User talk:Sefringle/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Sefringle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Saeed Jahed 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

The Quran and science

Your edits on that page were reverted by another user. While the scientific contradictions in the Quran are well known, if you simply put the incorrect verses into the article, that is implicitly including your own personal interpretation of them, so this amounts to WP:OR. If you want to work on this article (and I encourage you to do so), you have to limit yourself to secondary sources. And those sources must be reputable. There are good sources like that out there, though. Arrow740 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome !. Trust me when I say that I'm not picking on you but with anything Islamic you'll find the going very hard indeed. If we want to get a balance then we have to be very accurate. I noticed that you added something like "...This verse contradicts the theroy of evolution, as it says man was directly created from dust, while evolution cleary states that man has evolved from apes, and was not created directly from dust." which is kind of true in sentiment but not exact. I can clearly state that we did not evolve from apes as we evolved from a common ancestor. That we have the same common ancestor as other apes is another issue. That issue aside, we cannot simply add that without refering to some authority e.g. Dawkins would be fine and saying something like..."This is contradicted by Dawkins in which he puts forward the theory in his book reference here that humans originated from a common ancestor over x million years ago...etc etc etc. Dawkins, and many others in a variety fo fields, have built upon Darwin's seminal work, The Origin of Species, over many years to create todays modern evolutionary theory. Few alternative theories have survived this long." You can add a correlation BUT it will be reverted as original research unless it has to come from the mouth of someone else who is "notable". This just requires researching for someone using Google to get a snappy quote and a reference and then wording it correctly. As Arrow740 has said you yourself can't pick out Quran verses and show where they fail in your own words (even if that is right). You must quote someone else (notable ideally) who has listed the verses and then reference them (i.e. who and where the list comes from) and then you can bring in others in that field e.g. Dawkins or even Darwin if its evolution. Dragging in other notables is allowed (even though it could be argued that doing that is WP:OR ) but as long as there is a relevance to the field being discussed by the first person who mentioned the field in relation to the Quaran verse. Thus notable critic A says quran sura X contradicts Science Theory Y. This allows you to bring in Scientist T who is a notable in Science Theory Y to support what critic A says about quran sura X even though Scientist T is not talking about the Quran. Thats NOT original research but strangely neutral !. Ttiotsw 07:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Making wikiIslam two sided

Hi Sefringle, I read your comment and if you want, you can just reply here. The big question is: How do you make a wiki two sided without having muslims edit out and censor the anti-Islamic content? One way is to offer muslims their own separate pages, distinctly titled "Muslim View" (e.g. using a template which says "This articler is a muslim point of view). Another way is to have a separate section in the same article page where muslims explain their view point and are allowed to edit that section. These are the two possibilities I can think of which will allow it to be 2 sided, yet not allow them to censor out the truth. Any suggestions you can think of?

