Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AAA765 (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 5 August 2006 (→Timothy Usher and "Incivility"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bishonen has not been especially patient with His excellency

I just realized workshop pages tend to be ignored by arbitrators once they've placed proposals there (I'm referring to an apparently unread comment at the RFAr Eternal Equinox workshop), so I'm reposting here my comment on Fred's proposed finding of fact that "Bishonen has been very patient with His excellency":

Nonsense. I'd be gratified if I were commended for general patience and good faith, but this is unjustly phrased at the expense of User:His excellency, as if he were a child to need any particular "patience with". It was no conjuring trick on my part to notice the circumstances and the kind of pressure that provoked him into the "wikiharakiris" and other gestures of frustration. IMO cause and effect lie open and visible to anybody of good faith who has studied the sequence of events, noting especially the timing of the blocks in relation to the heated comments, and noting the withdrawal of such comments, and the harsh "ownership" climate at the Islam articles. His E is rather to be commended for resilience in his efforts to negotiate the barbed wire round those articles and in continuing to edit in circumstances that have driven off so many others. User:Zora comes to mind, and I've just added my own small-scale frustration at Bernard Lewis in my evidence section, as an unimportant but illustrative example. The arbcom needs to consider the toll such a climate takes on the temper of the pushed-out "outsider". I feel distinctly less pleasant for the experience myself. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Non-rhetorical question: have you ever stopped to ask yourself how you'd feel were you one of the editors attacked by "His excellency"? I'd be curious to hear your answer.Timothy Usher 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said in Workshop to this duplicate message: H.E. began his campaign of "frustrated" vile personal attacks long before he came near the Islam articles, as my evidence section clearly shows (read the section on his attacks against Celestianpower for some choice quotes). He was not transformed from a decent, hardworking editor because of any "barbed-wire" fence - he brought the same behavior with him from articles like Ann Coulter and Fox News to Islam. His behavior and his problems are solely of his own doing, and to claim otherwise is to treat him as a child instead of as a responsible adult. I honestly cannot fathom your faith in this individual. - Merzbow 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A minor factual correction to myself - as Amibidhrohi he did have early edits to a number of Islam-related articles (none of the ones involved in this dispute), but the vast majority of his edits were to articles like CNN, Fox News, and Ann Coulter, and it is on these articles where his incivility and brutal personal attacks came into full flower. - Merzbow 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But H.E. has a point and it should be heard. Do you guys think Bishon, Zora, I and H.E. are all complaining about a completely non-existent problem? or that all the problems has its roots in H.E's personal attacks? --Aminz 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, he has engaged in a range of personal attacks and incivility far greater than anyone else has on these articles, in a manner very similar to how he behaved as Amibidhrohi on previous non-Islam articles. This is hard evidence that the real cause of H.E.'s problematic behavior lies within himself, not with the articles. Second, the positions he takes regarding issues of bias by other editors on these articles is consistently 10x more extreme than anyone else to the point where it is clear he cannot work with any other editors ("There's absolutely nothing in the realm of good faith in the works of any of the editors participating in the Islam-related articles" ). That's just one example from my "Misplaced Pages as battleground, conspiracy theories" section. I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing. - Merzbow 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are content problems. The most serious problem by far is the lack of any serious scholarship in the majority of Islam-related articles. You've got to have sourced content in order to have something to be neutral about. Otherwise, it's just the proclamation of an informal non-expert committee, and utterly useless to any serious research.

A few editors have solved this problem in a few places. Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly.

The solution is for other editors to read the sources and join the discussion in a sober-minded way to curb perceived excesses in the selection and treatment of sources in a principled and non-arbitrary manner.

"I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." - Merzbow's hit the nail on the head, as usual. Generally speaking, scholars enjoy correcting one another. The more well-informed serious-minded editors there are, of whatever persuasion, the more likely excesses will be uncovered and corrected.

It is wholly unnecessary and unproductive to observe that editors have points of view: the way to check them isn't to denounce other editors, but to inform oneself, argue the specifics, and stay involved.

