User talk:Rosywounds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents

[edit] Trifkovic

He is a historian, not a political scientist as you claimed. Are you a sockpuppet? Arrow740 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

His field of study is Political Science and modern history (e.g. WWII, Cold War, American hegemony). 7th century Arabia does not constitute modern. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit summary here is gibberish. This is a blind revert. Arrow740 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a legitimate edit. Arrow740, you are removing sourced content.Bless sins (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
BS, "WP:POINT violation" makes no sense. Arrow740 (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You added paragraphs worth of material without a single word of discussion. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're simply making this up. Look at the talk page for a change. Arrow740 (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Arrow740 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Two reverts in two days is not edit warring. Moreover, you have already found interesting ways to cheat the 3RR rule (e.g. Posting a different POV-quote rather than the one that had already been removed). It's a cute trick and should probably be made known to some administrators. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe sect?

"Shia Islam wasn't anything more than a fringe sect until the Safavids." See Fatimids.24.8.187.157 (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; perhaps I was exaggerating. I was focusing primarily on Shia Islam depictions of Mohammad, since the thread on Muhammad is discussing the fact that Shiites are not as opposed to Muhammad depictions as Sunnis are. Although the Fatimid ruling class was Shiite, their impact hasn't endured quite as much; North African Muslims today are almost exclusively Sunni. Other than Iran, Iraq, and Azerbaijan, the Shiites have generally been a minority everywhere else, with marginal (if any) political power. Fringe sect was probably an extreme term, though. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since you are editing

Since you are editing Islam and anti-Christian persecution, this section [1] might be relevant. See the final sentence as well. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. That article needs a lot of work. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
After reading through it, I think it will be useful for the lead (once we create one), since the Jews are more well known for their treatment in Europe (particularly during the Holocaust). -Rosywounds (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

"This user is straight... but not narrow. Shame on those who are."

Do you really believe in this!!! --Be happy!! (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Ann Arbor and so I am pretty liberal; IMO, I don't believe in any earthly punishment for it, even if it's considered sinful (and unclean, for that matter). I certainly wouldn't discriminate or prescribe unique treatment to someone because of it. I don't support gay marriage (since marriage is a religious tradition), but I have no issues with long term, monogamous gay couples receiving similar benefits to actual married couples. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Jenab Doctor, Man ensha'allah yek sa'ate digeh barmigardam va ageh eshkal nadashteh bashe yek kam bahs mikonim... Shad bashi!! --Be happy!! (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rosywounds,

Here is my argument:

1. If one is religous, then nothing is left to discuss

2. If one is not religous, then it is wrong to be homosexual because one's genes can not be spread and this is bad for evolution. Evolution has worked hard to produce the desire to have sex in order to pass the genes to the next generation. It is thus best to have sex with as many girls as a man can to get enough diversity. Being homosexual is bad also because the person uses human resources, a double negative point.

--Be happy!! (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Amin.
With respect to religion, I also agree with you. I think it makes very little sense to be a Muslim and a homosexual, since it is somewhat syncretic (Islam is critical of homosexuality); that doesn't mean I am opposed to homosexuals. Most homosexuals are irreligious anyway, since all major religions condemn homosexuality.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I agree with you evolutionarily; homosexuality is not a genetic trait because it is far too common for it to be justified genetically. Moreover, scientists have never found a gene to defend it. If it were genetic, then it would be naturally selected out, since it is the 3rd most maladaptive type of "trait" possible, after sterility and anything that causes an organism to die before it reaches sexual maturity.
I don't, however, rule out that it could be caused by some sort of hormonal imbalance either during pregnancy or childhood, or that it is something that develops as a result of the way a child is raised. IMO, it is not something that is serious enough to merit earthly punishment or discrimination, and I don't think it's my place to judge whether or not it is a decision someone makes. If it is a choice, then I'll let God deal with it; I don't believe the Qur'an ever explicitly prescribes death to homosexuals, even if that has been the tradition for centuries. This is where I think I disagree with you (if I am not mistaken).
I don't know whether or not your statements were meant to be hypothetical, but I'm not gay (if that is what you think?! :)).-Rosywounds (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I didn't think you are a gay. As far as I know traditional Islam is against the overt exposure of it in the public as several witnesses are required for it (people can do whatever they want in private). What do you think of that? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you are a gay. Well I am "A gay" and I suggest you keep your comments to yourself - otherwise us "maladaptive types" are going to be less than happy. --88.105.83.128 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I was only trying to fill in my cultural gap and understand the issue better for my own benefit. I didn't mean offending anybody. I am sorry if you were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminz (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to public displays of affection, whether the people involved are gay or straight; but I still wouldn't be in favor of any sort of punishment for homosexuality. Public displays of affection (gay or straight) seem worthy of fines if they are excessive or border on indecent exposure. I think they are too trivial of issues, particularly when compared to things like theft, murder, etc. To the anon, we are simply discussing the nature of homosexuality and its role in Islamic society; we aren't trying to offend.
In terms of homosexuality in Islam; I think it makes very little sense, since homosexuality is criticized by Islam in general. It is just as nonsensical as "Christian homosexuality," since the Bible is even more critical of homosexuality than the Qur'an is. But I don't necessarily oppose homosexuals or hold grudges against them because their sexual behavior differs from my own. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rosywounds,
Thank you very much for your comments here and on the other page :)
You are correct that Islam is critical of homosexuality but its wordly punishments would apply only if four witnesses of the actual action of intercouse exist which is unlikely to happen if the couple want to keep the matter private (and that's partly what the law wants to acheive). In the hereafter of course the story is different...Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem.