Clearly as you have seen here, having an article on Islam on Wikipedia and allowing it to be edited by muslims and non-muslims, is like having an ugly tug of war - the never-ending revert wars and constant altering of opinions. This is unavoidable with a controversial topic like Islam. There's got to be a solution for this, while allowing both sides to freely express their views, without allowing one side to edit out the other. --Matt57 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that idea about having a muslim view and a citic view as seprate sections on the same page is a good idea. Unfortunitely, wikiislam doesn't do that.--Sefringle 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sefringle, I help determine policies on the site and can help in getting ideas implemented. It looks like then having a Sub Title (a heading with an = or ==) in the same page (at the bottom though) named "Muslim Viewpoint" seems like the best way to go. Also, we could give Muslims an option to create their own pages with a stub notification at the top of the page saying "This is a Muslim viewpoint", for Titles which havent been used by the Mainstream Content. For example if "Aisha" doesnt exist and a Muslim makes that page, this page is clearly suited for main content. In that case they would have an option of either moving their content to the bottom of the already existing Main stream content titled "Muslim Viewpoint", OR they can make another new page. But if the new page is meant to be a rebuttal of an existing content, its content will be moved to the bottom of the related existing Main stream content.
I think this is very fair and I feel with this, both teams will be motivated to edit their own sections of the website because they could see the opposing viewpoints on the same page. I've noticed that if there's no presense of an opposing viewpoint, the motivation to contribute is lower, i.e. it seems as if people are galvanized into action when they see the opposing viewpoint.
So for example the moment a Muslim rebutts an argument in the "Muslim Viewpoint" section", the Infidels will be motivated to respond to that in the Main content at the top of the same page. Its like a civilized high tech battle. In any case, at no cost can Muslims be allowed to edit out the Mainstream "Infidel" viewpoint and that viewpoint will remain the main content of the site, which is viewed first at the top of each page. This is something which cannot be compromised and its not a big deal as well - as long as they're allowed to speak their mind.
These are just options which I'm just thinking about and will think about them more in the coming days.
Any thoughts?
--Matt57 02:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, however, I think the muslim viewpoint should be adjacent to the critic viewpoint instead of below it. That would be more exceptable.
Though I did notice in the FAQ section, the current policy is to have muslim articles on a different website all together:openislampedia. Maybe this policy can change, and a merge between the two biased pages can occur.--Sefringle 03:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OpenIslampedia belongs to a muslim so the merge isnt possible. Having the two viewpoints adjacent: Are you implying vertically (one on the right side of the screen, one left)? I dont know how that would look. I think the columms will be too narrow in that case. We can also have a link "Click here for Muslim view point of this article" on the top of each page, and then that would take them to the Muslim page OR to the section at the bottom. Likewise on the Muslim pages, we could have "Click here for the critical/Infidel viewpoint". So what do you think now? This seems more fair. Any other ideas? --Matt57 04:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I was implying vertically. I do believe this moght be possible, as long as both columns can be seen. Currently, the page does have two columns- one for articles, one for news. I do believe that would be possible, maybe by moving the "news" section to the bottom of the page. you understand what I mean? the two viewpoints should probably be called "muslim viewpoint" and "critics viewpoint." That is my opinion.--Sefringle 05:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The columns we have right now on the main page are divided so it fills up the page. The articles themselves which are linked, are full-page articles. With articles running side by side, it might look very cramped though I'll try how it looks. As of right now, an article with a half-page width would look cramped in my opinion. It should atleast be 3/4th width for readability.
Plus, the two sides will almost never be coinciding. For example, one may have moved on to the next issue and the other would be still explaining so the columns going "out of sync" will happen most definitely, not once but many times. What do you think? I do get your point though. I might run some tests to see how two articles look in the smaller 1024x768 resolutions and let you know. Most definitely, the out of syn problem will be there. That may be OK though, as the user just has to scroll and find the corresponding opposing viewpoint. --Matt57 05:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the list of featured articles isn't very long, so currently, I don't think that will be too much of an issue.--Sefringle 05:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes and even if its long, opening the doors to muslims would bring in traffic at any point. But this is a big issue so I'll be thinking about it and maybe consult with others as well and possibly implement it sometime if we think its ok and doesnt compromise the kafir side in any way. There's no hurry also since the wiki is just new. The purpose of that wiki was to give infidels the freedom to edit a wiki without fear of censorship. As long as that purpose is not compromised, any direction can be taken. In this two-section idea, there are many things that have to be determined and thought about. Thanks for your ideas! It was nice discussing this with you. I'll be thinking more about this. --Matt57 05:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Biasness at Ali Sina's page

  • This is not a proper way, someone just removed the whole section of criticism on the Ali (almost). Even took off the ones which had clear references along. this is a clear vandalism! I think some reasonable editor should read the article and simply ban the new editing in the page. Lets wait till he actually prints out a book, gets assassinated, get out in real life or make a ground breaking revelation till it is again unblocked! This place is getting real messy otherwise. I will put it on talk page of Sefringle too. Kind regards. UJMi 09:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC) [hope this was an ok way to contact u/
Ujmi, huh? Who deleted what? What are you talking about? I dont see any deletion happening in Ali Sina --Matt57 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Matt57, I have posted my concern on your page. thank you for contacting me (UJMi 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Criticism of the Qur'an

