of references to Dominionism in the mainstream media, even in left-leaning publications apart from a paltry two articles, does say something important, and indeed, the NRO article makes this very point. And so should Dominionism. I think you'll find that modifying the template is a futile effort right now, but adding cited research to an article is more effective, can't be cast aside with fiery rhetoric, and is subject to independent review if necessary. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An optimist you are. My take is that if those in power want to WP:OWN a subject, let the mess they create be available for the world to see. Marching into battle and being taken out in a blaze of glory has its momentary pleasure, but I'd rather spend my time improving many other subjects where outside editors are welcomed. That's the beauty of the principles of volunteerism and free association. (And with that I'll bother the peanut gallery no more with my musings on the subject, lest anyone fear my further "disruption"). - Merzbow 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

image on Criticism of the Qur'an

hello Merzbow, there's a debate upon the appropriateness and usage of this image in Criticism of the Qur'an. i cannot help but think that this image is being used for emotive purposes, especially as the narrative is fictional and the image violates WP:FU guidelines. i thought it might be a good idea to get another opinion from a regular contributor to that space. thanks ITAQALLAH 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Commented in the thread. - Merzbow 02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Textual distortion

Please. Please do not change that bit in the intro. To me it is important to present this as accurately as possible. --Aminz 06:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The source says: ""If…they [Christians] mean that the Qur'an confirms the textual veracity of the scriptural books which they now possess—that is, the Torah and the Gospels—this is something which some Muslims will grant them and which many Muslims will dispute. However, most Muslims will grant them most of that."--Aminz 06:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can be OK with including the last part, but I still think "part of" is unnecessary; as a last resort, if you absolutely need all this detail in the lead, we should split this off into another sentence for readability. - Merzbow 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I added that because of this part: "However, most Muslims will grant them most of that" --Aminz 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, in interpretation, the Qur'an criticizes Christians on only two points: Trinity and exclusive claims of salvation. --Aminz 06:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you are wrong to assume that those who see the term "distorted" (or "corrupted") will assume that this distortion must be textual rather than interpretive.Proabivouac 06:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I split it into two sentences, I hope this will solve the problem. - Merzbow 06:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hi Merzbow,

If you could help us on this dispute [11], I would be thankful. --Aminz 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Text: Walid N. Arafat rejects the historicity of the massacre, claiming that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Arafat points out that the story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition. [32] [33] William Montgomery Watt finds this argument "not entirely convincing." [34]Jere L. Bacharach, a professor of Islamic studies in Washington university however finds the arguments convincing and believes that the incident never happened. M. J. Kister, a historians at the Hebrew University, however says that the incident must have happened. --Aminz 08:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merzbow. --Aminz 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderful work on Islam

Much appreciated. --Aminz 06:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And likewise... this is my first GA attempt, let alone FA... I think we'll learn a lot. - Merzbow 06:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica ref

Critics have also raised doubts about the moral ideals of Islam in comparison to how it is actually practiced. ("The Rejection of Religion or Religiousness", Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition 25:686, : ".. and the Muslim who attends services in a mosque may be less filled with an inner sense of justice and patience than with thoughts of a holy war.") Your sentence is vague; the ref is saying that Islam as practiced is better than it actually is. Arrow740 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the ref is saying the opposite. Anyways, the history behind these cites I'm adding is here: Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#General_Context_to_Criticism. I'm trying to reach a compromise; it's been difficult to get other editors to participate in this particular discussion. - Merzbow 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Muslims who attend services are going to be thinking of holy war more than justice and patience, it's pretty clear. Also Spencer quotes some Muslim leaders to the effect that Sharia may be compatible with democracy but it's not compatible with other kinds of Western freedoms, do you know what I'm referring to? Arrow740 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you're reading the cite correctly? It is saying that some critics believe that the good ideals of Islam are not being communicated properly in practice. Others, of course, like Spencer, believe that there are more bad than good ideals in Islam, which would make PROPER communication the greater danger. - Merzbow 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the cite is quite clear, please give the full context. It looks like you've taken out a valid cite. Arrow740 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Outside Christianity, critics have pointed to the gap between religious profession and moral action... a Muslim who attends services in a mosque may be less filled with an inner sense of justice and patience than with thoughts of a holy war." The example is just used to explicate the point, it's not the point itself. - Merzbow 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree to Arrow. To assume moral values not actually practiced would suggest religious criticism, not criticism on religion. Rokus01 23:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to remove the sentence, or reword it? You seem to be arguing here it's outside the scope of Criticism of Islam (which perhaps it is), but you included it in your original addition. - Merzbow 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam encompass both religious criticism and criticism of religion. I think it is important to make this difference, hence the importance of establishing context. For instance, reword like this: "Critics have also raised doubts about the moral ideals of Islam, deeming the way how it is actually practiced as inherently wrong." Rokus01 06:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I think I see what you're getting at. I'll reword and move some sentences around to make the context clearer. - Merzbow 07:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Criticism of Islam

