User talk:Nableezy/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Solution

I was looking for wikipedia on the 2008 peace solution, aka "Palestine Papers", but couldn't find it. Do you know if there's an article on it. This is what I'm talking about.VR _talk 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Palestine Papers. nableezy - 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tahrir Square

Moved as requested. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious?

I honestly cannot believe you would even think to do that. If you try to pull anything like that again I'll block you indefinitely. NW (Talk) 05:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? nableezy - 06:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One user had already been warned for outing. So what do you decide to do? You link to a page on the Wiki that doesn't link the user with his real name. However because you have done this, anyone with half a brain can make the association. That's totally uncalled for. NW (Talk) 06:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You think me advising somebody that they can blank comments from others calling them "despicable" or "daft" is a bad thing. Or maybe linking to a Wikipedia Signpost. Or maybe quoting from a policy and telling him he shouldn't be linking to off-wiki publications, but that the repeated dredging up of his past comments, with hypocritical commentary about others "vile hatred" for a particular ethnicity, was likewise a form of "harassment" as identified in the policy. I guess thats my mistake. (after ec) That was not outing, and anybody who says it was is putting their head in the sand. A particular person wrote an article in which he describes his editing here. That person published that article in several high profile places, among them one of Israel's largest "news" websites. That person outed themselves. No reading of WP:OUTING can be made in which linking to a signpost article is "outing". nableezy - 06:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

State Security Investigations Service

Hoping my fairly major moves on this Egypt page right in your wake meet your approval. I'd been working on it for a while, then got an "edit conflict" when I tried to post my collected edits because you'd entered in the interim. I tried to merge, in effect, my work into and around your new work. ... Well, take a look, go at it ... if necessary. Good work! Swliv (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. There is a lot to add, there are at least 2 other HRW reports and an AI report. And that isnt even getting in to the history of the actual agency. nableezy - 13:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone smell a sock?

Special:Contributions/Truth will prevail 200. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Lanternix maybe Sean.hoyland - talk 19:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL !?! Tijfo098 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to guess the word that comes next ? um..service. Did I say something incivil ? Unintended. Perhaps I should elaborate. I only looked at the articles edited and who might be a potential sockpuppet source based on those => blocked user Lanternix. I didn't look at the actual edits. Having just looked at one, Lanternix looks way off. Who do you have in mind as the sockpuppet source ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I see Lanternix has been indef'd some months ago for socking. (I was unaware of that when I first posted here.) So, reported to the blocking admin. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's almost surely Lanternix see [1] [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, those edits with [3] is pretty compelling. Removing a ref that used www.memritv.org here seemed like too sensible an edit for Lanternix hence my doubt. Anyway, he's probably the most likely candidate on those pages I guess. Good luck. Nableezy is in Egypt. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dahab

Hey, If you come by Dahab in the next week or two; let me buy you a drink :) Cheers. 41.233.37.98 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays akh

Happy 4/20 brother ;) I'm gonna smoke a blunt for Masr tonight. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You enjoying your trip?

Got back Monday, but I had a blast. But stop smoking that shit! Its mine dammit! Salam, nableezy - 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear man and take it easyyy, theres enough for everyone... as long as you got 5 on it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get in on this? Tiamut^talk 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AE: Jaakobou

I have closed your AE request without action, accepting Jaakobou's explanation. Your request was perfectly appropriate, though, and I would not like to discourage you from filing any future IBAN interactions. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, thanks. nableezy - 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While you were away...

Glad you're back and, by the sound of it, having fun. Just a very quick note that I mentioned you (in passing) and linked to correspondence concerning you here, although matters there seem to be all taken care of so I would advise against diving into that particular dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian singer

You wouldn't be aware of singer named Mais Shalash, would you? She has an Arabic article (albeit, kind of small). But I am interested in making an English one. -asad (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. nableezy - 12:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Source

You had access to this source, could you look at it and see if it supports the sentence? [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

yes and yes. nableezy - 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's this thing called ice hockey

