NapoleansSword (talk | contribs) |
PelleSmith (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
:::No, its the view about [[Islam]] in general, which includes Islam in United States. Unless you (Pelle) can prove that the Islam in US is different from Islam the religion, this view is relevant. Also Pentagon is an American organization and the people working there are Americans. So its view is the American view. This will stay. [[User:NapoleansSword|NapoleansSword]] 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
:::No, its the view about [[Islam]] in general, which includes Islam in United States. Unless you (Pelle) can prove that the Islam in US is different from Islam the religion, this view is relevant. Also Pentagon is an American organization and the people working there are Americans. So its view is the American view. This will stay. [[User:NapoleansSword|NapoleansSword]] 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Matt, why don't you just own all of your edits. I get it, you're not going to argue this because you know its ridiculous, so instead I get to deal with NS, who has no problem making absurd arguments. The most I'll get from you at this point is telling me that I shouldn't comment on people's behavior or how saying this argument is "absurd" isn't civil. I know so don't bother. Meanwhile I get to have NS not dealing with the two overwhelming issues here that the information isn't verifiable and that it isn't pertinant. BTW, this isn't [[Islam]] in general NS ... that's the WHOLE ENTIRE INCONVENIENT POINT!! Thanks.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Thanks!== |
==Thanks!== |
Revision as of 00:20, 25 September 2007
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Organization of British ex-Muslims
The organization has 25 founding members and an unknown number of additional members. It is not significant enough to warrant a section on the Islam in the United Kingdom page. If you were to add a section for every group with so few members or impact on the general British Muslim population the article would be endless.
If such a section is added to the Islam in the United Kingdom article then equally sections on apostacy, scularism and athiesm added to the British Jews article and Church of England article. Please do not try to threaten me or taint the Wikipedia project with your Athiest extremist point of view.
Articles that are counterparts on the same subject such as Religion do matter. Wikipedia cannot be seen to be or actually be bias as it will destory the credibility of the whole project. While this organization has been heralded in the media its impact on the actual British Muslim community has been neglible as its numbers suggest. The Sufi Muslim Council also is notable but it does not have its own section and is only mentioned in the Political organisations and pressure groups section. Feel free to add the Organization of British ex-Muslims to the latter section.
I do not have the verifiable data or information on apostacy, scularism and athiesm in the Jewish and Christian communities of Britain and would not attempt to make the needed and factual changes without doing so.
Abuse of Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Edina_Lekovic
Please stop editwarring on List of notable converts to Islam
As the title says, please stop revert warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, I have blocked User:Bless sins for 24 hours for being the worst reverter in this case. Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
WP does not link to anonymous anti-islam right-wing websites, no matter how much you'd wish it did. And please discuss that article here. --Raphael1 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am working on a rewrite of the Religion of Peace at User:Mike Young/Sandbox2 would value your comments on this, and especially any references you can add. Mike Young 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Matt - I made the change you referred to on my talk page because at the time I believed that Raphael1 might just object to the posting of the number of attacks on the page, rather than the mention of the website in the first place. I thought he might be appeased by removal of the number. Clearly, I was wrong, and I don't see any good faith coming from him or any of the other semi-anonymous editors that are trying to purge Wikipedia of any negative reference to Islam, so I won't complain if you change it back. I don't think we need to refer to the page as part of a quote, though. That seems to stem from his insistence that it's not a reliable source, which is totally beside the point. Lesson learned: appeasement never works. Alexwoods 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
|
What?
Could you explain what this edit comment meant? Hornplease 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- What's there that you dont understand about it? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- How is the problem solved now? I still don't see a response to my concerns on the talkpage, or to those raised in the edit comments. Hornplease 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, now I do. Later than the reversion, so I missed it. Hang on. Hornplease 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Right, continued on article talkpage. Hornplease 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- How is the problem solved now? I still don't see a response to my concerns on the talkpage, or to those raised in the edit comments. Hornplease 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No it was right
Matt57,
The entry is about Islam, as a religion (you know Islam the "religion"), in the United States. Again it is about a religion as it exists "in the United States." Of course some amount of information about non-Muslim American views of Islam belongs there, especially when it comes to issues that pertain to the form of Islam found "in the United States." That type of information is already represented. What I deleted is a completely WP:UNDUE, not to mention very partial and supposedly "secret" view of one institution on the link between Islamic scripture and Islamic militancy. It has nothing directly to do with Islam in the United States at all, with the exception that institution that has supposedly expressed these views internally is an institution of the U.S. government. It is even more ridiculous that someone would try pushing this into the entry when both of the partisan sources referencing it state that this information isn't public and can't actually verify its authenticity. So we have 1) non-pertinant information that is 2) completely unreliable. Please attend to these issues before reverting me. Thanks.PelleSmith 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, its the view about Islam in general, which includes Islam in United States. Unless you (Pelle) can prove that the Islam in US is different from Islam the religion, this view is relevant. Also Pentagon is an American organization and the people working there are Americans. So its view is the American view. This will stay. NapoleansSword 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, why don't you just own all of your edits. I get it, you're not going to argue this because you know its ridiculous, so instead I get to deal with NS, who has no problem making absurd arguments. The most I'll get from you at this point is telling me that I shouldn't comment on people's behavior or how saying this argument is "absurd" isn't civil. I know so don't bother. Meanwhile I get to have NS not dealing with the two overwhelming issues here that the information isn't verifiable and that it isn't pertinant. BTW, this isn't Islam in general NS ... that's the WHOLE ENTIRE INCONVENIENT POINT!! Thanks.PelleSmith 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, its the view about Islam in general, which includes Islam in United States. Unless you (Pelle) can prove that the Islam in US is different from Islam the religion, this view is relevant. Also Pentagon is an American organization and the people working there are Americans. So its view is the American view. This will stay. NapoleansSword 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
My RFA | ||
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |