User talk:Zora/2006archive4


Again

Unfortunately the issue here won't seem to go away. Can you log into meta and add your comments here to help lock down the issue with the least additional wasted time? Thanks. - Taxman Talk 14:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to note that on the talk page on meta though. That's the only way to end the issue quickly it seems. - Taxman Talk 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Alone talk page separated from article

Talk:Quran Alone got parted from Qur'an Alone, is there any way to rejoin them? Schizombie 06:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you fixed it! Schizombie 06:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!

Thanks Zora, it was a great gesture from your side, especially me being made the first recipient. In fact, I was thinking along the lines of getting one made, either by Ganeshk or Miljoshi, but you beat me to it and how!! Thanks again, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, you may want to archive your talk. btw, you may be interested in having a look at this and this - all the more the reason you should be archiving your talk. --Gurubrahma 11:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is perfectly fine, I love it and I want it to be reatined that way - reminds me of all the colours of action, sentiment and romance in Bollywood - simple but great idea, aided by brilliant execution. btw, I have added it in the topic-specific awards to WP:PUA - you may want to check it out. --Gurubrahma 11:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspamming?

Sorry, but what are You talking about? I do not sell anything - so what is commercial on this site www.shahrukh-khan-world.com? Please explain.

Wikipedia is for all and everybody has the right to contribute to this encyclopedia not just for You personally, I guess.

So please be fair and show me what on that site is commercial.

Thanks

If I want traffic to that site, I list it on search engines. Howewer, You can remove all my contributions and delete the account. It makes no fun to be a member on Wikipedia under this suppositions. I know I'm just a member and not a webmaster like You, but I guess this is not a indication to be considered as a good or a bad judge.

I'm sorry for the inconveniences and that I waste Your and my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen L. (talk • contribs) 01:13, 5 March 2006

Sorry not to have replied before; I'd gone to bed. I can see from the above what the problem was. I'll check the current status, and if it hasn't been sorted out yet, I'll do what I can. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Jen L.'s onctrinutions list, it seems to be OK now. Let me know if it flares up again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re:Women In Islam

Hiya,

I am not denying the fact that there are imams who preach that men have the right to beat their wives (as much as they please) if they wish; I removed it because if we put that in there, then we also need to put every other imam’s, at every mosque, POV about the subject in the article. The article isn't an archive for what imams' view on the topic. If it were, the article should then include every interpretation of every view point for it to be fair and that is not what Wiki is about. Also, the sentence sounds very random and unprofessional in the sense that it is just a claim without proof. As you pointed out, not all imams represent what Islam really is. Since there is a lot of argument about the many aspects of the matter, I am not naïve enough to claim that there is one correct, final word about what the mufti's say about men beating their wives. The next best thing is to provide only the facts; not what some random imam preached in his sermon. After all, anyone can say anything that they wish at a sermon, and this should not be taken as the representation of the facts about the subject.

I hope this explains why I removed the sentence from the article and not simply for the sake of sugar-coating the matter.

I apologise for the babbling ;). Stoa 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Report

Hey Zora, me and M.ana have been working on Morgan Report, and I was wondering if you could offer an opinion on how to lay out the controversies in an NPOV manner - I'm advocating a single section with each particular dispute, and he seems to like splitting it into "arguments for" and "arguments against". Since it's really "arguments against" and "rebuttals to arguments against", i'm not sure if that fits, but it may just be an issue of limited vocabulary on my part. Anyway, your opinion, and help in NPOV washing would be appreciated! --JereKrischel 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Muslim reports

It's a well-organized list, and not all the "reports" (hadith) linked therefrom are stubs, but quite a lot of them are, and their notability isn't established. "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" would seem to apply IMO, possibly warranting merges, but what a big project that would be. Often the usual bad spelling and lack of categories. Adding scores of hadith when the articles on the collections of hadith and other important texts are mere stubs seems to me to be a grossly misplaced priority. Sigh. I see it had been up for AfD before. Шизомби 08:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes sense in some twisted way. ;-) Шизомби 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haydar

Looks like he is going to keep reverting, using his three per day, if need be. And if there are a bunch of us reverting against him, I'm sure he'll call upon the many Shi'a editors he always calls on when there is an AfD to help him revert. Perhaps you should use an article RfC, perhaps at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics. I don't think this would apply for WP:3O as I've already been involved, as have a couple of other editors. Pepsidrinka 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki hell

