User talk:Urchid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Urchid, it's not just Yuber who's preventing you from imposing your will on the Muhammad article, it's a whole community of people -- not all of whom are Muslims. You can't out-revert a whole community. Why not turn your energies towards some of the many topics on which Wikipedia is silent, or sketchy? You'll get practice, you'll get street cred, and you'll contribute to the common good. Zora 02:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You've been reported for the 3RR, thanks.Yuber(talk) 03:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy. Normally, I would consider issuing a warning, but I noticed that you have been completely uninvolved in discussing the dispute at the respective talk page – a practice which I discourage. El_C 08:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hah, well don't I look foolish! I have unblocked you for the obvious reasons. Sorry about that. I still strongly encourage you to participate in the discussion rather than reverting back and fourth those 2 words ad infinitum though, but my mistake nonetheless. El_C 12:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, as per your edit, if non-Muslims chose to join the military, they then became exempt from paying the Jizya. El_C 13:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Slavery

Urchid, every major religion up until the 18th century supported slavery. It wasn't just Islam. British evangelical Protestants were influential in outlawing slavery in Britain and British possessions -- 1820, I think it was -- but as you probably know, there were U.S. Christians ready to defend it until well past the U.S. Civil War. Islam has lagged in outlawing slavery, but that's part of an overall resistance to the modern world, not a unique fault of Islam.

If you're out to expose religion, how about picking on specific incidents that aren't otherwise covered in Wikipedia? Just to pick an example from my own religion, Buddhism, there was the disgraceful episode of the Nagasaki martyrs. Zora 04:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes indeed you are correct, no one in this world has been or is innocent. But lets not be a party to the cover up of those who do not want truth exposed to the light of day. All these things should be mentioned at each of the relevant articles. I know it is unpalatable sometimes. As a parallel example a lot of bad things are said of the US these days, my country and I think yours as well , which I love dearly , yet I have to face the fact that my country has behaved in ways which dispel the notion that it has an unblemished past. There is no sense is continuing to propagate the myth that all has been or is perfect , once facts emerge which disprove that notion. I do not go around trying to remove any mention of malfeasance on the USA article. So similarly I believe we should do the same in the Islam page.--Urchid 04:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment (if sincere), but there is a difference between coming up front with the unpleasant, and a smear campaign. Do I see on the USA page reference to Abu Ghraib, or torture by proxy, the infected blankets given to Indians, or the nuclear tests on Bikini, or any number of other atrocities commited by the various US regimes? No, and I don't mean to say they should be there. And a religion is not even a country. If you like, you could discuss slavery in Sharia, but Sharia does not equal Islam. dab (ᛏ) 13:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dab , look whatever people want to add to the USA article , let them , I could not care less, if the bad stuff happened then its presentation should certainly not be suppressed. But this has nothing to do with the inserts I am adding to the Islam articles.
I have inserted the slave names in the Muhammad article. Not that they will stay for any great length of time considering how many muslim editors are trying to block any info that would reflect badly on their faith. I can sympathize with their ordeal , no one wants to be faced with the disillusionment that can occur from learning negative realities about ones belief system , but it should not have any bearing on our ability to present important issues related to Islam . Its too bad that so many muslims take this so personally. --Urchid 04:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Your comment on my talk page about POV

One of the vital components of NPOV is good research. Islam is necessarily defined by Muslims. I remember a while back an editor argued saying that it was POV to say that Islam claimed to surpass that revelations from Christianity and Judaism. Yes, that would be very POV if wikipedia were to claim that but it is a fact that most Muslims define Islam in that way. Also scholarly works regarding the nature of Islam's sources and sociological discussions do have a place here when they come from reputable sources (as NPOV guidelines ask). The problem is you quoted Al-Jazeera who quoted someone not know to have any scholarly connections on the issue of populations in Africa. Unnotable sources like that and polemics are not neutral, you can find unnotable sources to support many views. This probably has a place in an anti-Islam or anti-Islamism article because people who do not agree with the main tenets of Islam define the anti-Islamic way of thinking. Although, and you may disagree, we should not digress to the typical polemical style of writing on any article in wikipedia. gren 12:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gren , just stop reverting my inserts unless you can challenge the assertions. The "It goes to another page" tactic is just that , a way of diverting unwanted text from the page. I would comment further on what you are saying but we have surely been over those points already. Thank you for your cooperation.--Urchid 04:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Urchid, if you had something well-researched and interesting to say about Islam, I'd champion it, whether it was pro or anti Islam. But all you are doing is trying to pick and chose among factoids to find ones that make Islam look bad, even if they aren't otherwise interesting or notable. You need to do some real research. Extensive reading, y'know. You might resonsate with The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude by Bat Yeor. It casts a very jaundiced eye on Islam, but it's grounded in a lot of research. Zora 18:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora you seem to assume that I have not done my research , or have not extensively read on the subject, does that logically follow at this stage? I generally take a different view, people who defend Islam are either uninformed or evil. And I am assuming that you for one are not evil.
Zora - a question for you , why are you defending Islam when it was islam that destroyed Buddhism in India. Are thou so idealistic that your eyes cannot see the color of the river of blood that floweth past thee ?--Urchid 04:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a Buddhist, I think Islam went off the track when Muhammad took up the sword in 622 CE -- or perhaps earlier, when he adopted the Judeo-Christian role of the angry prophet, predicting wrath and hell and judgement. The eruption of the Arab tribes out of Arabia is not something to be celebrated, but mourned. Muslims who look to the past as the pure Muslim exemplar are worshipping blood and hate. Is that what you mean? But that's not all there is to Islam. I think Muhammad had a real spiritual experience out there in the desert, and expressed it as best he could through his own ideas and his own knowledge of the world. That's what attracted people to Islam, and that's why it didn't die out in the first century after the conquests (as did the religions of other empire-conquering tribes, like the Mongols or the Manchus, etc.) Millions of people have tuned into THAT, and tried to live clean, honest, loving lives. That's part of Islam too. If I were a Muslim, I'd be a Sufi, not a jihadi. Of course, that's what I'd be likely to say, since Sufism is the closest thing to Buddhism in Islam. Try reading some Kabir [1]. He is loved by Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs.

