Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:17, 23 October 2006

Misplaced Pages Policy This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned. User:Akrabbim/UBX/Lines This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive. This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks. This user finds edit/revert wars disruptive. This user has a ton of edits.

Archive #

Discussion about the Black People Article

Although i will moderate comments on here, I will not take out the essential points. I just want to limit the distracting dialogue. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

Hello Zaphnathpaaneah,

I noticed your recent contribution to Halaqah's talk page. While I may agree with your criticism that his edits are POV and need reevaluation, I would like to point out that your comment is walking the line between critique and personal attack. You may wish to chose wording which clearly critique the user's edits and not the user. I don't feel that you violated WP:NPA, I'd just like to make sure that it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, I find your comments insightful. Thanks. --Strothra 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a risk I have to take. This guy is on the Arabic-Islam-Africa slant and I am so tired of that. Never do those Arabo-Afrikans (whether the Nation of Islam based nor the Arabic-Islamic based) ever address the atrocitities done by Arabs against my people. You never hear them stand up against the atrocities in Sudan and Mauritania, nor do you hear them stand up against the abuses by Islamic sharia Law throughout Africa. No, instead, they merely pretend that Christians have been practicing anti-black slavery since before the 14th century. As if the only Christians have been historically in Europe. So yes, I have to call them/him out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

I am not part of halaqah media i am called halaqah it is a name blah blah blah. "we" means "we" like "we" black people, or in my case "we" the progressive Africans. Maybe you woke up in an alternate universe Why would an Arab be promoting African identity? I woud think you worshipping Jesus would be a little more careful, if your accusations are true for me then they must be more true for you. The African Holocaust section is balanced, it is naturally for Christians to say these things, so i wouldn’t even go into it. Its like lets attack Islam, i heard it was a new trend. If you cannot define who you are don’t attack who i am, i have stated an opinion and backed it up time and time again. The site i refer you to is not Halaqah Media but African Holocaust. If lazy people would get with the program they would be a standardization of African history, but when the Islamic Africans do something guess who complains--funny that. Sit on your tail and get hooked up on black. We got scholars like Diop, Mazrui out there doing ground breaking research and what do people like you come back with the old Islam and Arab thing. WAS MALCOLM ARABIZED? you need to watch it because you attack Islam you attack yourself! And you adhere to what religion again? lets no go there. I starting getting attacks by Misplaced Pages members the Negroes dont come and support me no they sell me down river, they would betray a fellow brother to the white man, sounds familiar? No one went and voted on Anti-African, but all the whites from the black article did, guess how they voted? The tradition of Islamic scholarship on Africa is why there is an African history, 1/2 the documents are in Arabic, so excuses me for knowing what i know. The most sicken thing about this is the denial Christians "blacks" have for the efforts of Islam in Africa. They try to write Islam out of Africa, but when Christianity went there Islam was already there. But thats not my point, the point is about religion as a divide among oppressed people. Only a fool would keep attacking African Muslims trying to do the work, and only a fool would discredit Christians trying to do the work. People in chains are one village. Work with the facts, Yes Arabs, Africans and white people messed up Africa. Human beings seem to like to do that to each other. But dont pretend via your faith that you are something better, their is absolutely no secret about Christianity as a precursor for Holocaust; Jewish Holocaust, African Holocaust, Native American Holocaust, all these came with the Bible. I have the intelligence to divide Christianity from these acts but i cannot ignore the Bible and gun dilemma. or should i say the problems with religion in the hands of man (man kind). Everyone’s got a POV. And that You debate with “Muslims” (are there a problem now?), whats that about one way thinking, I debate with everybody and trust me most Muslims don’t like what I have to say.!--Halaqah 03:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Am Zaph have you seen my contributions about Arab slave trade? Do you think Arabs like me for doing that? I have been on Muslim forums getting greif, I ask all people to be honest. Christains and muslims have the same disease, they sometimes serve religion before God. So they defend the undefendable to protect religion. This is why slavery lasted so long, this is why it hasnt stopped! re:Middle East, Israel and USA, yes USA--Halaqah 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And you know your comments are wild and all over the place, notice i didnt accuse you of anything. You see Halaqah and you come with a pre-packaged anti-terror agenda. WHat is that you said about light skin rulling dark skin, how can that apply to me? that is so not relevant. I am the one that was most vocal about that Ethiopians are white people crap. I am also the one that backed the need for a diverse defn inclusiive of what the rest of them called "Afrocentric". you start personalizing it it goes elsewhere, 4 the benfit of none.--Halaqah 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, whatever the case may be, your identity is not that important, but I still think you are Shahadah. The African Holocaust section at a site (which you are not a part of), is linked directly from Halaqah Media, as is Shahadah’s own site. I don’t have a problem with Islamic Africans doing exactly what you say, but on the same token, most of the African history has been established by Christian Africans and Christian African-Americans. Do not forget that. I do not have a problem with Muslim Africans (I have Muslim African relatives), but I do not like the “turn a blind eye” attitude in regards to Islamization. I do not recognize Islam as being a foundational aspect of my being, nor of my faith in God. I recognize Islam as being one man’s interpretation of Jewish and Christian beliefs and Catholic apocryphal beliefs. So you go there as much as you’d like. Muhammad has a black slave named Bilal, while the Christian Jesus had no slaves. The Hadith calls black people “raisin heads” and implies that black women are temptations of satan, and identifies Muhammad as a white man. And there is more and more, so you feel free to go there, I will gladly go there with you anytime. You continue to do your work, but don’t absolve the Arabs and Arabic racism from the overall impact on the African people. If you truly take ownership of the Islamic African contributions to black history or African history, then do so, but don’t play the guard-dog role for Arabs, and so far that’s what you are doing. I can always remind you, Christianity existed outside of Europe before Europeans used it to oppress Africans. I strictly and exclusively recognize the Biblical and non-European POV of Christianity (whether Coptic, Ethiopian, Thomasite, or Assyrian). The thing about Christianity and Islam that sets the two apart regards to Holocausts is this:

