His excellency (talk | contribs) |
Timothy Usher (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:::::::::Who have we excluded? You said in your edit summary "stop trying to funnel users to the Muslim Guild." I'm not trying to funnel anyone - you're trying to keep them away. Let people make their own decision. [[user:BhaiSaab| BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab| <span style="text-decoration: underline"><font size="0" color="#FF0000">''talk''</font></span>]]</sup> 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
:::::::::Who have we excluded? You said in your edit summary "stop trying to funnel users to the Muslim Guild." I'm not trying to funnel anyone - you're trying to keep them away. Let people make their own decision. [[user:BhaiSaab| BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab| <span style="text-decoration: underline"><font size="0" color="#FF0000">''talk''</font></span>]]</sup> 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::: I think the point BhaiSaab raises is the elephant in the room. To my knowlege, nothing that's been either explicitly said or implied has ever been posted here to suggest non-Muslims are unwelcome. In fact, those people who do seem to be Muslim here have been bending over backward to not state what's seemingly obvious. You've used your lawyering to attack Faisal's user page. You've gone to admins to have BhaiSaab blocked.You had me blocked, and then pleaded to at least two admins to have my block extended. You've told Muslims to stop saying "salaam". You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here. I'll pretend to assume good faith to the extent of being an idiot, and assume for the sake of arguement that all of that was because you believe in strong enforcement of WP rules. Then "FairAndBalanced" posts a picture on his user page, of a pig with "Allah" photoshopped onto it, in violation of several WP rules, and what do you do? You protest his block. You defend him. What's true for your treatment of people, more importantly, is true in your approach towards articles. [[WP:RS]] means alot when content speaks positively of Islam or anything related, but the standards don't seem too important when the content sounds like an indictment. Why the inconsistency? The elephant in the room is not that Muslims have made non-muslims uncomfortable being part of this project, it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period.[[User:His excellency|His Excellency...]] 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
:::::::::: I think the point BhaiSaab raises is the elephant in the room. To my knowlege, nothing that's been either explicitly said or implied has ever been posted here to suggest non-Muslims are unwelcome. In fact, those people who do seem to be Muslim here have been bending over backward to not state what's seemingly obvious. You've used your lawyering to attack Faisal's user page. You've gone to admins to have BhaiSaab blocked.You had me blocked, and then pleaded to at least two admins to have my block extended. You've told Muslims to stop saying "salaam". You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here. I'll pretend to assume good faith to the extent of being an idiot, and assume for the sake of arguement that all of that was because you believe in strong enforcement of WP rules. Then "FairAndBalanced" posts a picture on his user page, of a pig with "Allah" photoshopped onto it, in violation of several WP rules, and what do you do? You protest his block. You defend him. What's true for your treatment of people, more importantly, is true in your approach towards articles. [[WP:RS]] means alot when content speaks positively of Islam or anything related, but the standards don't seem too important when the content sounds like an indictment. Why the inconsistency? The elephant in the room is not that Muslims have made non-muslims uncomfortable being part of this project, it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period.[[User:His excellency|His Excellency...]] 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
Amibidhrohi/His excellency, you've raised a number of points in your post. Allow me, for now, to respond to just a few. |
|||
"...it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period." |
|||
Your statement assumes that Muslims cannot be comfortable on Wikipedia unless they are allowed to be openly religious at every turn. Indeed, your post assumes that non-secularity is an inherent component of Islam. |
|||
This debate was also seen on [[Islamism]], where several editors were saying the article was not neutral, ''not'' because it made Islam look bad, but because it suggested that Islam might rightly allow a secular sphere. Their position was that Islam was a [[Deen|way of life]] which must encompass all aspects of society, including political organization, and presumably Wikipedia. [[Islamists]] were the only “true Muslims”, whereas to advocate a seperation between religion and state was apostasy. |
|||
“You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here.” |
|||
Indeed I have, and would say the same for any religion. Practice of religion is fine. But not in the halls of academia, and not on wikipedia. Wikipedia is ''not about self-expression.'' It is about building a respectable scholarly encyclopedia. |
|||
In the west, we have a secular sphere. It took centuries to establish this, and to establish the fundamental secularity of scholarship. Most Christians, and an overwhelming number of Jews, accept this as the natural state of affairs. Among Muslims, it is still very much a debate. |
|||
The most widely misinterpreted policy is [[WP:NPOV]]. This does ''not'' mean finding a middle ground between the opinions of editors to the talk page, which would constitute [[WP:NOR|original research]], but in fair presentation of the opinions of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Reliable sources are overwhelmingly secular. For the purposes of this discussion, we can call this the western secular point of view. |
|||
Many Muslim editors, as per the mission statement of the Guild, earnestly believe that this itself inherently discriminates against Muslim points of view. I concur that it does. |
|||
I quote from the Muslim Guild mission statement: “We seek to encourage a totally unbiased view about Islam, neither secular nor nonsecular”, “To ensure that Islam-related articles offer a neutral, unbiased point of view free from all POV whether secular or nonsecular.” |
|||
The most natural reading of these statements is that we aim to find a middle ground between the western secular point of view and Islamic points of view. |
|||