Hey, I don't know about the issues with SouthernComfort but from a preliminary look it seems like there's definite reason to want to keep up a POV tag. Haydar is a dab page and I don't even have to really know about the content to know it should be short and sweet. gren グレン 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

Hi Zora, thanx for the barnster... Pa7 13:08, 06 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Props

You know more about Islam than many Muslims do, and I don't doubt that you've spent a greater amount of time studying some topics than I have. For that, you have my props. lol Zain 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham

Zora, no one claims that he FOUNDED Christianity or Islam ( where did you read this????) its not in the bible and its not in the Qu'ran. He is claimed as an ancestor , but not as a founder of those religions. --CltFn 05:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Zora, which verse in the Qu'ran claims Abraham as the founder of Islam? And where in the new testament does it claim Abraham as the founder of Christianity. As for Luxenberg , my statement is based on English interviews he gave which I included in the article.--CltFn 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok inspirational figure works for me .--CltFn 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

re: My edits.

Zora, it is not preaching Islam. While Muhammad is known for his claim of prophethood, the aticle is silent on this issue. --Aminz 07:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, where should I add the Christian-Muslim debates? Thanks. --Aminz 07:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion, I am thinking of something like prophethood of Muhammad, something that one can find all the arguments made in order to support the prophethood of Muhammad. How is that? Thanks --Aminz 08:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to "prove" Muhammad's prophethood. I just want to write all the facts and opinion of the different sides of the debate. That's it. I am sure this will save the precious time of many researchers. When there is an article called "criticism of Islam"; there should be an article called "Defending Islam". What is wrong with this reasoning? --Aminz 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:D Interesting story! But I am not satisfied with that article. My hands are tight up. By the way, several thick-skin non-muslim editors have joined me there. I want my own article :( What happens if I make my own article with the title "defense of Islam"? I will then be quite for awhile. :D --Aminz 09:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zora! If I make my own website, then I'll miss valuable feedback of Non-Muslims. Moreover, I have been a good boy so far. I think I deserve to have an article. By the way, this guy Abu-Lu'lu'ah doesn't deserve that I spend my time for :) I never heard any shia talk about him. --Aminz 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine! why are you beating me? I just wanted to serve people by gathering an unbiased source of information for them. Fine. Btw, never heard of Quaker meeting house. It seems weird and a bit funny that the Holy Spirit wants to speak through people. By the way, I think the flavor of Hinduism and Zen are different from Abrahamic religions. The only thing I know about Hinduism is that they believe in Reincarnation and are vegetarian. I have a question: Why people should become Hindu? What is the advantage? I am already a vegetarian and have troubles understanding reincarnation. Will I be doomed to hell if I don't believe in Hinduism? Thanks--Aminz 10:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading about Hinduism. Seems we have a lot in common. --Aminz 10:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perry's Article

The only source I cited was "Encyclopaedia Iranica".Heja Helweda 13:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Perry writing was from a book by the title Le Monde Iranien et L'Islam, volume I. I made the WP edit back when I was at U of Tenn. I dont have access to their library now. (and I dont think it was even from their permanent collection). I had to go thru the ILL dept.

I bet however our library at Austin has the item, but I'm currently stuck with a tight schedule and I wont be going to the PCL building any time soon (at least until late May).

But I did a search on WorldCat. This is what I found:

The Banu Ka`b : an ambitious brigand state in Khuzistan / John R Perry

1971 English Book p. [131]-152 : map ; 25 cm. [Genève : Droz, 

Get This Item

Availability: Check the catalogs in your library. 

Connect to the catalog at your library

External Resources: Check for text @ UT 

Find Related

More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ... Find Items About: Perry, John R. (1) Title: The Banu Ka`b : an ambitious brigand state in Khuzistan / Author(s): Perry, John R. Publication: [Genève : Droz, Year: 1971 Description: p. [131]-152 : map ; 25 cm. Language: English 

SUBJECT(S)

Descriptor: Ka`b (Arab people) -- Iran -- History. Geographic: Iran -- History -- 16th-18th centuries. Khuzestan (Iran) -- History. Note(s): Cover title./ Extract from: Le monde iranien et l'Islam, t. 1, 1971./ Includes bibliographical references. Class Descriptors: LC: DS269.K25 Other Titles: Monde iranien et l'Islam. Responsibility: John R. Perry. Document Type: Book Entry: 20010906 Update: 20010906 Accession No: OCLC: 47918613 Database: WorldCat