I suggested a compromise [12]. I hope that helps. --Aminz 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sufism

The idea of dispensing the veils which hide the self from the Real and thereby become transformed or absorbed into undifferentiated unity, is a main theme in Sufi literature(e.g. see Attar Neyshaboori).

Quoting EoI, tawhid(monotheism) article:

In Ṣufi iterature, the notion of tawhid has given rise to intense speculation; from a simple concept, it is transformed into a spiritual experience. A well-known text of al-Ḏj̲unayd distinguishes four steps, starting from the simple attestation of unicity which is sufficient for ordinary believers, and culminating in the highest rank reserved for the élite, when the creature totally ceases to exist before his Lord, thus achieving al-fanāʾ fi ʾl-tawḥīd (cf. R. Deladriēre, Junayd, enseignement spirituel, Paris 1983, 150-2). In the Iḥyāʾ (Cairo 1968, iv, 305), G̲h̲azālī proposes a categorisation which is in part comparable.

Of course I disagree with the author that Sufis trasnformed a simple concept to a spritual experience. It seems to me that the author has not a sufficiently deep understanding of the Qur'an. But in any case, he is reporting that Sufis view monotheism as a spritual experience:dispensing the veils which hide the self from the Real and thereby become transformed or absorbed into undifferentiated unity.

Do you think it deserves mentioning? --Aminz 07:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to me, and I think it will just confuse readers, which is why I chose different passages from p. 1 of that book. It might make more sense with a lot more context, so I wouldn't object to it being examined in detail in Sufism, but we should be clear and concise in the Sufi section in Islam given the short space we have. - Merzbow 07:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this bit is very central point. Our perception of outside world is a "projection" of what is going on inside us. One can not become a real monotheist unless he becomes monotheist inside. If there are various conflicting desires/forces fighting inside us, we project it to the outside world and make up gods which are often in war with each other.

Do you think there is any way of mentioning that tawhid for Sufis is a spritual journey the destination of which is when the creature totally ceases to exist before his Lord. --Aminz 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a connection to monotheism here. Arrow740 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try... p. 1 says that "Real" is defined as "God" so that will make it easier to reword. - Merzbow 08:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Aminz 08:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Merzbow. I've been feeling unappreciated as of late (and horribly busy.) I'll have to figure out someplace to put it, along with Hojimachong's. Good work you've done on Islam, by the way. Opinions are plentiful in this space; decent writing horribly rare.Proabivouac 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for leaving a message at my talk. I am back and will need your help and guidance. :) --- ALM 07:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! - Merzbow 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go slowly on the Images debate again, though. It might be better to concentrate on other things for a while, I think people are just too tired to redo that debate again. - Merzbow 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to start debate again. But will concentrate on collecting as many references as I can and write a detail essay. I will make it part of my signature and ask people who think I am right to sign in and make part of their signatures. Leaving rest of it on them. --- ALM 07:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tipping of cows

Since you stated that you approved of "An untipped cow", would you mind voicing an opinion on "A cow in its natural upright state" on bottom of the Talk:Cow tipping page? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Trimming

Thanks very much for helping with the article. I had a request. Would you please move the material you trim to the main article (or at least to the talk page). I feel it would be helpful for wikipedia. Thanks --Aminz 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in all the cases I've trimmed I've done that... the Five Pillars stuff I trimmed today was copied yesterday into the Five Pillars article. - Merzbow 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. --Aminz 05:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

Reference wording of your protection request, just wanted to indicate that more than one paragraphs are under dispute (infact more than one editors are involved as well whose text is being questioned) Sufaid 13:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. - Merzbow 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Malise Ruthven as a source

I've now made two stupid, clumsy edits in Islam, including reverting one of your good edits. My apologies — I'll try and stay out now. / edgarde 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, happens to everyone. - Merzbow 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi Merzbow,