What you’ve failed to appreciate is that this equally discriminates against Christian points of view, or any religious point of view. The only reason it’s being perceived as anti-Muslim is because it is mainly (though not exclusively) editors who openly identify as Muslims who are challenging the traditional modes of Western scholarship. |
|||
The Muhammad “founder debate” is especially illustrative in this regard. Editors asked that we compromise between a realistic analysis and one which presumes the truth of Islam. From a secular perspective - more to the point, from the perspective of reliable sources - the notion that Muhammad did not found Islam, as the term is used in English, rests upon ''pure fantasy''. It is neither required nor desirable to compromise between reality and fantasy, indeed WP policy ''prohibits'' it. |
|||
Consider the very first words of [[Jesus]] . “Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE — 29-36 AD/CE)” from the most typical Christian point of view, this is inaccurate on several counts. First, the traditional dates are 1BC-33AD. But putting that aside, there is a deeper problem: most Christians believe that three days after his death, he was literally resurrected, walked out of his tomb, and appered to his followers in the flesh, wounds and all. By this logic, the dates should read, “Jesus (1BC-33AD, 33AD-present)...” Of course, we’d then offer a compromise whereby both views are presented equally; what torturous mess would result from this, we can only speculate. |
|||
Trouble is that, as with Islam predating Muhammad, there is ''no reliable source'' which attests to Jesus’ resurection. There are of course reliable sources which document that Christians believe it so, but that’s it. Thus the secular view wins (although there is a range given here, as the cited reliable sources disagree), while the Christian view is demoted. I cannot recall any Christian taking issue with this, and I’d be very surprised to see it seriously advocated. It is generally accepted that scholars say what they say, and, where we disagree on religious grounds, we are free to ignore them (“Inteliigent design” is a notable exception, and it’s not fared well in the court of public opinion.) |
|||
What I have been advocating, then, is not intended as an attack on Islam per se, much less as an attack on Muslim editors, though I appreciate and have spoken to why you might interpret it as such. It is rather the defense of the premises and outlook of Western scholarship, without which Wikipedia would never have been created. It is the defense of modernity and of reason, without which Wikipedia would be inconceivable. |
|||
I hope that clears things up a little.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 09:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Personal Attack ?? == |
== Personal Attack ?? == |
Revision as of 09:01, 15 June 2006
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions: /Archive 1
Discussion on keeping links to Partisan guilds
Links to partisan Guilds such as the Muslim Guild, Sunni Guild and Shia Guild should be removed. Guilds and other cabals have no place here anyhow, but if they're going to exist, we shouldn't be linking to them.Timothy Usher 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do not remove anything until a consensus is developed. I want to ask other member to merge Muslim Gild and this forum. So wait please and do not delete anything. --- Faisal 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you haven't noticed, those guilds are part of Wikiproject Islam. Unless you happen to get that changed, do not remove them. BhaiSaab talk 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is it okay if I start a Non-Muslim Guild? Muslims welcome, naturally.Timothy Usher 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is already very strong Gild using msn/messanger/etc by propoganda pushers. So why cannot we make one offical (instead of using back doors) on wikipedia. --- Faisal 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is? How can I join? Tell me how, so I can take a look and report back to you about what's going on.Timothy Usher 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is already very strong Gild using msn/messanger/etc by propoganda pushers. So why cannot we make one offical (instead of using back doors) on wikipedia. --- Faisal 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The Dos and Don'ts list
The "do not" list is nonsensical for the following reasons:
- Do not see Islam as a target of arbitrary vilification or as a victim in need of arbitrary apologism. Islam is a subject which we are here to accurately document, not to attack or defend.
How can you order anyone to see anything in a special way? Sometimes Islam is a target of arbitrary vilification, which is mostly considered vandalism and reverted. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I meant not to do it, Raphael1. In other words, we're not here to attack it or to defend it. Neither of these related mentalities is ideal for creating an encyclopedia. This is supposed to be scholarship, not political activism.Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- How about "Do not treat..." - would that be clearer?Timothy Usher 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd consent to: Do not vilify Islam ... Raphael1 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do not personally attack or single out editors as promoters or enemies of Islam.
There's no need to particularly remind the members of this WikiProject to WP:NPA. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- There certainly is, if the membership of Muslim Guild is to be transferred here wholesale (as it shouldn't be).Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Considering this comment, there is an urgent need to remind the Muslim guild members about WP:NPA. Do not personally attack or single out editors as promoters or enemies of Islam. is precisely about the cited comment. Pecher Talk 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking more about this comment[1], but the one you cite is equally illustrative. This is just the wrong way to approach Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground.Timothy Usher 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Considering this comment, there is an urgent need to remind the Muslim guild members about WP:NPA. Do not personally attack or single out editors as promoters or enemies of Islam. is precisely about the cited comment. Pecher Talk 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- No personal attack has anything to do with being a member of any Wikiproject. Raphael1 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do not use markers of sectarian identity, such as greeting other editors with "Salam, brother", appending (PBUH) to mentions of prophets, etc. This is divisive and alienating to editors from other backgrounds.
