Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 18 October 2006

Are you a sockpuppet of user:Nodekeeper? --Aminz 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever between myself and User:Nodekeeper. If there is any issue here meritting administrative intervention, it is User:Itaqallah's resort to spurious accusations of misconduct to abort a legitimate content dispute.Proabivouac 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

in my opinion, you seem to be a sock. this is what other editors like Aminz also think, you shouldn't take it too hard if you are not a sock. of whom, i think there is a plausibility that it may be Nodekeeper, seeing as there are a number of similarities between you two. also, please do not remove templates from your page while there is an application for enquiry. ITAQALLAH 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you started the discussion on Muhammad as a diplomat on the GAC talk page. this is not the right place to discuss such issues, so I moved the discussion to WP:GA/R, which is the place :D Cheers, Bravada, talk - 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Proabivouac 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of sourced statements and legitimate sources

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material "sourced" to the religous tract The Sealed Nectar is not vandalism, but quality control. I urge any who might stumble upon this conversation to follow the link to the book and draw your own conclusion as to whether this book can suffice for a finding of historical fact.

Beginning with, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism," the book goes on to assert a wholly implausable account of the origin of Arab peoples, without reference to archaeology, population genetics or any other scientific methodology, but based wholly upon the Qur'an, which is taken as inalterable truth.

A brief look at these first passages alone is sufficient to demonstrate that this is a work not of academic scholarship but of religious piety, and does not constitute any kind of reliable source.Proabivouac 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you should stop looking at an online version which does not include the footnotes, and take a look at the published hard copy. its credentials are already noted, it has been endorsed by reputed institutions and mentioned by academics as a notable book on sira, and you are not in a position to simply dismiss it based upon ignorance of the methodology employed by the author. any attempt to purge this source is indeed vandalism. ITAQALLAH 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a fundamental gap in perpection which we are not likely to solve through discussion. A westerner of non-Muslim background is very unlikely to view such prose as indicative of or compatable with rational and objective scholarship, while you assert that it is merely non-Western scholarship, and as such should be treated as an equally valid alternative thereto. I believe that such an approach to sourcing, if allowed to continue, will result in the critical degradation of quality wherever it is applied. You see my conclusion, if I'm not mistaken, as ignorant and prejudiced.

Given we are not likely to solve it between ourselves, and as edit-warring is never the right solution, I propose we seek wider community review on the narrow issue of the use of The Sealed Nectar as a reliable source, which can bear upon its use in other articles as well. If the response to the book is favorable, you will have something to point to when other editors pose similar challenges to its use in other articles.

Would you agree to this?Proabivouac 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i am pleased that you are interested in achieving an amicable conclusion. we had previously already opened an RfC specifically for this issue on the sealed nectar (cf. talk on battle of mu'tah article). opinions were divided. i think the most fairest opinion on this was echoed by User:Zora, that the sealed nectar may not necessarily be an independantly reliable source (although i still disagree about that), but it is notable and it is a decent representation of at least the muslim/islamic viewpoint on the seerah. for this reason, it does merit inclusion in order to attain NPOV. this is what i had tried to explain to you, that i used the source either to provide the muslim account of the seerah (which is significant and notable), or when i was providing extra information which would not be disputed by any source. i had written the article with that particular RfC in mind, and i placed significant reliance upon a number of secular sources. to adhere to NPOV, the article would need to include and document divergence of opinion on an issue wherever that occurs, which is something i believe has been done. i don't see the need to open another RfC on this issue, and i think the position which has been expounded upon above is the most reasonable position to adopt in this dispute. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Might you provide me a link to this RfC?

The article does not always make it clear that what is being represented is merely Islamic tradition. Several instances were stated as fact, while Aminz' new changes in some cases merely say, "it is said".

