User:Striver/x

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Zora | Zora | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

 * 1) Zora deletes sourced and relevant material from articles
 * 2) She does not present any valid arguments for doing so
 * 3) She does not intent to change that behavior

Description
Zora does have a POV on most matters. That is natural and good. What is not good, is that she belives her POV to be factual, and belives that she is a merited scholar. When presented with a statement she belives to be innacurate, she deletes it without presenting a source that diputes the validity of the claim, other than her personal oppinion.

There are numerous example of that, but only two will be presented:


 * 1) It being over 100 000 Sahaba.
 * 2) Ali being born in the Kaaba.

Note:
 * 1) This RFC is not aimed to determine the factuality of any claim related to Islam
 * 2) This RFC is not aimed at any other person than Zora - although Zora have been suported by other users, that is not addressed in this RFC.
 * 3) This RFC is not aimed at any other topic other than the ones listed - although mnny other topics are related to the ones listed, those are not addressed in this RFC.
 * 4) This RFC is not aimed at any other behavior other than listed - although many other kind of behaviors of Zora are seen as objectionable, those are not addressed in this RFC.


 * 1) This RFC is is only regarding Zora deleting sourced information without falisfying them through presentation of sourced information.

Evidence of disputed behavior
The evidence is presented in this format:

date - Contributor - Edit summary - Comment

Two abbreviations will be used:

NSSUSP = No Statement, Sourced or Unsourced is Presented

NSSP= No Sourced Statement is Presented

The "-" indicates that the addressed statement has been removed The "=" indicates that the addressed statement has not been removed The "+" indicates that the addressed statement has been reintroduced

100 000 Sahaba

 * +2005 February 6, 06:47 - User:69.208.170.233 - "" - 'Anon added text claiming "over 100,000 companions, tens of thousands of which have their names and biographies of various lengths recorded"''


 * =2005 July 3, 09:38 - User:BrandonYusufToropov - "Revision of page for POV and style probs. Striver, please do not revert this. Other editors please review this text. Thanks." - '''Brandon haves a pov issue with the text, he rewrites it and omitts a large potion of the text, but does not dispute the 100 000 number.


 * A long and tedious revert war starts regarding a issue not'' relevant to this RFC 


 * =2005 July 4, 19:09 - User:Zora - "rv - Striver has reverted to garbled Shiafied version" - '''Zora reverts to BrandonYusufToropov version, she does not comment on the 100 000 Sahaba statment.


 * -2005 July 5, 21:49 - User:Zora - "Revision -- see talk" - 'Zora makes a revision, She omitts "At the time of the death of Muhammad, there were over 100,000 companions", but keeps "Tens of thousands of companions were identified by later scholars"'' - NSSUSP.


 * +2005 July 5, 23:06 - User:Striver - "" - 'Striver does not edit any of Zoras revision, but reinserts the omitted "Muhammad hade more than 100 000 and manny"''


 * -2005 July 5, 23:08 - User:Zora - "rv - Striver, the 100,000 is a Shi'a belief, it is not universally accepted, and IMHO, it is completely implausible" -'''


 * +2005 July 5, 23:11 - User:Striver - "Zora, please read the talk page... and dont forget this issue the next time you dissmis my contributions as shia pov." - 'Striver does not edit any of Zoras revision, but reinserts the omitted "Muhammad hade more than 100 000 and manny"''


 * =2005 July 6, 00:21 - User:Striver - "Including Zora pov." - viewing Zoras determination of inserting her pov, Striver tries to compromise by representing her pov - Of course by sourcing it to her, since no other sources for her pov are known or cited."


 * -2005 July 6, 03:24 - User:Jayjg - "striver, please don't insert this kind of text into the article, it is simply not encyclopedic. Let Zora and Mirv work on this, they are very competent editor. Work with them on the Talk: page." - '''Jayjg reverts to Zora version.


 * +2005 July 6, 10:15 - User:Striver - "What i did was to demostrate that you cant do what zora did. Its unaccsaptable to rewrite nubers that ther is consesus on just on conjecture and personal pov." - 'Striver re-adds the "Muhammad hade more than 100 000"''.