This is complete nonsense. If you feel alienated, because you are not a Muslim, call a doctor. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- This comment once highlights the need to remind the guild members of WP:NPA at every step. Pecher Talk 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Call a doctor? You can't expect to be taken seriously when you run around urging us to consider others' feelings if you don't practice it yourself. Should I tell you to "call a doctor" about your fixation on the Jyllands-Posten cartoons or your singular empathy for a banned user?Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is just ridiculous. Nobody should ever feel alienated for not being a Muslim, Christ, Jew, Buddhist, ... It is insane to assume that anyone who reveals his religious belief is devisive. Raphael1 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do not use this page or its subpages to solicit votes, reverts or similar assistance, or any other violations of wikipedia guidelines or policies.
Vote-stacking is frowned upon everywhere. Again, there's no need to particularly remind the members of this WikiProject. Besides one of the reasons to have Wikiprojects is to seek assistance, when you need help in a special topic area. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah some talk page commentary... this is good. Raphael1, rather than actually remove such wording, might there be a way that it could be edited to allay your concerns? Netscott 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- As per personal attacks, Raphael1. I mention it because it's been a problem on Muslim Guild - if its membership is to be migrated here, I'm afraid we do need a reminder. Even if it's not to be, we don't wish to see this WikiProject follow the bad examples set at the Guild.Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so. As you can see, I reject all of them. Raphael1 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cool post BROTHER Raphael1. Neutrality has nothing to do with someone beliefs and like/dislike. Even saying that I like/love something does make me non-neutral. Also there is no doubt that Islam is under attack in wikipedia. Hence it needs to be defended. If I write at my User page that I love Islam then it does not makes me non-neutral. We all love to something. Many love their countries. Will they all be non-neutral? A specific group wants to end Muslim-Guild and want this project become useless. This is the same group that is a suspect for the propaganda against Islam ---- Faisal 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Faisal, while it's true that the two are somewhat related, this talk isn't about the Muslim Guild if you hadn't noticed. Netscott 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the vote-stacking and WP:NPA reminder, I'd like to note, that neither Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism nor Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buddhism contains such a section. I am sure that members of this project have engaged in that kind of activity, but I am as well sure that members of the other projects have too. Please explain, why only this project needs that advice? Raphael1 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- "I am sure that members of this project have engaged in that kind of activity." I don't think that's the case. Do you have diffs? If it has been the case, I would support adding similar language to those pages. Tom Harrison Talk 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tom's skepticism was directed most likely towards your allegation that members of the other projects you mentioned have engaged in those activities - he merely quoted the wrong clause of your statement. I took a look at these project pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism is utterly placid and uncontroversial - wouldn't you know it. Did you even look? I have to think not.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity's project page is fine, but there are a few inappropriate solicitations for assistance on the talk page. There is no open hostility of the sort that's all too often characterized member conduct at the Muslim Guild, singling out of purported enemies and the like. Again, did you even look?
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism is a different story. The NPOV policy section provide useful guidelines which share some intent of the Do Not's referenced above, but the section Jewish vs. Christian perspectives (as per "vs." in the title) nurtures a communal sense of grieviance and appears to be rallying members to battle, and there are many solicitations on the talk page. That said, the tone is nowhere near as incivil as that found at the Muslim Guild, I saw no enemies lists, allegations on talk that other editors hate Judaism and are out to destroy it, etc. As you suggest, it might be worth someone's while to drop in and offer some helpful points, as was unsuccesfully attempted at the Muslim Guild, and see what kind of response they generate.Timothy Usher 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: see this section. This charge hasn't popped up since it this advice was offered and met with unanimous agreement. I'll fix some of the language on the project page in a bit.Timothy Usher 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Secularity
Re anon's recent edit, "In academia, secular assumption is made." Precisely. If this encyclopedia is ever to be a reliable source, it must adhere to academic standards of excellence.Timothy Usher 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this? If so then I agree with you. That should be reverted back. --- Faisal 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was talking about. It's good to see some agreement on these very basic points about why we're here.Timothy Usher 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why you think that it imply secularity? The wording of the original text was better. I cannot find any reason for that change done by the unregister-user. --- Faisal 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- p.s. that's the user that blanked the Guild talk page.Timothy Usher 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify this point here, secularity is not in fact what Wikipedia operates under but rather neutral point of view. That said I think it is safe to say that neutral point of view tends to rather be in accord with secularity. Netscott 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- In addition to your valid observation about the nature of neutrality as it's commonly used - we shouldn't be neutral betwen neutrality and non-neutrality - WP:NPOV mandates the neutral presentation of the points of view forwarded by reliable sources, where such sources are overwhelmingly secular.Timothy Usher 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify this point here, secularity is not in fact what Wikipedia operates under but rather neutral point of view. That said I think it is safe to say that neutral point of view tends to rather be in accord with secularity. Netscott 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- p.s. that's the user that blanked the Guild talk page.Timothy Usher 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why you think that it imply secularity? The wording of the original text was better. I cannot find any reason for that change done by the unregister-user. --- Faisal 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was talking about. It's good to see some agreement on these very basic points about why we're here.Timothy Usher 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Recent Changes to WikiProject Islam