I put a coomment in talk:Qur'an about this issue. Also I'll add something else to it.--Sa.vakilian 10:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So are you giving up on that article? Arrow740 22:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No. I just don't see any necessary changes currently.--Sefringle 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] Arrow740 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if you took a more active role in that article. Arrow740 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Aminz is using a biased scholar as the source for a summary of certain aspects of the Quran. He's pushing his POV in this way. Could you help out over there? Arrow740 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Hi Sefringle, I'm impressed with the work you've done on Criticism of the Qur'an which I now have on my watchlist. There is a new article in which you might be interested called Reforms under Islam (610-661).11:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

converts

You have placed speedy tags on articles about a number of converts to Islam. I am slightly suspicious that these may not be totally good-faith nominations but in any case they were all well-established articles so if you think they should be deleted, they all need AfD. Incidentally we talk of Google "hits" not "clicks"! -- RHaworth 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

While the websites are appropriate for some articles, it is sometimes better to use books. Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq are great. Keep up the good work on the criticism of the Quran article. Arrow740 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

thanking

Why are you thanking me in my talk page? Pictureuploader 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

for helping with the picture edit--Sefringle 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Can you enable e-mail, at least long enough to send me one? You have to go to my user page or talk page and click "E-mail this user," which should be somewhere on the left. Arrow740 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done--Sefringle 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to List of people who left Islam

Thanks for your edits there. People were trying to delete the Former muslims category and they tried to delete this page too but we've come a long way. These pages look nice now, much better than the humble list that was there before in the beginning.--Matt57 08:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

I saw your recent comment on an edit in Muhammad article and I believe that you are working very well and playing fair on wikipedia. Have fun and Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 02:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

9/11 pic in Islamic Extremist Terrorism

Can't find a better one than just a barely recognizable damaged wall? How about one of the actual buildings crashing down instead? --BillyTFried 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Email?

Did you get my email? Arrow740 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

Please comment here. I know you've already made your point about this, but it would be better if I weren't the only one responding to BhaiSaab's incoherent statements about some of the sources we're using. Arrow740 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO warning

Selfringle, you are repeatedly restoring text that is violating copyright. Notice you are restoring text that is directly lifted from http://www.shiacode.com/ , I strongly recommend that you cease restoring such material and that you remove it at once. (→Netscott) 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of that site before. I don't know how I cam possibly be copying their words.--Sefringle 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You are reverting to a version that includes that text (which I have been repeatedly removing). (→Netscott) 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
clarify--Sefringle 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter now, I've re-removed the copyright violating text. (→Netscott) 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing Ayaan Hirsi Ali

You should know that I tend to view many of her criticisms of Islam as valid (particularly regarding women's and free speech rights). What I do find extremely disagreeable though is the polemical style she employs occasionally in some of her criticisms (like in regards to Muhammad). Citing these polemical examples as well as other polemical examples of others who make similar statements in the article about him is not encyclopedic and I kindly request that you cease from pushing such unencyclopedic content there (and elsewhere for that matter). Note: You might want to review the this section of the history of the article about her before you respond. (→Netscott) 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org

Do you know what's been going on with that article? I just haven't paying attention. If you do, please answer at my talk page. Arrow740 05:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Your edits to Mel Gibson have unfortunately been in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and have been reverted as such. You are entitled to your opinions, but edits to this encyclopedia must remain neutral. Please read up on this and other important policies and guidelines so that you can continue to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I just noticed your edit to Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 7. Be careful, we aren't supposed to edit archived pages. gren グレン 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry. Didn't know that.--Sefringle 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamonline.net

Thanks for asking me. I had held back my vote/suggestion (or whatever they call it). I've voted now. Thats the thing happening. Not many people care to get non-notable pro-Islamic website articles deleted, but there's a large group of people obviously who wants Islam-critical stuff out of public eye and they'll do all they can to get that accomplished. The end result is that policies are applied selectively. I wish there was some solution to this. The other big problem with Wikipedia which I've realized and it disheartened me is that, Wikipedia allows its articles to be ravaged by POV vandals very easily. For example, recall the original Ali Sina or even Zakir Naik before Mak82hyd started to vandalize. The revert wars started (which go on anyway all the time on all Islam-critical articles; even Shias and Sunnis have revert wars on content they have differing opinions on). Someone said it right that Wikipedia doesnt work for controversial articles because they keep getting pulled in opposite directions endlessly - thats what keeps happening if you look at the big picture for any artice. I believe this is not the best way to handle this situation, this endless POV battle. What I beleive and what someone suggested as well is that once a controversial article achieves a significant mass (say, number of words), editing should only be allowed on the Talk page and changes could be suggested but not directly implemented. This would prevent the Edit wars and maintain the quality of the article. Its a simple policy and I believe this is the best way, but it wont be implemented any time soon because it will shock people here. They like the revert wars I guess. --Matt57 04:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Islamic extremist terrorism's AFD. I was surprised to discover that Answering-Islam.org has been deleted deleted. On second thought, I'm guessing that it doesnt look like the article had much content to begin with so it may be ok. It would have been sad though if it had had significant content. --Matt57 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

