Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver

''This is a subpage to The Muslim Guild

New template
Striver, while I appreciate your obvious enthusiasm, could I request that you slow down a little? You keep making major edits to important pages without running it by other people first, making the Islam pages on Wikipedia look bad. For example, you changed the "Islam" template on many pages to your own "Muslim Beliefs" template. This template had spelling errors (now fixed), and the top link on it went to a non-existent page. That linked page does now exist (Basic Muslim Beliefs) but it is a very basic stub and full of typos. I have other issues with the template as well, but this is not the place to discuss it. I would ask you to please slow down, especially in the creation of brand new pages and then linking existing pages to them. This guild should be a place where we can all discuss things and then roll them out, as opposed to all of us simply reacting to each other's edits. Thank you. Turnstep 13:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your comment.


 * As you might have seen, i did apologize several times for my rushed decision on the making and implementing of the new template. I did not re-add it after people removed them from some articles, rather im waiting to people to discover it (wich i hoped would go quicker than i has). I tried to react to some of the critizism, i created the missing pages and then felt that since Khums is prominantly shia, i re added the template, arguing that i tend to have the support of shia editors, due to my energy, wich is rare in the shia articles, ie: bad spelling is better than no spelling, since bad spelling tends to be copyedited away, but non-existing articles tend to remain uncreated. In other words:


 * Yes, i do spell bad; yes i have horrible gramar. but that can and do get corrected. But my knowldge and zeal in creating and expanding articles is, in my experience, not something that would be done anyway.


 * As for this guild being the place for discussing thing, that is exactly what is happening now, and the same thing happened when i pointed out my changes to the template and hajj section. thanks to this guild (that i created), people can see what im doing without feeling they need to "chase" me.


 * Again, thanks for your comment!


 * --Striver 14:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Assalamu alaykum striver, and Eid Mubarak --


 * May I ask you to pause for just a few minutes and, with all respect, consider whether the feedback you've gotten from Turnstep mirrors feedback you've gotten from other editors? Peace and blessings, BrandonYusufToropov 16:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wa aleyikom as-salam my dear brother in Islam!


 * 'Striver agrees that he was to rushed in creating the Template:Muslim Beliefs template and apologises.

proposal

 * Yes, it does mirror what other editors have said. How about this: Make a list of articles you think i should treat with caution, and ill think about agreeing to the list. In the future, if i want to make a change to article x (that is in the agreed list), instead ill make a proposal at striver/x. Then ill notify people about it in this page and wait 24 houres for comments before i add them to x. What do you say? --Striver 18:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Brother, this is alhamdulillah a wonderful suggestion. Thank you so much for making it, I think it's an excellent idea. You won't mind, I assume, if I talk to other editors to get their input on what should be on this list of articles? I will post it inshaAllah on your talk page when it is ready for your review. BrandonYusufToropov 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i also hope its a good sugestion and inshallah it will remove some wikistress of all editors head. You may discus this with anyone you feel to do so with. Do mind that i aim to keep the list of articles limited to high-profile non-shia articles, ie not expand it to less known biographies or articles. best regards! --Striver 21:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ' Striver is waiting for a reply regarding his proposal.

New article creations by Striver
(originaly posted in the Muslim guild talk page, moved here by Striver)

Hi Striver. I think that you should slow down a little on new article creation. Some articles are just repeats or very close to repeats of articles (see article section on this talk page). If you are going to start new articles, can you please propose them first on this page so that you and others can check whether the article is a repeat before it is started. That will save you and others a lot of time. :) Thank you. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for telling me know how you feel!


 * After having see my replies to the articles, do you still feel that i start articles i should not start? --Striver 04:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. You do good work on a lot of articles but please slow down a little on article creation. Please remove the article about curses, I think that is not necessary and isn't very accurate. However, your newest article about scholars is good though. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Curses in Islam

 * The article about curses is very relevant. Do you know how manny times i have had to explain that issue? Manny people dont even know that God himself time after time curses people. I have seen plenty of articles where they say one should not curse Yazid (May God curse him!) since there is no point in doing so. In that article i will address issues like that, ie, if it is pointless to curse, why does God do it again and again in the Quran`? I thank you for your credit and also value you none credit-input! Peace! --Striver 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay striver, but realize that when God curses it is different than the type of cursing by humans. I will work on the article when I get the time because right now the intro isn't very good. Thanks.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are very welcomed to help with improving the article. As for "but realize that when God curses it is different than the type of cursing by humans.", of cours, but also realize that we dont curse, rather we pray God to curse the subject. Thanks, and lets cotinue this conversation on the articles talk page :)  --Striver 16:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Striver feels that was uneccesary critique, he belives the article is relevant and that he did proved it.

