Wienerish

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Islam appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi; Your comments are strange as I refered to a neutral person in my additions. If you have a point then it had been better to be more specific instead of deleting all the content ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wienerish (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing "Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who opposed the Muslims led to their exile, enslavement or death, and the Jewish enclave of Khaybar was subdued." to "Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who did not fullfill their peace accords led to their exile" is not neutral.

Removing " He was a religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam" and keeping only the Muslim view is not neutral.

Changing "the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca" to "a bloodless Conquest of Mecca" is not consistent with sourced material in the linked article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply. I accept that I had been a little Islamic in my additions (if you judge it from a view point of European authors of the middle ages). The reference you are mentioning is itself not neutral and there are thousands of other references stating a TOTAL bloodless invasion of Mecca (e.g., Karin Armstrong). As far as the terms religious, political, and military leader are concerned then these are missleading. If you want to keep with those, then it will be appropriate to expand the list e.g., by adding Businessman, Preacher, Philosopher, Orator, Reformer, Refuge of orphans, Protector of slaves, Emancipator of women, Law-giver, Judge, Saint (list given by Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao who was a non-muslim). Was it not better to only state "prophet" (see the page on Mosses). Regarding the Jewish Clans of Madina, there is only one historical reference about killings of one Jewish clan (there are many references against it). But historicaly, there has never been a claim about the enslavement of jews. The exile on the other hand is a well accepted fact by both muslims and non-muslim authors. But again that has been known to be a result of "not adhering to the peace accords" by Jews. So I thought it was better to avaoid confusions and adhere to the things generally agreed upon!

If you want to change to "totally bloodless" and can provide reliable sources, I'm fine with that. Re: Muhammad - if you want to change to "founder of Islam" so it's consistent with Muhammad I'm fine with that too. Re: Conflict with Jewish clans - what I really object to is changing "who opposed the Muslims" to "who did not fullfill their peace accords" which is significantly more POV without multiple neutral third party sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)))

Dear, I have already given you some references which are from published literature (Karen Armstrong - Mohammad a Prophet of our Time). OK, the terms, "who did not fullfill their peace accords" appear to be a bit harsh but is a fact recognised by many modern day European writers (the aforementioned writer for instancec gives a detailed account). The source of all the references about killings of one jewish tribe is in fact the first biography of Muhammad by a Jewish convert and it too mentions the betrayal on the part of Jews. You are right that Jewish tribes of madina opposed Mohammad but this statement does not explains the actual senario. I will think about an alternate sentence - or otherwise it may be appropriate to have section on controversies. P.S. I will appreiate if you can paste this disccussion on my talk page under your section.

Re sources: yes, you gave them here but you need to add them to the article to back up whatever change you're making (we can continue the conversation here on your talk page). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

It has been very nice of you. Thanks

Islam

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Islam, you will be blocked from editing.

History of the Qur'an

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to History of the Qur'an, you will be blocked from editing. Ari (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am surprised by the last warning message from a person who claims to be an experienced editor to a newcomer like me. I only deleted the portions which were not comlying with the core policy. One example was the paragraph stating that Mohammad was literate and this was in fact being supported by fake references. e.g., one reference was about Prof. William Montgomery Watt who has regarded Quran as a result of divine inspiration in his book on Mohammad. Nowhere has he provided evidence that Mohammad was literate. You can have a look at the google books [1]. So it was better to delete such a reference. Unfortunately I have not read the full book by Maxime Rodinson (the second reference). The little part which I have read shows a scholarly and critical analysis. However, it lacks references. Contrary to the Biblical prophets, the life of Mohammad is very finely and accurately recorded. And there is no reference until date that he ever got education. So why to indulge into such a debate?

You may feel easy with the word "sahaba" but the majority of non-Arabs would understand the words "companions". I dont think that any of my additions can be characterised under vandalism lest you start defining the term as "that which does not comply with my self-declared policy and self-centered interests". Instead of deleting all the additions you should have specifically edited the parts on which you had objection.

Please do not get involved in Wikipedia:Edit warring and observe the core policy.

I hope you are aware that we can review your revision history. If we turn to your apologetic vandalism of the article (as well as with the article Islam) we have a consistent pattern. This pattern of vandalism and apologetics does not appear anything like your claims above. For example, you changed this referenced sentence "It is a point of contention among Muslims that the entire Qu'ran was preserved by Uthman, but some hadith attest that some verses could not be found" to this sentence" to this unreferenced apologetic "There is no pont of contention among Muslims regarding the preservation of Quran." Then you go on to removing much more referenced content, and post a chunk of apologetics like this:

"One humorous argument in this regard is that the similarities between Bible and Quran only point out a similarity in the authorsip i.e. both are from God. However, contrary to the Torah and Bible, the principles stated in the Quran about the begining and creation of universe, and other biological phenomenon have been found to be scientific correct." and cite "I Love Zakir Naik.com"

So, just a reminder. Your edit history is in full view so no need to mislead us about your edits and secondly, do refrain from vandalism. --Ari (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

May you kindly indentify which "worth reading" reference I deleted? Of ourse there is no point of content among muslims about the preservation of Quran and this is well referenced. I agree that part of my addition was not well-referred to, and as you have mentioned may be classified as an apologetic effort. However, there was no need to revert everything as you did in the first instance - examples I have already given in my first response. And this shows that you yourself are doing vandalism and furthermore discouraging new comers. Regarding your reminder: It seems that you are a certain group of experienced editors who do not want to see editing of "us" contribution. This certainly is a violation of the core policy and specificcally falls under the category of sockpuppetery. My humble request is to stop reverting without review and also stop threatening new comers. (Wienerish (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Just to rehash my last statements. "Your edit history is in full view so no need to mislead us about your edits and secondly, do refrain from vandalism." I would also appreciate it if you stopped your false smear campaign. Finally, you should read WP:SOC before accusing others of being sock puppets. --Ari (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, please cease abusing my talk page. With regard to the content of the article, instead of attacking editors start a discussion here Talk:History_of_the_Qur'an. --Ari (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to History of the Qur'an appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ari (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ari (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message, though a bit late. You have not answered to any of the questions which I raised and yet repeating the term "vandalism" without sound ground. I request you to stop doing editing on my talk page as it is not good ethics. I have not abused any otehr editor until now and request "others" to stop doing that. I already have read the web pages that you mentioned and at this point I hold the same view that some editors are being involved in sock/meat puppet-ry.

Lastly, I would like to add that I have also seen your contribution history and you yourself appear to be invovled in vandalism. Please do not take these comments as a personal offense but if you unintentionly aim at working as a missionary, then unfortunately, wikipedia is not a good site for you. There are already too many apologetic websites and I am sure we do not need another. So we should strive to make wikipedia as a polite and neutral webpage. Yes, it would be interesting to come to the talk page of the article, and I will go for it in my free time. (Wienerish (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ari (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!