This is an archive of past discussions with User:Iskandar323. 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.
Please do not mass delete links to “History of ancient Israel and Judah”. It seems multiple methods and justifications are given, from “copy editing”, to deleting whole paragraphs that link to the article. Drsmoo (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Drsmoo: Please don't cast aspersions. Redirecting and specifying incorrect, badly piped and in some cases potentially Easter egg links is simply good practice per WP:PIPE. Redirect pages are never an ideal target for a page interlink. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh please, it is not acceptable to mass remove links to a page. In some cases deleting whole paragraphs, in others claiming you’re simply moving material and then stealthily deleting the links. Drsmoo (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Mass removing links to the History of Ancient Israel article, especially given the sensitivity of the subject is not acceptable Drsmoo (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Drsmoo: Specifying links to a better page that either a disambiguation page or a redirect is perfectly acceptable. I seriously wonder if you have even been reading my edits, or if you are just undoing them out of hand on impulse. I can't see any normal edits or partial reverts among your edits, just mass reverts, which suggests that you are entirely violating the spirit of reversion and treating my edits like vandalism, That would be an extremely problematic behavioural issue, and highly indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed one of these edits on my watchlist. Drsmoo, I can't see how the link at Rape was an improvement, and you did not provide an edit summary. Per H:ES, it's especially important to provide an edit summary when reverting. The cited source is talking about the Israelites of the Tanakh, with over half of its citations being to biblical books. A link to Iraelites might be better. We could discuss more at the talk page, but I share at least a small part of Iskandar323's concerns about your conduct here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Oh I see. Well I was actually in the process of beginning to try to prep the existing article for GA status. The way I see it, there is more than enough sourcing and child article content to rewrite it where it stands. I had a little heart attack when you said you were writing a whole FA article elsewhere, but I see you've only really made a start. Why not come back and edit the main article? Though incidentally, that sourcing section on your draft space piece has all the makings of its own useful side article on the availability and quality of sourcing on the Mongol period and the reliability of different Mongol histories/contemporary chronicles. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's little more than a stub at the moment—that's why I didn't want to change the main article, because I knew the process would be slow. That, and I fundamentally disagree with the organisation of the current page: the reception section, the cultural depictions section, quite a lot of the military sections, and to pivot away from weaker sources to more academic ones. Let's see how it goes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I am happy and eager to discuss any suggestions for reorganization. For now I'm largely just working with what's there, but actually, some actual discussion would help legitimize the course of travel and make me feel less like a rogue wikicowboy who is about to get their freewheeling ass shut down at any moment. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm just stopping by to inform you about an RSN discussion I recently opened concerning the recent dispute at Genetic studies on Jews. I believe you suggested it, which I think is great idea. Best to seek outside opinions, as the talk page discussion shows some telltale signs of becoming unproductive on its current course.
