User talk:Meelash

Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses is a contentious subject. Please avoid original research, contentious unsourced statements, and a non-neutral point-of-view when making edits. Thank you. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what is your deal? It states and is referenced on the Ibn Ishaq page that that biography is NOT surviving. Do you not get that? It doesn't exist! So you can't write the "oldest surviving biography" since it is is NOT SURVIVING!

I don't have time to check what you say so I won't contest that now.--BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, what could you possibly have against including the full Roald Dahl quote in the article? It is not that long and give a better picture of his opinion, one portion of which is already quoted, and the rest of which is in the crappy picture. I just transcribed from the picture. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie"

We can't have every quote on the controversy from every author in the article, it would be a book not an article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly you continually modify the portion on British blasphemy laws to state that they are not enforced, but you provide no reference.

Why haven't you checked this ? It seems pretty clear. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthly, the possible explanations section by definition does not need to be strictly sourced. It is a *possible* explanation section. Anything reasonable goes. Meelash (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No. the explanations have to come from a notable source, otherwise any moron could put in an explanation. It's an encyclopedia, not a buletin board bull session. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]