User talk:Merzbow/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! gidonb 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

NYT editorial page
thanks for jumping in on that debate. those people are VERY dense... it's amazing they know how to turn on their computers...--FairNBalanced 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't kept up on it since that guy who seems to be an uber-admin jumped in and said that we could use quotes from conservative papers after all... if the NYT quote is still there, someone should add a contrary opinion from TWS or Washington Times or something. Merzbow 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion
Hello Merzbow,

The thing is that I am not sure if Tabatabai's view is a "modern view" or not. I find it unlikely that people in the past hasn't made this point. Please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the pertinent point is that he's a modern scholar. It may be true that his view is what some scholars in the past have held, but unless you have sources to the effect, Tabatabai's quote probably belongs in a section about modern Islam. The section can start out real short, for starters I can see it having just Tabatabai's quote along with a paragraph about any modern Islamic states practicing dhimma (are there any - does Iran consider its religious minorities as dhimma, does Pakistan, etc.) - Merzbow 00:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aminz, see my latest post on the Talk page... I think now that the Tabatabai quote isn't really relevant and neither is my proposed section. Can you find similar quotes from the past? - Merzbow 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, I honestly don't have time to do research. I removed the quote from the article till we can find where we should add it. Maybe Pecher's suggestion of making an article on the verse 9:29 would be good enough for the moment. --Aminz 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why you revert my edit in Dhimmi article
First you, yourself said that But this paragraph certainly is too POV. But then if I tried to correct it then you had reverted my change by saying do not removed reference material. Even if in that reference there are serious problems because it makes a conclusion based on SOME scholars views (instead from majority view). I cannot understand this. --- Faisal 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind. If that paragraph was quoting Freidmann's book correctly (and I have no reason to think otherwise), it deserves to stay. And it is a scholarly book, so it's a legit source. The way to balance this out is to add another quote from another respected source with a different perspective. - Merzbow 23:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you do. But my profession is research and I write papers. Lots of research papers that get published is world class IEEE conferences like IEEE-ICC, IEEE-Globecom etc. Even a school going guy can tell that there is problem with this paragraph and the book has problem too. How a generalized conclusion can be made based on minority scholar view. I think the writer that has written it i.e. Freidmann is biased and everyone that is support it is biased. Sorry, once I regarded you an extremely fair guy and was exited to find you. I cannot keep that opinion about you. --- Faisal 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of the source is irrelevant. The source is reliable and verifiable according to a mechanical application of Wikipedia policy - Verifiability. Therefore, you have no right to remove quotes from that source. You do, however, have the right to introduce other quotes from other reliable sources that may have a different opinion. NPOV is maintained by adding additional opinions so that all major POVs are represented, not by deleting POVs. Why don't you go and find some book written by a Muslim scholar published in a reputable press on this subject and add quotes from there? - Merzbow 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be against anyone who uses following logic:
 * "Because some people think A is B, hence it is proved A is B" .
 * I will remove that and will be against that writer. It is because; I am a scientist and know how theorems are proved and how the results are extracted. This is absolutely not an acceptable way to prove or conclude anything. Such a paper will be rejected by IEEE reviewers (100% guaranteed). Wikipedia should be written the someway like scientific papers. Otherwise the writer is bised (no matter who he is) and his conclusion is WRONG. You can continue saying that if a wrong thing (like above) is said by an XYZ writer then it is acceptable. I find your this quote (for support) very strange and still wish you can re-thing about it. Dear Sir, a wrong thing remains wrong, no matter who had said it. Now read this and read it carefully (with open mind).
 * (REASON GIVEN BY USING SOME)  As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. (AND A CONCLUSION IS MADE ON WRONG REASON) Even as dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the People of the Book because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed (END RESULT: The conclusion was wrong) . --- Faisal 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I give up. If you continue to think this way, and edit this way, you will end up in arbitration, where those who perhaps are more convincing that I will have a chance to explain Wikipedia to you again. - Merzbow 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Time will tell. I will prefer to do thing which are right then what wikipedia think is right. I do NOT like wikipedia anyway, hence do not mind to get banned (even permanently). BTW, I am here since a while but never get banned unlike the people you are taking side (they are banned multiple times - see their banning-log). --- Faisal 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my changes on the Dhimmi talk page. It will be easier for me to post something both accurate and agreeable to the other editors now that I have someone willing to discuss the changes with in an intelligent manner.--Dr.Worm 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying my best to learn about crucial Wikipedia concepts like NPOV and how they are applied. Irregardless of my personal views on issues like 'dhimma', I think that it benefits everybody to have quotes from reliable sources on all sides of the issue present. Hopefully soon we'll see more people familiar with reliable Muslim sources add more information from that angle. - Merzbow 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi in Saudia
If non-Muslim (many in number) of Saudia are paying Jizya then you should be able to get many articles of CNN/BBC and other. Hence please tell me that what lead you think that non-Muslim in Saudia still are under Dhimmi law and so called human right organization have not noticed it? Why what you have added is not original research of yours? --- Faisal 22:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said non-Muslims Saudis were under Dhimmi law, but you said that all Saudis were not under Sharia law, a far stronger and unsourced statement. I honestly don't care if the sentence ends at '7th century' for now, but we should probably have something afterward that indicates to the reader that Dhimma law is no longer widely applied. This something should be as vague as possible until we have actual sources. 'until modern times' is as vague as I can make it. - Merzbow 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Until modern times is not vague enough. It is extremely misleading. And yes shria is not implemented in Saudia. Having king is against Sharia, they have implemented few law that suit them. Muslims Caliphs are selected by vote and are not kings. --- Faisal 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See what Pecher says "This happened after a series of reforms, such as Tanzimat, usually conducted under severe European pressure, or after European colonization when non-Muslim subjects finally received equal status". He might know a reference. However, he might not tell because it is not his interest. --- Faisal 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This time the revert does not has wrongly referenced text. Happy ? --- Faisal 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Islam
Merzbow, thank you for joining WikiProjct Islam! This will hopefully become an island of sanity in these turbulent waters.