@Selfstudier: Though I do still find it strange that Nakba is such a subordinate term here on Wikipedia. I was also vaguely mulling starting a broader discussion with you on the whole 1948 expulsion/Nakba divide. For me, Nakba is both the expulsion and the expulsion et al., both a part and the whole - but that is something that should be being explained on a single article, not split into a woesome exodus piece as separate from a diminutive Nakba piece. So many sources treat them synonymously. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Could start an article with this as main source, it's mainly about the rioting and the earlier shooting is just mentioned, the word revenge does not appear. Do you want to? Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps. On the note of the connections, I think "shooting in Hawara" + "riot in Hawara" later the same day is not really a leap here, not least in the way in which AP lays it out: "Sunday’s events kicked off when a Palestinian gunman shot and killed brothers Hillel and Yagel Yaniv, ages 21 and 19, from the Jewish settlement of Har Bracha, in a shooting ambush in the Palestinian town of Hawara in the northern West Bank. The gunman fled. Following the shooting, groups of settlers rampaged along the main thoroughfare in Hawara..."Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I get that it is an endless circle, but here, in this instance, when the question is 'why Hawara?' the answer is already there is the linked coverage. But yeah, totally agree that IDF inactivity, as a general rule, is the real story here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"The village of Huwara, on the outskirts of Nablus, has seen the worst of it. In the first week of October (!!), settlers gathered at and blocked entrances to the city of Nablus, including in Huwara. Israeli soldiers then arrived and effectively enforced the blockade of Nablus—ostensibly to target a new Palestinian militant group, known as the Lion's Den." Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this article! I encourage you to create more articles! Have a good day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You have recently been editing COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
If you're going to remove my comment then surely you should remove the other one too? Since it was added after the discussion was purported to be closed. Not logged in 2 (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
On 19 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 Huwara rampage, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2023 Huwara rampage, a late-night spree of arson and vandalism by hundreds of Israeli settlers, was the worst flare-up of Israeli settler violence in the northern West Bank in decades? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Huwara rampage. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2023 Huwara rampage), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there us an odd word in this sentence: “The local DIG chairman Hermann Kuhn told the taz about the exhibition in Bremen…” . What is “the taz”? Mccapra (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
On 24 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Team Jorge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the investigation of Team Jorge, an Israeli disinformation outfit, led to the suspension of a prominent French news anchor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Team Jorge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Team Jorge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
To be frank, I'm finding your editing pattern bordering on disruptive. Why did you open new related RMs without waiting for the one on Spain (or any of them) to conclude? Why didn't you post notifications of related RMs in related pages? And why do you insist on replying to everybody's post in all of these RM? If you have a problem with the term "Muslim conquests", then open an RfC, or open the related RMs collectively as a unit, so that discussion can be concentrated in one place, rather than scattered across different pages, forcing editors to reproduce their remarks. The way you are undertaking this seems like a campaign, that you are not interested in discovering consensus, but just imposing your point of view. Walrasiad (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I have opened a series of requested moves based purely on WP:COMMONNAME. I am not particularly interested in how the articles relate to one another, as most are in a poor state. I am also not obliged to cross-post; on the contrary, cross-posting can quite often be construed as a form of WP:CANVASSING depending on circumstances. In any case, I am also not particularly interested in having the same set of respondents in each discussion. The more fresh eyes from different WikiProjects and groups of editors the better. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
You opened two RMs on these articles when they were brought up to illustrated the point of consistency in the Spain discussion. And after alerting you that it was bad form not to notify related ongoing discussions, you went ahead and opened two more again without notifying.
The titles are not independent, but they are related to each other. They all refer to the activities of the same state in the same period. These are all child articles of a parent article, so the title for one has implications for the other. A degree of consistency is desirable (or certainly you can imagine that editors might find it desirable - since that is the context where it was first brought up). This is not a question of what you are interested in, but on what the community is interested in. If you were acting conscientiously, if you were actually looking for consensus, you wouldn't have undertaken to operate as you have operated. Walrasiad (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It can. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. These should have been a multi-move. I prefer to use "Arab", but consistent use of "Muslim" is preferable to meaningless variation. Srnec (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
TBH, I didn't expect to find so many of the pages in the series to be so clearly going against a neutral weighing of the sources; I didn't plan to launch multiple RMs ... I'm also not very familiar with multi-moves. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
You got it the other way around. Early Muslim conquests is part of the Arab-Byzantine Wars series. The Arab-Byzantine wars covers four centuries, down to 1050s, and involves DOZENS of different Muslim Arab states - the early Muslims of Medina, the Ummayads of Damascus, the Abbasids of Baghdad, the Fihrids of Ifriqiya, the Umayyads of Spain, the Aghlabids of Ifriqiya, the Tulunids of Egypt, the Fatimids of Egypt, the Emirate of Bari, the Emirate of Crete, etc., etc. The "Early Muslim conquest" series involves ONE state in a narrow period (600s). It is a vast distinction. That is the state is "the Muslims" refers to in these article titles - the one and only Muslim state of Medina. There is no other Muslim state during this time period (although there are other non-Muslim "Arab" states).