That's true; I also don't believe there is any preferred form of punishment for sodomy. Islamic Jurists simply decided that sodomy is equivalent to apostasy (and even execution for apostasy is debatable; it was enacted as a response to those that converted dishonestly). -Rosywounds (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosywounds and Aminz, I'm posting here to close out the discussion, and to keep the comments with the original thread. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, as I am to mine. Whilst I disagree with things that both of you have said, I would not and have not asked that they be removed or censored. I believe prejudice should be called when it is seen, and I believe the comment Aminz made about the consumption of natural resources displays prejudice. I accept that the comment in Farsi is innocuous, and have noted as much at the LGBT discussion. I think that the WP:STALK comment is problematic in light of WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, and also because it is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware - certainly I have no recollection of encountering Aminz in article space. I have no reason to check on what posts have been made by either of you, and see no reason to do so in the future. However, you need to recognise that people will stumble across posts unexpectedly at times. In case you are wondering, I had user talk:Aminz on my watchlist from my early interaction. When such pages appear again in recent posts, I typically ignore them, and also typically don't bother to unlist pages. I just happened to go to my watchlist when the anonymous IP editors comment had just been posted, and saw the edit summary "keep your homophobic views to yourself: new section", which caught my eye and I investigated. I was concerned by what I saw, and so sought advice from others at LGBT. I didn't ask for admin action. If you truly believe you have a legitimate complaint, then you can discuss it with me, or make a report - your choice - but I think any admin action against me or either or you is extremely unlikely.
Regarding the arguments being advanced in relation to homosexuality and religion and homosexuality and evolution, I think they are flawed. If you want to know why, I am willing to hold such a discussion - but will leave that entirely up to you. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, but I don't believe that the anonymous user is just any random person. The fact that my user talk page is the first page that the anon ever posted on (and his second page is the WikiProject for LGBT) makes me question whom he really is.[2] Whether or not it was your own anon that you used to produce a valid medium through which you could follow and stalk Aminz here is just my speculation, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; obviously, I've made no effort to pursue it. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

*Slaps self on head* I didn't actually pick up that you were wondering if the IP was me as well, but it makes your comment make more sense. I also noticed the contribution pattern, and agree that a random person who happened by your talk page does seem a stretch - but a newish lurker who was outraged seems possible. FYI, the IP is not me: [3] - wrong continent. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and anti-Christian persecution

I believe there is very little salvageable about this article. Like the deleted Historical persecution by Muslims (now a redirect), this article is basically a series of unrelated events in which Muslims have apparently persecuted Christians, presenting it as somehow sequential and a progression from one incident to another. If there is any persecution of Christians to be documented, it belongs in Persecution of Christians. It's not a mirror of Islam and antisemitism, for the latter discusses the presence/absence of antisemitism from Muslim texts which does seem to be a topic covered by scholars. ITAQALLAH 12:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pontic Greek Genocide