Striver
Apparently it's OK for Striver to make changes to articles, but if I revert his changes (addition of irrelevant articles in the See also section) he reverts back and tells me that I can't make changes without getting approval from the Muslim Guild. WHAT?

I would respectfully suggest that other editors take a look at Striver's user page -- esp his list of persecuted people, which includes Muhammad, Ali, and himself -- and his "there is no terrorism, it is all a CIA plot" arguments -- and then consider what is best to be done. Zora 07:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lol, Zora tries to get rid of me as if i was a mental case :D LOL :D


 * What, am i not allowed to have a pov`? Counter my arguments, not my person. My personal belifes regarding politics has nothing to do with my edits in the Islamic sections.


 * Regarding the "approval from the Muslim Guild", i was wrong, i apologise. I should have remembered that the guild does not hold any authority, and even if it did so, my proposals where never commented by anyone and in no way where they agreed upon. Again, i apologize. What i should have done is to re-present my arguments to you on that talk page and kindly asked you to also give some input about the issue on the Muslim page. the "fatwa" section you are refering to has also been addresed by user:gren, and i will address it on the talk page. For the third time, i was wrong in replying in the way i did.

Striver also states on his user page: "The torch and rings of the Olympic Games was designed by Hitler. The Bush family had ties with Hitler." --Juan Muslim 07:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The rings of the Olympic Games being desinged in the "Nazi land" is a historical fact, go make your own research. Also, the Bush family did have extensive trade with the Nazis, i invite you to make some personal research about that. If you need help, i can help you with that. Im sorry for sounding harsh, but i did not like what i belive was implied by that comment. --Striver 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Striver apologises to Zora. Further, he feels his person is attacked, rather than his work.

Shi'a POV and Striver
Zora: This does relate to articles, but it relates to lots of them. Striver keeps PUSHING to insert more and more Shi'a-POV material as fact in a number of central articles. He has turned the Ali article into a piece of Ali-worship, full of quotes about how wonderful Ali was. He is trying to put a section re the disputed hadith of Gadir Khum in the Hadith article. He feels that it's necessary to quote Ali in the Tawhid article, as if Ali were an authority on a level with Muhammad and the Qur'an. He is reverting to a munged version of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, in which he takes my restatement of Madelung and represents it as a quote from Madelung. He is inserting sneering POV quotes from long-deceased Western historians into the Umar article. He set up an article (The meaning of the Holy Qur'an) just to contain three links, and then linked to the article from the Umar article (that's not Shi'a-POV, that's just ... nuts). I assume that some of you are Sunni and would dislike this strident attempt to turn Wikipedia into Shi'apedia. Heck, just look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild page. Besides inserting Shi'a-POV into main articles, he's planning a complete set of "Shi'a view of ..." articles. POV forks are deprecated on Wikipedia, and I can't believe that everyone else is letting him do this. I keep trying not to care when he munges the Islam-related articles, and I keep caring. Do any of the rest of you care? If not, perhaps I should just let Striver go until he does something so egregious that he's banned. Zora 05:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Striver: Great, now maybe we can deal with this?

Here is a record of me trying to contact Zora, and Zora refusing to do so :.

So, lets list her complains:


 * ''Striver keeps PUSHING to insert more and more Shi'a-POV material as fact in a number of central articles.

In some occasions i have added material the PRESENTS shia pov. But i have not pushed to add Shia pov material. Let me give a example:

"Ali was born in the Kaaba" is "Shia pov", a opinion.

"Shia belive Ali was born in the Kaaba" is "a representation of Shia pov", a fact.

"Shia pov" goes against WP rules. I know that. Zora knows that. "representation of Shia pov" complies with wiki rules, and in fact, WP encourages that, ie to represent a issue from multiple povs.


 * 'Striver sees it as very bad faith from Zora to be accused of "Keeping to push Shia-POV material as fact"


 * ''He has turned the Ali article into a piece of Ali-worship, full of quotes about how wonderful Ali was.

Yes. What is wrong with that? He was wonderfull, and everyone agrees. And that needs to be represented. I did not put in all the non-Muslim quotes, but i do intent to keep Zora from deleting it. It is higly relevant that manny non-muslims have praised him high, and it needs to be represented.