nominating articles for deletion

Sefringle, please ensure that you read through and implement the steps provided at WP:AfD when you wish to nominate an article for deletion. the article Islamic view of the Bible you nominated was neither correctly formatted nor put in the AfD listings at all. thank you. ITAQALLAH 04:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International logo

I uploaded a new logo of FFI which can be resized this time. I saw you had tried to change the logo size. Now you can if you want. I've made it slightly bigger than what it was before. --Matt57 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Al-islam.org#Full online books

Would you take a look at this, please? (They'll just call it vandalism if I edit the article to remove the more than a dozen links to the subject's website.) And while you're at it, please note that the Wiki articles for the books (also created by the same editor) already have links to the online versions, so they each have multiple external links from Wiki articles ... imagine what that does to a search engine like Google. --72.75.72.174 03:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 KJV


Dear Sefringle, at this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that harden hearts and enslaves minds.
--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is only the natural world." Prove it! Arrow740 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

untitled comments

Thanks for rescuing the good image against evil intercalation. Never EVER intercalate it is BAD. I put it where it was before the pic vandals are removing it.Opiner 08:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maome image

Hi. I deleted the Maome image because I do not believe it is informative in that context. Could you explain to me the information you believe it adds to the article? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It gives people a visual to understand what Mohammad looked like. That is why it is informative. Mohammad was a person and he obviously looked like something. The image fills our need to put a face to a name. See:Talk:Muhammad/Archive 10#Pictures. This has already been discussed here.--Sefringle 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How can it possibly give people a visual understanding of Muhammad. Which person in the picture looks most like Muhammad? Does the person on the platform look more like Muhammad than say Abraham? Satisfying a supposed need to put an face to a name is not something that I would consider "informative". It might be "nice" but it isn't informative. --20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious from looking at the picture that Mohammad is the one seperate from the crowd on the Minbar. If putting a name to a face is not informative, define what constitutes informative in your opinion.--Sefringle 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also see Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Visual depictions of Muhammad are a minority trend in Islamic culture, and peppering the Muhammad article with them is giving that tradition undue weight. Plus I believe that the fact that this offends a large percentage of Muslims is something to take into account (although it is not an overriding concern, hence the existence of the Criticism articles). - Merzbow 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You agree with who?--Sefringle 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion is getting long, I am going to copy it to Talk:Muhammad#Continued. We can continue this discussion there.--Sefringle 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, the sockpuppet vandal User:Funnypop12 is at it again. I'm afraid I can't do anything about it just now. Your vigilance is appreciated.Proabivouac 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist

If I disagree with the rationality of any follower of organized religion in general (perhaps admittedly targeting Jewish/Christian/Muslim faith more so than others), would you consider me an Anti-Semite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil Trash (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

No.--Sefringle 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Template is used for more than one article

Hi - I'm going to revert your change to Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan. This template is used for all 47 Japanese prefecture, not just Tokyo. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can, can you make it possible to have any image on the templete, and not just a map image?--Sefringle 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Long ago, the Tokyo article had a customized version of the template including the Nijubashi Bridge image (in addition to the map). Is there some particular reason you don't want a map for Tokyo? The right place to discuss this might be talk:Tokyo so others can comment as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with a map, however a picture would be better for consistency with other major city articles.--Sefringle 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


About my so called Vandalism

An atheist + Supporter of Zionism + Anti-Islamist = Again an Atheist.

This is your definition about yourself? You would take my comment harsh, well I would ask you,

1- Does your Jewish religion allow you to tell lies to claim to be an atheist?

or

2- Does your Atheism allow you to support Zionism on the basis of historical facts?