Further, while including Muslim traditional accounts alongside western academic views may well have been necessary to achieve NPOV on Battle of Mu'tah, such is not the case with Muhammad as a diplomat, which paints a wholly positive image of its subject. Perhaps you think this appropriate, but can you at least admit that an informed non-Muslim reader might in good faith arrive at this conclusion?Proabivouac 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I've looked at the history of Battle of Mut'ah. The traditional (and wholly unbelievable) account was not merely placed alongside the academic view to achieve NPOV, rather the academic view was relegated to a small "criticism" section beneath the traditional account.Proabivouac 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

here are the relevant discussions: Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#certain_point_to_mention Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#certain_point_to_mention_II, Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#RfC, Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#Notability_trumps_reliable. RfC discussions occur on the relevant talk page of the article, not on the RfC page itself.

sealed nectar would be relevant in providing the muslim account of events where secular sources either reject or neglect mention of a particular issue, which occurs a number of times in the article. the issue is not necessarily about the picture the article paints: almost all sources accept that Muhammad was a political genius, regardless of his claim to prophethood and regardless of his intentions. if you believe the overall tone of the article does not adhere to NPOV, in that a significant viewpoint or perspective is neglected, it is upon you to verify that by providing some sources which are relevant here. you should also consider rephrasing some passages to make them sound more "boring", as Alec put it- many times i just phrased things how the secular sources phrased them, i did not proceed to juice it up, but some of these are the statements that have come under fire. i also see nothing wrong with using the resource to provide extra information for the reader which would otherwise be unavailable, as long as the three pillars of WP are adhered to. where i did not use this source (or at least, tried not to, in order to avoid conflict) was in the field of interpretation, analysis and conclusion (except when to provide a muslim argument per NPOV) which one would generally be able to do with an agreed upon reliable source. re: your latest comment about the battle of mu'tah, i have not been involved recently in shaping that article. last time i checked, there was a significant section providing the western recollection of the incident and critique upon the traditional account. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

request

i have set up a topic on the diplo talk page (Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat#in_the_interests_of_dispute_resolution..) where i have requested you to organise your concerns as 1) neutrality/accuracy concerns and 2)source concerns, with the relevant specifications expected in order to help the dispute resolution process. is that OK with you? ITAQALLAH 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Itaqallah, that looks great. I'll have more time tomorrow to put things together.Proabivouac 05:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could let us know who you are, that would be also be great. Why are you using a sockpuppet? --Aminz 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've already accused me of being User:Nodekeeper, placed a sockpuppet template on my user page and requested a checkuser to violate both of our privacy. Either I am User:Nodekeeper (I'm not), and there's nothing more you need to know, or there are two users to whom you and Itaqallah owe a serious apology (there are), along with all the helpful people at Suspected Sockpuppets and CheckUser whose time you've wasted with your reckless allegations. Didn't you accuse me of being five different users the other day? How's this: if you give me your name and home address, I'll send you the information you request. Otherwise, stop harassing me and Nodekeeper and focus on content, not contributors.Proabivouac 05:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I don't want to harass anybody. Put yourself in my shoes: you see a user User:Nodekeeper coming out and accusing people of suppressing information and conspiracy theorizing which goes on your nerves. And then suddenly a new user comes out claiming the suppression of information. You are a sockpuppet for sure and you have been following discussion on the Muhammad article. I am *not* a fool. Also, you are not using a sockpuppet because of *privacy*. Anyways, you have my apology for the accusation. I hope we can work collaboratively on the articles. I'll remove the sockpuppet tag from your userpage. --Aminz 05:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For the record, I didn't accuse you of being five users, but was asking you if you are one of them. Of course, you are not all five of them. --Aminz 05:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I hereby accuse you guys of suppressing information too, both as alleged by Proabivouac and myself. Are you going to accuse me of being Nodekeeper as well? Maybe you should take the sign that many people think you are misusing wikipedia in a specific way differently. Instead of thinking, Oh, it must be one wacko using a lot of different names, maybe you should think, Maybe they're right? Arrow740 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mizan