You can discard this if you wish since it is OT, but I have to point out that the particular people you are defending weren't very good or devout Muslims and are the ones responsible for the suppresion and subjugation of Islam to the state in Turkey. The Caliphate did not commit these attrocities, the Young Turks, who later abolished it, did. I don't see how their actions are or should be defensible from a Muslim POV. I can understand a Turkish nationalist like AGarnet defending such crimes but from the POV of a Muslim they are not worth it, since the people who perpetrated them were anti-Islamic.Xenovatis (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no stake in the article; I am a Muslim, but I am not even Turkish, nor were my ancestors from the Ottoman empire. Further, I am Shiite, and Shiites generally don't have as positive of a view of the Caliphate system. I am also Iranian, so this isn't of much concern for me from a nationality POV. However, there is a controversy surrounding this title (unlike with the Armenian Genocide), and I feel that the controversy needs to be better represented before we can remove the POV tag. There are other articles that have had to make similar compromises (Northern Cyprus and Srebrenica Genocide are two notable cases where compromises had to be made in order to keep the titles). -Rosywounds (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second here, what`s wrong with a vote?! I mean, there are several point of views that are backed up more or less on references...in this light I mentioned the vote! And YES, Wikipedia does allow voting to take place(even if it is not a democracy)! AdrianCo (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How many references would be enough, or what would it take(presuming that this action is correct) to delete it(the pov category)? AdrianCo (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So what title do you propose? AdrianCo (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel ganged upon by the Greeks since that was not my intention. I believe the Greek side is actually correct so it is not in our interest to force this first by weight of numbers. So I ask:
  • 1 What evidence exactly do you wish for
  • 2 Would you support an arbitration procedure from an admin;mod.
  • 3 I had suggested to Monsieur that each side list and enumerate their sources with relevant quotes so that we ::can reach a consensus.
I will not edit or revert pending your reply.Xenovatis (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, read my comments back and forth with AdrianCo (my replies are on his talk page). I think my conversation with him provides a good explanation for what I think. IMO, the title can stay, but we simply need to explain the controversy associated with it. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of said comments is that you would be happy with the NPOV removal provided it is made clear that (1) Turkey objects (2) an outline of the reasons for said objection is provided. Looking at srebrenicca it is explained in the lead but the Pontiac case is the opposite so are you suggesting a separate section? Because section 4.2 already states the fact of and rationale behind Turkey's objection. Please explain if you want it expanded or some point clarified. Additionaly there is a section and a page of academic views where contrary positions can be listed. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A separate page for those academic views seems like a POV fork; IMO, I think scholarly disagreement should all be given due weight within the article, perhaps in the lead (so long as it doesn't take over the lead, otherwise that would be Turkish POV). The recognition section also sounds somewhat apologetic to the Greek reasoning for why they never sought recognition before the past decade. Governmental positions aren't of particular concern to me; Turkey's government, for example, denies the Armenian genocide also, even though that is almost unanimously accepted within scholarship. I'm more concerned with scholarly dissent than political dissent in this case (IMO, those separate articles on "Academic views" are really unnecessary and simply accumulate loads of synthesized original research and quote farms). -Rosywounds (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree on the separate page. The smaller quotes could be kept as notes on the bottom and the larger ones in a page in wikisource that could be linked in the article. I am also not aware of other examples of sources in separate article. I think the lead already mentions Turkish disagreement and the lead could mention any scholars that explicitly deny it was a genocide, Your recognition gripe could be addressed by editing that particular section about Greece's stance. Also if the quotes page is removed then the academic view section can and should be expanded. I did notice that there is a policy against over-use of quotes. Again these could be available via wikisource and not directly in wikipedia. I also don't really see the relevance of the image regarding the Armenian genocide.Xenovatis (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree on most points; and yes, that Armenian genocide image seems irrelevant (even though I had never brought it up in this thread). It should be replaced with a more pertinent image, if one can be found. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actualy it is, Trebizond is in the Pontus, it was also the capital of a greek empire("...of Trebizond") and there were many pontian greeks back then, so the bottom of the newspaper is relevant even if the part about the armenians isn`t in this case.As for this dispute: 1)Turkey semes to be in the lead section 2) everybody semes to have his say in the article to I don`t think that neutrality is our problem here, mearly a reshuffle of the formulation , a quote here a reference there, but in I don`t see were the POV problem occurs, i mean the article neither states: "In 1925 the evil turks brutally committed a world-wide recognized genocide against greeks" neither does it have anything like "the greeks allegations are not founded and this semes to be a part of a larger greek conspiracy". No, we don`t have cases such as these, so we need to work, but why the POV-dispute, i don`t know. AdrianCo (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit comment

Saw your edit comment on Names of God in the Qur'an. Your wording is better, but I just wanted to note that Baha'is do consider themselves followers of an independent and new religion. There is a difference between the Islamic belief that Islam was the primordial religion of mankind which has been corrupted through the ages, versus the Baha'i idea of progressive revelation which states that religions were, and were supposed to be, different through the ages to as to account for the understanding and needs of the peoples at the specific time and place of revelation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Baha'is do believe that there is a link to the past revelations, in that it is one God sending the messengers, but the messages brought are not, in Baha'i belief, intended to be exactly the same, but instead meant to be progressive, with new laws, institutions and understandings. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote in survey over whether to have article title Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

  • 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
  • Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

[edit] Arguements


[edit] Spelling: Mosaddeq, Mossadeq, Mossadegh, or Mosaddegh?

Google search survey:

  • 40,700 for Mohammed Mosaddeq
  • 86,000 for Mohammed Mossadeq
  • 78,400 for Mohammed Mossadegh
  • 2,010 for Mohammed Mosaddegh

[edit] Proposed name change

I propose changing the title of the article to Mohammed Mossadeq --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)