If you agree to the first case, then you are simply a liar. If you agree to the second, then you simply should head back to Africa as well as all White Americans should head towards Europe and hand over the U.S to native Americans. Again pardon me, I know these comments to be very harsh and I can feel their pain, but it is to make you ponder.

Please read my comment in the article "Islamist Terrorism" just below your randomly collected Quranic Quotes. Thanks for your time and being patient. VirtualEye 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this incivil, it is blatantly racist and offensive. --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Strothra 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made 3 reverts yet.--Sefringle 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

There's some edit warring going on using an anon, do you have an opinion? Arrow740 05:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

it is Vandlizing page

hey there u revert my artilce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad (rv. edits by User:Khalidkhoso. Unsourced POV statement.)

Please next time becarfull to revert and i have source here read it.

http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-life/prophet's_Biography.htm


(The Holy sanctuary Ka’bah was now filled with three hundred sixty idols. The original, pristine message of Prophet Ibrahim was lost, and it was mixed with superstitions and traditions of pilgrims and visitors from distant places, who were used to idol worship and myths. In every generation, a small group of men and women detested the pollution of Ka’bah and kept pure their practice of the religion taught by Prophets Ibrahim and Ismail. They used to spend some of their time away from this polluted environment in retreats to nearby hills.

) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalidkhoso (talk • contribs) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


Khalidkhoso 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First, http://anwary-islam.com is not a reliable source. Thank you.--Sefringle 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're active right now

Khalidkhoso has been editing furiously, adding mangled Qu'ran quotes, unreferenced hadith, and links to his favorite site. Please help me look over his edits and revert anything dicey. Zora 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Quran and miracles

Hi Sefringle and thank you for your support in editing Islam-related articles. - Regarding the Quran quotes: I think that clearly understandable quotes from acknowledged primary sources are not regarded as WP:OR. ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." - And the description of miracles is probably easily understandable in the cited places of Quran.) Therefore I would not revert them, but try to integrate them and revert only the deleted sourced statements from non-Moslem sources. Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A good edit

[2]. Of course the Quran doesn't respect Christians and Jews. More accurately, it both respects and disrespects them. Arrow740 06:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Ethics

Hi Sefringle,

Would you please have a look at the original source of the Foundational Motif section and let me know why you removed it.[3]. Many thanks.

Also, the other section is well sourced. Would you please let me know your reasoning. Thanks --Aminz 05:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See the section above. There is no consensus for restoral.--Sefringle 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I have spend many hours summerizing and typing this stuff. The author is an authority on this topic[4]. Do you really think it is fair to remove it? If you think it is biased, please add the POV tag to the section. Thanks. --Aminz 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think most of the questions in the above section are now answered by this new section. --Aminz 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I putted up "balance" tag. Is it cool? --Aminz 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I also added "According to Ghamidi" Now it is all upon the shoulders of Ghamidi. We just need to add others. --Aminz 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It is a POV essay and shouldn't be included at all.--Sefringle 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is POV(meaning Point Of View) but do you know any source which is not POV. I honestly haven't seen any. All we should do is to report all POVs. In that way, we achive NPOV. Please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 06:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That still results in the problem of finding a scholarly alternate POV. There are plenty of sources with an unscholarly alternative views, but a scholarly alternate POV, I'm sure there is one, but I just don't know where. Until we get one, I think we shouldn't include either POV. Otherwise this is just going to be an essay presenting POV's.--Sefringle 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sefringle, you are definitely right that only one source may make the article badly POV. It is not hard to find scholarly works on this if you have access to a library. I'll try to search into the Encyclopedia of Islam and if I was able to find a source, I'll email it to you. Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is another source but I don't have online access to it, however I can photocopy and then scan it. But let me find the EoI article on "Good" and "Bad". It might be sufficient. If I found it, I'll email it to you. Cheers, --Aminz 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sefringle,

The only relevant article I was able to find was "Akhlaq"(ethics) article on EoI which doesn't touch the issue in dispute. If you would like, I can email it to you (I have it in .MDI format, can you open it?). Also, I did a quick search in book.google.com and found this from S. A. Nigosian, a professor of religous studies at the University of Toronto. [5]

It seems that Nigosian agrees with Ghamidi on those points (please read from "A lengthy passage in the Qur'an represents the fullest statement of the code of behavior every Muslim must follow" onward).