[Moreover, the term "Arab-Byzantine wars" has a functional purpose - it is a convenient way to separate two major periods of Byzantine wars in the Middle East - "against Arabs" (to 1050s), and "against Turks" (from 1050s). This may work well enough when we're writing history from the Byzantine perspective, but there is no rule that therefore all Wikipedia articles have to adopt the Byzantine perspective of history.] Walrasiad (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Potato-potāto. Ok, they are overlapping frameworks, but the real meat of the Arab-Byzantine Wars (what I'm talking about) is identical to the 'Arab conquests'. Regardless of which framework you wish to subordinate beneath the other, you end up with inconsistencies that beg: why Muslim for some, Arab for others? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Historically, while the Iranians called the Arabs the Arabs, the Byzantines called them the Saracens, so I wouldn't call the terminology of "Arabs" a Byzantine one, but a modern historian one. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of Jewish states and dynasties seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I think that your edits tried to correct some bias in the article, but you went way too far & introduced more bias than you removed. Please discuss on the talk page & get consensus before attempting such changes again.Peaceray (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Peaceray first off, WP:DTTR, second off, that was a nonsense revert by you. You did not begin to address the topic. You should be more careful in a. your reverting, and b. your warning, as it was your edit that should be reverted. nableezy - 14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Please discuss on the talk page. I do not believe that my revert was unwarranted. I think the changes were most certainly done from a point of view. As I mentioned consensus should be involved with such edits, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies here. If you check my edit history, you will find I rarely template the regulars, but I thought that these edits were so untoward & against edit consensus that this required an exception. Peaceray (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Then you can raise that on the talk page. Your feeling is no more valid than any other feeling, if you felt like it was worth reverting than it was incumbent on you to raise the issue on the talk page. The idea that something that was never discussed is against consensus is asinine. nableezy - 14:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The Qods News Agency source Ghassan Kanafani page
Hey Iskandar, I have an idea for that Quds source in the Ghassan Kanafani article where besides the source in the text we could place a [better source needed]. Like this : Ghassan Fayiz Kanafani was born in 1936 into a middle-class Palestinian Sunni family with a Kurdish background. (the External Link citation). [better source needed]
Although you did this unilaterally before waiting for consensus, I must confess like it. I don't think any reasonable editor would object. Do you have an idea how can we decrease this big section in order to reduce that entire article from 140kb to less than 100, while leaving the post-1948 details for the new one? That would solve the size problem once and for all. The issue is figuring out what to leave out. The wars and main political developments and treaties must be left alone, but we can remove the details and specific elections. I can try to do it myself, but I'm not sure. Dovidroth (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dovidroth: Well, there are plenty of wholly unsourced paragraphs that beg for scrutiny - and though many contain fairly vital facts, just as many contain more editorialized elements as well. But yes, it's mainly an exercise in trimming detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dovidroth: Thanks for this - that was accidentally sloppy - I meant to clean up the headers and links, but briefly paused to think about where the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem link should end up and obviously got distracted off-task. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Your recent work
@Iskandar323 Thanks for your work on the history of Israel, which is a very difficult and important topic. If you're ever looking for a helping hand, please do feel free to reach out. I don't specialize in the Middle East, but have sufficient (basic) knowledge of the topic to assist with sourcing, additional literature research. As for History of Israel (1948--present) I think that the page could really benefit from lead expansion to include more information about the country itself beyond the ongoing conflict, and that's also something I'd be happy to help with. Ppt91talk16:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ppt91: Hi, yep, the lead is currently something of stub that is only marginally expanded from the relevant chronological section of the lead in the parent article with a few additional details. It probably needs at least a sentence per (sub-)section. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring in Banu Nadir
A user has been removing source information and has refused to give a decent reason why
