Talk:Arabic Wikipedia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old threads have been moved here to make management of the main Talk page easier, and has been protected from editing. If a matter mentioned here requires further discussion, please start a new thread on the main Talk page with a link to the conversation here. Thanks.

Different Background?

Shouldn't there be a note that the Arabic Wikipedia has a different background than the other Wikipedias? BirdValiant 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.18.183 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Count Updating

Is User:Meno25 a bot? If not, it isn't necessary to be updating the article count every other day. Once a month would probably be enough. BirdValiant 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, somebody updated the article count 7 hours after the last article count update. It moved up five measly articles. Please refrain from updating the article count at least for a month or two, not 7 hours. Or if it increases a substantial number, like 2,500, or 1,000 at least. Not 5. BirdValiant 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the harm. Someone is enthusiastic about the article count, and, AFAIK, is not breaking any rules. --Djihed (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Report

Im doing a report on Arabic language wikipedia and umm, I need aloooot more informations, but the thing is I dont speak arabic. So, does anyone have any sources I could use? -- 20:10, 4 August 2006 User:Elatanatari

20,000th article

Out of curiosity, what was the 20,000th article? AnonMoos 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

30000th article

The Arabic Wikipedia has been trumpeting its hitting the 30000 mark, but my Arabic is rather poor, especially reading, and I can't make heads or tails of what exactly is going on. Can somebody take a look? Meanwhile, I'm putting Template:Update, just in case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lockesdonkey (talk • contribs).

Blocked And Restricted

NOw it s blocked in syria...only the url that start with http://ar.wikipedia.org ,,it will be a disaster if they blocked wikipedia entirely

Unsigned-for security purposes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.1.51 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not, if the editors of the Arabic wiki themselves are biased toward its content, it's not a free wiki --Stayfi (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Restricted 2

You have seen (English Wikipedians) how OsamaK (a very very very proud muslim), an administrator in the Arabic wiki, and a wikipedian on the English one, how he has spoiled this discussion page, just to ban the freedom of speech. You can imagine his doings in the arabic wiki... --Stayfi (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi wikipedia is not a blog, and this page is about Arabic wikipedia, not about your ideas about the admin who blocked you due to your in-constructive behaviour. Please do not repate the same behaviour within the en wiki. --Tarawneh (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi, since you have joined Ar wiki and you are making troubles. Please do not make trouble here also. --Qadsawi (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ar Wiki is restricted, nd under heavy survillance by the 3 SUNNI BROTHERS, qadsawi, blame ur admins more than me, nd try to put a picture of mohamed in the Ar wiki, since u defend wiki nd it.s freedom. --Stayfi (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that its his picture? and how do you know? --Qadsawi (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi will not be able to answer this question as he has been blocked indefinitely for his disruption. --Rodhull andemu 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

stayfi have you discussed that with other wikipedians in ar wikipedia? if you want to put a picture of prophet mohammad in ar wiki, disscus it in the Village pump الميدان then do what the community decides to do --Osm agha (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed but outnumbred by UR community, banned by a heavy islamic view (AS I've SAID) i'm blaming this orientation, look simply to the persian wiki, nd how they represent him. Again, this Ar wiki isn't free, not respecting the NPOV i mean. --Stayfi (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This is an article about the Arabic Wikipedia. It is not a WP:SOAPBOX for complaints about the Arabic Wikipedia. It seems that some editors (who may be the same editor) think differently. Accordingly, I've fully protected this article until a checkuser can be run to find the source of these edits, and appropriate blocks issued. This may take a little time. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Rodu, i hope i'll not be forced to ask the removing of the protection to other admins, i'm contributng to this article by facts, not complaints, ND I THINK THAT THE SECTION ABOUT BLOCKING THE ARABIC WIKI IN SYRIA IS A REAL COMPLAINT.