I should also add that you understand something better when you try to find out what's RIGHT about it, rather than just focusing on what's wrong. But that also is Buddhism, or Hinduism -- insisting that all faiths are true. Rejecting religion because you love the truth is also true, and if you take it far enough, throwing away your ego in the process, I believe that you'll end up just where the Buddha did. Or Kabir did. Zora 05:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People love Islam?? Are you kidding , let see what happens to Islam when people are given the choice to leave it without they or their family members being targetted for retributions or death.lets see what happens to Islam when islamic countries allow other religions to exist with equal status as Islam.
Lets see what happens to Islam when people like you begin to allow alternate POVs to be presented in the Islam series of articles. Lets see how free speech will do to Islam.
Look at your own behavior Zora, you and your fellow travellers hold up your version of the Islam article by force of reverts.
Historically people were converted by force , well actually they were given a choice , convert or become a slave or a dhimmi or die. Even today in many Islamic countries , the citizens are forced to remain muslim, Saudi Arabia , for instance where only muslims can be citizens and no citizen is allowed to change their religion.
Muhammed loved by Hindus and Sikhs?? What freaking planet do you live on?. Is there no limits to your daydream?--Urchid 12:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on Islam

Urchid, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the topic of Islam. As for that stupid old Ananymous User, I wouldn't listen to him. He's just a fathead. Don't waste your time arguing with him. He's been so blinded to the truth he's not going to listen to anybody's arguments. I wish he would put his head in a cement mixer, he's so cement-headed! HateIslam 12:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks , yes I know about anonymous nut case. A typical brainwashed islamist, trying to impose his POV by force on the wikipedia. --Urchid 12:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

[edit] User accounts

Could you clarify, please, whether you are also editing as either CltFn (talk • contribs), or 65.139.80.56 (talk • contribs)? There is no policy against using multiple accounts (though it's discouraged), but there is a policy against using them as though they belong to several people. Clarification would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

No I am not CltFn but I did do a revert once as 65.139.80.56 before logging in --Urchid 3 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
You're not CltFn, but you are 65.139.80.56? That's interesting, because that lies within the same address range as CltFn's IP address, [2] which means we have two people editing Wikipedia with the same strong anti-Islam POV, who write in the same style, make the same spelling mistakes, and live in the same area. There's no policy against using sockpuppets, but you're not allowed to pretend to be more than one person, so let me know if you want to reconsider your answer. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 16:38 (UTC)
I use dial up , those IP ranges can be shared by hundreds of thousands of people, detective. By the way what up with the secret police stuff, is that your idea of encyclopedic work?--Urchid 3 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. Just to clarify: I have no interest in these pages as an editor. I have an interest in your edits as an admin. I deleted that page because you created it in response to the real article being protected, and it was an inherently POV title. If you continue to act in this disruptive way, you may be blocked from editing. As for your sockpuppet denial, I'm afraid it has no credibility. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 17:47 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Slavery Uncensored

I didn't see the reference to the proposal on the page. Wouldn't it be less POV to have it under Islam and slavery/temp in any case? Certainly the "uncensored" language you use in the header seems needlessly provocative. Leithp July 3, 2005 16:35 (UTC)

well , no the idea is not to have a temp page , but a permanent page that provides accurate historical information that is not subject to edit wars by pro islam gangs. If you can think of a less provocative suffix let me know.--Urchid 3 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

[edit] Map

did you even read Zeno's last post on Talk:Muhammad? - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery

If you start the edit war again, I'm going to block you as a disruptive sockpuppet. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:00, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet of CltFn (talk • contribs). SlimVirgin (talk) 15:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense , you blocked me because you are on a campaign of censorship for reasons which I will not list here. I started the page Islam and Slavery , and was reverting to the way it was when I created it. Spare me, with the disimulation , it won't work with me.--Urchid 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the Good Work!

keep up the good work on criticizing Islam. (It is me, "nickthesocialist" from FFI Forums), somebody has to stand tall against the Islamist Thugs.--GreekWarrior 11:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SIIEG invitation

please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 04:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Existentializer

Just for your information: [3] Existentializer banned for "suspicion" based on someone's vandalizing his user page. This is way out of line. Ni-ju-Ichi 05:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/r/c/User_talk%7EUrchid_8b04.html"