@User:Iskandar323 Hi. I've noticed you've done work on the Ongoing Nakba and other Palestinian topics. I started the article on anti-Palestinianism. I've been thinking about the phenomenon of what I guess could be called Nakba denial or Nakba minimization, some of which has been official Israeli government policy. Wondering if you had an opinion on whether there would be enough sources on the subject and what a proper name might be. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, I would appreciate your assistance in finding an alternate singular reference for the name "Awwad Sa'ud al-'Awwad," as my search efforts have been unsuccessful thus far. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I searched for sources and individuals who could support his claims, but was unable to find any. However, I managed to include the claims in the article. Thank you for your excellent collaboration. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring regarding the Inclusion of an Image
Hello sir. There is edit war going on in "Women in Islam" with me and another user, on the matter of including image of Taliban beating up women. I have found that this image grossly violates the fundamental principles outlined in Wikipedia's policies on WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Relevance. This image is already included on multiple other pages and articles dedicated to covering the brutalities of the Taliban and as it should be. If you are reading general article about Women in Islam and right ahead you present a picture of Taliban beating up a woman, it seems unencyclopedic and looks more like its put there by a troll. Taliban practices are considered fringy and extreme by muslims worldwide. StarkReport (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
See this coming from a place of lack of understanding. Is it appropriate to "credit" Maharaja of India here? He was blocked for sockpuppetry. >>> Extorc.talk13:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ll offer another compromise, how about we also include the term Land of Israel as well if we are to include Palestinian in referring to the land, which will clear up any issues about the context the source was issued in. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I have issued a complaint against you since I feel that you have harassed me as you are discrediting my sources on no reasonable ground. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Salandarianflag (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It was never an author-specific quote. for some reason you chose to replace the term "Ancient Israel", that the author himself uses, with "Ancient Israelites". Why? Tombah (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I would like help with atlas. what does the writing inside the red bar mean? if I can see settlements well I can also see a route. the sanjak of Arad/Gyula was here. can the circles mark some Turkish palanquin castles?
Hi Iskandar323, since there are quite a few stuck discussions, it seems a few RFCs will be required. I plan to create one to remove the "main opposition group" claim, and I'm up for collaboration if you're willing to draft and propose them together. What do you think? What are the top priority topics for RFCs? Best, MarioGom (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Yes, the erroneous and misleading claim in the first paragraph is a large outstanding NPOV issue, and yes, the only way to resolve that is likely going to be through a renewed RFC on the matter. And you've already compiled sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: I personally love that, whatever the context in which Salaman is mentioned, the first thing that it is done is a name drop of his book on potatoes. My how that potato book has flown! Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
One of the problems in this area is that people tend to drift to the sexy stuff, political conflicts, to the detrimkent of coverage of bios of historical actors not deemed of the first rank or water. Working them up is relaxing, a relief from conflict, and, more importantly, indirectly illuminates readers' general knowledge of the vastly more intricate background, with all of its complexities, which we only graze past in the 'big' 'political' articles. We should remind ourselves more often of this, and look around to see if a few hours work can restore the honour to, do justice to, important lives descanted from the major narratives.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Jaffa cakes
Hey I only ended up at the article because I couldn't remember if it was a biscuit or a cake. However, I hope you're content to keep some reference to the machine vision bit - the detail really isn't adding anything to the jaffa cake article. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
please join us at the RfC talk of RfC about arabs being ethnolinguistic group to help build a better objective talk. Both users M.Bitton and Skitash for some reason personalized the talk, this personalization predates this rfc. I don’t want to assume a bad faith in them but their edit history seems to promote a berberist direction. They even removed significant amount of sourced contents from the article unrelated to the topic we are discussing (e.g filling the blank genetics section in summarative way) even after it was WP:EDITCONSENSUS (check diffs [1] and [2]). Your objective judgement as a third party really matters. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to rewrite the passage you removed
Hi, you removed a passage from the article Musaylima.
The paragraph doesn't claim to represent the historical Musaylima. It starts by pointing out the source and specifying its 17th c. composition. I can somewhat understand why you removed it. I would like to clarify that the paragraph is what a sect that followed Musaylima believed and restore it. IMHO with these changes it deserves a place, not because it tells us about the historical Musaylima but because its about what later followers thought of him.
