User talk:Scythian1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Barbahari

Salam 'alaikum akhi, I noticed the good job you've done with getting an article for Imam Barbaharee (rahimahullah) started. Leave me a comment any time if you need help in the way of references or any other editing projects. MezzoMezzo 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, while coverage of her is not exclusive it is significant. I think that the Wikipedia:Notability guideline is your best friend in this issue. As for Imam Barbahari, good job and if you ever need help in the way of sources or information than don't hesitate to ask. MezzoMezzo 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Arabs in Afghanistan

Do you want me to create an article on this made up of your edits from Afghan Arabs? --BoogaLouie 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Here it is: History of Arabs in Afghanistan. Feel free to improve and expand on it. --BoogaLouie 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for backup

Salam 'alaikum akhi, I hope you're doing alright. Anyway, I know you've been quite busy as i've been Wiki-stalking you recently ;) Don't worry, I think the edits you've done in the way of providing information has been stellar and that we could use more brothers like you around here. Anyway, there are some issues I was wondering you could throw your two cents in on as a third party to mediate might help. On the article for Nuh Ha Mim Keller a new single purpose account has taken issue with legitimate opposing views presented in the external links section, he has been very polite so far but i'm apprehensive due to some issues you'll pick up on. Also, there was some good-faith insertion of POV into the Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, pretty standard accusations of being a "Wahhabi leader" and random unsourced criticisms by (i'm guessing Sufi) mashayikh no one has ever heard of. He seems like a fairly intelligent and polite user but the article in Shaikh Albani has been hit by so much stealth vandalism recently that you can never be too sure. Sorry to sort of dump all this on you, I understand if you're caught up at the moment but any help would be appreciated. Let me know if you need help with anything you're working on and inshaAllah i'll see what I can do, jazak Allah khair ak. MezzoMezzo 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

template

please view template talk page. I have given my supporting arguments. You may or may not be from the Middle East or Central Asia, but that does not give you scholarly authority that Afghanistan is de facto non-South Asian, many sources support me and historical there have been MANY periods of joint rule. I listed a few articles that will show you that on the talk page Thegreyanomaly 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All of Afghanistan was under the same ruler as India, not just Gandhara. I made the concession that it can be considered non-South Asian. I'm going to revert it to say Afghanistan and leave it in other Thegreyanomaly 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i responded Thegreyanomaly 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam changed it back to Afghanistan. I got confused and changed Gandhara to Kandahar (logical mistake similar name, both are in East Afghanistan), and he changed it back to Afghanistan. He willingly changed it, don't blame without looking at my edits. Thegreyanomaly 02:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam changed it after your messaged him on his talk-page. He knew what you were saying and still put back in Afghanistan. Thegreyanomaly 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean to say I will wait for his input before i do anything quite yet Thegreyanomaly 02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent him a message to clarify matters. Best Regards, Scythian1 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I refute the Gandhara-only viewpoint, much more than Gandhara were Indianized. The Indo-Greeks were centered in Bactria, north of Gandhara. [[1]] Also, the Indo-Parthian and Kushans, had much influence in the Hindu Kush region. Considering all that land mass was Indosphere, it is best to say Afghanistan on the template. Thegreyanomaly 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Using the minor edit tag

Hi. Please be more careful when using the "minor edit" flag, as you appear to be using it for some edits that are not in fact minor. An explanation of minor edits and their correct usage can be found at Help:Minor edit. You may also wish to review your preferences and change the default setting, so that the edit is not checked as minor automatically. Natalie 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Salafism

Salam 'alaik ak, and Ramadan mubarak. Just got back from tarawih and noticed your defense of the Salafism article, good job. As you can see on that article's talk page, the guy has basically been trolling me and dodging the actual issues the whole time, so another editor stepping in and undoing this ridiculousness help majorly. Let me know if you need help on anything. MezzoMezzo 03:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Input Requested on the template Asian Capitals

Hello Sythian1, I noticed that you have made previous edits to the template Asian Capitals, and I would be grateful if you could give your input to help build a consensus about the geographic location of Kabul, Afghanistan, on the continent of Asia. Thank you in advance. Atari400 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Input Requested for Talk:Indosphere

Hello Scythian1. I was wondering if you could offer your opinion on this debate involving the definition of the political neologism "Indosphere". You seem very knowledgeable about the subject matter from prior debate, and unfortunately some Editors seem to be attempting to use Wikiepdia as a means of spreading both Hindu and Indian nationalistic views. Atari400 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan's only Jew

In History of the Jews in Afghanistan, just because the guy said he'd be in heaven if you brought him a bottle of whiskey, does not necessarily mean he is an alcoholic! 201.6.56.26 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Latif Pedram: controversial?