Timothy Usher - your recent unilateral changes do not reflect any sort of consensus here. Encouraging others to abide by Wikipedia policy is fine, but when you start making additional rules such as "do not greet others with salam" you need to make sure that everyone is willing to abide by such rules. I, for one, will certainly continue to greet other Muslims with a "salam" if I wish to do so. BhaiSaab talk 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is a non-sectarian encyclopedia. Your recent contributions lead me to believe that this is a big problem for you. If you're here to practice your religion, you've come to the wrong place.Timothy Usher 00:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're saying I have no right to say "salam" to other Muslims? Ridiculous. If I decide to use talkspace to say "salam", that does not effect Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Sarcasm: Your recent contributions lead me to believe that Islam is a big problem for you. BhaiSaab talk 00:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Harrison, I hope you don't mind that I tweaked your wording just slightly. If you think the change is inappropriate, I won't try to revert, but as I put in the edit summary, the Muslim guild is open to everyone. They make it clear on their front page. I can't speak for the other two guilds (Sunni and Shia) because they don't interest me. You are probably exactly right about those two, but my edit had more to do with fairness of including specifically "The Muslim Guild" with reference to the part of your edit that says "the above guilds". Thanks, --FairNBalanced 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I don't mind at all. I was trying for compromise language, and I think your edit was an improvement. Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your change is fine, FNB. It'd be better, however, were they not linked at all.Timothy Usher 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the idea behind the prohibition of statements like "salam, brother". Nevertheless, I'd like to think I could say hello in any language I want. I don't see WikiProject Japan prohibiting konichiwas for fear it will exclude those who aren't Japanese. I don't see WikiProject Germany outlawing guten tags. And where are the members of WikiProject Judaism banning shaloms? The idea is somewhat reasonable in theory, but completely absurd in practice. joturner 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely, Joturner. - Merzbow 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Were we truly prohibiting said usage, I'd agree. But as a practical matter, we're only advising against it. And yes, I could see how it might be more than a little alienating for a non-Jewish editor to see everyone around him saying "Shalom" to one another (not that I've ever seen this). I've already brought WikiProject Judaism into compliance on a few issues, and the reception with which I was greeted, while hardly warm, leads me to believe that the problems may not be serious enough to warrant such advice. Perhaps we can remove them if and when the atmosphere improves.Timothy Usher 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is what the WikiProject Islam used to look like before Timothy began making changes [2] .--JuanMuslim 1m 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Warning about the Muslim, Sunni, and Shia Guilds
- Editors should consider carefully before joining the above guilds. They encourage the division of Wikipedians by religion, and have a history of involvement in vote-solicitaiton efforts. Rightly or wrongly, a member may be seen as a partisan who is here to advance a sectarian viewpoint, rather than as an objective contributor with a valuable perspective.
Seriously? What is the purpose of this message? This sounds like an unwarranted smear campaign against the projects. joturner 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This language was added as a compromise between removing and retaining the links. I didn't write it, but I certainly endorse it. Perhaps the addition of some diffs might be appropriate?Timothy Usher 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You would rather have them removed entirely because of your exaggerated claims about them. BhaiSaab talk 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think what you might be saying is, it could use some diffs to illustrate why and verify that the language is necessary. Come to think of it, some references for the "do nots" might also be useful. What do you think?Timothy Usher 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- What is "diffs"? BhaiSaab talk 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Diff is short for "difference", i.e., an edit.Timothy Usher 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whether you present diffs or not, I don't think anyone cares to follow the "do nots" as long as they remain within the limits set by Wikipedia policy. You should discuss the changes you want to make to these pages before you make them, as you've been told elsewhere. BhaiSaab talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Diff is short for "difference", i.e., an edit.Timothy Usher 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- What is "diffs"? BhaiSaab talk 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think what you might be saying is, it could use some diffs to illustrate why and verify that the language is necessary. Come to think of it, some references for the "do nots" might also be useful. What do you think?Timothy Usher 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You would rather have them removed entirely because of your exaggerated claims about them. BhaiSaab talk 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Merger with the Muslim Guild?
