User talk:Scythian1/Archive 2

Body counts on Battle of al-Qādisiyyah
Hi Scythian1,

Please take a look at this discussion: User talk:Hcberkowitz.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

American Jews
My apologies. I wasn't aware that atheism and irreligious were shown as religions for other ethnic groups. I wasn't trying to keep the information out of the article, I just didn't think that they were typically shown in the infobox. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already done it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Judaism doesn't require that Jews attend synagogue. Concluding that Jews who don't attend synagogue are irreligious is WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of those instances in which a Wikipedia article uses a word with a different meaning than its plain English meaning. Irreligious means "hostile or indifferent to religion", which (especially in Judaism) is not indicated by one's disbelief in God or inattendance at synagogue. If Wikipedia has an article that defines irreligion differently, then I defer to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scythian1
Thank you for your message. Yes true I wrote some articles on Mamluks. Mostly about Sultans only, so that I do not get involved in conflicts as the subject crusades, unfortunately, sometimes, contain some racial and national pride for some people who do not really care about history as they care about successes of what they believe were their ancestors. That is sad, as we read history to learn from. Keep in touch and let me know what you are doing. Regards Samsam22 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Scythian1 I saw you changed some things in article of Baibars. GJ. But I think the sentence :  " when he decisively defeated the Mongols. " should be changed to " when Mongols were decisively defeated " as Baibars, even how important he was, was only one of the commanders of Qutuz." Let me know. Regards. Samsam22 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not about grammer but about the fact that Baibars was not the leader of the army but only a commander. Qutuz was the Sultan and the leader of the army. We can not say Baibars defeated the Mongols but can say Qutuz defeated them. Samsam22 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add that some western writers try to limit the achievments of the Muslims and Mamluks to rulers like Saladin and Baibars and ignore the fact that other rulers and commanders also had not less important achievements. Samsam22 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism on Hazara people info-box
Please don't ignore the vandalism done on that article's infobox. Some vandals are claiming that Hazaras make 33% of Afghanistan and other crazy numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.54.47 (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Was-salam. I disagree. Anyone who reads the passage should see that the claim of myth and misuse is specifically attributed to opponents, who constitute a minority. While there could be better and broader range of the existing opinions about its validity, there should definitely be a summary of the views in the lead given that a) the lead is supposed to summarise all significant aspects of an article, and b) the views section is a significant aspect. Regards,  ITAQALLAH   14:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Scythian1. I'm interested in what your response is to my above comment. Regards,  ITAQALLAH   22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you made need to read WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." There is a large section about views, hence the lead should give coverage to this aspect.  ITAQALLAH   16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy with something along those lines.  ITAQALLAH   16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposition as well.Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ammar Amonette
A tag has been placed on Ammar Amonette requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blowdart | talk 07:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam in Mongolia
Dear Scythian1!

Your posts in this article are suggesting the presence of native Mongolians-Moslem. This is very interesting information, but you didn't add any references and it is not clear the scale of the Mongolians islamisation. If you'll add relevant sources of your information it would be more encyclopedic.

Western Mongolia is populated with mostly nonkhalkha peoples so does your post mean presence of Moslem in nonkhalkha peoples too? Do you have any information about Buryads islamisation in Mongolia?

Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Americans
Hey Scynthian 1. I'd like to thank you for "citing" the problem in the references ;) on the article "Egyptian Americans". I added a relatively recent (c. 1993) NY Times article in response—it actually says that there's more than a million Egyptian Copts in North America — the majority is likely in the US. For that, you can look at the Canada 2001 Census, which states that there were at least 10,285 Orthodox Copts in Canada (I say "at least' because I don't believe that everyone was counted as I wasn't, being someone who lives in Canada). At most, there might be one or a couple of hundred-thousand Copts in Canada, but they're probably still in the tens of thousands. There's only one Church in Mexico, from what I know, so there's certainly not a lot of them there. Besides, you can probably see that the New York Times is usually accurate, as I find it to be a trustworthy source for the most part. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan
Scythian:

You really shouldn't be footnoting the information box of the Soviet-Aghanistan article the way you are doing. It is incorrectly footnoted, and the sources you use are inappropriate. Those sources do not prove anything: they are not even academic studies of the war. To put six consecutive footnotes together does not strengthen your point...it only shows that you have not done any serious reading about the subject. I hate to be nasty, but you destroying the credibility of the article when you do things like that.