 * -2005 July 6, 10:26 - User:Mel Etitis - "Reverted edits by Striver to last version by Jayjg" - '''Strivers point was not made, it backfired.


 * +2005 July 6, 10:44 - User:Striver - "I dont get it. Whats your problem? Do you intend to keep a number that has no source what so ever and is based purely personal pov ? Take a look at the talk page." - 'Striver re-adds the "Muhammad hade more than 100 000"''.


 * -2005 July 6, 15:15 - User:Jayjg - "rv: Striver, please work through the Talk: page, and allow uninvolved 3rd parties to edit the article. That's a very reasonable approach." - '''Jayjg accepts Zoras version, despite no evidence to support it.


 * +2005 July 6, 15:29 - User:Striver - "Why dont you read the talk page? Ther is no 10 000 sahaba, there are over 100 000. NO SOURCES DISPUTE THAT! Anybody can edit, did'nt i agree to the current version?" - 'Striver re-adds the "Muhammad hade more than 100 000"''.


 * -2005 July 6, 16:56 - User:Mel Etitis - "Reverted edits by Striver to last version by Jayjg" - '''Mel Etitis accepts Zoras version, despite no evidence to support it.


 * -2005 July 6, 20:45 - User:Zora - "Rewriting controversial part -- is that OK?" -'Zora omitts "Tens of thousands of companions were identified by later scholars"''


 * +2005 July 6, 21:24 - User:Striver - "Agreed?" - 'Striver gives up hope of having it stated as factual, even though no evidence whatsoever is presented that contests its factuality. Striver adds: "There is a total agreement between all muslims that there was more than 100 000 Sahabas according to the given definition."


 * -2005 July 6, 21:40 - User:Jayjg - "no, not agreed. I'll say it again; please work through the Talk: page, and allow neutral third parties to edit the page instead. You have already violated the 3RR." - '''Jayjg reverts and sugets that Striver should stop editing the article and only use the talk page. Note that Striver did not violate the 3RR.


 * +2005 July 7, 13:49 - User:Striver - "" - '''Striver re-adds the statement that Muslim agree there 100 000 companions.


 * -2005 July 6, 15:42 - User:Mel Etitis - "Reverted edits by Striver to last version by Jayjg" - '''Mel Etitis accepts Zoras version, despite no evidence to support it.


 * +2005 July 7, 16:34 - User:Striver - "" - '''Striver re-adds the statement that Muslim agree there 100 000 companions.


 * +2005 July 7, 16:40 - User:BrandonYusufToropov - "style edit -- everyone ok with this? (Also, I believe there is universal agreement on the part of Muslims on precious little)" - 'BrandonYusufToropov edits Striver version after having evaluated the evidence presented and sugest the following: "There is broad agreement among Muslims that there were, under this definition, more than 100,000 Sahaba."''


 * -2005 July 8, 06:44 - User:Zora - "Dang it, no pious fabrications as fact" -'Zora deletes BrandonYusufToropov version. Note that BrandonYusufToropov version did not state it as a fact, only that Muslims agreed among themselves regarding that conclusion. Zoras respons to that is "Dang it, no pious fabrications as fact"''.


 * -2005 July 8, 07:18 - User:Zora - "Revision" -'''Zora includes a totaly outrageous, unfactual, biased and unsourced piece of original research.



Zora added a totaly outrageous, unfactual, biased and unsourced piece of original research. It goes like this:


 * ''How many companions were there?


 * ''Shi'a Muslims believe that Muhammad appointed Ali ibn Abu Talib as his successor at Gadir Khum, a way-station on the road to Mecca. He is said to have done this when returning from his last pilgrimage, or Hajj. The Shi'a traditions say that there were 100,000 pilgrims at Gadir Khum. Therefore they assert that there were 100,000 companions. A few Sunni authorities have accepted the Shi'a crowd estimates, without accepting the Shi'a version of Muhammad's speech. (See Succession to Muhammad.) Western academics have generally passed over the whole incident, possibly because they regard it as an implausible pious exaggeration. Aside from polemic claims to a huge audience, there is no historical or archaeological evidence for such an enormous gathering.