Discussion about the possible merger of the WikiProject Islam with the Muslim Guild is located here. --JuanMuslim 1m 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong opposeTimothy Usher 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose even to discussing it here. The issue is being discussed elsewhere, and sneaky attempts to force a merger through a back door will not be tolerated. Pecher Talk 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting new category
Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad, not quite sure what to make of it. While it does seem legitimate, I wonder if such a category is in fact needed? Netscott 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Condescending?
The project page is ridiculous. Telling people they should restrict or totally eliminate expressions of religious sentiment on their userpage? Who invented the rule against greeting people with 'salaam'? Who feels such a greeting is 'divisive'? If this kind of request were made to a Jewish individual in regards to 'shalom', charges of anti-semetism would be coming down in hailstorms. The Dos and Do Nots are limited to protecting alleged 'enemies of islam'? What about not singling out editors for being allgedly pro-islamic/islamists? Who wrote these guidelines? I've made some edits to them so they no longer seem to be talking down to just Muslims. Compare the current version to what preceded it, and see if it's an improvement. His Excellency... 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Who wrote these guidelines?" As a new user, you may not yet have noticed that the page's edit history is available by clicking on the "history" tab near the top of the page. Tom Harrison Talk 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Timothy Usher did most, if not all, of that. BhaiSaab talk 23:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Islamic terrorism
There is currently a discussion going on as to whether the Islamic terrorist section I added to Islam here[3] belongs in the article or not, or indeed whether any mention of Islamic terrorism should be made. Your thoughts and input would be appreciated here. Dev920 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies NetScott, I didn't realise the same rule applied here as it does in the muslim guild. Dev920 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there's no hard and fast rule, but when I came to this page looking for this notice I didn't immediately find it and had to actually do a diff... it seemed logical to move it for that reason alone. If you disagree with my move by all means revert back to the position it had. Netscott 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, no, wouldn't dream of it. That why I apologised. I shall avoid the same in future. Thanks. :DDev920 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there's no hard and fast rule, but when I came to this page looking for this notice I didn't immediately find it and had to actually do a diff... it seemed logical to move it for that reason alone. If you disagree with my move by all means revert back to the position it had. Netscott 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies NetScott, I didn't realise the same rule applied here as it does in the muslim guild. Dev920 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is already an Islamic extremist terrorism page. You could add an "Islamic terrorism" link in the 'see also' category. I don't think it's appropriate to put a section on terrorism in the Islam article itself. His Excellency... 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, the idea was that, like WP:SS says, to link the daughter article to the mother article, by giving an overview of the spunoff article. What I added was the lead section of Islamic extremist terrorism, and provided a for more, see main page Islamic extremist terrorism. That I thought was fair. Dev920 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I do think it would be better to not have that section in the "Islam" article. It would be appropriate in the Islamism article though. His Excellency... 19:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can I please ask why? Why should Islamic terrorism not be in an article about Islam? Why? It is bewildering me that people are writing flat out that it is not "suitable" or "does not belong" and they aren't explaining why. Dev920 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Presenting it on the main page of the top-level article skews the presentation, giving terrorism undue weight, and making it look like it's somehow intrinsic to Islam. It also introduces a recentcy bias (if that's a word). With 1500 years of history, we have to be careful not to over-emphasize the last hundred years. Tom Harrison Talk 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Going to have to concur with Tom Harrison's view here. "Recent bias" is a bit like recentism. Netscott 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the word, thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly 'recent' is not a bright line. As for Ghazw and terrorism, "The degree of resemblance between the two phenomena is a contentious issue." I'm not sure it has any more to do with Islam than piracy has to do with Christianity. Tom Harrison Talk 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ghazw, like terrorism, is only a way of waging jihad. Singling out just one form of jihad on the main article on Islam is hardly warranted. Pecher Talk 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is if wrongly interpreted lesser jihad is actually terrorism. (Osama Bin laden claiming his terrorism is jihad, etc.) Dev920 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ghazw, like terrorism, is only a way of waging jihad. Singling out just one form of jihad on the main article on Islam is hardly warranted. Pecher Talk 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Going to have to concur with Tom Harrison's view here. "Recent bias" is a bit like recentism. Netscott 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Presenting it on the main page of the top-level article skews the presentation, giving terrorism undue weight, and making it look like it's somehow intrinsic to Islam. It also introduces a recentcy bias (if that's a word). With 1500 years of history, we have to be careful not to over-emphasize the last hundred years. Tom Harrison Talk 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
User Pages
While there should be (probably is?) a page that suggests how to properly maintain a user page, I don't think the Project Islam page should be such a forum. The purpose of the Wikiproject Islam page is (duh)to improve the quality of Islam-related articles. It was never meant to regulate the behavior of users outside of their direct participation in editing articles.
"...your user page is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life."
On what WP rule or guideline is that based? If it isn't founded in a WP rule at all, do we have a consensus on making that kind of statement here? Given this statement appears in the Wikiproject Islam page, I think it's obvious to which group the statement is aimed at. Have similar statements been addressed categorically to followers of religions other than Islam?