The guidelines under which contributed are urged to operate are still being worked out - well, okay, they're actually being disputed. I invite you to look through the recent history of the project page as well as the discussion on talk and offer your edits and commentary, should you find the time and be so inclined.Timothy Usher 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies
Doright has responded. Would appreciate your continued comments. --CTSWyneken 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you weigh in on the Lewis summary? The discussion is under "My Lewis Abstract." Thanks! --CTSWyneken 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Doright has brought up the deleted heading again and has tried to invite a few voices he thinks sympathetic to the party. You may want to take a look. --CTSWyneken 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi
Merzbow, I'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from when I counsel you to mind the three-revert rule, even against sock-puppets. You're much more valuable to Wikipedia as an unblocked contributor!Timothy Usher 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Job
I jsut wanted to say you handled yourself very well on the talk page of On the Jews and their lies. I have been on that page many times, and sometimes things can get very uncivil. I think you are a great new editor, and I want you to know I am here to help. By the way, would you like some help designing you user page? Leave me a message, and I will be glad to help. Cheers,  Thetruthbelow  17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll keep the offer in mind! Wikipedia is an interesting place, I'm doing my best to ramp up the learning curve on the all of the policies and their appropriate applications. Definitely fun, though. - Merzbow 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Using Robert Spencer as a source
Be very careful about it. Nearly everything that Spencer has written are popular books for general readership rather than scholarly books as demanded by WP:RS. Deviating from WP:RS may open the Pandora box by giving them a pretext to use unreliable sources, like Karen Armstrong and IslamOnline. That said, I don't wish to say that Spencer was wrong in that specific instance on Dhimmi, as this is, basically, common knowledge, but I think it might be a good idea to substitute Spencer for someone less controversial. If you don't object, I can taje care of this issue. Pecher Talk 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I only used him because I couldn't find reference by someone else deliberately drawing the connection between the Tanzimat and the relaxation of dhimmi status. Feel free to substitute a better reference. - Merzbow 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A cat rename that might interest you...
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 13 --CTSWyneken 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam article
Re: Joshua. Gary Miller uses "God's spokesman". Would you please let me know if we can use the Gary Miller quote as a reliable source for usage of "God's spokesman"? Thanks --Aminz 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In that context, yes, as long as you add the reference. - Merzbow 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Another question, My english is not good. Does "in which a large force from Mecca besieged the outnumbered Muslims in Medina" mean Muslim's army outnumbered the Meccan force? Thanks --Aminz 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it means that the Meccan army outnumbered the Muslims (which the sources seem to agree on). - Merzbow 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought "the outnumbered Muslims" implies that Muslims were outnumbering. But I was wrong. --Aminz 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. If the Muslims had had the larger force, the clause could read "the outnumbering Muslims", but that would be odd usage of the verb outnumber (although technically correct). - Merzbow 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Thanks again --Aminz 22:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You asked nicely
So I'll take a break. 132.241.246.111 00:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Criticism of Islam
That's fine. I'll restore it. I was just sensitive to the words "more correct and unbiased" used by the source(not really about the rest of the sentence). --Aminz 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, regarding yours(?) recent edition to the section History of criticism of Islam, you may want to have a look at Omar Khayyám. Not sure if the article on Khayyam is good, but he is a famous persian poet; his peoms are beautiful; seems to be an atheist; He was also the first who invented the method of solving cubic equations. Best, --Aminz 00:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then to this earthen Bowl did I adjourn

My Lip the secret Well of Life to learn:

And Lip to Lip it murmur'd--While you live,

Drink!--for once dead you never shall return.