I don't know if the NHL makes the news down there. But now that the series is tied, I was wondering if you'd like to go double or nothing on those pictures that are still on my userpage. I was thinking just the team jersey pictures from the infoboxes. Sort of like how the mayors do that. Cause we pretty much run this place. I used to think it was admins but it turns out they're more like janitors. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didnt have the heart to talk any trash, if yall lose I can only say sorry. But you cant have the jerseys, copyrighted logos. nableezy - 12:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well you're free to honour the Canucks or just Vancouver any way you'd like. Maybe Nish would help you with a poem. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. Though we should have finished yall off in that power play, Lu was looking like a scared kid. Ill figure something out for the userpage. nableezy - 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But I really should explain to you what the phrase "double or nothing" means (and I cannot understand why a Muslim would need to explain this to a heathen). We had a bet last year, I won. A "double or nothing" bet this year would mean, if I won, I would double my winnings (or in this case you would double your losses). If you won, we would go to a pre-last year state, the "nothing" in "double or nothing". But Ill do something special for the userpage, maybe use the Canuckistani colors in that userbox on the bottom. nableezy - 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking saying "double or nothing". Maybe I just meant on my user page I had intended to keep the old pictures and add something new. Sorry about that one. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You know your signature has been red on black for a really long time. I'm just saying. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats for Egypt, not the Bulls or Hawks. And that aint changing, slap yourself for even suggesting it. nableezy - 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

good enough? nableezy - 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's beautiful, thanks. And I was meaning to change the other edit too. Especially since it was moved by Kinetochore. By the way, you have my permission to remove any stupid comments I make. Just let me know when you do and I'll put them back after if I disagree. I guess you'd have to link this post in your edit summary. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would indeed sing praises to Canucks

In lilting iambic rhythms if I knew

Hów that word's pronounced, to rhyme with 'fucks'?,

Or is it 'chooks'? So, please oblige, thank you.

If delicacy would sidestep vulgar tones,

Of course I could well ring the changes on

the amphibrach, Vancouver. Though it drones

A tad, the chime would fit a Canadian.

So suffering perplexities as to sound

I dither here, unable to fulfil

Assistance of the kind that would redound

To Canada's credit, unless I channel Will.

Alas, eheu, the bard, three fathoms under,

Prefers, it's said, the silence of his slumber. Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I lived in Central Canada long enough to know that you don't have to be very clever to rhyme Canucks and fucks. I also became quite familiar with the SAQ back East. But thanks for that. I'm a little flattered that you thought I'd know what an amphibrach was. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And you might be interested in the Canadien Stratford Streak. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I must tell Tom Reedy to do a 'Stratford streak' when he next visits England to 'hang out' round Shakespeare's birthplace. I've never heard the word 'Canuck' spoken, and was too lazy to go upstairs for the nth time to yank out, (or is that 'canuck out'?) the 20 vol OED and check it. So we share a common past as SAQs slaking our thirst in Eastern Canada, I see. All I can remember from staying in Toronto was that people put salt in their beer, you couldn't rise from a pub table to order and get tankards but had to be waited on, that if you got closer to the bar, and sat at 'stool' to ease the travail and delays of ordering, you had to look at a pair of tits, and that a local told me these were the dues paid for the country's Protestant roots. Montreal, in those days, seemed to be the only livable city, because alcoholicss like myself were tolerated, and their French patois accents seemed worse than mine was at the time. Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arrigoni

Hi, thanks for your message on it.wiki. I'll try to give a look at the ensligh version of the article. Honestlty I think that the current version is not so netural and it should be partially rewritten (but from his structure, this is the problem...). --Lucas (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that is very nice of you. nableezy - 05:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"de-gibberishize, what does "between Israel and Palestine" mean?"

I saw your edit in the Itamar attack page. I don't know who wrote the former revision, but it said disputed territory between Israel and Palestine, meaning an area which is in argument between the Israelis and Palestinians. But I do think it is good you erased it, since it doesn't matter whatsoever if there is a dispute over this or that area - killing and slaughtering children and parents is an act of terrorism and a terrible sin.Editorprop (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing? nableezy - 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this comment is literally the other side of the coin. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your sig

I should probably have better things to do than to tell you this, but sadly, I don't. Did you know your signature has an unmatched </small> tag at its very end? It gets highlighted as a syntax error in edit mode with the editor I use (wikEd), and my poor ADD brain has me staring at it for two seconds before I remember, "Oh, yeah. That's Nableezy's signature." If the spare trailing tag isn't purposeful (I suppose it could help you find your edits on a busy page, in edit mode) is there any chance you'd take pity on me and my similarly ... wait, was that a bird at the window? I need to wash the car before the trip to the beach ... ADD kindred wikEd users, and delete it? I checked, and your sig shows up just the same without it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it I think it is an unmatched </font> tag. I took that out now, is there a problem with this signature? nableezy - 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, much better. No syntax-error highlights in wikEd. Most kind; thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