Hope that helps.--Zereshk 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Muhhamed Picture

Would you mind if I added a picture of Muhhamed made by Muslims (if any exists)? Also, Islam should not be imposed on all Wikipedia users. Not everybody knows Muhhamed's likeness.--FelineFanatic13talk

Rashad Khalifa criticism chop

Hi Zora. I had hoped to just fix it up, but I couldn't work out what the 'pattern finding' refered to. Are you talking about his thing with the number 19? Also, my understanding of WP policy would require a 3rd party to link human pattern matching to R.K. , making the link would be considered OR. Keep up the good work anyway ! Ashmoo 04:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rv of Fatema Al Zahra (Sunni view)

Hi! How does the inclusion of the hadeeth in the Sunni view make it "reflect Shia POV"? I, personally, don't think it does since it's providing facts (the statement by Muhammed is recorded in Al-Bukhari) and not and opinion about anything. I only provided what is believed by Sunni Muslims and moved the text around a bit for grammatical purposes (if you read it closely you will find that little is change except the hadeeth). I'm not one to place a POV in an arictle, regardless of what side I follow, and I hope this isn't just a revert as to keep the original article for whatever purpose that would benefit. Stoa 06:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Sunni's do not just ignore the hadeeth. I should know, I am one, not that any of this should matter on Wiki. I doubt a Muslim can simply "ignore" a hadeeth (the idea seems a tad rediculous), we hold any hadeeth sahih in reverance (that's why we have 3 levels of ahadeeth, due to importance of each one). The hadeeth mentioned is one that is viewed by both Sunnis and Shias: they both believe that she was a very important woman and a role model to muslims women.
And ...Umar (according to Shias), caused Fatima to miscarry her unborn child, there is no mention in the article of how Shias viewed him after he did that (whether they "ignored" his actions or what), so why would I downplay it in the Sunni side if a)Sunni's don't even believe the story happend and b)it wasn't even an issue for Shias.
As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with my inclusion of the hadeeth, and nothing that indicates a POV.
All in all, please do not assume that every Muslim wikipedian is wanting to change the facts to make it suit what they believe. I believe that presenting the facts alone is all that is needed, no sugar-coating required. Stoa 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved the sentence about Sunni's not believing the story about Umar, etc. It wasn't intentional for me to give the impression that this is of little importance, so I guess moving it out of the parentheses will make it stand out. I do feel "weird" though since it makes a passing reference to the story without any explaination of what the story is. Also, I added "Sunni" next to scholars to make it clearer that Sunni's are the ones who disagreed on the location of her grave. Shiaa claim to know the exact location of her grave (I believe they think it's on a mountain in Medina). The hadeeth was added to show how Sunni's also believe that Fatima was an exceptional woman. Shiaa's aren't the only ones to feel that way, though they involve a lot of agruable methods in the way the revere her and her story, and that's where the debate begins. Also, Shiaa disregard a chunk of ahadeeth and usually stick only to the one narrated by Fatima or Ali, so adding it alone (since it's narrated by the Prophet) shows that it is a Sunni view. Stoa 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian people

I had to revert as he archived while dispute was on going, feel free to add your 2 cents back in again, it looked like an interesting theory. However, you can't deny that it was never-and is not current used as referring to an ethnicity. Perhaps wrongly, but it has been the case mainly at the begining of the Persian Empire, and at Sassanid times and especially at and since Pahlavis, as I said in the text books at schools it is still referred to as an ethnicity and my friends have quoted Iranian history and Iranica to say that it is still used. However, yes perhaps it is used wrongly, but this isn't the case is it? if the main sources agree on the matter, then one or two small-scale genetic studies which were probably carried out on a few Iranians in America or something, do not really question it. These studies may refer to current genetics of central asia, but since the Persian empire controlled much of the central Asia at some points, then it is not really relevant to even suggest that this proved anything against the origins of Iranians as Indo-Europeans, etc. --Kash 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DP Irc

Does DP have an IRC channel? I tried #dp and #eBooks on irc.freenode.net which both had 0 users... do you know? Thanks. gren グレン 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Another question... how come some DP texts are still released without html versions? It's rare but I saw one the other day that wasn't math... I really need to understand the system better.... how much control to post processors have? gren グレン 03:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