I must say I see nothing wrong with the article. Having the article is desirable. As for 'spreading its message across Misplaced Pages' that is of course another matter, the article should only be linked from topics to which it is arguably relevant. dab (ᛏ) 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

well, again, I see nothing wrong with even 'many many' of the same. There is lots of room still in Category:Books. The problem begins when people start spamming references to books they happen to like in places where the book is not notable. This has nothing to do with Islam or even religion in particular. For example, what the hell is a reference to a stark raving lunatic title like Where Troy Once Stood doing at Cambridgeshire? I agree this sort of thing is a problem, and I'll be happy to be part of a solution. The solution cannot be to just delete the Where Troy Once Stood article, however. Citation of Mizan as 'cosmological fact' is of course completely unacceptable and should be rolled back on sight. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand: I saw your deletion request at itmam al-hujjah, which appears to be an Islamic theological concept. Of course Islamic theological literature will be relevant to explain Islamic theological concepts? Are you saying Mizan is not notable enough to be quoted as a contribution to Islamic theology? Obviously when reporting on theological dogma and the like, Misplaced Pages doesn't endorse one view or the other, we're just reporting on literature, and I didn't take the itmam article as anything else, hence I don't see what is wrong with it. If there are other, more notable books on the concept, of course they should be given precedence, but unfortunately I am not at all familiar with contemporary Islamic theologica discourse. dab (ᛏ) 08:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the independence of the term itmam al-hujjah from the book Mizan cannot be established, of course the two articles should be merged. But it appears to me that the term is actually used in Islamic theological discourse (e.g. ) and if that is the case, we should be glad to have an article about it. I see it as an exposition in greater detail of the topic discussed at Fate_of_the_unlearned#Islamic_tradition. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourced material

Please don't remove sourced material. Though you are not new in wikipedia, you may not know that it is considered disruption. Please don't remove well sourced material. --Aminz 07:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware that we could source all kinds of well-sourced negative things about him in the intro. NPOV governs not just presentation but also placement of information; tacking hagiography onto a perfectly neutral introduction is POV.Proabivouac 08:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the Esposito reference to a more appropriate place. I've added some equally well sourced material from page 37, and removed a portion of your language for which I couldn't find support in the text.Proabivouac 06:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, you are misrepresenting the sources. Stop doing that. --Aminz 06:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not, as I'm looking right at it. Be specific.Proabivouac 06:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted my comments on the Muhammad's talk page. --Aminz 06:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments on Muhammad's talk page. --Aminz 06:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it alright with you if my computer crashes and it takes five minutes to restart? I hope so, because that is what happened. Perhaps you should consider giving people more than fourteen minutes (6:39-6:53) to respond before getting testy.Proabivouac 06:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If the reference says "inviting them to Islam" then it is remain same. STOP CHANGING REFERENCED Material. I will report you if you continue doing that. --- ابراهيم 08:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Faisal, might you explain to me how "inviting someone to Islam" differs from asking him to convert to Islam?Proabivouac 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

It is important that people are not able to use wikipedia as a method of creating false impressions of Islam and Muhammad. There are many Muslims and, surprisingly, secularists who seem bent on allowing this to happen. You seem to have lots of sources at your disposal, and I just want to encourage you to continue doing a good job. Arrow740 06:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. I am trying to keep things neutral around here. Too many editors - sadly, most editors in these sections of WP - approach these articles with the aim of either prosecuting or glorifying their subjects. We must not 1) dwell unduly upon "positive" information 2) dwell unduly upon "negative" information 3) suppress "positive" information 4) suppress "negative" information. Our goal must be to leave these ways of thinking behind us completely, and take a strictly documentary approach built not upon the compromise between pro and con, but upon that between curiosity and skepticism. Where you are correct in your assessments, no POV should be necessary. It is only a sad fact of Misplaced Pages life that we must be wary of mission-incompatible approaches among fellow editors. My advice is, don't add to the problem by becoming their mirror image; in fact to do so will ultimately help your adversaries by giving them something to point to which makes them look relatively neutral.Proabivouac 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Could you weigh in on my nomination to delete The Quran and science? If it's kept it's going to take someone dedicated to make it neutral. Arrow740 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

everything alright?