The end
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nableezy, I used to have a slightly better opinion about you. I mean discussing stolen emails (even if they are fake, but you believe them to be real) is anyway as to buy stolen things. Only somebody, who has no dignity could fall so low. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Thats nice. If you ever have evidence of me colluding with a banned editor who has repeatedly used sock puppets to harass other users, please, by all means, discuss to your hearts content. If I am colluding with that banned user to get you blocked, even better. It must take a lot of "dignity" to do that. nableezy - 13:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Nableezy, you say I was proxy editing on behalf of nocal, but I urge you to look over my contribution, and find any instance I was. Never ever ever ever I was editing on behalf of any banned user. Never! I hardly edit old articles at all. I mostly write new ones, and my English cannot be mistaking with English of nocal. So why December 20 was different? It was different because I knew my account was hacked at the very moment it was. After that my friends and me exchanged a few fake emails in order to make the hacker to act on them. How did I know that the hacker was connected to Wikipedia? Well, I did not, but the IP my alert gave to me was editing wikipedia. That IP was proxy, but at that time I did not know it was. It looked like it was from Chicago. I thought it could be you, and that's why I edited Egypt between other things. A day or two later I emailed CU about that IP, and it was blocked. CU could confirm my words. I also emailed Phil, and explained the situation with those fake emails, and he could confirm my words. Please stop beating a dead horse, and exercise some dignity. One useful idiot Sol got banned over those emails. Please avoid being next.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Fake emails, yeah right. So when you ask Brocollo to approve a DYK and tell him exactly what to write, and with his next edit he does exactly that, that is fake? When you ask NoCal about the Egypt article, and he responds and tells you what to do, and also uses a sockpuppet in that little "game", and you do exactly that, that is fake? When you are coordinating AE filings with nsaum (which I must say made me extremely disappointed in him, I did not expect such blatantly underhanded actions from him), that is fact? When you coordinate with Jiujitsuguy, Stellarkid (a banned user), Breein, and brewcrewer, that is fake? How's this for a game, you leave me alone, and I'll try to forget the fact that you engaged in such sneaky, lowdown, underhanded, punk-made tactics. nableezy - 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, it is you who should leave me alone, and stop spreading lies about me, the lies that were taken from fake emails, the lies that have already made one useful idiot to be banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Im on your talk page right now? Nuh uh? Fake emails? Right. And your reply to Demiurge where you acknowledge the NoCal emails as real, same as you do here. Give it up mbz1, you are not as good as you think you are. You cant wiggle your way out of this and every word you write only makes it more clear that all of this is true. Now, be gone. Go cry to your email list, Im sure you all can figure a new article to target together. nableezy - 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I have never acknowledged my emails are real. Here's the email that he published. Yes, I wrote email to nocal but with the only purpose to make the hacker to act on it and to get caught. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) You acknowledged playing a "game" with NoCal on Egypt when the emails show you working with NoCal on Egypt to attempt to get me blocked. If you dont understand that to be an acknowledgment that the email is real, sorry, I cant help you. But like I said, be gone. Im sure there is much more dignity on the email list with Jiujitsuguy, Stellarkid/Tundrabuggy/Dajudem/tooManyToName, brewcrewer, ... than there is here, so you may be more comfortable there. nableezy - 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) You have both made highly inappropriate comments in this thread. Stop it or you'll both end up getting sanctioned. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Gato, I am tired of your unwarranted threats. You want to get me sanctioned, please be my guest. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Which comment, the "sneaky, lowdown ..."? Maybe, but it isnt everyday you learn a user is colluding with the likes of NoCal to get you blocked. nableezy - 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Nab, if you have no dignity left, could you please turn your brain on at least? I am telling you I knew about the hacking at the very moment it happened. Everything after that was a game to make the hacker to act. When the hacker did not act, I thought it could be not connected to wiki after all, and it was when I decided to change my password and emailed CU about the hacker. As you see the IP was blocked on December 23 (actually on December 22 SF time). In my email to Avi I provided the copy of the alert my Gmail gave to me. He could confirm my words. So once again please stop beating a dead horse because you look laughable, and with that I am outtahere --Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Do you not understand the words "be gone"? Would you like me to explain them to you? If not, be gone. I dont believe a word you write, in fact I have no doubt that you continue to collude with NoCal, Stellarkid, brewcrewer, Breein .... Tell them I say hi, and let NoCal I know 2 of his current socks. And 1 of Stellarkids. nableezy - 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fidelity of a translation?