I don't agree on some of the reasons you gave for removing it. Other parts of the article use a sira book by Ibn Kathir. It is a late source, chronicling events a few centuries before it was written. It contains miracle events and is clearly religious. But it's used. SevenTriangles (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@SevenTriangles: It's not clearly what anybody thought. It's from a random work from Mughal India that no one knows almost anything about. Not even the author is known. This is primary material, not a work that examines the primary material for historical value. As a standalone resource, it has no real WP:WEIGHT; we need WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I've replaced the preceding paragraph with something I think is carefully worded and useful.
The Encyclopedia Iranica article on the book claims there is an agreed-on author and points out it's useful in describing the beliefs that existed in India despite everything it gets wrong. I won't pursue this any further but can you comment on this?
@SevenTriangles: Your subsequent reworking of the material is much more encyclopedic. Thanks for your efforts. The Ibn Kathir source also appears to be just translation, so yes, a similar approach should be taken with it. At the moment the first statement appears to be relatively well couched, with alleged ... by Muslim historians. The reference leaves a lot to be desired. The volume of the work in question by Ibn Kathir appears to be no. 4. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
May need you help in article Muharram
Hello Iskandar. I was hoping that if you have interest and understanding in the events related to Ashura and Karbala, you can help me and another user with whom I'am in an edit war. I just want to present condensed key points that occurred during that month to give readers a brief overview of that battle to clarify for the readers that why this month is held with such solemnity. His argument is that it seems NPOV to him. Maybe you can check it if its okay. StarkReport (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@JPxG: Yes, I sort of got that. I'm also not sure where this takes us. I've begun to realize that there is an entire academic debate underway, or one could say even an entire philosophical discipline in a state of emergence, in relation to the theory of conspiracy theories. See The Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your further source-hunting and balanced approach at the deletion discussion for Maghāriya. Yes, I also got bogged down in the quantity of variant names, and trying to work out which were synth-by-a-proper-historian, and which were just illegitimate synth by various interested bloggers. Yes, the first blog I found did start by quoting the same source, but it had a few other snippets in there too - you are quite right in your assessment of there being a lot of little snippets scattered around but not really pulled together, which does make it hard for article creation. It also didn't help, in the naming, that the German name for these people translates simply as "cave dweller" which is too ambiguous. I'm glad you found the encyclopaedia ref that will hold it all together for the moment. Thank you again for your decency in dealing with this. Elemimele (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@Elemimele: Yes, the material is very piecemeal, and on first inspection the sourcing really didn't look good enough, but the blog you provided, while not a reliable source itself, did point to a more reliable trail of breadcrumbs being out there, so thanks for that. I really searched the JE only as an afterthought, as it had not been thrown up by any searches. Now it appears that it simply evades googling, so that's something to check first in future. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323
As such I respect you for being fairly geek in lot many WP policies and your valuable contributions. This is not to say you have broken any guidelines relating WP:CTOP in WP:CT/GG and WP:ARBIP, but remaining alerted may help to avoid haste in deletions in heat of moment editing situations.
Though generally onus / burden to support content with RS and policy argument lies with who supports content. As a fellow Wikipedian I would like to encourage you to provide a little more detailed analysis on article talk pages before deletions for any content having or likely having support of reliable sources and not to rely just on generic statements. Wish you happy editing and cheers. Bookku (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bookku: Where sourcing is poor and notability evidently dubious, little explanation is needed for an AfD, since the sourcing (or lack therein) speaks for itself. It's not much more complicated than that. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean by general statements here. Source quality is the bottom line of all Wikipedia policy. If the source quality is not there, you don't need more nuanced discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I am all the way talking about what is backed by WP:RS. One is expected to ready for nuanced discussion whether it is in support or against when other side expects. Which one stands is for WP:DR consensus process as per WP policies helped by WP community. That is my view. Thanks for frank sharing of views. Happy editing Bookku (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
What was your reason for citing Yaqeen as unreliable?