Analysis:


 * ''Shi'a Muslims believe that Muhammad appointed Ali ibn Abu Talib as his successor at Gadir Khum, a way-station on the road to Mecca.

Correct. The only correct sentance in the whole text.


 * ''He is said to have done this when returning from his last pilgrimage, or Hajj.

1) Pov. "He is said to" implies that the event is disputed. No scholar ever in the entire history of earth that have evaluated the narrations of the event disputes its autenthitity.


 * ''The Shi'a traditions say that there were 100,000 pilgrims at Gadir Khum.

2) unfactual. All Sunni sources agree. in fact, all sources agree. 3) unfactual. All sources say there where between 110 000 and 135 000. None say 100 000.


 * ''Therefore they assert that there were 100,000 companions.

4) unfactual: All Muslim sources state there where over 100 000 on in Mecca, before they left to Gadire Khumm. They also say there where 70 000 on their way to Mecca 5) unfactual: Shia do not assert there where 100 000, rather closer to 125 000 6) unfactual: Shia do not belive it because (Therefore) of the events in Ghadire Khumm, there are other events that confirm it.


 * ''A few Sunni authorities have accepted the Shi'a crowd estimates,

7) unfactual: A few Sunni? How about all Muslims? 8) unfactual: Sunni authorities have accepted Shia claims? When in earth did that happen? Sunnis have in the hitory had both their hands full killing Shia, when did they have a dialog, and when did they have any dialog in where Sunnis accepted anything from Shias? 9) unfactual: Its not the Shi'a crowd estimates, its the Muslim crowd estimates.


 * ''without accepting the Shi'a version of Muhammad's speech. (See Succession to Muhammad.)

10) unfactual: The event is so well recorded that Muslims agree, in general, to what the speech contained. It is the interpretaition of the speech that differ.


 * ''Western academics have generally passed over the whole incident,

11) uncourced


 * ''possibly because they regard it as an implausible pious exaggeration.

12) Pov 13) original research 14) patented nonsense


 * ''Aside from polemic claims to a huge audience,

15) Pov


 * ''there is no historical or archaeological evidence for such an enormous gathering.

16) unfactual: no historical evidence? How about all narrations unannimously claiming it? 17) patented nonsense: archaeological evidence? Omg! She demands evidence for people passing by a pond! 18) original research: As if anyone else that Zora would ever think of the "archaeological evidence" idea, yet less go ahead and try to find evidence for people passing a pond for 1400 years ago!

A total outrage that she could write that, and people suported and reverted to it time after time! A total breakdown of what Wikipedia stands for!

I commented on this here a while ago




 * +2005 July 8, 11:55 - User:Striver - "Its fact, there is a broad MUSLIM agreement to it! Read the sentece again Zora, its not claiming that there is x companions, it reports the muslim pov!" - 'Striver re-adds BrandonYusufToropov version: "There is broad agreement among Muslims that there were, under this definition, more than 100,000 Sahaba."''.


 * -2005 July 8, 12:05 - User:BrandonYusufToropov - "Okay, Striver, please read the talk page and take a break. rv to Zora" - '''BrandonYusufToropov delets his version and reverts to Zoras. Strivers belives this is due to him liking Zoras unsourced and piece of original research pejorativ impllications on the Shia view.


 * +2005 July 8, 13:09 - User:Striver - "brandon, are you denying that sunnis BELIVE there was more than 100 000 sahaba?" - '''Striver re-adds BrandonYusufToropov version.


 * -2005 July 8, 13:21 - User:BrandonYusufToropov - "rv to Zora" - '''BrandonYusufToropov delets his own version.


 * +2005 July 8, 13:09 - User:Striver - "Read the talk page" - '''Striver re-adds BrandonYusufToropov version.


 * -2005 July 8, 14:42 - User:Zora - "AAAARGH!" -'''Zora removes BrandonYusufToropov version.


 * +2005 July 8, 22:55 - User:Striver - "" - '''Striver re-adds BrandonYusufToropov version.


 * -2005 July 8, 23:15 - User:TShilo12 - "rv unsourced edit by Striver to last by Zora" -'''TShilo12 removes BrandonYusufToropov version.

Born in the Kaaba
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali&diff=next&oldid=18292917

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.