-

Pursuing knowledge in childhood we rise

Until we become masterful and wise

But if we look through the disguise

We see the ties of worldly lies.

-

"How sweet is mortal Sovranty!"--think some:

Others--"How blest the Paradise to come!"

Ah, take the Cash in hand and waive the Rest;

Oh, the brave Music of a distant Drum!

-

Some always seek the rational mind

Some will appeal to faith that’s blind

If you turn within, you’ll surely find

Both paths will lead further behind.

Aminz 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought of mentioning Khayyam too, he is well-known as a skeptic. I've always loved Middle Eastern poetry, skeptical or not (although most of those poets seem to be neutral at best towards organized religion). My favorite poet is the Persian poet Hafiz, actually. - Merzbow 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Khayyam is more well-known than Razi as a skeptic. Maybe I add it very briefly, maybe not. --Aminz 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you speak persian, Merzbow? --Aminz 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I just read him in translation. I'm guessing you know Persian (Farsi?) though, because I think you had a link once to a Persian BBC article? - Merzbow 03:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I am persian. The reason I asked was that Hafiz's peoms are *so* fascinating in their "form". I thought you know persian. --Aminz 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the form is very 'modern', at least the way this guy is translating them (Daniel Ladinksy). Great stuff. - Merzbow 03:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think his peoms can be really translated. BTW, did you know that the form of Qur'an (e.g. the form that Qur'an uses in story telling) is modern.

--Aminz 03:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

An example, please ignore it if you want. I don't want to be bothersome.

One Example(there are also many other interesting ones). Story of Moses & Khidr. Sura 18:60-82:

60. Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."


 * My comments: An strange start! Not clear why Moses wants to travel.

61. But when they reached the Junction, they forgot (about) their Fish, which took its course through the sea (straight) as in a tunnel.


 * My comments: Fish!

62. When they had passed on (some distance), Moses said to his attendant: "Bring us our early meal; truly we have suffered much fatigue at this (stage of) our journey."

63. He replied: "Sawest thou (what happened) when we betook ourselves to the rock? I did indeed forget (about) the Fish: none but Satan made me forget to tell (you) about it: it took its course through the sea in a marvellous way!"

64. Moses said: "That was what we were seeking after:" So they went back on their footsteps, following (the path they had come).

65. So they found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence.


 * My comment: Now it becomes clear what Moses was looking after.


 * My comment: The other guy that they meet is centeral in the story but doesn't have name!

66. Moses said to him: "May I follow thee, on the footing that thou teach me something of the (Higher) Truth which thou hast been taught?"

67. (The other) said: "Verily thou wilt not be able to have patience with me!"

68. "And how canst thou have patience about things about which thy understanding is not complete?"

69. Moses said: "Thou wilt find me, if Allah so will, (truly) patient: nor shall I disobey thee in aught."

70. The other said: "If then thou wouldst follow me, ask me no questions about anything until I myself speak to thee concerning it."


 * My comments: Where is Moses's attendant?

71. So they both proceeded: until, when they were in the boat, he scuttled it. Said Moses: "Hast thou scuttled it in order to drown those in it? Truly a strange thing hast thou done!"

72. He answered: "Did I not tell thee that thou canst have no patience with me?"

73. Moses said: "Rebuke me not for forgetting, nor grieve me by raising difficulties in my case."

74. Then they proceeded: until, when they met a young man, he slew him. Moses said: "Hast thou slain an innocent person who had slain none? Truly a foul (unheard of) thing hast thou done!"

75. He answered: "Did I not tell thee that thou canst have no patience with me?"

76. (Moses) said: "If ever I ask thee about anything after this, keep me not in thy company: then wouldst thou have received (full) excuse from my side."

77. Then they proceeded: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. They found there a wall on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: "If thou hadst wished, surely thou couldst have exacted some recompense for it!"

78. He answered: "This is the parting between me and thee: now will I tell thee the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience.

79. "As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the water: I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was after them a certain king who seized on every boat by force.

80. "As for the youth, his parents were people of Faith, and we feared that he would grieve them by obstinate rebellion and ingratitude (to Allah and man).

81. "So we desired that their Lord would give them in exchange (a son) better in purity (of conduct) and closer in affection.

82. "As for the wall, it belonged to two youths, orphans, in the Town; there was, beneath it, a buried treasure, to which they were entitled: their father had been a righteous man: So thy Lord desired that they should attain their age of full strength and get out their treasure - a mercy (and favour) from thy Lord. I did it not of my own accord. Such is the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience."