Here is the quotes she is refering to:

As can be seen, the references are from quite prominent sources:


 * Simon Ockley
 * William Muir
 * Philip Khuri Hitti
 * Edward Gibbon


 * 'Striver sees no problem in representing the majority of the non-muslim view of Ali"

Further, one of the quotes is made to prove that Ali being born in the Kaaba is not a Shia only view, it is also shared by some western scholars, which of course, came to that conclusion after reading Sunni sources. How much Shia book do you think Simon Ockley read in 1894?

And above all, it was not me adding that phrase in the first place, it was a admin that added it after a LONG conversation with me. I later added that "some sunnis" also belive so, if i recall correctly, after someone else took the initiative, but got reverted.


 * 'Striver belives it apropiate to point out that even famous non-muslim scholars agree to a point, when manny have a hard time beliving in it"


 * ''He is trying to put a section re the disputed hadith of Gadir Khum in the Hadith article.

Yes, what about it? It is not the dispute regarding its interpretation that i want to represent there, rather the fact that it is the most reported event in the history of Islam. And that definitly haves a place in the hadith article.


 * ''He feels that it's necessary to quote Ali in the Tawhid article, as if Ali were an authority on a level with Muhammad and the Qur'an.

I made no such claim. Zora is puting words in my moth. The Muslim guild have a request to expand on the topic, made by JuanMuslim, and so does the talk page of tawheed If you look at the tawheed talk page, JuanMuslim is actualy DEMANDING more hadith quotes, and that is exactly what i did, i quoted one of the most famous hadith regarding tawheed, from one of the most famous books. The book happens to be Shia, but so what, since when does that matter? Sunni agree to the content of the hadith, so it comming from a Shia collection should not matter. It certancly does not matter when Bukhari is quoted on subjects that Shia agree on, so i dont see why Nahj should be a problem on subjects Sunni agree on. Unless the problem is that Zora cant stand to see Nahj in that article, it ruins her sens of balance ... naaaw.... Why does it not ruin her sense of balance when there is no Shia books or references on other topics? And i did point out that she is welcomed to quotes from the other caliphs if she feels it to be necesary for the point of balance, but she did not. Actualy, JuanMuslim did quote a Abu Bakr hadith, but neither wanted to add it to the article.

FACTS: there was 2 request to expand the article, one request to do so with hadith. I did that. However, Zora haves a problem since i choose Nahj. I can bet you my car (that i dont have) that she would not have complained if i hade choosen a Umar quoted from Bukhari. FACT: Sunnis agree to the content of the hadith choosen, and it is a famous hadith.

Further, Nahj is actually taught among Sunnis as well, for educational purpose:


 * ''I remember, for example, when our Arabic Rhetoric teacher was teaching the Shaqshaqiyyah oration from the book "Nahj al-Balaghah" by Imam Ali, that I was puzzled, as were many other students, when we read it, but I dared to ask the following question: "Are these truly the words of Imam Ali?" He answered: "Definitely, who would have had this eloquence apart from him. If it were not his saying, why should the Muslim scholars like Shaykh Muhammad Abduh, the Mufti of Egypt, concern themselves with its interpretation?" Then I said, "Imam Ali accuses Abu Bakr and Umar that they robbed him of his right to succeed as Caliph".


 * ''The teacher was outraged and he rebuked me very strongly and threatened to expel me from the class, and added, "We teach Arabic Rhetoric and not history. We are not concerned with the dark episodes of history and its bloody wars between Muslims, and in as much as Allah has cleaned our swords from their blood, let us clean our tongues by not condemning them".


 * 'Striver accuses Zora of falsly accusing Striver of being biased in this particular issue"


 * ''He is reverting to a munged version of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, in which he takes my restatement of Madelung and represents it as a quote from Madelung.

Yes, and that was fixed after you pointed out it out to me. As can be seen, i have not deleted any of her material, but she insist on deleting my material. She accused the Uthman letter to come from a Shia site, even though it clearly says "sunni site". She stoped arguing about it, but keept on deleting it! That behavior is representative of her, she can only tolerate sources she trust, everything else is Shia pov, even if its from a Sunni site. If she is beaten by eviden she will ignore that there was a dialog regarding the issue and continue to delet it, including it in the bunch she calls "shia pov presented as facts"

I did signal that i wanted to cooperate with her, in words like "I hope we are closing on a agreed version *smile*" and hade extensive talk with her on the talk page, but she only accepts her precious Madelung book and blindly dissmises the rest of it as Shia pov. She still refuses to add the leter from Uthman's wife, only agreeing to quote Madelung.