Muhammad’s Qu’ran instructs believers to oppress the unbelievers. Christianity Biblical Jesus instructs us NOT to do that.

African Christians have a history that predates any British, French or Spanish use of the religion to control black people.

I personally have issues with Islam because of the racism and the misinterpretation of Christianity in the Quran and the strawman attacks on it by Muhammad. I also find it ignorant that Muslims allege that the Quranic philosophy/religion predated Christianity and that Jesus was a Quranic preacher. (It’s absurd to assume that Jesus whole ministry centered around prophecizing about Muhammad, when most of Muhammad’s Quran simply talks about those before him, a circular reasoning!)

As far as personal attacks go, I have to stand up to the abuse on the black people article. I cannot stand to hear someone talk about how “black” is wrong yet you only speak against it to further divide black people in Asia from the black people in Africa. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. We appreciate your contributions to the Who is Black article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site this statement (or something similar): "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License".

You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Teahouse. You can also leave a message on my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 06:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This information was not copywrighted. You cannot copywright an article title. It's a title of an article and is not found anywhere else. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't copyright a title, but you can copyright text. I sampled a sentence and Googled it. It came back nearly word for word from another source. You can certainly write about the subject in your own words and use the external sources as references, but you can't cut and paste text directly. No need to get upset. - Lucky 6.9 06:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence came back from www.homestead.com/wysinger/ptahhotep.html but other sections did not. I'd suggest cleaning up the opener to avoid another misunderstanding. Good luck. - Lucky 6.9 06:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is Black/Definitions of black people