 * My comments: The form and content of this story match. We experience what Moses experienced (i.e. there is a ambiguity that will be removed later). Khidr (the other guy) doesn't have name; why? maybe because he is *hard to find* and is supposed to be unknown. --Aminz 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, it reads kind of like a novel... I'm reading my way through the Koran, slowly (10 pages a day in Yusuf Ali's 1700-page translation with commentary). I should be getting to that Sura in a month or two. :) - Merzbow 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work again. --Aminz 10:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess there is a problem with wikipedia. The end sections of criticism of islam article were again removed. Why don't they fix this problem!--Aminz 01:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch, it happened again. Sorry about that. I'll have to check the 'changes' diff closely every time I edit that article in the future. - Merzbow 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I "may" have personal reasons
Merzbow, I may have personal reasons for taking my standards high. I just want the same standards applied to Armstrong applies to others. I'm not asking much--Aminz 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of islam deletions
You made deletions under the summary:

"I give up, reverting past massive removal of sourced material, inserting of POV/OR, etc."

If you cannot be bothered to read all the changes, please do not revert everything. A deletion of something you cannot be bothered to read is not really justified.

I would also be grateful if you could justify your allegations of POV in specific cases. I am slightly perplexed by your idea of pov. Your idea that the introduction as it stands is pov is particularly perplexing to my simple mind.

At the same time, you see no problem with phrases like "Al-Razi, who worked in ninth-century Baghdad, was a renowned pioneer in the field of medicine. He was also a notorious freethinker..." etc which make bold, loaded, and clearly not neutral statements. Surely you should say "Al-Razi, who worked in ninth-century Baghdad, was according to xxxxxx a renowned pioneer in the field of medicine. According to yyyyyyy, he was also a notorious freethinker..." ?

I also fail to understand "past massive removal of sourced material".

I would be grateful if you could take more care to avoid deletions (of things you have actually read) and could justify in detail future deletions of parts i've added or restored where you feel there is pov.

N-edits 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are removing sourced material and making massive changes to the article structure WITHOUT even attempting to seek consensus on talk. Please seek consensus for each of your removals and reorgs first or they will be reverted. Also do not add unsourced material, or it will also be reverted. - Merzbow 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I am also confused by your total deletion of User:Phippi46's "massive indiscriminate unsourced quote dump".

I am probably being stupid, but to me it seems the sources were clearly offered, (although you could have improved referencing format) and were relevant, not indiscriminate. I'm not sure how one "dump"s a quote? The section was debatably "massive" and certainly involved "quote" but otherwise I don't see how you can apply your description? Given the length of all the criticism, which includes spurious information, is some length of Muslim response perhaps justified? If we want to improve the article, perhaps summarising a part thought too long is better than deleting it?

N-edits 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply citing the name of a book is not enough. Page numbers, publication date, etc. are all necessary, otherwise it's not a verifiable source. Plus it was in the wrong section, and it was an enormously overwhelming number of quotes. It's not the job of other editors to clean up messes like that. - Merzbow 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please begin to edit within wikipedia policy.


 * Material is NOT deleted simply for lacking a source, if something is disputed, wikipedia policy is to add a tag :.


 * Please check wikipedia policy on this: As far as deletion goes, I draw your attention to rule number 10 of the Simplified Ruleset:


 * 10. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits.


 * Note the word "particularly". Readers can judge the quality of given arguments, but not if you delete them. I do not need a concensus to put things in the text which were there before you started editing, nor are my edits "controversial" until you can at the very least suggest how a given edit is controversial, which you have completely failed to explain in any specific case whatsoever. N-edits 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have just seen your comment in talk page, sorry did not see before so did not takei into account, will discuss there! Sorry! N-edits 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just pointed out on your talkpage that the WP:RS policy does, in fact, say that unsourced edits can be explicitly removed and the burden of proof for sourcing is on the editor adding material. - Merzbow 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Second class citizenship
Merzbow, please have a look at my latest post on the talk page of Dhimmi. I didn't think the usage of that term is useful, but added it at your request (exactly as the source explains it though). --Aminz 08:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi simply editing back, just to say unsourced is not enough sir, for these quotes we do not need any reference. It was a general thaught and basic teaching of Islam, its finality and also Qur'an also challenges about the the finality and protection from God to show that the end is near. I do not think that there is any reference need just present which is very clear. regards phippi46 10:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, which require material to be sourced. See WP:V and WP:RS. Also, you can't just dump quotes indiscriminately. This is an encyclopedia, not a quote collection. Quotes should be summarized and kept to the minimum necessary to convey the point they are making. - Merzbow 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I just performed a 1RR across your revert of User:Aminz's edit. Honestly from looking at the diffs Aminz's cites are good and his copy seems better balanced. Was there something in particular that you did not agree with? Netscott 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there once again, I think you dont understand what I meant, I was pointing to one simple thing, which I understand reading Islam, that Islam do claim to be the last religion and Qur'an claims to be the last book from God. In this context, making an argument which I wrote in Muslim Argument. Regarding the matter to dump unsourced material is correct, you were right, I should provide the source. My question ? if source were given then was the quotes were acceptable ? phippi46 23:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the other problem was that the quotes were too much. A policy called WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." What you should do is summarize the quote or provide only as little of the quote as possible to convey the point the author is making. And if the point is already being made in a given section in an article by another author, there's really no reason to repeat that point. It's actually counterproductive to overwhelm the reader with too much repetitive information because then he'll just stop reading. In summary, article organization is imporant; probably no one section should be larger than a browser page. What I suggest is look through the quotes to try to find points that are being made that aren't already represented in the article; then summarize the quote briefly, and add it to the most appropriate section of the article with a reference. - Merzbow 00:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethics
Hi Merzbow,

