User talk:Azhura

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Geber has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Geber constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

I have not vandalized anything. Your labeling of Geber as an Arab constitutes a vandalism of history. If you'd like to distort history and pander/cater to pan-arabists who have an agenda and PoV, be my guest, but don't call yourself a encyclopedia. Azhura (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. There was a long discussion at Talk:Geber where references are given for each POV, reaching the current consensus of the article. So you claiming to have the truth without backing it up by new references in the discussion is considered vandalism. --S.K. (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are engaging in a vandalism of history by attempting to distort Gebers ethnicity. Your true hypocrisy is shown when you allow the biases of others into the article whilst threatening/blocking any rebuttals. You are not running an ecyclopedia, but a sideshow. I just want to let you know how unprofessional, amateur, and pathetic this site (including it's admins) appears to be. I hope you enjoy your sideshow of inaccuracies, walled in from the real world and exporting fallacies. Azhura (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it seems you have a certain view of this historical situation. But this being an encyclopedia, your opinion is as irrelevant as mine. All information should represent the current scientific knowledge. And so everything in the articles should be traceable back to reliable scientific sources. The article and the discussion do this, they cite those sources. So if you happen to know new sources that are not yet mentioned, you are more than welcome to bring them into the discussion. This would be professional, not the way you behave up to now. Therefore I strongly suggest you read the links I've provided before you continue. --S.K. (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually the majority of the worlds view of this historical situation, not my own. Any basic research will yield that conclusion. You should realize that you are running this site based off Western sources, so it's natural when someone with strong Middle-Eastern information about the region appears with no English BBC or Websters dictionary links, you automatically discredit them. There are only so many sources available and the probability for accurate sources to exist outside the realm of inaccurate readily available online sources, pretty much negates any "validation by en masse sources" theories. The credibility of a fact is checked against the authenticity of a source, not the quantity. Once again I have witnessed wikipedia engage in theory-craft rather than fact when it comes to issues regarding the Middle-East. Azhura (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is your perception that this is the majority of the worlds view of this historical situation. Without any proof this statement is useless for the discussion. It is your bias, the same way that Wikipedia to some degree certainly has a bias. But that reputable non-English sources are ignored I haven't witnessed while editing Wikipedia. Also your claim that only western biased sources are given seems no to be true. One of the citations is from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of the foremost authorities in this area AFAIK and written also by non-western scholars. (An article from the Encyclopædia Iranica would be interesting, but I didn't find anything).

Overall, reading through the discussion, it is clear that no definitive source was found up to now which settles the issue. The article mentions that conflicting sources exist. We can discuss details of the wording of this fact, but overall the article reflects this uncertainty and so as far as I can tell reflects the current knowledge on the subject.

--S.K. (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "proof" in and of itself is flawed, using it as an argument is even more of a fallacy. Your definition of proof on wikipedia seems to consist of how many links one can post (with the presumption that mass links = validity seeing as how you are now calling Geber an "Arab" based on the quantity of links used vs. the references that define him as Persian). The question isn't about finding information that states Geber was Persian, those links are already in the article, the real question circles around your illogical procedure of using mass references as validity. This is not a site of factual information, but rather an irrational spam-fest. You like to speak of bias as if it were the plague but the reality of the situation shows everyone is biased. Hiding behind the facade of objectivity whilst pushing your own biased agenda and labeling anyone who doesn't spam links en masse as "biased" simply shows your true nature.

If you did some research on the very encyclopedia you're using as a reference, you would discover that it is not an encyclopedia of "Islam" or about "Muslims", but rather a European study of the "Muslim world" purportedly and allegedly based off specific articles by supposed scholars. If you looked closer you'd also see that it's a European work modeled after the Pauly-Wissowa. Once again you prove my point that you must grasp at what is considered "academically reputable" as a Western source instead of looking outside of the box. The article states that "most sources state that he was an Arab", putting this label as the primary conclusion and also alluding to his Persian ancestry as being a secondary "possibility". Furthermore, the wording also lacks validity as it states "most sources describe him as Arab" yet this is inaccurate due to the fact we do not possess every source available nor do we possess "most sources" in the ratio to all sources regarding the issue, thus it would be a fallacy to use the term "most sources" when one is only using limited sources (via what can be found on the internet).