I'm trying to build support for this nomination in its last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wanted to apologize for my last comment to which you took offense . You're right, I don't know you but I wa taken aback by the abruptness of your response. I have noticed that most of the people who make decisions about who gets awards are men, as are the recipients. I went to the userboxes to find who had publiclay identified as a woman to encourage them to support this nomination - the first wikihalo to go through the nomination process. Sorry if I offended you. evrik 21:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Khwarizmi

Hi Zora! You removed a few words from the intro of al-Khwarizmi. This basicly puts it back to the state it was be fore the dispute on his etnicity began (the really long talk page). This one (the one before you shortened it) seems to be going towards a consensus. I hop you don't mind that I will restore it, but you comments are of course greatly appreciated on the talk page. Cheers, —Ruud 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV, Piety in Depiction of Muhammad

Can you explain what exactly you considered POV and pious tone in the version of the article before you reverted it. If there really is a a POV or pious tone expressed in the article (which I'm not really seeing), it can be rectified without reverting the article. joturner 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used Abdul Wahhab instead of independently verifying the hadith. The second one I could not verify through the MCSA search engine. I would not send ANYONE to Abdul Wahhab for a neutral depiction of pictorial representation.
You said that most Muslims agreed that depiction was wrong -- that is clearly not the case. Not only do Shi'a allow it, most moderate Muslims do too. Howling mobs whipped up by Islamists are not evidence for majority opinion.
You wrote, "Muhammad, being the deliverer of Islam's holiest book, the Qur'an, is revered by Muslims more than any other person in history". There are people who believe that Muhammad created the Qur'an, not just "delivered" it; there are people who believe that he didn't create it at all. Nor can you speak for all Muslims when you say that they revere Muhammad above all other people. Some might not. Some might think that he's in an entirely different category, and not to be compared with anyone else.
If you asked a Christian, "which historical figure do you admire the most?", he or she might say "Abraham Lincoln" or "Einstein". If you say, "What about Jesus?", you might get a blank state. Jesus is another category entirely. I think that this might hold for Muslims. But we can't be sure, can we? In which case it's better not to make claims for all Muslims. Zora 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken your comments into account and reinstated information from the version before the revert. I reworded the intro (which seemed to be where most of your issues were) and omitted the additional hadith. joturner 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

censorship?

Why don't you want to include "US-occupied"? IMHO it is quite interesting, that the only fatwa that allows the depiction of Mohammed, is in US-occupied Iraq. Raphael1 05:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahrirolvasyleh

I stumbled upon this and... well, I have no idea if it's real or not... but I know it has been an issue... you see anti-Islamic forums saying it's real and Shia forums saying it's made up.... I tend to think the latter and there are no sources... but in all honesty I really don't know... if you know one way or another please tell me... if nothing is done I'm going to get rid of it for being an attack with no sources but I'd rather have it deleted with an authoritative reason.

Also, I was reading some of Hagarism and I saw that Crone uses "the Prophet". I just found that interesting that she, of all people, would use it. gren グレン 06:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zora, this page is an attack page for sure. I am not Khomeini's fan. and I do know that the regime lowered the age of marriage. I also know about Islamic rules on sexuality. But these issues has nothing to do with this book. Marriage age were always 9 for girls in any islamic textbook. This book did not initiate these ideas. I do think that the book exist. Those who are interested in this very ordinary book are fanatic anti-clerics whose main aim is destroying Khomeini by any means. I am a neutral Iranian. I do think Khomeini did some good things and some bad things in his life. I am neither a fan of him nor a hater. But User:CltFn is a muslim hater for sure. Just look at the list of his contributions. Thanks.--Mitso Bel11:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should quite you personal attacks Mitso Bell , did you not notice how many articles I wrote on Muslims which I support and defend like Asra Nomani , Azar Nafisi ,Ghada Jamshir and many many others. But that is besisdes the point , Tahrirolvasyleh is a real book that deserves to see the light of day . --CltFn 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CltFn! I definitely appreciate your support for islam by supporting very well known Islam-haters as Azar Nafisi who is also an agent of your favorite US neoconservatives. Don't say these things to me. I know you quite well. You may find it hard to believe that I am an atheist Iranian. Remind yourself of calling your critics including me as Mutaween. I try to be sympathetic to fanatics like you as much as I can. --Mitso Bel
Very strong stamenents for an alleged neutral Iranian. If you knew me so well , then you might know that I do not believe a single word you are typing and you would not be wasting your time with the pretense.--CltFn 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether you believe in what I write or not. You can't distinguish between Persian and Arabic or Islamic philosophy and fiqh, let alone knowing a word about Islam and Iran (except for propaganda). Fanatics are blind and any discussions with them make no sense. --Mitso Bel13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Fanatics are blind and any discussions with them make no sense",Couldn't have said it better myself.--CltFn 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sinlessness of Muhammad