If it means so much to you to be able to say that the mujihadeen won a military victory (which they didn't, by the way), then why not add another paragraph to the bottom of the article discussing this point of view. That would be the appropriate place to list any references you have.

Mark Urban's "War In Afghanistan" is a serious, first rate, world-respected book about the 1979-89 war. For you to dismiss this as "POV" is just plain silly.

Kindly change your ways so we can construct a halfway decent article.

68.166.237.207 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read your message on my talkpage. This will be my last message to you -- if you want to have a mutually respectful, productive discussion on these pages about what actually happened in the war, that's great. I am available to talk. But first you need to stop the nonsense about the footnoting, otherwise I'm turning my back on the subject. Again, I find it hard to believe you've studied the war in depth.


 * 68.166.237.207 (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Scythian1, in the discussion page of Qutuz and the Battle of Ain Jalut there is a discussion going on about somethings. Maybe you like to give your opinion. If you Arabic speaking maybe you can explain to the person there that Sultan Qutuz is one of the most celebrated Mamluk Sultans in the Islamic world as seems he does not know that. Thanx Samsam22 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hab
It's interesting that you added pyrrhic victory to the Battle of Hab. It just so happens that I was taken to task for describing the Battle of Marj es-Suffar that way not so long ago. A pyrrhic victory is described as one that comes at devastating cost. The implication is that the winner can't do much with his victory because he is hurt so badly (e.g., Battle of Guilford Court House). Such was not the case with Hab. In fact, though Crusader losses were heavy, this did not keep Baldwin from retaking some of the places that Ighazi had captured. (Unfortunately, Smail was not specific on which places.) I called it a "narrow" Crusader victory because it was certainly a close call. Did the work you cited call it a pyrrhic victory or did you conclude that on your own? Thanks.

Also, my understanding of Smail and Beeler was that the three lead squadrons did not include all the Frankish knights, and that there were also right and left flank knights, plus Baldwin's reserve. However, a total of 700 knights seems about right. After the Battle of Ager Sanguinis disaster, it must have been difficult to muster a large force of knights. Djmaschek (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubai issues
Scythian1, I would like to let you know that I have responded to both your messages at Talk:Dubai. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Sheikh Jamil Zeno in Kyrgyzstan
Please see HERE. AWT (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Meskhetian Turks
Did you see the anon's comment on the talk page? Khoikhoi 19:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of AIPAC
Scythian1, since you have taken an interest in the AIPAC article and because we disagree on how to edit the page, I have presented a more detailed version of my concerns without making direct edits to the article. Please respond when you have a moment, although if there is no answer within several days I will assume consensus and proceed with editing the article. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Acid Attack
I see you've re-added the complete text about the Jewish attack and removed the fact that the culprits have not been confirmed, all without an edit summary. Why?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, someone accused the Modesty Guard, I don't dispute that. But they never identified the kid who through the acid. They don't know that the girl was the target. They don't know why the acid was thrown. All we know is that a girl was a victim of an acid attack. We don't even know if it deserve to be in this section since we don't know what the motivation was. The motivation of the other examples are undisputed, that is why they belong in the section. At the very least we need a sentence explaining the great deal of uncertainty in this incident.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing cleanup tags
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Soviet war in Afghanistan
Stop it! Three people disagree with you already about the outcome of the war. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam in Sweden
Hi Scythian1, I would not think your last edit on the page is a "minor" one. The article is fully referenced, so I am going to reintroduce the sentence. If you like, we can work together to expand the introdution of the page, which is today very skinny (6 words). Bests,--Dans (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)