Salam. Can you please explain why you have him described as "controversial" in the lead? Many politicians in Afghanistan are controversial. Including Hamid Karzai and most recently (if you have been following the news) Karim Khoram. So why don't you add controversial to their lead as well? The only reason I can think of is that you might not be fond of Latif Pedram. In other words your edit seems to be politically motivated. I cannot think of another reason since there are so many controversial politicians in Afghanistan. TruePashtoon (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - renaming Afghanistan - in utter contravention to the will of a large portion of Afghanistan's citizens, is wholly controversial. I do not know of any other Afghan politician who has ever even remotely suggested changing Afghanistan's name. Scythian1 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahmud Tarzai

Sallam. Instead of labeling the Pashtunization article as POV even though it was sourced well with good sources, you should take a look at the Mahmud Tarzi article written by user: NisarKand. He uses nationalistic websites as sources and makes alot of things up. The whole article is POV style. Please help that article. THanks. TruePashtoon (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pashtunization

I removed the part about Khuram since it was unreferenced but Kingturle rv'ed me. Everything is referenced so please simply remove the part about Khuram and then you can take of the POV tag. Thanks. TruePashtoon (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferdowsi

I couldn't find what you where referring by consensus in there so I reverted it. If you think, it does exist a consensus you may revert back by showing it. --Pejman47 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Defeat/withdrawal

You consider the word - "defeat" as ambiguous but you delete it in favor of leaving the sole word of "withdrawal" with which by itself becomes ambiguous without the additional clarification of defeat

What are you talking about? "Withdrawal" is not ambiguous because when people read it they clearly know that it means that Soviet withdrew its military presence from Afghanistan. "Defeat" however is ambiguous as what defines defeat? Does it mean all troops were killed? They surrendered? These are the usual conditions for a defeat. However, if the troops weren't all killed and they didn't surrender, saying it was a "Defeat" is POV. Saying "Soviet withdrawal" is sufficient without the ambiguous "defeat". People will read "Soviet withdrawal" and be able to make their own judgement whether that meant it was a Soviet defeat.--Miyokan (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Authorities in all fields agree that the Soviet army was pulled out of Afghanistan because of Gorbachev's reforms, and not because of anything that happened on the battlefield. The war consisted of interminable, desultory skirmishes. There was no result militarily. The Soviets were always strongly entrenched and they were never in danger of losing on the ground. Even Lester Grau agrees with this. Therefore, Scythian1's views are confused and unreasonable.

If Scythian1 wants to trumpet Mujahideen "successes" he should add a section to the article describing how -- by perpetuating an inconclusive low-intensity war against the Kremlin -- the Mujahideen strengthened Washington's diplomatic hand in the Cold War. That is reasonable.

Myokan: please go to the editors about this...people like Scythian1 are turning Wikipedia articles into jokes. This is unfair toward contributors who have taken the trouble to research the subjects, and who are taking pains to make the articles balanced and objective.

20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Authorities in all fields agree that..." This is nonsense in light of the sourced references I provided. Scythian1 (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your references are not reliable. The Reuveny and Prakash argument is far-fetched; it is not echoed by any prominent scholars on the subject of the Soviet-Afghan epoch. Footnotes #1 through #4 refer to isolated remarks in books about subjects that are tangential to the war. You clearly haven't done any serious reading about the war or modern world history, and as a result, you don't know how to judge the merit of sources.

Truth be told, it's obvious from your remarks that you didn't even take the trouble to read the entirety of the Reuveny and Prakash article. Even Reuveny and Prakash admit that their views are contrarian, isolated and controversial.

Why have you not read or included as a source (in the article) Mark Urban's excellent book "War in Afghanistan"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be best for you to stick with the revisions I made to the article. Perhaps Reuvany and Prakash could be discussed in a section at the bottom of the article.