Whereas more editors are needed, H.E. subverts this goal by driving other editors away. It’s entirely possible that some articles will come to reflect solely H.E.’s point of view, simply because few will be willing to undergo the treatment to which he’ll subject them. I know I’m not, and it looks like Merzbow’s not, either. No content dispute is remotely worth it.Timothy Usher 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Merzbow, I agree with you especially on the point "I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." The point is the cost actually paid. Misplaced Pages works based on consensus and not vote of majority unfortunately. If an editor doesn't want to accept the view of majority, everything stops. This will also discourage other editors. I think we should discuss this somewhere else as it seems irrelavant to this talk page. --Aminz 01:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Timothy, re: "Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly." Timothy, would you please kindly and for the sake of God get the Lewis book from the library and read it yourself. Just first 10-20 pages is enough. You can read it online on books.google.com or amazon.com . I *swear* that you will change your point of view. I have a roommate who has borrowed the book from me (actually by force); he says Lewis always talks bad about Iran and always praises Ottoman empire. He jokes that probably one of Lewis's Jewish ancestors have became an advisor to an Ottoman king since he says Lewis writes very good about Ottomans. (or simply compare this version of Dhimmi article with Jewish Encyclopedia's sentence that brotherhood between Ishmael and Isaac was probably the reason for the tolerance which Muslims almost universally showed to the Jews, or this . Yes at times the situation was bad (e.g. when the Ottoman empire was weak and was under threat at its borders) but that was not the general case) --Aminz 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I had read it, though not the whole book, but at least the parts to which you’re referring. The first pages are thoughtful discussion of the meaning of tolerance, the validity of judging the medieval Islamic world by modern standards, as discussed on ]. Lewis is on the mark, but I think Pecher’s right that it’s off-topic. Maybe there’s something else you had in mind. This fix, “While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe”” strikes me equally POV as what it replaced (“were reduced to the status of second-class citizens”), off-topic and more overtly argumentative. I agree, however, that the earlier version was too strident in its choice of wording. But that’s just my opinion. We could continue this discussion on Talk:Dhimmi were it not for the certainty that His excellency would take his attacks to that forum as well.Timothy Usher 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, and you do know that Lewis comments about the very phrase you referenced "the status of second-class subjects citizens(see the article) " that: "At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society...A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.".

Fine, you think it was a good faith representation of source and as equally POV as "While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe". You think using a term that conveys a formal condemnation while knowing that the authur doesn't intend that particular meaning, is a good faith representation of a source! Fine, this is the second point at which I can not continue discussion. You have your POV and I have mine. I don't wish to discuss this with you anymore. --Aminz 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The original sentence you are refering to is "Living in areas conquered by Muslims, these people were reduced to the status of second-class subjects and tributaries of a Muslim state." compare it with what Cahen states :"Taxation from the perspective of Dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"". SO, THEY WERE REDUCED TO tributaries of a Muslim state. NICE! --Aminz 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed wording: thank you, Fred

I see Fred Bauder has changed the wording of his proposed finding of fact and commendation, perhaps in response to my note above, to remove the overtones I thought it carried. Thank you, Fred, I appreciate that very much, and the compliment too. :-) Bishonen | talk 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Statement by H.E.

I'm really tired of this debating. I know I can't expect the arbitrators to do their own investigations into the backgrounds of all allegations. I must stress my evidences page is sorely incomplete. There'd be tons more if I had time to go through every edit they've made in the past 6 or so months. I don't have that kind of time. I simply don't have the time to take on the editing histories of 3 editors. If you dont think there's something wrong with Misplaced Pages telling its Muslim readership that their wives are in fact slaves. or Criticism of Islam being the size of a book, then what can I say? Read Bernard Lewis' books...He doesn't condemn the Dhimmi phenomena, he merely reports on the historic phenomena. He relates the practice as being both oppressive by today's standards, AND as being relatively humane considering what was being practiced by Islam's contemporaries. When I introduce THAT aspect of Lewis' analysis, already documented and discussed on the talk page without anyone opposing it, Merzbow documents it as 'quote dumping' and includes it in his evidence of indictments against me. There is a critique of Robert Spencer that discusses his method of drafting anti-Islamic polemic- that being he selectively cherry-picks through sources to collect and polish those bits that present negative images to the readership. The intent is to create the image that Islam offers nothing of value. It's all beheadings and oppression. My interpretation of the Dhimmi article is that its aim is to suggest Islam is similar to Nazism. As for the 'lacking of scholarship', it has never been my contention that western scholarship should be balanced with eastern one. If the credibility of the scholar can be supported, whether or not he or she is an Arab or a Jew or an American becomes irrelvant. Bat Ye'or isn't a scholar! She doesn't even possess a bachelors degree. Muslim sources ARE excluded. Pecher's already involved in another conflict where he's trying to exclude a very popular biography, an award-winning one in fact, from mention in Battle of Mut'ah. Itaqallah is forced now to open an RFC on that issue. . Apparently unless a book has been reviewed by western scholars/critics, it isn't a book. WP:NPOV makes it clear that euro/western-centrism is not welcome, and that a broad perspective is essential. His Excellency... 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As for editors being alienated, being forced to abandon the project, the only real and solid example of such editors is Zora, who had stated that it's the Islam-bashers who've made her lose interest in the project. I'd made several statements expressing my desire to give this up too. I don't because I'm forced to remember how many other editors I'd been disappointed of because they chose to abandon the project rather than address the problem. Bishonen's statement on the Workshop shows she knows what kinds of pressures I'm talking about. Look at what BhaiSaab and Itaqallah have had to put up with. Ever since Timothy Usher's (and company) on WP:Islam fighting over those stupid rules telling Muslim to refrain from saying Salaam or expressing their religious sentiments on their talk pages, that Wikiproject has been almost deserted. His Excellency... 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy placed on probe for one year ?