You are doing good and honest work, and I'm sure you hadn't thought of this...but it's arguably unethical to add an academic source to a passage and eliminate the original one. Obviously, were the original source "my uncle Bob", we wouldn't keep "Uncle Bob (p.c.)", but especially for those who make a living from their work, where we used their material, we should say so.Timothy Usher 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The rule of thumb I'm using is that if a passage had two or more cites, and I qualitatively rewrite or reorg the passage, I can justifiably delete cites that I think are no longer appropriate. I wouldn't just remove a cite out of the blue; I hope I didn't do that in any of my changes. If you have a concern about any of them, let me know, and I'll take another look. - Merzbow 06:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look in a bit, but for now, what I had in mind is the situation where controversial scholar says X, we use it to write the article, then later we see a somewhat-less-controversial scholar saying the same thing, so we say, well, controversial scholar's name makes the article look bad, so let's drop it in favor of less-controversial scholar. In such simple cases both sources ought remain (unless the one is nothing more than a blind cite of the other). Anyhow, it's better to have multiple sources backing up one fact (again where they're not just citing one another).Timothy Usher 06:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case where any of the original scholar's material still effects the rewritten passage, yes, they should be kept. But just because X originally inspired a passage that's now dependent solely on material from Y and Z? Ethically, I would say there is no hangup there. Practically, I could see it going both ways, but X being a lower-quality and/or extremely controversial source tilts the decision in favor of removing X I think. - Merzbow 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro
Merzbow, you are an honest editor. I was actually angry with Pecher's removal of almost "all" my edits, after I respectfully asked him to propose his suggestions about the intro on the talk page. I didn't want to accept that Pecher cleans up everything I added and afterwards we start over again. Basically, I only want two things to be added to the intro: 1. A sentence about our standards of tolerance in treatment of non-believers that has changed over time. I want the reader to note that Muslims were not doing very unethical things according to the standards of their time: (Lewis 1) "until relatively modern times, tolerance in the treatment of non-believers was neither valued, nor its absence condemned by both Muslim and Christian rulers."

The second thing I wanted to add is a comparison between Muslim rulers and other rulers (which you have already added).

As to the conversion record, 1.I think the condition of Dhimmi was an important factor in conversion (for Zoroastrians, it was also because Zoroastrian priesthood had been closely associated with the structure of power in ancient Iran … Lewis 17) Also see Lewis 15 end of the first paragraph 2. “In the early centuries of Islamic rule, there was little or no attempt at forcible conversion, the spread of the faith being effected rather by persuasion and inducement” Lewis 17.

BTW, thanks very much for your edits again. As usual, you have done lots of reading for that.

Regards, --Aminz 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that Pecher was unjustified in his complete reversion, I probably should have said so explicitly, and perhaps been more patient today. I have no object to the tolerance Lewis quote being added to the intro. Also, I agree that the forced conversion material needs work; I've made some changes there tonight and am right now replacing the Bat Ye'or Yemen stuff with higher-quality cites. - Merzbow 06:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you please let me know your opinion about this change:

"Although forced conversion played a role, most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons."

To

"Although forced conversion played a role (but not in the early centuries of Islam), most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons including the restrictions on Dhimmi."

Thanks, --Aminz 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this


 * "Although forced conversion played a role in later Islamic history, most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons."


 * I think the 'including' clause might be making the sentence too long for the intro. - Merzbow 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need another sentence for the "restriction of Dhimmi" reason. I think it is important.