You are right Zora. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge to be able to write a good article. Moreover, I don't have enough time right now to read the book you suggested. It seems to be interesting. But I agree that "That's getting into a lot of detail for an article that's already too long." For now, can we make a new section for the article and put the detail there? --Aminz 09:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an NPOV title for the article : "Doctorine of Sinlessness of Muhammad"; "Sinlessness of Muhammad"; or "Sinlessness of Prophets"; or ? Thanks --Aminz 09:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Shia does not believe that Muhammad was more than human. Quran 41:6 " Say thou: "I am but a man like you: It is revealed to me by Inspiration, that your God is one God..." They do not mean that their Imams are not human. They mean just that their Imams are very special humans. The "pre-existence" refers to the early creation of their souls. They do not believe that their Imams are eternal. What is your opinion? Thanks --Aminz 10:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'll start an article titled "Doctrine of the Fourteen Pure Souls". Actually, I myself don't believe in the doctorine. Anyway, I'll start the article soon. Thanks --Aminz 10:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"AIT"

wow, good news, we can certainly need patrollers at the "Aryan Invasion" front, although the topic seems to be plagued by (again) Indian rather than Iranian nationalists [befuddle those nationalists, what are they all doing online, shouldn't they be marching in parades or something; Wikipedia would be so much more enjoyable without quite so much of this atavistic mindset]. Are you sure Witzel suggests Afghanistan as the Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland (as opposed to the origin of the Rigveda, or the Indo-Aryans)? Afaik, their commonly assumed origin is further north, in Kazakhstan (Andronovo culture). dab (ᛏ) 10:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sari

Why thank you Zora, it is a nice pic, izzanit? One of RRV's best-known paintings. I shall try to find some of Coorgi and Maharashtrian styles also -- more snaps are certainly needed, esp. since it is so difficult to describe the matter. Page needs serious copyediting. Will become one of my "quiet" projects. I had no idea you were involved on that page, but I now see you are. But then, what r u not involved in? Regards, ImpuMozhi 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to intervene in a personal exchange, but wrt your comment: IMO, the ubiquity of those types on the internet is a function of their relative marginalization in Indian civic society; their occasional public successes have wheels within wheels. Not that they are not shrill enough, but they generally lack a receptive audience -- which does not dissuade them, as we see. One cannot project, on the basis of sundry louts, our potential membership in an "axis of insanity". All said however, everybody in India is minimally "nationalistic" enough to ask why, if we openly develop it ourselves (not steal, smuggle, subrosa proliferate), we should not have the bomb. Even armed-to-the-teeth protectors-of-the-free-world are now seeing the light on both this and the general-civic-society point. Apparently.
Hardcore nutheads are few and marginal in India; witness the fact that we have had only a single recalcitrant on Rajput, but a greater population from the other side, who have been equally stubborn, over an extended period, with less cause. What, I daily ask myself, would I have done if faced with unremitting insistance for large-scale mention, on main pages, of "Muslim-brahmins", "Confucian-arabs" and whatnot?? So let us not condemn, even now. Peace on earth! (and in cyberspace) ImpuMozhi 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much nuclear weapons, but that a society is not to be judged by its nutheads -- not even when they occasionally get elected, as in your country and mine. ImpuMozhi 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey thanks for your help on Talk:Persian people and (especially) here. Make sure you keep an eye on Persian people as they might try to remove the dispute tag. Another article of interest: Parsi people. There was a study done on Pakistani Parsis that showed some relation to Iranians. I tried to point out that the study was done on Pakistanis, but my edits (and someone else's edit which seemed useful) were maliciously reverted. I thought you might be interested. AucamanTalk 08:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good analogy with the right-wingers in America, except that these people are the clear minority - most of them were kicked out of Iran. As for Parsis, I'm not sure if we're on the same page. I don't really have a position except that I don't want people to be engaged in original research and making statements like "All Parsis are the same, so if Pakistani Parsis are close to Irarnians, so must be the Indian Parsis." Look at the history page. AucamanTalk 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Greetings. --Bhadani 13:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you are most welcome to have a Holi with my wife. I will just watch. --Bhadani 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rule