Kenmore (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion of Turkic peoples

Could you tell me why you keep removing some religions and reordering the list of religions of Turkic peoples? [2] I will restore it and expect that you make an argument before taking out information. Are there Buddhists among the Turkic peoples or not? The list of religions are in alphabetical order.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent NPOV/Ref tags

Thanks for your recent tagging. Some of these Islamic articles are unbelievable. I fear my tidy of Waris Pak is just the beginning...Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

UAE Noticeboard

Hi Scythian1, I've been feeling for some time that a noticeboard for UAE related topics would help centralize discussions and remove inconsistencies/redundancies in UAE related articles. I've been noticing the number of inconsistencies in the Abu Dhabi article and several other UAE-related articles and I think a central noticeboard along the lines of the Australia or India noticeboards would help channel content around the UAE.

A noticeboard is different from a WikiProject in that a noticeboard has no explicit mission-statement other than to provide a central forum for users interested in collaborating on UAE-related issues. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the project, as a regular contributor to UAE-related articles. With the Dubai WikiProject, there has been improvement in the quality of Dubai related articles. However, articles on the other emirates seem to be in bad shape. The noticeboard won't attempt to correct these issues, but will provide a central forum and hopefully, promote collaboration among users interested in UAE articles. It can also serve as a central point to arbitrate edit-wars or provide assistance to other editors (Arabic translations, article assessments, peer reviews, etc). One of the ideas that I had in mind for the noticeboard was to create a set of standard guidelines around structuring articles (standard structure for cities, emirates, locations etc). Your thoughts on setting up such a noticeboard are greatly appreciated. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Barelwi

Salam 'alaykum man, I take it you've noticed Shabiha's behavior on the Barelwi article. I guess part of it is the language barrier, but I honestly can't tell what exactly this person wants. Perhaps you could help as their comments on the talk page have just been very belligerent with me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of sourced content on Ahmad Shah Durrani

I dont know why you reverted Anoshirawan but you just removed lots of sourced content from Encyclopaedia of Islam. Do you realize that?

more of your vandalism on Hazara people

Footnote [6] is from Encyclopedia Iranica which says they have mixed origins, go read it for yourself. That is why mixed was written there.

This is the 2nd time on the same day you remove sourced content from a top encyclopedia.

Other sources preclude any such mixture; please sign your name or register with a name and then sign upon posting as per wikipedia rulesScythian1 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should follow more important rules such as not removing sourced content as you did on Ahmad Shah Durrani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.19.187 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Iranica artlces isn't just one source, it uses a lot of other sources. Read for yourself http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v12f1/v12f1080b.html

The following is the bibliography of that Iranica article:

Bibliography: Z. M. Babur, Babur-nama, Lahore, 1987. M. Elphinstone, An Account of the Kingdom of Caubul, London, 1815. Fayzµ-Moháammad, Sera@j al-tawa@rikò, 3 parts in 2 vols., Kabul, 1912-1914. J-P. Ferrier, Caravan Journeys and Wanderings in Persia, Afghanistan, Turkistan and Beloochistan, London, 1857. L. W. Adamec, ed., Historical and Political Gazetteer of Afghanistan VI, Graz, 1985. L. Hamilton, A Vizier's Daughter: Tales of the Hazara War, London, 1900. M. H. Kakar, The Pacification of the Hazaras of Afghanistan, New York, 1973. Idem, Government and Society in Afghanistan: The Reign of Amir ¿Abd al-Rahman Khan, Austin and London, 1979. P. J. Maitland, "The Haza‚ras of the Country Known as the Haza‚r-aja‚t, and Elsewhere," Afghan Boundary Commission Report IV, Simla, 1891, pp. 277-450. C. Masson, Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan and the Panjab; Including a Residence in those Countries from 1826 to 1838, London, 1842. R. McChesney, Kabul under Siege: Fayz Muhammad's Account of the 1929 Uprising, Princeton, 1999. W. Moorcroft and G. Trebeck, Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hindustan and the Panjab From 1819 To 1825, London, 1841. S. A. Mousavi, The Hazaras of Afghanistan: An Historical, Cultural, Economic and Political Study, Richmond, 1998. C. Noelle, State and Tribe in Nineteenth-Century Afghanistan: The Reign of Amir Dost Muhammad Khan (1826-1863), Richmond, 1997. H. Poladi, The Hazâras, Stockton, 1989.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3