I feel "later Islamic history" doesn't implies non-early centuries of Islamic history? That is "later" doesn't imply a couple of centuries. --Aminz 07:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about just say "played a role in some periods of Islamic history". I'm still not sure it's necessary to mention "restriction of Dhimmi" in the intro, because it's already encompassed by the phrase "a number of different reasons". But if you feel it's necessary to add another sentence, I suggest moving the conversion material in the intro out of the first paragraph into a new paragraph. - Merzbow 07:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"played a role in some later periods of Islamic history" is good. I think if we can move the conversion sentences into a new paragraph at the end of the intro, it would be better. First, the reader has get an idea of discriminations, and also, we can add one more sentence that "restriction of Dhimmi" was an important factor for many conversions. --Aminz 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind; The condition of Dhimmi was only efficient of the conversion of Christians and not Zoroastrains (Lewis doesn't say anything). --Aminz 09:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Book search
Hi Merzbow,

You'd mentioned searching through books on Google and Amazon...how does one do this?Timothy Usher 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're in for a treat, this makes it so much easier to do reference work. For Google, go to books.google.com, and just search by some phrase, author, etc. Use the 'advanced search' link to be more specific. Books then get brought up and you can look at individual pages, and search for more phrases in that book. At Amazon.com you can't search the text of all books at once, so you first must search for a specific book by title or author and bring up that book's page (with all the reviews and stuff). Click on the picture of the book's cover. If it's searchable, a window will come up that lets you search within the book. For laughs search on some common phrase like 'Islam' and you will be able to look at every page. - Merzbow 00:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Improving the sourcing
Can I echo Aminz's thanks to you for work on this. I thought there was going to be a deadlock on sources and POV, but you have broken it. I am doing full bibliographic searches of references in a) (for books) COPAC, which is the combined catalogues of the British Library and the leading British and Irish universities and b)(for scholarly articles and book reviews) the ISI Social Science and Humanities indices. These are yielding more material than we could ever possibly use. I have added some of the book references to Aminz's talk page. Also on references, do you know Albert Hourani's 'A History of the Arab Peoples'? Hourani seems to me to meet all the WP:RS criteria. Are any of the regular contributors here likely to have objections to him? Itsmejudith 09:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I too am pleasantly surprised by the material I'm able to pull up just by a search via Google Books. It turned out that there's enough from good sources that cover the same topics that Bat Ye'or isn't as necessary as I originally thought. Hourani certainly seems to be a RS to me. - Merzbow 16:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Religion and slavery
You voted to replace with a stub - you can do it even as the AfD is ongoing - and I think you should. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Since it was my suggestion, I'll take responsibility for it. :) - Merzbow 16:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mu'tah
Merzbow, my brother it sounds like you have never looked properly on the issues being discussed on the talk of the Battle of Mu'tah. I have written so many times that what ever was written in the under the Muslim section of that article was not accurate. Instead of replying my statement, other editors keep on reverting my edit without discussing the reason on the talk page. Look through the talk page of the Battle of Mu'tah and you are going to see how many times I wrote the same things but in different words but there are some editors that are ignoring my edits and keep on reverting my work. I hope you understand .Thank You Salman


 * Salman, it's been explained many times that your source is not reliable. - Merzbow 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my talk page
Merzbow, bro seriously I have been editing at wikipedia for a while now and I know how things work a round here. I like to keep my talk page as short as possible, I am not only deleting bad comments, I have also deleted some good comments in past because it was making my talk page look out of order. If someone wants to be nosey and wants to find out what people have been saying about my edits, then they are free as a bird to go to my history page and see other editor’s comments that I have deleted. This is my talk page and I will decide what should appear on it and what shouldn’t. Thank You Salman


 * LOL, if you continue reverting warnings off your talk page soon you will find out otherwise from admins, 'bro'. You've been explicitly told several times by one not to do so. - Merzbow 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah i know and i did what i wanted. There is no policy in wikipedia that states that wikipedians can not delete comments from their talk page Salman

Oh but there is. See WP:VANDAL. I quote:

"The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors."

There are explicit vandalism warning templates for this, like so:

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again.

- Merzbow 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's SEE! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salman01 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 19:21:40  (UTC)