Also, she did not let me add that he had a son that would be the grandfather of Jafar al-sidiq, claiming that there was no such link known to her. Well, there would be if she had taken the time to follow the genreations. But even though i explained it to her, she still want to remove the mentioning of him: Her latest reversal, omitting both him having a son, even though i mentioned his high relevance, and also the letter, even though i proved it was no shia pov:


 * 'Striver accuses Zora of reverting blindly after having been proven wrong"


 * ''He is inserting sneering POV quotes from long-deceased Western historians into the Umar article.

Yes, and we hade a good discusion about it, and she did not reply in the end:

I quote myself:


 * ''It is of intrest that the book is published in 1905. However, even if his work is questionable, it is of value to show that there are/wher western scholars holding that view. In essence, if Umar hade made any great dead that where easy confirmable or widely reported or significant, surely nobody would have wrote the thing that Margouliouth wrote. So in that view, it is of intrest to have his view cited, not so much to prove it as a fact, rather that it possible to have a educated view of Umar and not find any heroic act.


 * ''Regarding puting the Margoliouth quote in my "pet article", since "It does not represent the majority academic view of Umar by any means", i would like to have that proven. Bring me three western scholar in Islam that belives Umar is valiant, and refers to some incident to prove that, and i will agree that the Margoliouth quote is not representative and i will remove it. Be adviced that it is writen "SOME western scholars", not all of them. So bring me three that belive he was valiant and i will remove "some" and move the quote to my "pet" article. The burden of evidence is upon you.

She did nothing to prove that the Margoliouth pov representing "some" of the scholars is wrong, however, she insited on removing it anyway. And now she comes here to complain instead of proving the statment that "some" western scholars share the shia view of Umar.


 * 'Striver accuses Zora of reverting blindly after having been proven wrong, again"


 * ''He set up an article (The meaning of the Holy Qur'an) just to contain three links, and then linked to the article from the Umar article (that's not Shi'a-POV, that's just ... nuts).

The meaning of the Holy Qur'an is a book, and it deserves a article. It is strange that she thinks this is ok:

"Madelung, 1997, pp. 138-39"

but this is "nuts":

The meaning of the Holy Qur'an

They both take the same amount of space, but mine has a link to the book, and also to a external version of the quote. one can also easly find the year and author by looking at the book.

More on the Issue: ,


 * 'Striver dont get why that is 'nuts'"


 * ''I assume that some of you are Sunni and would dislike this strident attempt to turn Wikipedia into Shi'apedia. Heck, just look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild page. Besides inserting Shi'a-POV into main articles, he's planning a complete set of "Shi'a view of ..." articles.

She is opposing having "Shia view of" article, and in the same time she advocates removal of Shia pov representation from the main page? Do i need to say more?


 * 'Striver is evaluating how 'nuts' should be applied"


 * ''POV forks are deprecated on Wikipedia, and I can't believe that everyone else is letting him do this.

If she would remeber, we had that discussion earlier:

Articles_for_deletion/Shia_view_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khattab

Surpisingly (not), it is Zora that nominated it for deletion. Here is some comments from there:

''I dont get you folks. First we had a Shia version of him on the main page, but that could not be tolerated, so we moved it to its own article. Now you want to delet it to? --Striver

''It does seem that Zora, having tried to keep most of the Shia material from the main article, is now trying to delete the separate article that was created in response. --Mel Etitis

''If Christian views of slavery is legit, why is Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab not legit`?


 * ''Jewish view of Jesus
 * ''Christian views of Jesus
 * ''Mormon view of Jesus
 * ''New Testament view on Jesus' life

''Self evident ?

''This findings just increased my anger towards Zora. --Striver

''Hmm, interesting point. I'd personally be inclined to delete all of the above, but that does set a precedent for "X views on...", which is my biggest objection. (change vote to) Abstain. - Mustafaa

''Keep. Create Sunni view of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Create pages for any other group that has a view. It's only our Westocentrism that allows us to feel Jewish views of Jesus is any more or less acceptable. ... Also feel that Zora should be admonished to remember to step back from eir personal religious beliefs and allow the Umar article to be edited in an NPOV fashion. Grace Note


 * 'Striver is tempted to say degrading things to Zora"


 * ''I keep trying not to care when he munges the Islam-related articles, and I keep caring. Do any of the rest of you care? If not, perhaps I should just let Striver go until he does something so egregious that he's banned. Zora 05:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Waiting for comments...