No, I will continue to revert on this matter of principle as I have bothered to seek a genuine discussion on the talk page and the anonymous user has not. This is a matter of blatant vandalism, which I am reverting. Go ahead, report me if you like. If people can get away with behaving unreasonably, I have have no interest in your rule books. This problem has gone on long enough with the Ahwaz-related pages. If I give way on the population issue, then there is little point in making any constructive contribution elsewhere for it will be dominated by Persian ultra-nationalists.--Ahwaz 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this user won't get banned. He is anonymous. This is the frustrating thing. If Southern Comfort had done this, we could have had a debate and no matter how strongly we felt we would have reached a compromise. I have compromised in the past with others and have not been threatened with this 3RR rule. But there is no debate with someone who hides behind anonymity, so why should this one be privileged over others who make an effort here.--Ahwaz 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs of Khuzestan

I wrote to Elton Daniel on the issue of his estimation of the number of Arabs in Khuzestan. He says that he no longer has the notes that he used from the book he wrote, which he says was "for a popular series instead of an academic one with full documentation." So he is relying on memory. He states that he "relied on the U.S. Congress Area Handbook for Iran for most statistical data ... The edition then available stated that the estimated Arab population in Iran was 530,000 in 1986." But he adds that there are a number of factors to bear in mind, including "a lack of any really relilable official statistics since around 1956 (which could conceivably be what the Area Handbook actually used), exactly how one defines "Arabs" in this context, whether those numbers were affected by population displacement because of the Iran-Iraq war, etc." He is not certain himself and is fully aware of the difficulties involved in estimating figures. I think it would be worthwhile looking at the latest edition of the US Congress Area Handbook for Iran to see exactly what it states now. I do not know where this can be accessed. On the US Congress website, it repeats the 3% figure quoted by the CIA (which puts the Arab population at around two million), although I am not sure where this percentage originally came from: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Iran.pdf

The reason why this is a heated battle is about Persian nationalist ideology. The fact is that ethnic Persians are 50% or less of the Iranian population. If Persians are a minority, it means that Iran can no longer be said to have a wholly Persian culture. Also, Khuzestan is a very inflammatory subject as non-Persians - ie Arabs - are in an overwhelming majority there. It is a fact that annoys Persian nationalists and this is why they continually under-estimate the facts. Two to four million is a reasonable range - I would suggest around four million personally. But one million is an absurd estimation made by those with political motives by those who wish to eradicate Arab culture from Iran. This is why the population issue is so important.--Ahwaz 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'far al-Sadiq

Zora, why did you decide to completely delete the Sunni Imams from the students list of Jafar al Sadiq? It is accepted by most educated Sunnis, as well noneducated Sunnis, that they were taught by him. Zain 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the current article does not give such an impression. I think it would be alright if I reinserted their names. Zain 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh peer review

Hi, I've started a new peer review for Bangladesh, please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladesh/archive2. Thanks. --Ragib 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver (or that other guy) RfC

You know what annoys me most about all of those AfDs and the RfC? It seems that some people aren't evne thinking about hadith titles. Take "Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah" for example. Google search it. You get only wikipedia for results. Even these titles are being pulled from Striver's minds. The inclusionist idea of "if Bible verses get articles then why can't hadith" is getting enough keep votes for no consensus when people don't even realize that the titles are not used in scholarly discourse. *annoyed face* Anyways... is there naming for hadith? Are any of his titles correct? If they were I could stomach more cleanup tags and fewer deletes... but, you can't get more wrong than an original research title. (pardon the letting off steam) gren グレン 09:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help once again

Hi, Zora, it's me, Plumcouch again. I have a small problem and hope you can help me with it. I created a new article für Diya Mirza's new movie Alag and noticed a Vinod Khanna having a role (he's possibly cast opposite her, so I can't just drop him from the cast roster given the importance of his role). Anyway, we already *have* a Vinod Khanna here at Wiki and it's not Alag's Vinod Khanna. Is it custom to create a disambigation (sp?) page in such cases? Or do you write on the top of an article Not the Vinod Khanna you're looking for? or something like that? I hope you can help me. --Plumcouch 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Ps. And something entirely else: Certain people (not naming any names) are really, er, focused on Rani. I thought it had gotten better, but apparantly passion re-ignited as of late ... can't you do something about it? Like some almighty administrator ban or something? All those copyvio pictures that appear there time and again and the fangush and the counting ... *shudders*[reply]