Anyways, I'll check Encyclopedia of the Qur'an as soon as I could.

Would you please let me know why you think the section is POV and what kind of information we should expect from other sources. Thanks, --Aminz 07:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Islamic ethics#My removial of POV material. I explained it there.--Sefringle 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Meanwhile could you please see the [6] from "A lengthy passage in the Qur'an represents the fullest statement of the code of behavior every Muslim must follow" onward. Thanks --Aminz 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the problem. We still currently only have one viewpoint. If that is the only viewpoint that is scholarly, we shouldn't include any viewpoint, because that is really the authors opinion.--Sefringle 07:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That's true. This is one view point and it is not the only one. I searched for "Ten Commandments Qur'an inpublisher:university" in "books.google.com" and found that source. (inpublisher:university filters most of unreliable sources). If you can help us(with finding sources in books.google.com), that would be great. Thanks --Aminz 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My edit

Thanks. I think that the things that make us human are our consciences and our minds. We want to believe things without proof to make ourselves happy, and in principle I think that's OK. But we have to thoroughly evaluate beliefs with our minds and hearts because we have to be true to ourselves. Arrow740 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Architecture, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Apostasy in Islam

Hi Sefringle,

I have posted something on the Apostasy in Islam talk page. I would appreciate it if you could answer to that. --Aminz 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to police Islam-related articles

I would appreciate some help on the biographical articles relating to early Muslims revered by Shi'a Muslims. They fill up with unsourced hagiographic adulation and pious language, and there's only me to try to clean it up. Start with Ali ibn Abi Talib and work your way down his family. Zora

Robert Spencer

Hi Sefringle,

Please have a look at the following link [7].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

seems to be an attempt to dismiss criticism as racism. That is the whole purpose of calling people "islamophobes."--Sefringle 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, what about "new antisemitism" then? --Aminz 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Anti-zionism is antisemitism though. How is wanting an ethnic clensing of jews in Israel/Palestine not antisemitism?--Sefringle 06:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No. Anti-Zionism is not exactly Anti-Semitism. Not according to Lewis at least.
But there is some truth in what you are saying. So is some truth in the concept of Islamophobic. --Aminz 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Lewis says:

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

Unfortunately, hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience. Taking a dislike, mild or intense, to people who are different in one way or another, by ethnicity, race, color, creed, eating habits—no matter what—is part of the normal human condition. We find it throughout recorded history, and we find it all over the world. It can sometimes be extraordinarily vicious and sometimes even amusing.

[8]

--Aminz 06:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people will disagree with him when he says "it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic." But if hating and/or persecuting Jews is not anti-semitic, I don't know what is, because that is kind of the definition of antisemitism.--Sefringle 06:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitism is hating and persecuting Jews simply because they are Jew. For example, if someone doesn't have the chance to meet nice Jews and throughout his life only encouters bad Jews, then he will certainly get a negative sense of Jews. It is not good but that's not antisemitism. It is part of the human nature. It is not antisemitism because if he had the similar experience with Muslims, he would have got the same feeling. So, who is on the other side is not important. But in antisemitism, it is. That's my understanding of antisemitism. --Aminz 07:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I completely agree, specificly with the term "simply." Simply implies that there can be no reason behind antisemitism, and I disagree. If you are blaiming all Jews for the actions of one or two, that is a steryotype, by definition. Steryotypes are often the cause of racism. It is ture that all steryotypes have a small hint of truth to them; they are just usuaully exaggurated.--Sefringle 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamonline.net

Hi, that quote you want to keep on the Islamonline.net article is not a fatwa. thestick 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

technically it is posted under the tab "fatwa bank" so it sort of is but I re-phraised it remiving the word "fatwa".--Sefringle 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry

You added the unreferenced tag was added to the top of the article today. This seems a little broad, so I've removed it, creating a thread on the talk page for discussion. I think it would useful if [citation needed] could be added at the points you want referencing. LukeSurl 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's official -- MLK is 'questioned'

Hi there, Sefringle -- long time no see. You contributed to the Talk:Anti-Zionism page when we were debating the authenticity of Martin Luther King's statement equating anti-Zionism to antisemitism.