I am in library now. It is easier for me to scan the relevant pages from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam than to type them. I had a look at Tawhid article. It is far more detailed than the small quote I had from it. It seems that Tawhid has been the centeral theme of different kinds of modern movements in Islam. According to the book: "Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab[the founder of Wahabi movement] reasserted tawhid as a remedy for spritual stgnation and excesses..." Wahabi's interpretation of tawhid led him to reject any source of knowledge based on sources other than the Qur'an, Sunna, and logical processes. We have also Egyption reformer Muhammad Abduh justified rational inquiries into the Quran through Tawhid by claiming that there could be no conflict between reason and revelation, so the Quran validates and encourages humans' excercise of reason. Khomeini also based his views on Tawhid, the text says.

The quote I provided shows Al-Hibri is also arguing for women rights through Tawhid. Many (radicals, liberals, feminists, ...) seems using the same principle but their conclusions are different. --Aminz 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we still need more information about how the liberal Muslims are using or modifying the principle. The Lapidus quote I reproduced on Talk seems to saying that they are diverging quite far from the traditional concept of Tawhid. - Merzbow 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll send the scanned pages today as soon as I find a scanner. I'll try to find more sources in the library on that. Cheers, --Aminz 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Arjen Robben

Thank you very much for review this article. I've made some changes and added references according to your review. I hope I've addressed your concerns. Could you please take another look at the article? Should there be anything needs more fixing, please tell me. Arfan 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam and animals

Hi Merzbow, If you can watch over this article, it would be great. Matt thinks he can quote primary sources like the hadith and the Qur'an directly. He finds hadiths that are considered by most Muslim jurists as forgeries and adds them as the subtitle of images. (examples: Muhammad's order to kill all dogs etc etc; source Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature). --Aminz 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, quoting primary sources is not against policy (see this). ITs done ALL over wikipedia, ALL the time when the job is to put Islam in a positive light. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been here on wikipedia at least a year more than you. It is not okay to use primary sources directly. --Aminz 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WHERE is the wikipedia policy that says that?? Hello? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's only OK to quote primary sources to prove a point if there is also a secondary source that can be cited to support that interpretation. - Merzbow 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly my position. Secondary sources explain the context, reliability, meaning of the quotes etc etc. --Aminz 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont care to know what your position is. Give me the relevant Wikipedia policy which supports your position. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR - "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." - Merzbow 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply quoting is not OR. Interpreting is OR. You know the difference, right? Is that all you got? If you guys have nothing and keep reverting, I will go for an RfC. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it involves interpretation. We are not providing the context or the view of Muslims about that(whether it is a forgery or not). --Aminz 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one trying to interpret this statement out of existence. Simply quoting a sahih hadith without interpretation is in accordance with policy. Arrow740 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways to simply quote and still imply an interpretation. For example, one could link a picture of Osama and cherry-pick a Qur'anic quote to use as the caption. Selective quoting of religious texts which are by nature so open to differing interpretations is extremely problematic. - Merzbow 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

this is not selective quoting or cherrypicking. What is the context then of these hadiths Aminz is trying to delete? If you believe there are interpretations of these hadiths, you have to PROVIDE them and we can deal with that, otherwise there ARE no interpretations. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadith are by nature are varying authenticity, and Muslim scholars have been arguing for more than a thousand years which are to be trusted - to quote one without also quoting a reliable source that vouches for it is a dereliction of our encyclopedic duty, plain and simple. - Merzbow 20:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is - if there are interpretations and stuff, those can be included in the article. I never said we cant have other interpretations. What Aminz was doing here was taking out quotations saying its OR - which is 100% false. If its OR, prove it. Aminz, you can go ahead and include alternate interpretations if you want but again, dont take out the hadiths. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I had an impression that you would be a balanced editor who would follow guidelines but this is not true as I've found out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

- Merzbow 04:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I sense good in him. Arrow740 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright if Arrow says so, I look forward to working with you, Merz. If you told me all I had to do is put quotes in, I'd have done that. I'll do that soon.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merz, I just wanted to drop a short note of thanks for your edits and work on Islam, and I apologize for judging too quickly previously. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your nick

Just wondering, are you a fan of Merzbow? Pretty strange music. Cyberia23 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is I'm not a fan of their music; my love for noise begins and ends at Stereolab, Sonic Youth, and Band of Susans. I do like their name though. - Merzbow 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's a cool name. Merzbow is just one guy by the way. I had one album which was a double CD with only 4 songs (two on each CD). It was nothing but 160 minutes of layered static noise. I drove a few roomates nuts with it. I'm not really an fan of him either - I just like strange bands and experimental music. Anyway, nice to meet you. Cyberia23 21:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure

Hi Merzbow,

Sure. I'll do it tomorrow if that's okay. Cheers, --Aminz 09:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - Merzbow 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Weasel Words" Within the Article Islamophobia

The term "alleged" is listed as a "weasel world" WP:WTA in Wikipedia's list of such terms, and thus should be removed. Padishah5000 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad#Miracles in the Muslim biographies

Merzbow, I edited this section down to a more reasonable size. However, it's still a little awkward in parts, and it could benefit from the attention of a discerning eye.Proabivouac 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam

I think it is not likely that you recieve any reviews. I suggest you nominate this for FA and see if anybody disagrees. --Aminz 02:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll get some peer reviews, almost everything gets a review by a month. I think it's worth waiting, if we go to FA and people complain about major structural issues we can't fix while the clock is running, we're screwed. The Peer Review should hopefully reveal those quickly. - Merzbow 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that there is any problem with the article. You have fixed everything. --Aminz 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, does "Historicity of Muhammad" attract you as the next article you would like to work on? :) I have done some research about it but it is far still from GA. --Aminz 03:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I think I'll switch gears now and go work on some music-related articles for a while. - Merzbow 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there are still some miscellaneous tasks I want to finish before nominating - add authors to Britannica refs if I can find them, one last copyedit for language and clarity, and I want to run the automated peer review program also. A few more days at most. - Merzbow 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

lack of clarity in "supremacy"

i would like to resolve this civilly. i have no agenda except to be specific. what kind of supremacy did dhimmis have to acknowledge? please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.157.159 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

References

I think we don't need to change it. The more, the better. --Aminz 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"We don't need a citation after every sentence or comma unless it's controversial material that may be challenged."

I mean now we have references. Let's just condense everything together at the end of the paragraph. --Aminz 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is what spooked me: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Horace_Fran.C3.A7ois_Bastien_S.C3.A9bastiani_de_La_Porta. We can reduce the density without reducing sourcing by combining refs next to each other where easily possible, and by moving refs around a small bit. - Merzbow 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. That would be a very good idea. I thought you want to remove references. Sorry!--Aminz 08:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this blind edit okay? [13] --Aminz 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You can go even further by combining refs with semicolons, but visually this seems to look good only for small refs (i.e. refs that aren't cites, but simply author and year). See my latest edit to that section. - Merzbow 08:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks --Aminz 08:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the terrorism bit was resolved. But it seems not :( What do you think we can do? It is the only thing left. --Aminz 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve this underground on user talk pages. Cheers, --Aminz 06:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I don't see how we can say "Islam is not just a faith, but a civilization," and then proceed to deny Islamist terrorism on the grounds that while it indisputably arises from the purported civilization, it contradicts our opinions about the faith. If Islam is a civilization, then pretty much anything which occurs in it or proceeds from it is topical. We are even discussion (though thanks to Itaqallah this is much trimmed) advances in sciences which have nothing at all to do with Islamic beliefs. Muslims adopt papermaking from China and that's "Islamic" and topical, but an extremist who speaks of almost nothing but his interpretation of Islam, dedicates his life to and finally gives his life for that interpretation, is un-Islamic and off-topic?

It's not that I insist upon discussion of terrorism here; a link should be enough. However, the same is even more true for the scientific advances and several other points which have basically nothing to do with the religion, first and foremost the hideously misguided sentence "Islam is not just a faith, but a civilization." If so, this article is seriously unduly weighted towards discussion of the Islamic religion, which is only one part of the "Islamic civilization," and much more space needs to be given to social, political and economic issues. That this has not been done or even suggested bears witness to what I'd said on the talk page about the likely motivations behind the creation of this section. It would seem that our judgment of what is topical is a trivial function of our POV.Proabivouac 06:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go