Hi, Nableezy. Am I correct in my understanding that you're conversant in Arabic? If so, I wonder if you'd mind having a look at the video on this page to determine whether it supports the English-language translation that occurs on the same page? It's just a minute and 17 seconds long, and you might be able to save other editors a lot of wrangling at the talk page for the Hamas school bus attack article, if you could find the time to do so. Best thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

At work right now, would rather not go to that site from here. Will check it when I get home tonight. nableezy - 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course; I understand. You might also like to look at comments I left about it on Roscelese's talk page re its context. Again, thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The translation aint bad, but the way it was treated in the article is way off. The advisor was saying that Israel wished to use the bus attack as a pretext for attacking Gaza. The focus in the article is the snippet were he says that "which was not completely destroyed". And why would an advisor to a politician be quoted anyway as though this were an official reaction? But Ive said enough, the actual translation aint too bad. nableezy - 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very generous of you... But your edit notice always makes me want to insult someone, and I know it would be immature to insult you, gratuitously, after you've just done me a kindness. I know! You wouldn't ban me from your talk page for insulting Wiki-petan, would you? She's such a ... no, I can't bring myself to say it; she's just a kid. Sigh. Anyway, thanks again for your help, very much.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

Not so much on top of the rules, but didn't you violate 1rr?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you are on top of the rules, which is why you rushed to revert there. But no, reverts of IPs are exempt. See WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction: edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. But you could email a friend and ask them to revert; so long as they log in I could not revert again ;). nableezy - 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

apparently you're more on top of the rules then i am. no need to email. my "friends" probably have your talk page watchlisted, will see this discussion, and revert. Then your "friend" will revert my friend and so on and so forth. Unless of course we decided to be a little reasonable and admit that history of Jews in Jerusalem is proper background material for an article entitled Judaization of Jerusalem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, I have self reverted. But I expect you to condense it and make it a bit more relevant. Please do so. nableezy - 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to add to that section. From what I understand, according to the Bible, the history of Jews in Jerusalem does not start at King David, but earlier. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, you add to it, then Ill condense it. Please dont make me regret setting aside my better judgment and attempting to work with you. nableezy - 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think it has to be condensed, then condense it. I don't take orders from you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, back to my better judgment. nableezy - 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption; logically, history needs to be sourced by historians, not historical religious scholars whom collected the Biblic scriptures. With my respect, and exception of course, to all of our beloved prophets.

I'm not opening a discussion, tho, just clarifying the reliable source sense of history sources: secondary source. AdvertAdam ^talk 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Replying to my comment was continued on my talkpage. Sorry for the interruption Nableezy :) AdvertAdam ^talk 22:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. nableezy - 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

AE

I'm sure you've seen it, but here's your formal notice: [5] Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NoCal! nableezy - 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You really should publish a guide to the various socks. I wish I had 1/10 of your ability to sniff them out. (I'm fairly certain that Stellarkid is back, but I'm too lazy to bother looking for diffs.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd put the odds on Opportunidaddy being a sock of SK around 3-1. When it gets down to 2-1 I might file an SPI. There is another, more active one, that I am pretty sure of, but need to wait a bit for more evidence. nableezy - 21:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of an editor with a shorter name that starts with S and ends with m. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think S----m is a sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so either, but that user hasnt really made me aware of them, so I cant say Ive actually looked all that carefully. nableezy - 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions require you to explain your revert

Nableezy, regarding this revert at Golan Heights, as a veteran editor who's been sanctioned in the past and who frequently warns other users about violations of I/P policy, you're expected to know that "All editors...and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." A message to that effect appears both when editing the article itself as well as on the Talk page. There is a discussion about the infobox map currently in progress, but there is not one about the map elsewhere in the article. Another editor would have probably gone with this directly to AE, especially seeing as you've made two batches of edits since the revert, which means you had more than ample time to comply with the discretionary sanctions; but I seem to be on mute when it comes to Admin noticeboards and also, seeing as this is our first interaction, I prefer not to create any ill will between us and under assumption of good faith conclude you simply didn't see or forgot policy in this instance. Anyway, please explain your revert of AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)'s edit as required.—Biosketch (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, wait, what is the issue here exactly? I see a very long thread called "map in infobox" on the page in question, doesn't that relate to the same map? If so, I hardly think you can accuse Nableezy of failing to discuss the issue on talk. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, explained now. nableezy - 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk · contribs), see extended reply on your Talk page. Nableezy (talk · contribs) explained his revert. There's no reason to debate the matter further on his Talk page.—Biosketch (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