So, let me add references to the sunni wikipdia, as soon as possible. regards --Stayfi (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a sunni wikipedia, if you have problems with the sunni Administrators make a complaint to the christian Administrator LordAnibus --Osm agha (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Sunni my self, nd i saw its management, i've no less than a year on it, one christian admin isn't enough, this is a sunni wiki, see for example the persian wiki, nf if u consider shia as muslims or no, how they put pictures of mohamed there, the vagina also for detailed explanation, i'm speaking about the NPOV, not about the religion of admins, they've made the Ar wiki, simply, a SUNNI wiki. --Stayfi (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about it. Nobody is going to do anything about the Arabic Wikipedia from here. The sooner you realise that and agree to stop adding those complaints, the sooner the article can be unprotected and be edited properly. And I think you'll find it difficult to find an admin who disagrees with me. Bear in mind if you continue pushing this, you can, and will, be blocked for disruption. --Rodhull andemu 10:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a place for facts (I'm writting about them), see my contributions, in the Ar wiki, any article by me, not related to Islam, or the Arab politics, was not restricted, only, when i write on sensitive subjects, that people of Sunni Wahhabi background came, I know what i'm talking about, rod, nd i can read arabic...

Also, there isn't just one admin, if the majority choose to ignore it here also, it's just fine, i'll turn to the french wiki, nd the Spanish one. Regards --Stayfi (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi, the supreme cabal denies the Truth™. What matters here is V. Rather than wiki grief add the Sunni Cabal^SC here. Санта Клаус (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

it's not a sunni cabal, it's stupidity cabal, which brought ar wiki to become a sunni wiki, what's the difference between the persian version nd the arabic one, since, they r 2 run by a majority of muslims, it's a sunni view simply that doesn't respect the NPOV.

i'm waiting the reply of mr rodhull, nd i'll post a new in the admins section if he doesn't. --Stayfi (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to me to judge the adequacy of these sources, it's up to your fellow-editors here, and I'm happy to leave it up to them. --Rodhull andemu 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Restricted 3

for the prophet mohamed pictures, it's easy to show how the block is on this article, nd compare it to the Persian wiki, the shia majority in the persian wiki, is more open minded, with less restrictions, like it's sister in the arabic one, nd it'll show that the arabic wiki, is but a Sunni wiki for fanatics, not for all arabs (christians, shia, or even sunni)

the english article of mohamed is blocked in the UAE, but it's hard to give a reference, we'll put need citation instead

For the Caliph othman, it's hard to put a citation, since there's no a major study about the arabic wiki in english language.

for the medical imagery, i'll put a link to vigina's article in arabic wiki to compare it to the english one.

Please do take a look to this website's:

Wiki Wars

Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet

--Stayfi (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

So far no serious discussion about adding sourced content has taken place. Not to repeat the flurry of socks (and a user editing without loggin in) I'd appreciate a partial protection when the full one expires. Санта Клаус (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Santa, u've too see this,

Wiki Wars

Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet

arabic wiki is no less, a sunni one, see th persian wiki. we'll see the point of view of rodhul, nd others i suppose, bear in mind, that i've no less than a year in the arabic wiki, they want u to write about spring or birds not about the caliph othman. nd u where one of them, u know, no need to defend it here, cos all admins here are not sunni, this to remind u, --Stayfi (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

these sources do not say that there is a restriction an ar wikipedia --Osm agha (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Osm aha, maybe, i've to contact diretlythe jewcy magazine, nd the guardian to do a study, in englsh, nd put it later as a reference, yes, i've to.

Also, i need to reach an accord, with the borad of admins here, again --Stayfi (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

that's cool. when these two magazines do researches about ar wikipedia and mention that there is a restriction in it, add this information to the article, do we have a deal? --Osm agha (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

the images of mohamed nd the Vagina, are simply banned, without the hints to the arabic content of this wiki, is this not enough? --Stayfi (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi, save our time. Either find sources for what you like to add or go somewhere else to fight the cabal running ar wp. Санта Клаус (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, can u find a source for the blocking of ar wiki in Syria? u've jst put (need citation), thought it's evident tht ar wiki is a sunni one.