Stop, please. This is getting disruptive. Just leave it all alone, and DISCUSS IT. If you make Who is Black the article, again, you will be blocked. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats what it was in its ORIGINAL STATE! Why are you supporting a change. Dammit block me. I am so tired of you fake anti-black racists trying to pidgeon hole black people into something you can control. You are so out of line it's rediculous. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then take the TEXT out. I didn't write that text in there. Look. When are you guys gooing to quit with the black contributor attack routine. Four of you have coordinated yourselves in various ways to block the independant and worthwhile attempt to participate. That article has been up for over a week and at no period did you or anyone else cite the content (which has not changed). You only changed the TITLE (back to Definitions), and your excuse (copywright) is nonsense. I am upset, because your timing is so obviously inappropriate. Will you guys stop this endless attempt to keep us negroes from having a decisive say in how this content is published on here? Or is it absolutely necessary that all the white administrators paternalistically keep the status-quo black stereotypes going? ENOUGH!!! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't pull the race card. I didn't even know you were black until you started complaining about being discriminated against, so please stop being childish. And people can change the names of articles if they feel it is a better name. That's what moving a page does.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I pull the race card becuase no one applied this process when they changed the name the first place. All of these excuses are so fake. You want to change it because it "sounds better", even though it was originally "who is" and no one used the moving a page to change it. Then this other guy wants to change it for "copywrighting" reasons, even though the content has been there for weeks! Two others want to do it for no reason at all. DEFINING is CONDESCENDING. How can you not see that. You don't DEFINE a person, you ASK. "WHO is a JEW"... that's the name of the article. How does 'define' sound so much better with 'black' but not with 'a jew'? EXPLAIN HOW THATS NOT RACIST! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I happen to be of Italian ancestry. If my grandfather were alive, he could tell you horror stories about the blatant and vicious racism he endured when he first hit these shores almost 100 years ago. I just deleted the article for the copyvio. If anything, it's beautifully formatted and researched. Clean up the partial copyvios and IMO we have a winner. Relax, deep breaths...there. - Lucky 6.9 06:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew?" is a common Jewish phrase, as is explained when you brought that question up on Talk:Who is a Jew?. Misplaced Pages has White people and Black people as articles. There's probably several other articles like that for other races. It was originally stated that "Who is Black" and all of its alterations is not an encyclopedic title. Just go digging through Category:Ethnicity to see other examples of encyclopedic titles of similar articles. If you want to move Definitions of black people to Who is Black, go discuss it at length on the talk page of where the article is currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you really so dense that you cannot get that I do not care what your ancestry is? Are you really so "republican conservative reactionary" that you cannot get that the whole POINT is that you should not relate to one group with any less respect than another? The article Who is a Jew is respected. The title Definitions of Black People is disrespectful. The obvious comparision is plain for you to see. I do not care that you are of any ancestry, I am not trying to delete the article, I am trying to restore the original title of the article. How can you miss that? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryu! Where is the link that shows the title was changed from its original Who is Black to Definitions of Black People. It is so irrelevant that the Jewish one is from a popular phrase. I could have titled the article "Are you really Black" (a VERY popular phrase among black Americans). There is no other example in Misplaced Pages of any other Ethnicity that uses the word "Definitions of this Ethinicity". You know WHY? Because it's ignorant and disrespectful. Imagine an article Definition of an Arab or Definition of an Indian. Offensive. How can you not see that? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, a title must be "encyclopedic" and "who is a Jew" is encyclopedic because it's a popular jewish phrase (this is an English version of Misplaced Pages, fascinating that the rule is broken to accomodate a non english euphanism). In addition, most of the contributors who are not Jewish aren't familiar with this phrase.. however "are you really black" a very common black phrase... I doubt you would accept that because again, "If a tree falls and a white man does not hear it, it never really fell" right? When do you guys actually look at your own selves and stop with the hedging of black autonomy in participating here? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite. The gloves are off: If you write one more disparaging word to any user on this site, you will be blocked from further editing. Is that clear, sir? - Lucky 6.9 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what. I am going to go through the entire Misplaced Pages moderator list and go as high as I can go. You offended me with your ignorance and you made no effort to acknowledge it. BLOCK ME. Take the gloves off. Here is your disparaging comment: You acted in haste and without looking at the article history. You acted simultaneously with another user Ryu who was also modifying the article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)