User talk:Monkeyblue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image copyright problem with Image:David_Filo.jpg 2 Muslim 2.1 Re: Muslim 3 Welcome to WikiProject Kayaking!

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:David_Filo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:David_Filo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim

I'm afraid that I must take exception to your edit. First, that you did not really wait to see much discussion about your proposed change. While waiting some number of days is much better than many people do, it is not the same thing as waiting for some amount of discussion. As far as I can see, there was only me objecting at length, and then one other person saying 'yep, do it!'.

Second, I really still don't see much justification for a *change*. You say

I feel that there should be system.

and yet I feel you didn't respond to my pointed questions "why?" and "then why not translate every God-related word in every article?"

If I may give another example. Look at the article Schadenfreude. Now click on What links here on the left 'toolbox' area. See all the uses of this 'non-English' word? Here is a German word, but that has a lot of additional meaning beyond a literal meaning. It has additional cultural meaning and is used as a shorthand word for all that that article talks about. And then there's angst and smorgasbord and many dozens of words, borrowed/added from other languages, that mean more than their literal meanings, by virtue of their cultural meanings and associations.

Look at the article Empathy for example, where they use the word and also give the main meaning

... schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the pain of another entity) ...

They don't replace the magical word with a boring literal meaning, but rather continue to use this word with its rich meanings. If people want to know more about the word they can click on the link. In the meantime they have a basic definition.

I just don't understand the desire to make the language poorer, by taking away 'difficult' words. We grow by learning new words and their associations, not by discarding them. If you want to simplify English for people that find it difficult, please see the Simple English Wikipedia (you can start at my page there, where I make obvious that I know English is difficult, but also that some people appreciate that the fact that it isn't too simple.

'Allah' has additional meanings and associations beyond just 'God'. When you delete the word 'Allah' you are taking away some of the meanings and associations needed by the article as used in the text.

Please reconsider. I think you have reducing ambiguity confused with simplification. Replacing an ambiguous word or phrase with something unambiguous is a "good thing". Editing a text to make it clearer is a "good thing". Simplification is not always a good thing, when it starts to take away things from the article.

Shenme 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Muslim

Excuse the order, kept adjusting things and they all went out of order.

• I'm sorry. How am I meant to wait for discussion when nobody is commenting. I replied to your comment and received no return comment. What was I meant to assume? Everyone disagrees with my idea because there was nothing further said?

If you felt that I didn't respond to your question then why didn't you tell me?

• Allah — The main reason for the change is because Allah is just an/the Arabic word for God. This is not any specific god, just God. Whether or not it is related to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or another religion. Why would the latter just use God rather than just using the original words, their god-words carry significance too.

Arabic Christians, when praying, use Allah.

• Removing Allah from the article will not reduce the quality of the English Language. It highlights (or adds) another connection to the word God. I do not understand the need to separate God from Allah, they should be interchangeable. Why not use the native term?
• Loanwords — Loan words are "usually words for exotic concepts or ideas." God is not an exotic concept or idea.

Monkeyblue 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you did wait, and that no other comments were forthcoming. I had really hoped that other people would comment, even trying to draw attention to the 'issue' (I put that in quotes because I understand it is hardly a _big_ issue). Unfortunately, people are too busy arguing in other articles to worry about something this small.

But actually, that is a big part of my underlying concern. Let me clarify. If you look at the history and ongoing conflicts of other articles involving Islam, you would see, I believe, an ongoing low-level assault on many aspects of these articles. In particular I point to Muhammad, and its talk pages Talk:Muhammad, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation and especially the issue Talk:Muhammad/images. While I have come to believe that most (if not all) of the editors wanting changes believe they have defensible and by-policy reasons for each change, I feel that the sum of the changes damage the encyclopedia's coverage of these important areas for the reader.

Most worrisome to me, I believe that the sum of the changes could easily be used to "show obvious evidence" of the bias against Islam/Moslems/etc. within Wikipedia. Each change is defensible, but I wonder if it is not reasonable to look at the result of all of them and conclude "Wikipedia is in the hands of anti-Islam forces". (or some such inflammatory statement)

And so I bothered you over your small change. Because though I try to avoid troublesome areas (I'm not a Miss World candidate and so can't hope to "contribute to world peace") I get frustrated at what I see when I stumble onto raging controversies like which and how many representations of Muhammed to put into that article. (And I had never heard of the term 'aniconist' before, so I guess it is educational)

I didn't want to bother you too much. I've explained my worries, and you've explained your reasonings. We can wait for other discussion. It is merely a surface-level change. I just worry about what might be read into it on a deeper level. But that's why they like me at work - I worry so much, no one else has to. (and they sleep better for it!) Shenme 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't mind. I just stumbled over Allah/God (what I would call a quirk) in the article. I didn't expect there to be much discussion, I would either have 'NO NO NO' yelled at me or no-one would care. I thought it would just be a visual adjustment and that would be it. I can understand where you are coming from. Revert. Monkeyblue 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side thought, Christians don't call God Allah. Sure they can mean the same thing & Allah indeed is the Muslim "God", but you'd never see the word Allah replacing God in the Bible, nor the English word God replacing Allah in the Koran. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

English Christians don't call God Allah. Arabic Christians call God Allah. If it were a Arabic bible then I suspect that it would have Allah. The Koran like the Torah is always used in its original tongue (I think).

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Kayaking!

Hi there! I would just like to extend a warm welcome to WikiProject Kayaking. We have lots of open tasks if you would like to help out. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Cheers, Bennyboyz3000 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)