Hmm - I checked Vinod Khanna's IMDb biography. He's 60. And Diya Mirza is about 24. ... ... besides that being really gross and just urgh - I think this and those are pictures of the guy being cast opposite Diya Mirza. Is it Vinod? He doesn't really look as if he's 60 - or, from my point of you: is someone who could be her grandfather allowed to look like this? Maybe I mixing something up. --Plumcouch 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think the guy on the pix is Akshay Kapoor, some newcomer, listed at IndiaFm.com's article in Alag after Diya Mirza. I just got confused and mixed them up. Sorry for bothering you and for the inconvinience. --Plumcouch 21:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

I thought you might be interested in some of the latest develpments in the Iran article. My edits are being reverted again - without much explanation in the talk. AucamanTalk 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important - Emergency

Zora, please let me know how I can delete some article. surat al-wilaya, surat al–nurayn are absurd claims attached to Shia's. These articles should be removed. I was only able to remove the content of them. Thanks, --Aminz 09:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most offensive thing that I have ever seen in wikipedia!!! :( I am really angry and offended. Can anybody create any kind of article??? --Aminz 09:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I now think it would be good to keep the article, since people can then come and see that it is a forgery. THERE ARE verses in Quran that Shia Muslim use in their debates with Sunnis. I can let you know about some of them if you are interested. I think some of them are good evidences. I have also heard from a shia fundamentalist that there were some changed verses. The example I have in my mind is something like the following: There is some verse in one of the last sura's of Qur'an saying: (The unbelievers will say) " I wish I was dust". They say it has been "I wish I was with the father of dust(that is ali)" their arguments are kind of funny to me. But I don't think they believe the original Quran has some more Sura's, maybe some additional words. Regarding the controversy, yes. That would be a controversy. But maybe some shia fundamentalist like it. But please avoid it. We don’t want to incite enmity between Shia and Sunnis. Thanks. --Aminz 10:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi revert war (and debate)

The edit wars at Persian people et al has spilled over to Parsi. I've opened a discussion on the talk page there (Talk:Parsi#Revert_wars) in the hope that at least the spillover can be damned, but perhaps (hopefully) the parties will come to some general consensus that will benefit other articles as well. -- Fullstop 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fatima vs. Fatimah

Well, since someone moved the page yesterday to "Fatimah Zahra", and no objections arose then, I wanted the rest of the article to be consistent spelling-wise. The "h" at the end is added due to the Arabic letter (the letter with the two dots on top) "مة" at the end of her name, which translates to the closest thing in English: an "h" sound. We can create a discussion on the Fatimah Zahra user page about the name spelling since one was not created prior to the spelling change, but I still believe that correctness should take precedence to familiarity in Wiki. Stoa

Peace treaty

I'm trying to negotiate a peace treaty with the Shez15 or rather his IP. Maybe it's working. If it's not and he/she isn't happy with the way Mukerji's article currently looks (I changed it again since your last change) and *you* are happy with the way it looks, maybe he/she gives up and leaves it the way it is. It's just a compromise, I know, but maybe it works. What do you think? --Plumcouch 01:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umrao Jaan

One of my friends lent me the DVD but it's horrible VCD-ish quality (DEI release). Do you know if there's a good quality release anywhere? I failed to see anything on froogle, Amazon, or linked from IMDB that looked like it had any quality. gren グレン 05:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks... my has subtitles... and no glitches like the Eros releases tend to... it's just all very soft and blurry. I'd rather have the occassional line running down the screen with relatively decent film from Eros. Oh well.
By the way you may want to look at the Smithsonian collection of Islamic art. Pretty nice and I managed to get a great image for Maghribi script. I also found Image:Abbasid Koran folio from Egypt.jpg and Image:Qur'an folio 11th century kufic.jpg which I found nice for the commons. gren グレン 08:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now know everything I do about Odissi from the Wikipedia article :) It must be neat to see live dances like that... I've never been exposed to such things... at least not yet. Also, does your copy have an ASIN # or some form of identification so if I see a copy for sale I can compare it to the DEI version? Thanks. gren グレン 10:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Zora, If my memory is good this is the first time I am looking at your talk page and now I sure understand what you mean,,, Its the world war III in your page.. I wonder how you are keeping up with all this, keep up the good work.. this is even more reason for you to have the barnstar!! Mystic 07:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]