--Striver 14:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for co-editors to comment on her accusations on me. Other topics regarding me are welcomed on a new section.

--Striver 03:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Text and other issues

 * 'Issue transfared from here


 * Your new method of referencing books by creating articles for them and then linking is a WASTE of Wikipedia resources. Please stop. You are turning the Ali article into a weird and lumpy bit of Shi'a piety. You are trashing articles right and left. Please STOP. You've made more than 500 edits in the last four days or so. PLEASE STOP. Zora 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding waste, i dont agree. I belive those books need to have an article, and i would be glad as soon as anyone expands on them. vfd them if you belive you have the majority support, i belive you do not.


 * Shia piety? What part, please be explicit, i dont like your habit of dissmising everything i do in wide strokes like "shia pov", "shia non-sense" and "shia fable", only to later discover that Madelung agrees. If you have objections to something specific, bring it up on the talk page and we will bring our arguments to the table, im sure the WP comunity can judge which argument is the heaviest. If you dont feel to do that, at least stop ridiculing me with words like "You are trashing articles right and left".


 * Yeah, i have made lots of edits, its a hard and time consuming work, not to say expensiv on modem since my broaband cable is not in funtion, but i feel feel is very rewarding and educationg, and i have no intention watsoever to stop doing that. And my grammar is getting better for every day :P Peace and have a good day!


 * Oh, and by the way, dont forget to rebutle on my refutation of you accusations that you presented on the "member coment" section of this guild! --Striver 18:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, my brother, is Zora the only one who has suggested that you might benefit from slowing the pace down a little? BrandonYusufToropov 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Salam my brother in Islam, and thanks for your comment!


 * Regarding pace, I have seriously slowed down on article creation since manny editors complained about that. I have only made smal stubs for books, scholars and other non-controversial subjects. I intent to keep it that way untill the current controversies are worked through. As can be seen, i have not published any new articles created here or in the Shia guild, since i have not creted any such notable thing.


 * Regardin edits, for example the one on the Ali article, i see only Zora defending the revert made by BrandonYusufToropov. It is indisputably true that i do not have a good prose. However, that does not justify a revert. Everyone knows that. So whoever reverted and claimed that there is need to fix the prose and grammar before leting the old version back is simply mistaken. Bad grammar and prose are corrected, not deleted. So the only valid reason for my contributions to be deleted is them to be inaccurate. Pov edits are not deleted either, they are NPOV:ed. Zora is engaded in raising some issues, only one being valid and relevant to the deletion of my editions, the rest of the points raised are refuted. I belive that at least the one reverting away my edition and claming them to be "blatant partisan posturing throughout" should take te opportunity to elaborated on the claims made, so that the problems may be solved.


 * If no further objections are raised, after the current ones are solved, the only sensible thing will be to revert back to my version, take appropiate actions with regards to the single valid objection raised and wait for someone feels for the job to copy edit the text.


 * Your brother in Islam, that does not enjoy conflicts for the sake of it self. --Striver 14:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * With respect, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that


 * poorly written text belongs in WP articles,


 * and I also disagree with the contention that


 * it's my responsibility to clean up your writing's style and POV problems.


 * For some months now, people have bent over backwards to accommodate and/or turn a blind eye to your obsessive editing style, Striver. To what end? The only result has been continued layering-on of fractured prose on major articles like Ali and the creation of non-encyclopedic articles along the lines of Enemies of God and the Prophet Muhammad Who Must Certainly Expect to Be Consigned to Hell, Unidentified in the Title of This Article, But The Name of the Sect They Now Embrace Rhymes with "Looney," If You Know What I Mean, Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink.
 * Let me speak frankly with you, brother. The time has come, in fact it is long overdue, for you to accept the responsibility everyone else here has, the responsibility of working collaboratively and harmoniously with other editors if you plan to make contributions over time. In your case, that means teaming up with someone who shares your perspective to write coherently in English when you make contributions to articles .... or expecting to see your text instantly reverted if you cannot compose such text.
 * Alternatively, if you wish to develop text on your own that you feel belongs in an article, but you believe your skills in English composition are an obstacle to the creation of text belonging in an encyclopedia, you can post a draft of something on the talk page before you place it in the body of the article. I and other editors will be happy to discuss the text with you on the talk page. BrandonYusufToropov 15:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Striver is working on his reply

Striver, if you don't want to sound crazy, at least stop referring to yourself in the third person. -- Zeno of Elea 06:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild.