Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:58, 21 March 2011

I like to keep conversations in one place. If you make a comment here, I'll reply here, so keep an eye on this page for my response. If I left a comment on your talk page, I'll be watching it for awhile, so just reply there.

Archive 2010

Ibn Ishaq

Do you have any reply to this about your falsifcation of a quote??? And do you have any WP:RS saying Ibn Ishaq "is widely discredited by Muslims today"??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Modifying the text of a quote or taking a sentence out of context are essentially the same, and both should be considered falsification. So you and ] (who originally changed the quote) are both wrong as far as I'm concerned. The right thing to do is to expand the quote or find a better translation. As for Ibn Ishaq, it is well known that the traditions he collected are not considered suitable as sources of Islamic Jurisprudence by most Muslims (hence not accurate). It is also required by WP:NOCITE to wait for a reasonable time before deleting unreferenced material after adding {{fact}}. A couple of days in a light traffic article doesn't seem reasonable. I added one reference to some of the material removed, I'll also add more and reword that sentence whenever I'm done with another closely related article that I'm working on. Also, unless you have any real interest in Ibn Ishaq, your behavior here is borderline WP:HOUND. Wiqixtalk 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If we are both wrong why did you choose his edits to rvt to? Falsifing a quote is an objective fact, "taking a sentence out of context" is an opinion and do you seriously think a third party will agree with you?

My area of interest in wikipedia is Islam and the Middle East and after seeing what you did to Ibn Ishaq I came to your talk page rather than editing the article out of sensitivity to WP:HOUND. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for at least cleaning up the mess you made in the Ibn Ishaq article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Koran vs Qu'ran

Hello, I am writing to say that Koran is the generally accepted English language spellng so I will put this into the article. I will not change the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an is also considered correct (according to MOS:ISLAM and The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed.), and it's more common in Academic writing. I'd suggest that you first raise the issue at MOS:ISLAM or at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam. Give valid reason for why would you want to change it. Then wait for input from others. Wiqixtalk 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Muslim

Salaam Bro, I see you are doing a lot of long needed work on the Muslim page, but be careful nafs doesn't cause you to censor anything too @:) barakallah feek.Budo (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad that I've helped. Salaam. Wiqixtalk 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of Scientific Biography

Hi, I noticed a while ago that you (or an editor with a very similar name to you, excuse me if I'm wrong) replaced referenced to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography in the Further reading and External links section by a plain external link to HighBeam electronic version of the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (in which I've unfortunately spotted some transcription errors at times). I think this is somewhat unfortunate as sometimes the author/volume/page numbers of the printed article where lost in the process. And also making it harder to use the {{harv}} and {{harvnb}} templates to cite the DSB. Could you consider using the url= of the {{DSB}} or {{citation}} templates instead, or perhaps if you still remember where you replaced the templates fix your past contributions? Cheers, —Ruud 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That was me actually, but I only remember doing this a couple of times. I have corrected the ones I could find (all of them, I believe), mostly by moving references to the dead-tree DSB to the further reading section, and retaining the on-line DSB in the external link section. This is not the best solution I can think of, but it should be a bit better for now I guess. I'll look at some of the template-related solutions later. Thanks for the heads up. Wiqixtalk 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abū Kāmil Shujā ibn Aslam

You said:

Restore, but with tags (or another special tag) following each sentence. We can then slowly verify each sentence/statement and either re-phrase to better reflect the cited sources or delete if failed verification. I'm suggesting this approach based on my experience in cleaning Jagged edits in a couple of shorter articles (al-Battani and Abu Kamil)

Looking at Abū Kāmil Shujā ibn Aslam. Did you mean that literally, as Aam has interpreted you (in which case, can you point me at the article history where this occurred, as I can't see it) or did you in some unclear sense mean it metaphorically (in which case could you please amplify your intent)? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did mean it in a literal sense, especially for long articles. I think using many tags is one way to track progress, warn other editors/readers not to believe anything in heavily tagged paragraph, and ask them to help. In the case of very short articles, I probably didn't think of using tags because I was the only active editor, and, since you can readily read the whole article in a minute, there was no need to track anything. Wiqixtalk 20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So, you didn't actually do it then? Because when you wrote I'm suggesting this approach based on my experience in cleaning Jagged edits in a couple of shorter articles it did rather sound as though you were talking of using this method from experience. You're suggesting this as a new mthod, not one you've actually used in practice before? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, I did use this solution in the other article I mentioned, the longer one, Al-Battani, especially for the sentences where I suspected some Jaggedism. Wiqixtalk 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I can't find a version of that article where you cn every sentence and then remove them. I ask, because Aam seems to be rather taken with your idea, and is clearly under the impression that you've actually used it. Could you point to the version of Al-Battani which has a cn after every sentence? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on a new RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam

Hi Wiqi55,

Thank you for your participation in the RFC regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, and speaking out against this outrageous behavior. The issues surrounding this RFC are complex. I believe it is important they be dealt with in a way that provides support for further actions in the near future. This problem goes beyond the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, but it needs to be dealt with one step at a time in order to avoid confusion and build a comprehensive foundation for further action.

I need your help in order to move forward. The next step I hope hope to take is opening a separate RFC/U (user) to deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley). The proposed RFC would deal with the sequence of events that led up to the intial stubbing, as well as the repeated re-stubbing of the article when I have attempted to revert it.

The subject matter must be narrowly limited to that appropriate for an RFC/U (user behavior) action. It covers the provocation of Pjoef by RK, the insults and attempted intimidation of Pjoef by RK and others, the lack of discussion on the talk page before the stubbing occurred, the lack of proof of problems with the article, the agreement of RK and WMC between themselves to stub the article, the way the article was initially moved rather than being stubbed (causing the temporary loss of article history), and their refusal to subsequently revert the article.

• Remedies should include reverting the article to its pre-stubbed state, and I also firmly believe Pjoef deserves an apology.

• In addition, I also suggest these two users should withdraw from the editing of Islamic articles and JAG-related issues.

In order to proceed, I need at least one other user to agree to certify the RFC/U (the more the better). This is done by placing specific language on talk pages at the right time, after the RFC/U has been prepared and we agree on its contents. I cannot proceed to RFC/U by myself. I also need suggestions on how the RFC/U should be worded and what should be included. I can write the RFC/U and drive the process, but I need you support.

Please reply on my talk page to let me know if you are interested in helping me recover this article and correct this injustice. If you know anyone else who would like to participate, please invite them to reply to my talk page as well.

Thank you very much,

Aquib (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

PS I see you usually prefer to have a conversation in one place, as I do. In this case though, it might be helpful if yo reply on my page if you don't mind. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for new RfC on Classical Islamic scholarship articles

A Copy of My Request is located on on the "Jagged 85 cleanup" talk page, I also cced it to pjoef here.

I also asked them how to start one. I'm unlikely to get much help on that page given what I say is the rationale for an new RfC is to eventually (hopefully) supersede the Jagged process, but...

I imagine it simply entails copying the bullet points made (my actual proposal) and posting them on the main RfC page, using the template provided (??)

The problem is, I'd still need help canvassing the relevant Wiki Projects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, Mathematics, Philosophy) because their input is what is missing and desperately needed. In fact, I wouldn't know how to do that part, which is kind of crucial to avoid moving past the same-old, same-old debate.

Anyone know how & willing to canvass the relevant Wikiprojects for a new RfC? (cc'ed to you)

Keep in mind that the new RfC could factor into how Aquib's ArbCom request handles the issue (I don't know how, but positively I hope.) Yclept:Berr (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, thought you might be interested -Aquib (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)