I was about to reinstate the source in order to correct the current statement on the article: Any action that would take away the soul of the fetus is forbidden, because this does not account for circumstances in which fiqhi scholars have deemed abortion permissible, but I thought I better check with you first about the reason for removing the source in case there was good reason.
2. Given it's a research institute, regarded as reliable by a substantial number of Muslims, I fail to see how a charity status makes it unreliable? Yr Enw (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
It was more the part about it being a blog. This information was from an infographic, not from a report published by the institute in its professed research capacity as a think tank. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol invitation
Hello, Iskandar323.
The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
I kindly request you to remove this misleading statement. There is no accepted historical evidence or consensus suggesting that the Twelver Shia imams were born to concubines. It's important to verify such specific claims and statements with reliable sources to ensure accurate information.
Twelver Shia Islam, one of the major branches of Shia Islam, holds that the imams were born to their fathers' legitimate wives, as per the commonly accepted historical narrative. By perpetuating such an unsubstantiated claim, the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source is compromised. 39.41.223.69 (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
There's a reliable source establishing it; that's all Wikipedia needs. Also children born of concubines were not illegitimate under Islam in the Middle Ages: it was totally legitimate; hence why so many Abbasid caliphs were the sons of concubines. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether children of concubines were considered legitimate or not and whether Abbasid caliphs were the sons of concubines or not, the particular claim you are putting forth is unfounded.
Given the significance of the claim that Twelver Shia imams were born to concubines, it is crucial to substantiate this assertion with substantial evidence from multiple reliable sources. The birth of influential religious figures carries historical and theological importance, requiring meticulous investigation and scholarly consensus. By relying on a single shaky source, we are perpetuating a biased and distorted view of history. This invokes WP:ONESOURCE.
The source is an academic work specific to the subject, written by a professor of Islamic history, so unless you have a source of equal standing that contests this information, then there is no scholarly debate and nothing to discuss. Middle Eastern genealogical histories tend to fixate on patriarchal descent, so I actually fail to see the importance one way or the other. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Islam GA review
Hello! I hope all is well. A reviewer has taken up the Islam GA review. If you have a second, would you mind editing the article, however little, per their recommendations? It would go a long way and be much appreciated. Sodicadl (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
You just reversed an edit I added to emphasize the role the National Endowment for Democracy plays in furthering right wing CIA activities around the world. The founder of the NED Allen Weinstein made this comment your bot removed to the Washington Post in 1991, that the NED does overtly what the CIA did covertly "25 years ago". Why is that not important to the topic of understanding what the NED is really about? The entire entry on the NED seems to be a promotional piece of propaganda. 2600:8801:BE28:A800:9D9A:F723:D6B3:D44A (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
hi there, I hope all is well. there is a discussion to rename arbaeen on their take page which might be off interest. your input would be much appreciated. sorry for the poorly composed message on my cellphone. thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a pattern of nationalist edits directed to undermine Wikipedia's sharing of information regarding the dominant understanding of Jewish peoplehood and origin in Israel (Palestine).
If there was a Darwin Award for the end of Wikipedia editing careers, this AE filing would win easily. I do feel genuinely sad for the outcome though – Tombah started off open-minded but changed a lot during the last year. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page.
Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself!
June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here.
July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here.
August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.
September Drive:Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of targeted killings by Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Heya, you've removed multiple messages claiming they are "automatic", all about dispute resolutions.
You seem to be involved in a rather large amount of disputes, all manually started by multiple contributors/editors, don't you think it is relevant and shouldn't be removed? I know my message wasn't automatic. Bar Harel (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Bharel: Sorry, have me met? I don't what discussions you are talking about, but I assume you are talking about various content dispute messages from DRN. I thought these were automatic, but maybe they aren't. But no, they're not relevant, since I've never been in a DRN discussion that went anywhere. In any case, editors can clean or even blank they user pages in any way they want, and it's not a big deal, so ... what gives? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Suicide Bombings -> Bombings
Hello. Regarding your rapid fire mass edits of the following pages (listed below), on what criteria or critical grounds are you justifying your changing of these event descriptions from “suicide bombings” to “bombings”?