As is, the project page here is coming too close to lecturing how people express themselves on a personal level. It's condescending and offensive. When you consider the "do's" and "don'ts" list as it previously was, the project page was blatantly offensive. I suggest we work on correcting this. His Excellency... 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE The above poster is in fact User:Amibidhrohi
"On what WP rule or guideline is that based?" - WP:USER, as linked.
Amibidhrohi, I fully agree with the notice not to attack Islam, indeed, this was present in my original language. We are here to approach subjects neutrally. If you'd like to add "or attack someone else's" to the userpage guidelines, that'd be great.
As for other WikiProjects, this is getting kind of stale, seeing as I've taken a lot of flak from one of them for making policy changes, and I've not seen you there. You just assume that I'm only concerned about this project without checking, just as Raphael1 above assumed the same problems were present in other projects without bothering to look.Timothy Usher 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- With WP:USER guidelines, I don't really see a need for additional guidelines here on the project page. Netscott 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reminders of policy exist in all kinds of places on Wikipedia (for example user talk space), wherever they're on-topic. All the religion project pages, for example, recap WP:NPOV as it relates to their subjects. We're not duplicated WP:USER in full, only the portion most relevant to this project. There are also links to reliable sources and a few other policies/guidelines.Timothy Usher 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Timothy Usher, I would suggest that you help develop the WP:USER guidelines to be more in accord with your views concerning that subject. Netscott 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It already is, it's just that it's not consistently enforced; nor are we enforcing it here.Timothy Usher 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No one's enforcing guidelines. Seriously despite the fact that you're going to attack my argument as "wikilawyering", guidelines are just that guidelines not policy, as such there's no specific enforcing of them. Netscott 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, people do, just not consistently. I am currently involved in a high-profile dispute where WP:RS is (finally!) being forcibly applied. Do you dispute that the advice is good?Timothy Usher 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose you're aware that almost all policies started out as guidelines. Essentially policies are guidelines that have matured. To better comprehend how to interpret guideline pages please see Wikipedia namespace # Rules, policies,guidelines. Netscott 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, people do, just not consistently. I am currently involved in a high-profile dispute where WP:RS is (finally!) being forcibly applied. Do you dispute that the advice is good?Timothy Usher 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No one's enforcing guidelines. Seriously despite the fact that you're going to attack my argument as "wikilawyering", guidelines are just that guidelines not policy, as such there's no specific enforcing of them. Netscott 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It already is, it's just that it's not consistently enforced; nor are we enforcing it here.Timothy Usher 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Timothy Usher, I would suggest that you help develop the WP:USER guidelines to be more in accord with your views concerning that subject. Netscott 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reminders of policy exist in all kinds of places on Wikipedia (for example user talk space), wherever they're on-topic. All the religion project pages, for example, recap WP:NPOV as it relates to their subjects. We're not duplicated WP:USER in full, only the portion most relevant to this project. There are also links to reliable sources and a few other policies/guidelines.Timothy Usher 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose a compromise: Make mention of user pages and add a link to WP:USER from the project page suggesting that project members are strongly encouraged to abide by that. Netscott 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with rewording - for example, user pages shouldn't be used to besmirch other people's way of life either, as we've recently discusssed, and toning it down a little - but it should still be made clear what we are advising.Timothy Usher 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sectarian language
Amibidhrohi/His excellency, might you be willing to rewrite the "sectarian language" section to be more neutral, rather than just remove it? Maybe there's a better way we can say this.Timothy Usher 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't tell a Jew to stop saying 'shalom'. I won't tell a Muslim to avoid saying salaam. WP:Civil is already there, and I think it expresses all that everyone would need to know on how to address others. Telling Muslims here to leave their Islam at the door might itself be a violation of civility (assuming the word still has meaning outside of how WP defines it). Above, several nonmuslims have made it clear that they take no offense to Muslims greeting each others with Salaam. BTW, Arabic-speaking Christian use salaam too, so it's not necessarily 'sectarian language'. Anyway, given this is a project to which alot of people signed on to, consensus should be met before making any changes. I suggest we keep things as they are now, until consensus says different. It's neutral, it reminds everyone of their responsibility. His Excellency... 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- "BTW, Arabic-speaking Christian use salaam too, so it's not necessarily 'sectarian language'." - good point in theory, but kind of silly considering actual practice on Wikipedia. I've never seen this used in anyway but as a marker of religious solidarity - which, yes, does exclude members of other religions, whether one is conscious of this or not. By suggesting that users refrain from it, we can raise consciousness about this point. I fail to understand why you think the promotion of division - deliberate or not - is desirable here.Timothy Usher 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- You need to consider the fact that the 'salaam' greeting is a fundemental obligation for Muslims, as it is for Jews to say "shalom". It's based on the Hadiths, probably the Qur'an too. Telling a Muslim he shouldn't use the greeting is offensive to him/her, and discriminatory. You're essentially saying "leave your Islam at the door".Walk up to a Jew and tell him to stop saying 'Shalom' to fellow Jews, and see what response you get. What's seen as incivility in the real world is incivility here as well. Until there's a WP:Pretend You're an Athiest, there's no justification for such a request here. His Excellency... 