FYI, there is a discussion concerning you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nableezy. I'm allergic to these kinds of discussions, generally, but concerning this one, I see that "Broccolo" is suggesting you be sanctioned because, as he says, he's "simply looking for some consistency". You might like to help him to some:

• Implication that a certain editor is unstable, "courtesy" of Broccolo.

I don't generally care much when people here call me names, but I also don't generally care much for double standards. This was over the debacle yesterday and today at Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle, which is listed on its talk page as being under ARBPIA & etc. constraints.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Good to see you're still keeping out of trouble. Seriously, I'm glad you're back, even if I probably would disagree with a significant chunk of your editing... and I will try to get to that book you suggested (not that you were holding your breath). Looks interesting. Cheers. IronDuke 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Be still my beating heart. Honestly, I would like to focus more on Egypt. But those pages dont piss me off, regardless of how bad they are. Welcome back though, hope you are well. nableezy - 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jihad's talk-page

Hello sir. Sorry for bothering, as I know that you're busy. I just wanted to ask if you have some free time to check the discussion at the end of Jihad's talk-page. An editor is using texture out of context, claiming that my BBC source is incorrect. I've tried to explain that he misunderstood his sources, however, he kept rumbling around the same topic over and over again. Hope you can join the conversation, due to your longer experience on Wikipedia. Thanks both ways; I understand if you don't have time. He's trying to prove that "Islam allows raping slavegirls", where other Wikipedia articles say so too. I'm trying to work on them to correct the false sources AdvertAdam ^talk 08:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apropos the concoction of pejorative images of a cultural or fideistic adversary, Nab, have you a copy of Norman Daniel's classic Islam and the West, (1960)? It doesn't handle contemporary tripe, but allows the reader to see how everything said these days recycles miscomprehensions broached and elaborated in medieval times to justify the Crusades. Well worth mastering.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello all! Askimam.org: On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.[6]     ←   ZScarpia   12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. Quite a party here. I saw this, and tried to help at the talk page, explaining WP:PSTS. But since I know nothing of Islamic Law, I won't have the least objection if someone wants to tell the relatively new users who asked for help that I was wrong, if I was. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything such as Christian law on which everyone from Bickertonites to the Pope, Billy Graham to Calvin, Savanarola to Don Andrea Gallo, the Archimandrite Sophrony and Thomas J. J. Altizer agree on? How do Christian fundamentalists deal with Exodus 21:2-9, 21; Lev.25:45-46, and so many passages. The Atlantic passage, the wealth of the plantations, and much else was based on Biblical justification. The question therefore is whether or not in Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc.etc today does the state legal code underwrite the slavery, for sexual or other ends, which all monotheisms, Jewish, Christian and Islamic historically legislated on. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of (non-expert) random observations:

One Biblical justification used to support slavery was that, as Noah's sons are described in the Bible as having light skins, it was argued that, therefore, dark-skinned people weren't human and could be used like animals.

Sounds strange to me. Tanakh culture was not colour-conscious, surely? One of the prophets, Zephaniah, was, after all, a black.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, I didn't say that the argument was rational. I have, though, seen instances of the argument being used.     ←   ZScarpia   18:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Bible verses you've listed, a difference is made between servants, who must be released in Jubilee years, and slaves, with a ban on making Hebrews the latter. Something I've read, but only in one place, is that, when there was a lively slave trade in south-eastern Europe (perhaps you can advise whether it is only a coincidence that the words Slav and slave are very similar), one wheeze used by those sold to Jewish owners was to convert to Judaism so that they would have to be freed, following Judaic law, at the end of six years. That, of course, led to a rise in the Jewish population and, so the argument goes, partly accounts for the very non-Mediterranean appearance of some Jews.

Well history is a brothel genetically, particularly the mediterranean north and south.

I suspect that the Pauline epistles in which Saint Paul says that convert slaves should continue to obey their masters was probably used by those seeking a Biblical justification for slavery.