 * Whatever, man. - Merzbow 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * POVs, what POVs r u talking about Merzbow? Just for the sake of being neutral I don't say SAW after the name of Islamic Prophet Hazrat Mohammed SAW, in articles. Just to state the Muslim side of the story me and my Muslims brothers and sisters don't even say SAW and AS after the names of respected individuals in the history of Islamic. Each and every single article that I have edited or written on wikipedia, every single time I tried my best to be as clear and neutral as possible. I don’t know what POV you r talking about. I was even blamed for copying an article from another website and when I started talking about the issue the person that blamed was an administrator and just to stop me from cleaning myself from that accusation he blocked me from editing at wikipedia, while he was saying some false things about me and my editing. Thank you--Salman 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding to this identical post on your talk page, let's keep it there. - Merzbow 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What?
Was that rvv edit summary in error? (→ Netscott ) 02:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * REPEATED blanking of properly sourced material entirely against consensus is vandalism, is it not? - Merzbow 03:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's a content dispute... big difference... I would have reverted you myself if I had been sure that your edit summary was not an error. If the content dispute becomes protracted I would recommend Dispute resolution. (→ Netscott ) 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, It is not vanadalism. --Aminz 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out Vandalism as well... to know what to properly label as "rvv" in an edit summaries. Cheers. (→ Netscott ) 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I stand corrected then. - Merzbow 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit the Harassment
Do not place entries on my talk page, particularly not these unwarranted 'warnings' that serve no other purpose other than to intimidate. His Excellency... 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're removing warnings for what I consider to be personal attacks as per the definitions in WP:NPA. If you remove them again I'll bring this up at AN and let the admins sort it out. - Merzbow 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've copy/pasted the comments on H.E.'s talk page to my talk page. --Aminz 00:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have not done so Merzbow please refrain from replacing warnings on H.E.'s page... now that the issue is posted on ANI the admins will make the proper determination if your warnings were valid and restore them accordingly. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. - Merzbow 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to review myself...Aminz removed H.E. ANI post for some reason... give me a sec. (→ Netscott ) 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * H.E.'s words are heated but there's no personal attack here or here. Please refrain from posting any further NPA warnings on his page and know that his anger is rather understandable in light of your labeling a revert over his work as "rvv" and the very signifcant differences over POV you both have as expressed in your editing relative to each other. (→ Netscott ) 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Restoring the ANI discussion. - Merzbow 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The comments are not explicit personal attacks, but tend to be understood as personal attacks. They don't "establish" the personal attacks on the part of H.E. but anyhow, they are not constructive of course and harm the community and should be refained. --Aminz 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please move this discussion over to the AN/I entry. - Merzbow 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, are you determined to report H.E. to arbcom? --Aminz 07:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who knows. Whether Wikipedia is worth the effort of spending 30 hours digging through 8 months of an edit history filled with toxic incivility for the purposes of collecting evidence is still up in the air. - Merzbow 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, I understand that H.E.'s edits are not constructive. If it goes to extent that it causes editors like you to lose their enthusiasm of working in wikipedia, I for one will be no longer tolerant to any of H.E's harmful edits. --Aminz 08:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. All I'm asking is to be fair. - Merzbow 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
I just summerized what was already there. --Aminz 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks good. I made a small change. - Merzbow 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:

 * Removed duplicate post that you already reponded with on your talk page. - Merzbow 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

His excellency
Just calm down. It's going to be ok. Trust me. I'm a vet of many many Wikipedia wars. The arbcom will take the case now that the block has been lifted. And I bet my bottom dollar that a temporary injunction will be passed restricting H.E., hopefully to just the arbcom evidence page. You gotta remember that people will have evidence going back to January on this guy. It'll be ok. Arbcom doesn't look kindly on personal attacks. Or POV pushing. --Woohookitty(meow) 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try. Right now I'm voluntarily withdrawing from article space until this issue is resolved, and will not visit the talk page of anybody I remotely have an issue with. The prospect of having to go through H.E.'s edit histories again and in even more detail for the evidence page is almost enough to make me physically sick at this point, but I suppose it's got to be seen through. At this point, it's not about a bunch of pointless articles on 1500-year old Islamic law, it's about if this project is going to be a safe place for well-meaning contributors or not. Whether I personally return or not is mostly immaterial now. - Merzbow 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK good. Well. The other thing is, even if His excellency is blocked indefinitely, the case should go through. You never know when a user who says he is leaving comes back after the arbcom case ended. I went through that with a user named Rex. Said he was leaving "forever". He was then blocked by the arbcom for 6 months. Then 3 months later, Rex was posting as Merecat. Just can't take these people's word for it that they are gone. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably for the better for this to go through the whole ArbComm process as you say. I have to keep reminding myself that this is a web site; in the scheme of things, there are far more important things to get worked up over. - Merzbow 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/His excellency
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/His excellency. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bishonen
Just a couple of comments on what you said on the arbcom case for H.E. I'm not sure you quite understand one aspect of an arbcom case. As soon as you post something like this, you are making an accusation whether you mean to or not. That section is for giving evidence against people that you feel should have sanctions brought against them. It's not a place for discussing motives or asking someone to explain themselves. If you want Bishonen to explain herself, I'd suggest asking her directly on her talk page. As soon as you put something like that on an evidence page, it becomes an accusation. If you feel like she has done something wrong, then post it on the evidence page. But if you are just looking for an explanation, post on her talk page. The evidence page is not for stuff like that. It's for evidence that you want to lead to sanctions. --Woohookitty(meow) 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining this. I'm certainly not advocating any sanctions against her. I'll remove it. And I apologize if anyone took its presence on that page as implicitly an accusation; in no way do I allege she did anything improper. - Merzbow 00:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?
Sorry to see things didn't settle down with His Excellency after I responded to that RFC. I probably should have watched more - or was that issue on a differnt page. I'll probably look into that more tomorrow, as it is getting late here.