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as in general conflict studies), standard bombings and suicide bombings are profoundly different categories of conflict acts, and I’m really stretching to understand why you are running through articles and renaming then without initiating any form of discussion.
Just cleaning up some archival material with overly lengthy titles, in line with both WP: CONCISE and WP:NCE, as I believe my edit summaries explained. The details of events are something for body of an article, but adding 'suicide' before bombing for every suicide bombing is just title bloat and leads to first sentences that go "X suicide bombing was a suicide bombing". The tightest WP:NCE titles often have just date, one place name and a single word for the event; titles that elaborate well beyond are not helping events to be identified, they are simply overspecifying things in the title. Sources likewise only add 'suicide' intermittently, so whatever convention you imagine, it is not abided by in the sources. Speaking of which, the sourcing on some of these pages is truly bad (one has no references), so if you truly want to improve these pages, take a look at that. Otherwise, simple deletion may be in their future. A gentle reminder too that following editors around based on their contributions on pages that you haven't edited or ever discussed on their talk pages, isn't particularly polite. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Page moves
Given that you have previously had a block for breaching an Arab-Israeli content ban (which obviously no longer applies), you cannot possibly believe that making controversial and undiscussed page moves in that topic area is a good idea. Just don't go there. You'll be in jail again in no time if you carry on like that. Schwede6606:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I have not fundamentally changed any of the titles, merely trimmed their existing WP:NCE descriptions, which are by their nature editorial creations. Most of these pages have been badly neglected - several have zero references; others have very few ... so the precise wording of these titles is often not particularly affirmed or denied by the sourcing. You moved the Karkur page back, but did you look at the sources? Of the extant references, two have titles mention 'bus', one 'suicide' (the latter a permanent dead link). In the external links three mention 'bus', two 'suicide'; yet one source mentioning both is government and lacks independence, so that's probably 2:1 again. The question I suppose I have is: what do you think is controversial about bringing a historically undiscussed descriptive title better in line with the sources it actually references, per WP:NPOV, to the extent that boldly trimming the page title is not appropriate? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Stay away from this topic area. And if you can’t, then start a discussion before you move pages. Quite simple, really. Schwede6608:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: As you note, I am no longer banned. I was banned two years ago for a WP:1RR error. My ban was commuted for good behaviour after six months. That was probably after I had made less than a thousand edits and was essentially still a novice. I have made tens of thousands of edits since and am hardly the same editor today, so I struggle to understand your emphasis on this point. What do you mean by stay away from this topic area? But ok, I guess I'll discuss even uncontroversial moves if that somehow improves things. The general impetus for making bold moves instead of using RMs is that it avoids a lot of expenditure of community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, why don't I watchlist your talk page (no further pings needed) and if I get the impression that it's time for an ANI discussion regarding another topic ban, we'll continue that discussion there? You give me the strong impression that's where this is headed. Schwede6608:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
It looks like that editor has turned your move into a dab page. It seems there were two events of the same nature at the same place in the same year. That seems a good reason to disambiguate. If the resulting or chosen title isn't perfect, I encourage you to start a discussion on that article's talk page. Please let me know if there are issues coming out of that discussion that you can't resolve yourselves; I'd be happy to weigh in. Schwede6609:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael bombing
On 15 September, you moved "Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre" to "Yeshivat Beit Yisrael bombing" with the justification: "Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE)". Changing "massacre" to "bombing" is not making the title more concise. Instead, it could be construed as a POV move or false edit summary, especially given that it was WP:RMUM. I'm not accusing you of any nefarious intentions, but suggest reverting in this case and/or starting discussions for these perhaps controversial and not technical moves to avoid any undue appearance. Thanks. Longhornsg (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