I suggest you change it to "most readily available online sources", or rather "various sources describe him as both Persian and Arab". By putting his Persian ancestry in the wording that is now shown, you are catering to Pan-Arabism which is rampant on this website. I've seen numerous Persians banned for editing articles that deface Persian history only because they weren't able to pull a website link. We know full well the internet did not exist 5,000 years ago, but history did, and I believe the descendants of those people know far more about their past than a google search or a wanna-be contemporary European-published semi-quasi encyclopedia attempting to pass itself off as the end-all source regarding issues it has no clue about. Azhura (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have put "proof" in quotes; it was meant in the sense of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which should have been clear given my previous comments. And reading it, you see there is no "counting" of references, but a "weighing" (see the section "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources").

Regarding your criticism of the EI, you should read this sentence: Besides a great expansion in content, the second edition of EI differs from the first mainly in incorporating the work of scholars of Muslim and Middle Eastern background among its many hundreds of contributors.

Your statement I believe the descendants of those people know far more about their past than a google search or a wanna-be contemporary European-published semi-quasi encyclopedia again shows, you still haven't embraced the concept of verifiability. People living in Baghdad are also descendants of the very city Geber lived in. But you seem to suspect them generally of "Pan-Arabism". So now we have two peoples that "just know the truth". Don't you see, this is not gonna work? Not that long ago, the majority of people "knew" the earth is flat. This is why Wikipedia relies on verifiability and people not providing a reliable reference after being asked to are rightfully banned from editing Wikipedia if they insist to add their POV, since they don't understand or don't accept one of the basic pillars of it.

Regarding the particular sentence, I'll change it slightly. Reasonable comments are welcome.

--S.K. (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Geber

Which admin are you taking about? Admins do not make editorial decisions, if you study the discussion page of the article, you will find out that the current version is long-staning compromise based on a broad consensus of dozens of editors and has been place for years, please do not unilaterally change it. --07fan (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about SK. And yes, admins make these decisions. I am happy to engage in an edit war with you, I am unemployed and have more free time than you, I gauruntee you will lose. The Pan-Arabs on this site would like to put in misleading info, but me and SK debated and came to a logical conclusion on what should be there, I agreed with his revision as it is far more neutral than what was there before. There was no consensus to begin with, just a debate that ended up with one side conceding out of being tired out. Azhura (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SK is not an admin, and please do not make threats. You're acting against the existing consensus on the discussion page. Your removal of properly sourced content [1] violates our vandalism policy, and will result in a block if you repeat such actions.--07fan (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see where I've made a threat, in fact, I challenge you to show me where I have made any threats at all. I merely made an observation of the fact I will continue to undo your vandalism of the article. You are vandalizing the article by removing an already agreed upon revision by an admin. I'd have to say SK has more weight on wikipedia than you. Azhura (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins are regular users, they don't make decisions on content, and SK is not an admin anyways. You're removing sourced information and that could be considered vandalism, especially since you don't have consensus. Also, You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --07fan (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SK has more weight on here than you, as I said. The information I'm removing goes against the agreed upon consensus. The original "Most sources state he's Arab, while others say he's Persian" puts his Persian ethnicity as a 2ndary reference or perhaps a "bystandard assumption", when in fact he was indeed Persian. The Al-Azd tribe bullshit is nothing more than Pan-Arabism, and the same ridiculousness of Arabs attempting to claim the Persian Gulf. I originally corrected the article so it reflected his true ethnicity (Persian). However, SK and I debated this and came up with an agreed upon revision. Your previous statement that "Arab, some say he's Persian" was a consensus is blatantly false. It was merely a shout and edit match that ended up with the opposing side forgetting about it and the Pan-Arabs inserting their PoV into the article. Also, take heed that you are also engaged in an edit war, and that you did indeed start it, so you may also be blocked for this as well. Cease your vandalism of history. Azhura (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aziz man, man khudam Irani hastam, chera kaseh daghtar as ash shodi? Inkaari ke tou dari mikni be naaf Arabha hast, dar haal hazar magahleh Arab neshonesh mideh, behtareh ke har 2 theory basheh ke momkneh Arab yaa Irani bodeh taa inke hichi nabasheh o taraf Arab be nazar biaaf baa tajavoh be esm o khanavadash. Boro khudet rou revert kon, bavar kon ke injoori be zarareh mast, maan az tou tajrobam tou Wikipedia bishtar hast. --07fan (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merci, karbar google dari? --07fan (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, ok I undid my revert. Azhura (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)