[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

[Parker Peters]

I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even
relevant.

On 12/15/06, IAJ <zzvash at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
>
> <snip>
>
> "to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
>
> That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the
> content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to
> merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised
> revert. I don't believe that merits a response.


After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and
others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small "changes"
happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very divergent
versions going on.

Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
> Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,


Arrow740 did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93017548&oldid=92958469

So did Proabivouac.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93030627&oldid=93019838

You're out of line, mister.

<snip>
>
> "Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of
> Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent
> to
> read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and
> Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question."
>
> Fact is: the sources RunedChozo provided do not explicitly substantiate
> the
> claim he attributed them.


At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim
politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment.

At best, his insertion was an editorialised
> intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR).
> At
> worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
>
> I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in
> content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
>
> The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya,
> I'm
> not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons I
> will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as
> the
> casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the article
> states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for the
> attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it imply
> deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere
> convenience?
> Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
>
> Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly, reliable
> source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or Arab
> history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority.


Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come up
with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in
his Muslim upbringing.

Why, then, does
> his opinion matter here?


For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or
the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the Ayatollah...


I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
> his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked in.


We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an
excellent place to start.

Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
> scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of such
> people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an
> encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.


See above.

<snip>
>
>
> "The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly
> indicates
> that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful
> treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
>
> It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.


I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be
discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out of
hand, so I really can't say anything more to you.

"And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a
> good amount of time going
> through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in
> favor
> of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV
> presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly
> when there is a controversy over his actions"
>
> That's not the case, but I'm sorry you feel that way.


I'm sorry the article is that way, and that you feel the need to edit war
over it.

"And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit,
> well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case
> at
> all."
>
> It doesn't, and I've discussed this above.


And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people
didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day.

Your 'research' is less than
> convincing, I'm afraid.


Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above.

Parker