I found this book:"The formative period of Islamic thought [by] W. Montgomery Watt." I'll borrow it from the library and we will be all set. --Aminz 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, please take a look at this section [14]--Aminz 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, not all enteries in Oxford Dictionary of Islam are written by Esposito. There is a 5-page list of contributers at the beginning of the book but the enteries are not signed. --Aminz 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting... we should mark him somehow as an editor then and not an author in the ref. - Merzbow 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit [15] is depressing. --Aminz 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is best to attribute this to Esposito(?) I'll change it. --Aminz 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, can you please quote the relevant passage regarding "Some radicals believe that jihad against unbelief and unbelievers is a religious duty..." if you have offline access to the book. Thanks. --Aminz 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to it... right now I'm bent on getting the history section finished by tonight. - Merzbow 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... p. 166 Esposito (2004): "Radical activists go beyond these precepts and operate on the following assumptions, believing that theological doctrine and political realism necessitate violent revolution: .... 5. Jihad against unbelief and unbelievers is a religious duty." - Merzbow 06:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added more quotes to the family section regarding polygomy and recent reforms. I'll start a section based on these sources. --Aminz 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the source I just added: Please search for "as dhimmis or peoples of the book entitled to Muslim protection, a status later extended to Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and other 'scriptural' religions"; it is on page 45.

Also, regarding Esposito (1992) or so. It was the extended edition of "Islam the striaght Path". Cheers, --Aminz 08:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about Ruthven, I was checking the wrong book on Amazon, she published two books in 2005. - Merzbow 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Meant in absolute good faith

I note that you are practically trying to squeeze blood out of stone in terms of your GA assessment on Tropical Storm Jerry (1995) (giving them about 14 days already - rather than the normal 2 - 7) - For what its worth as a fellow GA assessor (and given your assessment finalisation is the longest in the list of on holds) - I'd support your fail and indication they can renominate when they are sure they're ready.--VS ^talk 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the push, I've been hanging on a while there... I'll close by tomorrow if nothing more has come up. - Merzbow 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just failed it, but promised that I'd keep it on my watchlist and if they could fix the last remaining issue and relist I'd pass it quickly (no need to let it sit around for a month for a review like this time). - Merzbow 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good plan (assuming there is not a lot newly edited material added between then and now). Nice return comments - thanks.--VS ^talk 09:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections

Thanks for your comment on the TfD. I've posted a response. — Omegatron 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Holy quran cover.gif

Hello, Merzbow. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Holy quran cover.gif) was found at the following location: User:Merzbow/COQDraft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Hey Merzbow, thanks for fixing that sentence. My writing skills are a bit rusty right now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. - Merzbow 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments ?

Dear Merzbow, Can you please give some comments Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. I am thinking to file arbitration soon and your comments will help. --- A. L. M. 04:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. - Merzbow 06:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will wait for your comment before filing arbitration. --- A. L. M. 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MA NYT

Could you take those out while the discussion's on, please? Best practice is to attempt to discuss it briefly, rather than force a revert. I think we're on the right track, though. Hornplease 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You've got to be kidding me. Nobody is "forcing" you to revert - are you threatening to revert war? I and Jay have considered your arguments again and again, and we've rehashed the same points a dozen times. The consensus is against you here. - Merzbow 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? We're in the middle of a discussion, and you insert something rather than discussing it?

And you you and Jay have not considered may arguments time and again - you barely got them till yesterday.

As for consensus being against me, do you want me to trawl the archives and list the number of times this question has been raised? That's just dishonest. Remove it and discuss it sensibly, or I will. Hornplease 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Those two cites support the existing article text better than the other 17. Any attempt to remove them will be disingenuous if you don't also remove the article text. You are bordering on tendentious editing - continuing to press a point against consensus ad infinitum to wear out other editors. - Merzbow 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, it makes no sense to threaten an edit war over over these two citations, since your issue is not whether there are 18 cites or 20, but whether the material should be in the lead at all. And as I've pointed out on the article Talk page, there are bigger issues with the lead in any event. In that light your demands and threats make little sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunni-Shi'a map

Hi Merzbow,
Something is very very wrong with this image It promises to indicate percentages of Sunni and Shi'a, but only does this in two countries, Bahrain and Iraq, where there is a Sunni minority. In countries where it is widely known that there is a substantial Shi'a minority, such as Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, whatever differences there might (or might not) be in the color used are not visible to the naked eye.07:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree... if you want to remove it for now I wouldn't object. - Merzbow 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so.

It might at least in part be a function of the colors and formula used: In the case of Yemen, which, according to Yemen, is 55% Sunni and 42% Shi'a, there was clearly an attempt to do something, but it only looks darker green, which according to the key suggests only a higher percentage of Muslims. A red-blue scale might be more optically functional.Proabivouac 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:U1583792.jpg

Hello Merzbow, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:U1583792.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Merzbow/TempStuff. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)