Can I believe what I see? --Aminz 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised by this proposed finding, in light of this statement of the nature of the dispute which Fred Bauder had proposed some time ago:

"This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Misplaced Pages articles which concern Islam are at issue."

Therefore, I'd not bothered to delve into and rebut the material presented by His excellency, except to the extent he'd baselessly - and falsely - ascribed dark motivations to my involvement in Misplaced Pages. I will, at some point, take a look to get an idea of what the proposing arbitrator might be thinking, and put forth a defense.

Suffice for now to say that maintaining a clean record is, and always has been, more important to me than any content dispute. Had I any inkling, or any warning, that my conduct was in any way in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy, I would certainly have modified it accordingly. Additionally, I've long since withdrawn (6/18) from any of the spaces which were once disputed. No formal sanction is warranted, or necessary.

I've sent an e-mailed to Tony Sidaway in the hopes that it will be made available to the Arbitration Committee.Timothy Usher 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher and "EDIT WARRING"!!!!!

DIFFS ??????? I do edit warring. Pecher does. H.E. does. Timothy has been always very hesitant to do it. --Aminz 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher and "Incivility"

Dear Arbitrators, I'd like to make some comments about the personal attacks made by "famous" academic scholars just to provide an idea that ("unfortunately") Timothy's most controversial comments are not too far from the norms and standards of comments made by famous scholars in academia. As I said there are differing views among academics ranging from Watt who believes Muhammad was inspired by God, and Margoliouth who believes Muhammad was a charlatan. Margoliouth is not shy to make personal attacks towards Muhammad. As you may know, Ali is a very famous companion of Muhammad. He is loved by all Muslims. Now:

This is how Henri Lammens writes about him:

Lammens describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable".

He

• Writes "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
• Writes of how Ali was "ugly".
• Writes about how Ali was "fat".
• Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
• Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
• Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (Ali).
• claims Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
• Doubts the existence of Al Muhsin.
• Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying his wife Fatima.

Madelung in his Succession provided a detailed critical analysis on these criticisms.

Now, on the other side of the spectrum we have:

Sir William Muir who writes: "Endowed with a clear intellect, warm in affection, and confiding in friendship, he was from the boyhood devoted heart and soul to the Prophet. Simple, quiet, and unambitious, when in after days he obtained the rule of half of the Moslem world, it was rather thrust upon him than sought."

Thomas Carlyle who writes: "noble-minded...full of affection and fiery daring. Something chivalrous in him; brave as a lion; yet with a grace, a truth and affection worthy of Christian knighthood"

And many others who have praised Ali. Please note how different the range of views are.

My suggestion is that

1. Misplaced Pages needs more precise regulations of how and to what extend editors have the right to use particular academic/unacademic POVs to condemn or praise a person.

2.Timothy Usher counselled to be more sympathetic with Muslim editors and understand their feelings.

3. (this is my personal suggestion) He counselled not to work on any article that Pecher is working on, because he loses his sense of justice in those cases to my mind.

--Aminz 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)