Perhaps one factor which led to rising European repugnance at the slave trade in European colonies was the fear and loathing that the North African and Levantine slave trade in Europeans had produced (for centuries, European coastal-dwellers and mariners ran a very real risk of falling victim to Barbary corsairs etc and ending up as slaves in the Muslim countries surrounding the Mediterranean).

I doubt it. By analogy, it is like saying a nation became pacifist because its soldiers frequently died in war. Historians debate this a bit, but the British movement that eventually destroyed slavery by an act of parliament and its reverberations is justly regarded as one of those one or two miracles in history, going against all calculation of probabilities.Marxists have tried to counter this, but you can't produce any economic rationale for its abolition, and before it passed the Marines themselves under Eaton had struck Tripoli, and France and England had been wrestling for Mediterranean hegemony in Egypt, as their navies began to overwhelm the residual nuisance of the corsairs by that time. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the ethics of some people may work in such a way that, if they feel that something would be immoral if done to themselves, it would also be immoral if done to anyone else?     ←   ZScarpia   18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The norm in political history, and this was a political decision, is do unto others what you think they'd jump at to do unto you, if only they had the chance and power. I don't think the men who moved that miracle were thinking of what it would be like to be a slave. They were thinking of how embarrassing it was to their self-regard as enlightened aristocrats or gentlemen of privilege to connive at commerce in inhumanity. There were enough influential men in that age who were irreducibly decent, like Dr.Johnson with his relations with, and testimoniary dispositions for Frank Barber. Obviously, Johnson's years scrounging as a hack, and at the beck and call of whimsical patrons fed into his outrage at the injustice, but many like Wilberforce had no such background, and their motivation was evangelical. It was a unique moment in history, which despises decency and sentiment in calculations of political economy. Now we are returning to a macroeconomic model of wage-slavery, and debt peonage, it will be interesting to watch and see whether the poor, who turn to religion, read their bibles and korans closely enough to see that the return to feudalism implies extensive obligations on our masters.(I'm sure Nab is thinking, if he reads this, that Shakespeare would be more fun).Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps another factor was that slavery was associated with punishment (for example, being sent to the galleys or being transported to the colonies) and so the enslavement of people who had committed no crime may have seemed wrong.

Just an attempt to produce some kind of answer.     ←   ZScarpia   15:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I start, I should say that none of what follows reflect my own personal views. But to the initial question. Islam does not allow "rape" at all, but it does not define "rape" in the way that we see in the west. There is no concept of "marital rape" for example. The same applies to slaves. A slave owner, in Islam, cannot "rape" his slaves because the slave does not have the right to refuse consent. There are restrictions on what a slave owner may do with his slaves, and there are numerous verses from the Quran and hadith that say that slaves should be treated well and that it is among the best deeds to free slaves. But a slave owner may copulate with his slaves under Islamic law. He may not force her to sell herself to others, but he himself can have sexual relations with her. Consent does not factor in to that. nableezy - 16:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have you on my watch-list but wonder why I haven't seen all these updates. I actually came to say that others already went there, and guess they came from your page :). Just an additional personal point, as the topic over there is almost closed based on original research. The Qur'an has the strongest credibility in Islam, and it confirms your point (under Islamic law). It says that she can't be purchased for sex, except by concubine to avoid adultery (less than a marriage, but you have to give her full financial rights with mutual agreement of her and her owner). I put a secondary source (a book) there, which is the closest to the Qur'an than the other non-logical sources that say she doesn't have to agree AdvertAdam ^talk 06:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding

I'll trust that those discussing will get it straightened out. Sometimes, accidental deletions occur and that's what I thought was happening. No problem.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I should have made a note in the edit summary of what I was doing the first time. Seeing 1.7 kB removed from a talk page without explanation rightfully made you concerned. nableezy - 19:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

I am here to kindly ask you to retract (or delete) your statement implying that I am, or might be, a SOCK (at George's userpage). Thankyou. I just found "Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts" - I'd be loathe to be so petty, but I am considering it! OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Have fun. I mean it, go all out, have a blast. But you may want to consider, for your future accounts, whether or not annoying me is more important than not revealing yourself to be a sock. Please, tell me, how did you find my previous blocks and bans that led to your conclusion on AE. You say we were editing the same article/talk. That isnt entirely true. Your first comment on that page appears after I had been involved in a dispute there. And your comment was in a section completely unrelated to the one I was focused on. Shortly after your first comment there you went to make your first comment at AE. Funny how that works out. nableezy - 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I can't wait for your apology ;-) OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)