So, we've to put these facts, about images, waiting for a big major study done by the Guardian! nd we've just to put (need citation for it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayfi (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes i can find, search for "arbic wikipedia blocking syria" or in arabic "حجب ويكيبيديا العربية سوريا" in any search engine and see the results. --Osm agha (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

U see, Osm, for me, or any engish wikipedian here, NO NEED TO USE AN EXTERNAL LINK outside wiki, just to click on the INTERWIKIS inside wikipedia, on the SUNNI ARTICLE about Mohamed, to see that it doesn;t contain any image of him, and if i click on the jews exodus from arabs lands (and if I UNDERSTAND ARABIC, i'll read wonders!)

Yet, we need really a good study about the so called arabic wiki. --Stayfi (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

if the article about mohammad does not contain any images of him, it does not mean there is a restriction, maybe all users in ar wikipedia do not want to add these pics. Anyway, this is my last reply here because it seems that u just want to put ur own ideas without listning --Osm agha (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll interpret that for now as a lack of consensus for change, then. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RIGHT, U agree, osm so, on the ban (u said, the majority doesn't want, the majority wants..and so), u mean it exactly: Arabic wiki is run by a majority of Sunni Admins.

Rodull, yes there's no consensus for change, nd u've learned Osm's sayings, please, Shift the protection off this article, I'm eager to change it. --Stayfi (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi, you will see here a joke removed. Does it allow me to write about the quality of the English Wikipedia in Criticism of Wikipedia? We can't just talk about individual cases! You want to talk about the vagina article and Osm wants to talk about Diabetes... This is not the place to discuss these issues. Have you (or anyone else) discussed adding the "horrible" images? Don't you know that ar wp admins include an atheist, a Shi'a and two Christians? And why are you just in trouble with the sunni admins who blocked you? What about the sunni admins who are yet to block you? You could have written in your talk to request unblocking politely; what you did is more attacks and baseless accusations, writing anonymously on ANB and creating a Sunni Wikipedia redirect to Arabic Wikipedia there. And did they block your ips? Only reverted your threats and deleted your vandalism. Please take your time to read wp:V. The Guardian is a RS - can you use it to add to this article? I know I am wasting my time. Better to calm down and come back when you are angry no more. You are not banned forever on ar wp, and I guess you won't be as moody when the block is over. Санта Клаус (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm blocked in the arabic Wikipedia, is that cool?

The reasons, i touched sensitive subjects in Islam (Othman the Caliph...) is this clear to u, santa, the one who was responsible of this.

Do i hav to judge your comparison between: Mohamed the prophet, and ur monkeys business article?

Is there a majority of atheist there? shias? Take a look to the Persian wiki...or the Hebrew one.

I can always write in the arabic wiki, but i prefer my opinion to be respected, than to write with another name.

I hate fanatics.

We could hav avoided all this, if the bureaucrats there, where assigned by Jimbo directly.

Wikpedia needs Rules, as per every respected democracy, otherwise, it's just, THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

--Stayfi (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Older conversations have been archived here.

Unblocking of Arabic wikipedia in Syria was on February 13, 2009. I made a mistake last time. --Ciphers (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank u friend --Osm agha (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section

Several administrators are trying to remove the criticism section because they believe it violates the "good faith" policy. Of course, this is a misunderstanding because this is not a talk page but a criticism section in an article. In a "criticism section" you get criticism, there is no assumption of good faith here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.178 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to keep the criticism section, you will need to rewrite that encyclopedically. Please read this as a guide. Articles should not contain trivia lists, and should be written as a neutral point of view. This is also the English Wikipedia. It would be much helpful if the sources were in English, especially for such controversial topics. This has nothing to do with the good-faith policy, but an apology for the attacks would be appreciated. Zoo Fari 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you will need to prove that the points listed under criticism are really trivia and not neutral.

First, technically, your claims are invalid since the criticism section is very coherent (it is not a listing of miscellaneous points) and the points listed under it are all directly related to the clearly meaningful title of the section, which is "criticism." You need to show how this is a trivia section? You seem to know the titles of the laws but not how to apply them in real situations.

Your other claim, neutrality, is even less valid, because this is a criticism section-- if it were neutral then it would have deserved to be deleted since it would not make sense. The section simply lists critical points.