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's silly, Amibidhrohi/His excellency. I know many Muslims and Jews who are perfectly fine with "hello"; this does not constitue apostasy. While no one's asking that we pretend not to have a religion - I have one, too - Wikipedia is not the right forum for its practice.Timothy Usher 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- If they're fine with 'hello', let them say hello. We don't need to walk up to them and suggest we have the right to regulate their personal greetings. You can put this up for RFC if you want. His Excellency... 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like His Excellency's version a lot better. BhaiSaab talk 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- We're not, or shouldn't be, suggesting that we have that right. We should be giving people tips about how to create an environment where members of all faiths feel welcome, not just one. Frankly, it's starting to seem that this is precisely what some wish to avoid. I scarcely need to remind the both of you that there already exists such an environment for those who prefer it, over at the Muslim Guild.Timothy Usher 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Everyone is welcome at the Muslim Guild. BhaiSaab talk 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That is, as a matter of historical fact, simply untrue.Timothy Usher 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Who have we excluded? You said in your edit summary "stop trying to funnel users to the Muslim Guild." I'm not trying to funnel anyone - you're trying to keep them away. Let people make their own decision. BhaiSaab talk 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the point BhaiSaab raises is the elephant in the room. To my knowlege, nothing that's been either explicitly said or implied has ever been posted here to suggest non-Muslims are unwelcome. In fact, those people who do seem to be Muslim here have been bending over backward to not state what's seemingly obvious. You've used your lawyering to attack Faisal's user page. You've gone to admins to have BhaiSaab blocked.You had me blocked, and then pleaded to at least two admins to have my block extended. You've told Muslims to stop saying "salaam". You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here. I'll pretend to assume good faith to the extent of being an idiot, and assume for the sake of arguement that all of that was because you believe in strong enforcement of WP rules. Then "FairAndBalanced" posts a picture on his user page, of a pig with "Allah" photoshopped onto it, in violation of several WP rules, and what do you do? You protest his block. You defend him. What's true for your treatment of people, more importantly, is true in your approach towards articles. WP:RS means alot when content speaks positively of Islam or anything related, but the standards don't seem too important when the content sounds like an indictment. Why the inconsistency? The elephant in the room is not that Muslims have made non-muslims uncomfortable being part of this project, it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period.His Excellency... 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Who have we excluded? You said in your edit summary "stop trying to funnel users to the Muslim Guild." I'm not trying to funnel anyone - you're trying to keep them away. Let people make their own decision. BhaiSaab talk 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That is, as a matter of historical fact, simply untrue.Timothy Usher 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Everyone is welcome at the Muslim Guild. BhaiSaab talk 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- If they're fine with 'hello', let them say hello. We don't need to walk up to them and suggest we have the right to regulate their personal greetings. You can put this up for RFC if you want. His Excellency... 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's silly, Amibidhrohi/His excellency. I know many Muslims and Jews who are perfectly fine with "hello"; this does not constitue apostasy. While no one's asking that we pretend not to have a religion - I have one, too - Wikipedia is not the right forum for its practice.Timothy Usher 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- You need to consider the fact that the 'salaam' greeting is a fundemental obligation for Muslims, as it is for Jews to say "shalom". It's based on the Hadiths, probably the Qur'an too. Telling a Muslim he shouldn't use the greeting is offensive to him/her, and discriminatory. You're essentially saying "leave your Islam at the door".Walk up to a Jew and tell him to stop saying 'Shalom' to fellow Jews, and see what response you get. What's seen as incivility in the real world is incivility here as well. Until there's a WP:Pretend You're an Athiest, there's no justification for such a request here. His Excellency... 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- "BTW, Arabic-speaking Christian use salaam too, so it's not necessarily 'sectarian language'." - good point in theory, but kind of silly considering actual practice on Wikipedia. I've never seen this used in anyway but as a marker of religious solidarity - which, yes, does exclude members of other religions, whether one is conscious of this or not. By suggesting that users refrain from it, we can raise consciousness about this point. I fail to understand why you think the promotion of division - deliberate or not - is desirable here.Timothy Usher 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Amibidhrohi/His excellency, you've raised a number of points in your post. Allow me, for now, to respond to just a few.
"...it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period."
Your statement assumes that Muslims cannot be comfortable on Wikipedia unless they are allowed to be openly religious at every turn. Indeed, your post assumes that non-secularity is an inherent component of Islam.