I was hoping to ask you to lend a hand on a completely unrelated article. As I see that you are on a vacation from article space, I'll completely understand if you choose to refrain. But I hope you feel complimented that yours was the first name I thought of when I asked myself "Who do I know is of a different religion that I think could help out with this mess?" I do respect your work to add well verified material to articles.

I'm trying to help out at Mami Wata, which appears to be a neo-ancient spirit type topic. This is an area where I have a serious POV risk if I get too deeply involved. I like what I've seen of your work on Islam related articles, and feel that you could be a helpful contributor if you feel comfortable working on a neo-pagan article. There is relevant discussion both at Talk:Mami Wata and User talk:BrianSmithson. I'm asking you and two other editors who I respect to come lend a hand, hoping that having more participants in, or at least eyes on, the discussion will lead somewhere. GRBerry 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention that article, I saw it referenced from an earlier RFC (or protection, or something) and remember it being in a pretty poor state. Unfortunately I have to decline for the moment per my vacation, but I appreciate you asking. - Merzbow 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How are you?
Hi Merzbow,

Just wondering how you are doing? Hope you are well and doing fine. I don't see you around. What's up? Regards, --Aminz 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad that you're back. I'm just taking it easy for a while. Beginning to realize that there are far more important things in life to get worked up over than Wikipedia. - Merzbow 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my friend. I realized the same thing. The imaginary world of Wikipedia, at the beginning, is a good new experience. But after awhile, it will become exactly equal to slavery. --Aminz 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
Merzbow, do you have any feedback on my work here ? Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, that page has nothing to do directly with that project :) . We are working on how articles on Islam should be written. I just had to put it somewhere (and the most obvious place to put it was WikiProject of Islam which I am aware of). Striver now put it on a separate page: .--Aminz 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like a good start. Should probably change "renowned Muslim scholar" in the first section to "renowned scholar of Islam", since it's certainly possible for there to be non-Muslims who can provide scholarly commentary on Qur'an and the Hadith. Should also mention Bernard Lewis as a good source in addition to Esposito. - Merzbow 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Merzbow, why don't you please post your comment on that page? --Aminz 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, please see the email I sent for you together with Reference 4 here. --Aminz 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And please put it together with these diffs:


 * That's part of the job of academic historians to form their own opinions on the causes of historic events taking into account the available documentary material. Encyclopaedia of Islam cites Caetani, a famous orientalist, among others. Pecher Talk 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, it is. However, the discussion here has placed us in a position of evaluating the sources, and the strength of their conclusions: as modern inference or as documented tradition, and in what measure. If it is but inference, then to attribute it seems lawful and fair.Timothy Usher 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much a consensus view of modern scholars, so attributing it someone specific does not make sense. I've just checked with Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis: he also makes a point that Muhammad needed to "deflect opposition" to him after the treaty of Hudaybiyya. On the other hand, it is not impossible that someone subscribes to the view that Muhammad indeed felt threatened by the Jews; I'd check with Montgomery Watt. This view makes no sense, of course: if Muhammad felt threatened, why did he kill the unarmed delegation instead of negotiating? This action alone demonstartes that Muhammad was not afraid at all, but Jews were. Pecher Talk 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/His excellency
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.


 * His excellency is placed on personal attack parole, should he engage in personal attacks directed at individuals he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Should he engage in attacks directed at ethnic groups such as "The Jews" or "The Kikes" he may be blocked for extended periods of time, up to a year.


 * His excellency, having made one personal attack directed at "The Jews" and another directed at "those kikes" is banned for one month for the first offense and 3 months for the second offense, to run consecutively.


 * His excellency has continued to make anti-Semitic attacks on other users during this proceeding. An additional ban of 6 2 months is imposed to run consecutively with other bans.


 * His excellency is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/His excellency.


 * Timothy Usher is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/His excellency.


 * Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims.


 * Violation of bans imposed under the terms of this decision may be enforced by blocks appropriate to the offense involved. All blocks and the basis therefore to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, likewise. Looks like justice has been done, but I'm puzzled the PA probation hits differently depending on the type of personal attack. Why ethnic slurs should be treated differently than attacks against a person I don't get. People not on probation are already blocked regularly up to a week for PAs. - Merzbow 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Article needing review for significance
Please take a look at Imam Wazir Ali. I'm not sure that he is more notable than the average pastor or is notable to WP:BIO levels, but am outside my comfort zone. Please evaluate whether nomination for deletion is appropriate. (I am making this request of Merzbow and Aminz.) GRBerry 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem notable enough to me, I say nominate it and see if anyone can come up with more evidence of notability. - Merzbow


 * Thanks. GRBerry 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)