Now to the discussion of your ulterior, emotion-based motives. How can you call by trivia such serious criticism as accusing the encyclopedia of having systemic bias in Islam-related topics, and noting that over 60% of its articles are stubs (which usually means they contain nothing at all but the title), etc. You are obviously biased yourself since you're an administrator in Wikipedia, but the Arabic Wiki is nothing like the English Wiki at all, it is just 100,000 empty pages with administrators who mostly do nothing but enjoying trips to the Wiki conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"A list" is the problem of that section. Wikipedia is supposed to give information efficiently, and a list is not it. Your list states points that others do not agree on, hence not making it neutral or not being provided by the most significant views (see WP:NPOV). Lists on Wikipedia should not contain information like that because they aren't supposed be composed of trivia but rather state complete points of a subject. I suggest you rewrite the section as paragraphs. Also, I'm not an administrator. Zoo Fari 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided anything new; what you say is just a reiteration of the previously refuted claims; though in a less organized fashion this time.

Again: first of all, Wikipedia:Trivia sections is irrelevant to this discussion since, as it clearly says, it deals with lists of miscellaneous information. I fail to see the relation between this and the criticism section.

Your rather personal statement that "a list is not an efficient manner of presenting information" is, besides being weird, not mentioned in any of the pages you referred to. We need to see a clear text saying that lists should be avoided-- "lists" not "lists of miscellaneous information," don't jumble things.

Your definition of neutrality in a criticism section is problematic. The section contains referenced and logical statements that are raised in criticism of Ar Wiki-- of course the criticized party won't agree with the statements, they are not supposed to. The points in the section are logical and commonly raised by critics (sadly, most of those write in Arabic not English!).

Anyway, I might rewrite the section as a paragraph if this is what it will take to end the discussion. Though I don't think this demand is properly founded based on the pages you referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, do what you think is best. I just know that it can be better. Zoo Fari 03:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the criticism section. Its sources are not accepted. The first one says that the content in ar wikipedia is weak. It does not say The Arabic Wikipedia suffers from heavy biased content, specifically in Islamic topics.The seconed one, Knol, is not a reliable source. Therefore, this section does not contain any acceptable sources. --Osm agha (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section again (2010)

The Criticism section as it appeared and as النول insists on restoring it is invalid. It contained three statements: the first, that Arabic Wikipedia was "accused of bias, specifically in Islamic topics", and refers to an article at rnw.nl which does not mention neither Islam nor religion at all. The second statement reported the number of stubs in Arabic Wikipedia, referenced by the number of items in the Arabic equivalent of Category:Stubs. Fair enough but is this criticism? It's merely a fact, and the interpretation of this fact as "criticism" is done by the author, i.e. original research. The third statement is "One journalist claimed that the 2008 Wikimania in Cairo concluded that Arabic Wikipedia was the worst of all of the Wikipedias." It is not clear why the claim of that journalist is important enough to be included in this article. If it is indeed one of the official conclusions of Wikimania, then it would be more logical to refer to an authoritative report about Wikimania itself. Thus, the section did not contain any notable information and was deleted. --Abanima (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The rnw.nl article talks about Hamas, the use of word Chahid, martyr, and many other things in The Arabic wiki, anyone can use Google's auto translations to check it.

also, the fact is a fact, stubs in Arabic wiki are more than written articles, bot articles!!

remember, these are criticism, opinions, not generally with ur point of view, or...SIDE. النول (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

At last you chose to participate in talk! The rnw.nl does mention Hamas, Fateh, Khamenei and the Shah but these issues are, first, political rather than religious (the word religion and derivatives are not used in that text at all, unlike politics, culture and other terms) and, second, there is a mention that there were discussions about the use of shahid, whether it was neutral or not. That's all! Such things belong to Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. Thus, your conclusion especially in Islamic topics is unfounded, as I mentioned above. That the stubs are bot-written articles is unfounded: you don't refer to any published statistics on that. And the 'fact' that stubs constitute the majority is merely a fact, not even an opinion (because it is unpublished). You may like to add it to another section, like Statistics or Content but not Criticism. Wikipedia is not for listing anecdotes. And you did not answer any of my points above. --Abanima (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, better to say, it talks about arabs and their behavior on the net, with encyclopedias, more precise, since the title is: Arabs and Wikipedia, i'll change it.

i'll emove the bot section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This was better. I wish you looked how I rewrote the section before it was deleted altogether. The problem is that all that can be referenced about Arabic Wikipedia is merely a couple of anecdotes, not a single study can be located. And these should be placed in WikiNews, not in Wikipedia. Not mentioning that both references are rather weak: the first claims, for example, that googling for Libya (in Arabic) would not put it on top of search results, which was false at the date of publication. The second allegedly refers to conclusions of Wikimania in Alexandria, possibly misrepresenting them. In this case one should refer to the original Wikimania documents which should be available, rather that someone's interpretations. Arabic Wikipedia can be blamed for many things, but there are no decent publications about the issue. If we take the issue formally, Arabic Wikipedia does not satisfy any of the notability criteria for web sites required here. --Abanima (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems for me, you don't want to hear any criticism, remember again, this is the English wiki, not the Arabic one, on which you reside at the momen, you said: ONE journalist living in the Netherlands!!! , utterly abnormal, also, you deleted the Akhabr article, there's another i'll add later, a masquerade? --النول (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not about criticism. What you refer to (I mean rnw.nl) is not a notable view for an encyclopedia: it is not based on a systematic review or study. At most, it can be cited in WikiNews, not it Wikipedia. As for the Akhbar article, it is even of less value, and seemingly you insist to include it again and again because you liked its title. As I said before, there seems to be no reliable sources about Arabic Wikipedia at all. --Abanima (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You want Enstein to write an article about arabic wikipedia perhaps, i'll transmit this to the admin board, they removed the knol link, let check again! maybe. --النول (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That's up to you. From my side, I am going to undo any overgeneralisations or poorly referenced statements, as required by Wikipedia rules. --Abanima (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a detailed information, Mohamed the prophet, has no imagery in the Arabic wiki, but in all wikis, unless, there's Arabs here, in the English admin board also! who will agree with you. (even it's witten in the coran!)--النول (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia does seem to have significant problems, but that's not really one of them -- there are no authentic portraits of Muhammad, or even depictions of Muhammad made close to the time when he lived. That being the case, why shouldn't Arabic Wikipedia take into account the sensitivities of probably the majority of its users on a somewhat inessential issue? AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed, Islamic sensitivities what makes it so, for this, it's perhaps not an inessential issue. --النول (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone wrote a separate and completely legitimate article on "Artistic depictions of Muhammad" and that article was deleted for no real reason other than religious censorship, then that would definitely be a problem. However, the fact that there are no images of Muhammad on the main محمد article is not particularly a problem -- given that there are no historically authentic portraits of Muhammad dating from during his lifetime or close to his lifetime, and that depictions of Muhammad do not play any very meaningful role in the Islamic religion. (Yes, there was a tradition of Persian miniature type images, but though these Persian etc. miniatures can be a glorious artistic achievement, they were always kind of "unofficial" in religious terms, and depictions of Muhammad do not play a role in Islamic religion remotely comparable to that which images of Jesus or Mary have in Christianity etc.) The Arabic Wikipedia can be a very strange place in some respects, and there definitely do seem to be some problems there, but the fact that there are no images of Muhammad on the محمد article is not one of those problems, so you need to come up with a better example. AnonMoos (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the rnw.nl link doesn't talk about Mohamed depiction in ar wiki, i'd just told this to abnima, pointing out, how it was impossible to write freely in the ar wiki. His depictions, i don't really care about (only danish newspapers and Muslim ambassadors). rnw.nl instead, showed flaws with the use of words like HAMAS,MARTYRS, CHAHID, PERSIAN-ARABIC GULF a very polarized ENCYCLOPEDIA.

I just want to expose this in the En wiki, it's not my opinion after all, but of many Arabs (Muslims and liberals), in fact, I'm skeptical about the term Encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

- @النول: for future reference comments on that stuff should go to Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org . WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)