You showed "proof" that MLK made the statement, and I showed your evidence to be bogus. I expected some kind of acknowledgment or apology from you, but to no avail.

Now the controversy has been largely resolved in my favor. Thanks to your refusal to accept my source (Electronic Intifada), I've found (well, actually it hasn't been me, but Wjohnson) another, undisputably reliable source, a UCLA professor published by Harvard, who says something much stronger than EI, namely that not only has the MLK quote been questioned, it also has served as the base for a notorious hoax.

In your User page you claim to be an "all-viewer," someone who would like to see bias eradicated and all points of view represented. It's with friendly honesty that I must say your behavior would suggest otherwise.

You also claim to support the Zionist movement. Here's a piece of advice for you: when two of your concerns conflict with each other, always, always side with truth. --Abenyosef 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I joined Wikipedia after reading the article on Muhammad and particularly the section "Muhammad as a husband and role model"

The entire section was so horrifyingly offensive to women that I had to join, because the page said unregistered users could not edit.

When I returned to edit the section for accuracy, I noticed that you had already removed the whole thing. On behalf of all self-respecting women in the world, and especially abused women of Islam, I thank you. I thank you and feel gratitude that this disgustingly wrong presentation of Muhammad was removed from Wikipedia. --ProtectWomen 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An-Nisa, 34

A sockpuppet has gotten involved after I proved that wife-beating is punishment. Arrow740 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Islamic socialism

You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you. Edivorce 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

requesting citations for obvious statements of fact is absurd. what is it exactly that you dispute, that "Muslims believe the Qur'an is the word of God" or that "Muslims hold that the wording of the Qur'anic text available today corresponds exactly to that revealed to Muhammad" ? what does undue weight have to do with this issue? ITAQALLAH 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight says the following:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Does this clear things up?--Sefringle 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
it doesn't. it is the *only* Muslim viewpoint, so representation of varying conflicting viewpoints, which is what this sect deals with, is irrelevant. refer to WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources. ITAQALLAH 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
According to you it is the only muslim viewpoint. DO you have a source to prove it?--Sefringle 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
that is through logical deduction. if you don't believe the Qur'an is from God, you're not a Muslim. that's rather obvious. you have yet to prove that other opinions exist. ITAQALLAH 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
i must again state that requesting citations for obvious statements of fact is ridiculous and a misreading of wikipedia policy on your part. nonetheless, to put an end to this farce, here you go: "Despite the differences of outlook, approach and ideology that exist among the world's believing Muslims, one of the things on which they enjoy unanimity is their acceptance of the Koran as the eternal word of God, vouchsafed to Muhammad 1,400 years ago and revealed to him in a series of 'angelic' visitations over a period of twenty three years." (Islam: the Basics. Turner, C. (2006) Routledge, p. 42). ITAQALLAH 02:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[9] an AfD that might interest you. Arrow740 03:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Your input is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion. --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an

I notice you've moved a bunch of tags from talk back to the main article. Please, always try to explain what you're doing (and why) on the talk page. Not that I care that much about those tags in particular, it's just a matter of being civil and nice to one another. Feer 22:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason is I think anyone who views the page needs to see what is wrong with the article so that they have extra warnting to take the material written in the article with a grain of salt, because it is largely origional research. I think most viewers of wikipedia put a little too much trust in its accuracy when statements are not sourced. A large number of tags tells readers to take everything with a grain of salt, especially since most passive readers will not read the talk page. Second, it is hard to see the talk page because there are too many templates there as well.--Sefringle 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Hello, you posted an unreferenced tag [10]. Can you please be more specific. This would help me in finding the references you think should be in the article.Bless sins 00:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The sections of the article: Background, Note on early Islamic historiography, Muhammad, The First Fitna, The Fatimids, The Seljuks, The Crusaders, Islam in Africa, Indian Subcontinent, Ottoman Empire, Wahhabism, The 20th century (excluding Arab-Israeli conflict), and The 21st century do not contain any references. Some of the other sections contain very few references.--Sefringle 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/f/User_talk%7ESefringle_Archive_1_9857.html"