hello Proabivouac. just in case you forgot: you were requested to document the problematic areas in the diplomat article. i wouldn't want to rush you, but i think it's been almost ten days, and i do have books out on loan which i would have to give back soon. that, and i don't believe it would really take that long to list the problems with the article were they to have been as glaring as was claimed. ITAQALLAH 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I've not had much time to contribute as of late. The problems are certainly nowhere near as glaring as those found in The Quran and science, a mockery of WP principles and an embarrassment to the entire community. It's a real shame to see so many editors willing to make even half-hearted excuses for it.Proabivouac 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

well seeing as though you have involved yourself in further content disputes (Muhammad, The Quran and science) i would definitely appreciate it if you could conclude the one you started before getting involved with any others, as i would like to renominate it for GA sometime soon, and as i won't have access to the lib. books forever, and also as the article has been slapped with a tag though there is not one justified and unanswered objection. thanks ITAQALLAH 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

any response? if you are unable to state where there are neutrality problems and why they are not neutral, then i will for now remove the POV tag until you are able to materialise some substantial points. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did state them; you'd just invited me to restate them in one section. That's a legitimate request and one upon which I should still follow up (I have my own library issues, it's several hours away and there's another book to arrive from the bindery any day, so I hope to visit when it has) but it's not fair to pretend that I didn't forward substantial objections, or that any attempt was made to take them seriously and find a compromise.Proabivouac 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

they had all been responded to, in my opinion none of them were substantial. there may or may not be POV problems in wording, which can easily be fixed without the need for talk-page debate. the kind of problems you have been alluding to however have been omission of a significant academic view of an event, and you have currently provided very few (or no) examples of those and/or not provided any supportive citations at all. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please. We both know that the Constitution of Madina didn't hold; if it speaks to anyones skill as a diplomat, it's only in lulling others into a false sense of security. The idea that Muhammad came around and solved their intractable problems is ludicruously deceptive. Your demands for citation are wholly procedural. Nevertheless, I've picked up a few sources to document this in the coming days.

There is also the issue of Sealed Nectar, which should not be used at all; it is junk, pure and simple, yet you pretend that it is a reputable academic source. LOFL.

There is the use of images of forgeries, probably to meet the "good article" quota.

There is the title itself, as others have observed.Proabivouac 03:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1)the article already states the constitution of medina broke down soon afterwards in no uncertain terms. as for evaluations of Muhammad's ability as a diplomat, these are all cited to scholarly opinion. i could have easily cited a lot more, such as EoI's terming of him as a "brilliant political genius" and others, but i preferred to stick to more sober evaluations. you continue to present opposition because of conflicts with your own viewpoint, not because there exist any sources contradicting what is alluded to in the article, which is a main reason for me requesting sources of you which state your conclusions explicitly. that the idea of actually doing personal research before jumping headlong into disputes escapes you entirely is not my problem or a problem with the article: it's yours.

2) you obviously refuse to understand what my stance is on SN, opting to pretend you have not comprehended the previous discussions we have had on this. you may "LOFL" all you wish, you have no basis for dismissing it when it is clearly a notable muslim source. again, you cannot seem to adhere to what you espouse, and the majority of editors have been reasonable enough to consider it usable and notable. though, you don't seem quite aware of the difference between "notable" and "reliable".

3) that is rather a meek opposition. whether or not they are forgeries doesn't matter, because they still merit inclusion due to their very historicity being discussed within the article.

4) and of course, it's taken you over two weeks to bring up such an insignificantly minor objection such as the phrasing of the title. what confuses me most is that all of these had already been answered, your only response to which was eery silence. it makes me feel that you are merely filibustering until you find a real reason to oppose. anything else, Pbc? i really do hope you have some real source-based objections. ITAQALLAH 04:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1) "The constitution, although recently signed, was soon to be rendered obsolete"

Rendered obsolete??? Three of five Madinan tribes were exiled, executed or enslaved! And we're going to sum this up as, the Constitution was "rendered obsolete"?

I am fine with calling Muhammad a political genius with in-text attribution. It's the notion that he went around engaging perfectly diplomatic and effectively bloodless solutions to everyone's problems to which I object. Were that his goal, then in fact he failed miserably. Were his goal to unify Arabia under his autocratic and theocratic rule, who could deny that he succeeded in what would have thitherto seemed an impossible task?

"you continue to present opposition because of conflicts with your own viewpoint." And my viewpoint is? Other than that yours is not neutral? I am curious as to what you believe about my views (besides me being Jewish, of course).

2) You are right that with Sealed Nectar I admit little nuance. From the standpoint of scholarhip and reason, this book is garbage, the equivalent of Jack Chick publications, and should not be used at all except as a source for its own statements in an article about itself. Your nuanced wikilawyering stance doesn't sway me. It shouldn't be used, period.