This debate was also seen on Islamism, where several editors were saying the article was not neutral, not because it made Islam look bad, but because it suggested that Islam might rightly allow a secular sphere. Their position was that Islam was a way of life which must encompass all aspects of society, including political organization, and presumably Wikipedia. Islamists were the only “true Muslims”, whereas to advocate a seperation between religion and state was apostasy.
“You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here.”
Indeed I have, and would say the same for any religion. Practice of religion is fine. But not in the halls of academia, and not on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about self-expression. It is about building a respectable scholarly encyclopedia.
In the west, we have a secular sphere. It took centuries to establish this, and to establish the fundamental secularity of scholarship. Most Christians, and an overwhelming number of Jews, accept this as the natural state of affairs. Among Muslims, it is still very much a debate.
The most widely misinterpreted policy is WP:NPOV. This does not mean finding a middle ground between the opinions of editors to the talk page, which would constitute original research, but in fair presentation of the opinions of reliable sources. Reliable sources are overwhelmingly secular. For the purposes of this discussion, we can call this the western secular point of view.
Many Muslim editors, as per the mission statement of the Guild, earnestly believe that this itself inherently discriminates against Muslim points of view. I concur that it does.
I quote from the Muslim Guild mission statement: “We seek to encourage a totally unbiased view about Islam, neither secular nor nonsecular”, “To ensure that Islam-related articles offer a neutral, unbiased point of view free from all POV whether secular or nonsecular.”
The most natural reading of these statements is that we aim to find a middle ground between the western secular point of view and Islamic points of view.
What you’ve failed to appreciate is that this equally discriminates against Christian points of view, or any religious point of view. The only reason it’s being perceived as anti-Muslim is because it is mainly (though not exclusively) editors who openly identify as Muslims who are challenging the traditional modes of Western scholarship.
The Muhammad “founder debate” is especially illustrative in this regard. Editors asked that we compromise between a realistic analysis and one which presumes the truth of Islam. From a secular perspective - more to the point, from the perspective of reliable sources - the notion that Muhammad did not found Islam, as the term is used in English, rests upon pure fantasy. It is neither required nor desirable to compromise between reality and fantasy, indeed WP policy prohibits it.
Consider the very first words of Jesus . “Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE — 29-36 AD/CE)” from the most typical Christian point of view, this is inaccurate on several counts. First, the traditional dates are 1BC-33AD. But putting that aside, there is a deeper problem: most Christians believe that three days after his death, he was literally resurrected, walked out of his tomb, and appered to his followers in the flesh, wounds and all. By this logic, the dates should read, “Jesus (1BC-33AD, 33AD-present)...” Of course, we’d then offer a compromise whereby both views are presented equally; what torturous mess would result from this, we can only speculate.
Trouble is that, as with Islam predating Muhammad, there is no reliable source which attests to Jesus’ resurection. There are of course reliable sources which document that Christians believe it so, but that’s it. Thus the secular view wins (although there is a range given here, as the cited reliable sources disagree), while the Christian view is demoted. I cannot recall any Christian taking issue with this, and I’d be very surprised to see it seriously advocated. It is generally accepted that scholars say what they say, and, where we disagree on religious grounds, we are free to ignore them (“Inteliigent design” is a notable exception, and it’s not fared well in the court of public opinion.)
What I have been advocating, then, is not intended as an attack on Islam per se, much less as an attack on Muslim editors, though I appreciate and have spoken to why you might interpret it as such. It is rather the defense of the premises and outlook of Western scholarship, without which Wikipedia would never have been created. It is the defense of modernity and of reason, without which Wikipedia would be inconceivable.
I hope that clears things up a little.Timothy Usher 09:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal Attack ??
I never able to specify the names of people I feel pushing propoganda in wikipedia . How can someone else do that? Rules are same for all of us or at least should be same for all of us. Why it not a personal attack (without quoting any evidence) against many people.
- Does Faisal attempt a neutral point of view? Does BhaiSaab? Does Amibidhrohi? Does JuanMuslim (username, hello?) Does Striver? Does Raphael1? Does Farhansher? Does Autoshade? Does Mystic? These are just a few of the editors we see around these articles who don't bother with the faintest pretense of neutrality, and my understanding has been that we're required to accept it as an alternative point of view. It's pretty silly to make allowances for Middle Eastern religious fanaticism while not tolerating the juvenalia of western right-wing discourse. Were there a policy that editors had to be reasonable, or be hauled before ANI, someone should have let me know, as it'd have saved me and several more scholarly editors than myself (most notably Pecher, the single most valuable contributor to this space by a longshot) a whole lot of trouble.Timothy Usher 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) [4]
- Even if it is a personal attack, I will not like to report Timothy right now (unlike he did with me). However, if he continue doing so then we will report him. --- Faisal 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a post a response to that comment. [5] BhaiSaab talk 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reason I wanted to past Timothy allegations here is that most of the other users (whose names are mentioned above) could be aware of this post. --- Faisal 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)