| Revision as of 14:48, 16 May 2011 editAquib American Muslim (talk | contribs)2,681 edits →WQA: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:07, 16 May 2011 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →WQA: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| :How about "attacks on the Islamic religion"? Is that better? -] (]) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | :How about "attacks on the Islamic religion"? Is that better? -] (]) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::No that's not any better (nor is it necessary in your edit summaries). The reversion wasn't necessarily a problem on its own. But after he reverted again, you should have checked thet alk page to see why he does not want the template: it seems he didn't want both templates in the article, but was willing to compromise to keep the one which he thinks is more relevant and does not impact on the way the article appears to him. You could either agree with him that both are not necessary, compromise to keep one (cite your reasons for whichever one), or cite your reasons for wanting to keep both. As this is in dispute, those reasons really should be outlined in the relevant section on the article's talk page rather than through edit summaries in back-and-forth reverts. ] (]) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:07, 16 May 2011
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is Aquib American Muslim's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
On Misplaced Pages
A general conversation on Misplaced Pages processes
Truth Lies Here
Activism inside Misplaced Pages
A very interesting essay on Activism
Is science multicultural?
One has to wonder sometimes. Just browsed pages 33-36 so far.
Templates
Help:Templates#System_variables_and_conditional_logic
Misplaced Pages:Template_test_cases
To do
Science in medieval Islam: sidebar, formally
Science in medieval Islam: third para in lead
Toleration
I h ave done a lot of work these last few months on Toleration. I added a brief section on toleration of Christians and Jews in the Qu'ran and in the Ottoman Empire, but have nothing on mutual toleration of currents within Islam or modern views. If you have a chance, could you take a look and possibly help to expand the section? For example, the hadith currently being discussed on WP:RSN is quite interesting, but I don't know nearly enough about the subject to add it carefully to the article, or even if it should be. Thanks-- Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I could be missing it, but I searched the USC Hadith collections. This particular hadith does not seem to appear in the works of 'Bukhari', 'Muslim' or even 'Abu Dawud' so people are going to argue about it. I would exclude it from the article, I believe that's consistent with policy.
- BTW, the Toleration article is an admirable project, and just skimming, I don't see much about Islamic tolerance. If you are interested, I would refer you to the Dhimmi article for more information. While the article is problematic due to its controversial nature, a careful reader may discern the outlines of how other monotheistic faiths were protected by Islamic law for 1400 years. Other religions were not treated equally, but they did have some protection. According to Bernard Lewis, for example, Jews seemed to fare better under Islamic rule than Christian rule for the past 1000 to 1400 years. Regrettably, those days as passing as we speak.
- Best regards, -Aquib (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, I found a letter from a rabbi inviting others to leave Europe and come live in the Ottoman empire, where conditions were better. I will look at Dhimmi. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
WQA
William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please cease misusing the term "vandalism" for edits like this. There are a lot of terms that might be used to characterise the conduct concern here, but vandalism is not among them. Unless you wish to be blocked, it is best you use more appropriate terminology for expressing your concern in regards to this content dispute - you may wish to review the section "What is not vandalism", and/or the other policy pages for more assistance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about "attacks on the Islamic religion"? Is that better? -Aquib (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- No that's not any better (nor is it necessary in your edit summaries). The reversion wasn't necessarily a problem on its own. But after he reverted again, you should have checked thet alk page to see why he does not want the template: it seems he didn't want both templates in the article, but was willing to compromise to keep the one which he thinks is more relevant and does not impact on the way the article appears to him. You could either agree with him that both are not necessary, compromise to keep one (cite your reasons for whichever one), or cite your reasons for wanting to keep both. As this is in dispute, those reasons really should be outlined in the relevant section on the article's talk page rather than through edit summaries in back-and-forth reverts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)