3) "Whether or not they are forgeries doesn't matter." Au contraire, if they are forgeries this matters a great deal: they belong in an article entitled, "Forged Relics of Muhammad".

4) Wrong, the title has been discussed on talk by several editors; you've simply ignored it. Filibustering? I've actually been busy with work. You think I'm paid to filibuster on Misplaced Pages? A week or two seems only a long time if you are glued to the computer. Why not give me as much time as you'd give The Quran and science to be an article unworthy of deletion?Proabivouac 07:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

honestly, i am feeling a rather peculiar deja vu...

1) yes, it was rendered obselete. this was due to a perceived violation of the constitution. i could quite easily have stated "was first broken by Banu Qaynuqa' which declared enmity upon Muhammad, second broken by Banu Nadir whose chief went to Mecca to call them to arms against the Muslims in clear violation of the terms of the treaty, third broken by Banu Qurayza who plotted to threaten the security of the Medinan state by allying with invading forces and attempting to organize a coup", but in more simple and accommodating terms: rendered obselete by perceived violations of the constitution. i am also sure we agreed that you would expand upon this briefly in the article, offering a quick overview of the events with the jewish tribes.

2) he was invited by Medina to help resolve the difficulties present there and attempt arbitration. i didn't state this, i didn't even consider including it, until both Watt and the Encyclopaedia of Islam said it very explicitly. Watt thinks he succeeded in that, so does EoI.

3) i think other editors have been far more reasonable in relation to SN. its credentials, you cannot deny. its favourable mention in western publications, you cannot deny. the scholarship of the institution behind the book, you cannot deny. all you seem capable of is quoting POV from the book in an attempt to poison the well (and i am certain you will continue in this vein in future discussions), although we all know neutrality is not a pre-condition for using a publication. your real qualm seems to be the fact that it is a book written by a Muslim, as you seem to believe that Muslims are inherently unable to be objective or "neutral" per your very first edit.

4) it does not matter whether or not they are forgeries, because them being so or not doesn't negate their inclusion in the article. this is because their actual authenticity is discussed within the article, so providing pictures of the direct subject of the discussion i.e. these purported letters, becomes entirely relevant. that is why the captions say "purported letters", because that's what they are, their authenticity is the topic of debate and disagreement within the article. similarly, if an article discusses a manuscript over which the authenticity is disputed, it becomes entirely appropriate to display the manuscript being discussed, whether it is a forgery or not.

5) is a mere title the reason behind this furore you engineered? i am sure there are more pressing and important issues related to the article than a simple title, the discussion of which can be concluded relatively easily. i would agree that a week or two can go by quite quickly if one is busy. that is not the case with you: your activity over the time of the request has been far higher than prior to the request. if you had so little time, why jump into more disputes instead of taking that time to focus more on (and conclude) the dispute you yourself raised? ITAQALLAH 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

please be aware of WP:3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ITAQALLAH 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly."

As opposed to what you and Ibrahimfaisal have been doing? Yes, I am aware of the policy; thank you. The two of you have adopted a revert-based policy on that article, and in light of that situation, I felt Ttiotsw and Arrow740. whose leigtimate objections have been ignored, could use a helping hand.

Since Ibrahimfaisal is also on three, would be kind enough to give him the same friendly warning?Proabivouac 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

no need to, he is already aware of the rules. there is no restriction on reporting him if he violates it. being a new user, you must first have been officially informed of the 3RR rule before you can be reprimanded if you proceed to violate it. i have not been revert warring on that page, i simply re-introduced the part of the material (i.e. i didn't undo Ttiotsw's edit) that was removed on the faulty premise of WP:V when the real issue is making it conform to NPOV by presenting it as an idea from the Muslim perspective, and on the other occasion i restored the far more coherent titles previously used. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay.Proabivouac 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

Please assume good faith and do not refer to content disputes with established users as vandalism, as you did in the edit summary --BostonMA 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me.Proabivouac 19:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this. Thanks.

Please help me on the Quran and science with itaqallah. He's nagging and whining and rewriting quotes. Arrow740 22:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)