User talk:Aiden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /Archive1: September 2005 – February 2006
• /Archive2: March 2006

Contents 1 Muhammad article 2 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy map 3 Why cap shari'a? 4 Jesus and Gospel Jesus 5 Jesus#Ministry 6 Hamas article 7 Bug on talk edit 8 Just another RFA thank you note 9 My RfA 10 Jesus and Matthew 5 11 The new look 12 Temple Mount 13 Move 14 Smiley Template 15 militant 16 tlkn user box 17 Christianity 18 Abrahamic religion phrase 19 Christianity 20 you could be the deciding vote 21 6 day war 22 Baruch Goldstein 23 Discussion on monotheism 24 My Lai Massacre 25 Haditha incident 26 just wanted to say 27 Featured Picture 28 Edit warring on Jesus 29 Restorationism 30 Christian "Cannon" 31 Why are you reverting my changes and claim them to be POV? 32 Mel Gibson Net Worth Vandalism 33 Israeli-occupied territories 34 Moved 35 Irreducible Complexity 36 Hi 37 "Salvation" section 38 Your NPOV attempt 39 Death and Resurrection of Jesus 40 1948 Arab-Israeli War 41 Jesus' life 42 Jesus's Genealogy 43 Baruch Goldstein 44 Removal of Terrorist category 45 Christianity Personal Award 46 Ra'anana 47 Muhammad reverts 48 You're Right 49 Muhammad as a diplomat 50 Featured picture promotion 51 New Christianity Template 52 Tanakh 53 Muhammad quote removal 54 Three revert report 55 Warning all parties to stop the edit warring on Muhammad 56 Please comment here 57 Christianity 58 Reforms under Islam (610-661)‎ 59 Criticism of the Quran

[edit] Muhammad article

I agree, Aiden, Red Crescent's edits are vandalism.

Timothy Usher 06:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy map

Hello, I just wanted to say I found your color coordinated map of reactions to the cartoon controvery very interesting and informative. I think things like this that present data in means "outside of the box" are specially appealing. Good job. —Aiden 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've gotten quite a few positive comments regarding the map. joturner 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why cap shari'a?

You changed shari'a in the Aisha article to Shari'a. Why? It's not as if shari'a were one monolithic thing. It's Islamic law; law isn't always capped; shari'a shouldn't be capped. I don't think it is in scholarly works. Zora 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus and Gospel Jesus

I left a long response on Talk:Jesus, but my main point is that Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels is now longer than New Testament view on Jesus' life, which was created because the section in the Jesus article was getting too long. Something is a little off when a summary is longer than the article it is meant to summarize. I just think that we should expand New Testament view on Jesus' life before we even think of expanding Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels. That article needs more work than the section in the Jesus article.

Also, I think the Gospel summary should be about a third of the Jesus article (which it currently is). Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus#Ministry

64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs) is at it again. This AOL IP just reverted your edits to the Ministry section: [1]. That's five times by my count. I don't know about you, but as I said earlier I'm getting tired of this circular editing war. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree--cherry picking is bad. I didn't make any edits to the section this weekend because I wanted to see if the anons came back. They did. They are also not coming to the talk page. What do you suggest we do next? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I considered semi-protection, but after the battles this weekend I agreed to request full protection instead. I've decided to step away from the article for a while. Have fun sorting things out ;) Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas article

I don't know if your comment "Militant is in no way a weasel word. It is used by all major media to describe the group" was directed at me or not, but if it was, the word 'militant' isn't what I was reffering to as a weasel word. It has since been reverted, but someone added to the first paragraph a part saying something like "some belive hamas to be a murdurous terrorist group, and some heroic freedom fighters". Thats what my "weasel word" comments were directed at. s»abhorreo»i 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bug on talk edit

Thanks! I know they watch my talk page...

There was a strange bug which made the section go blank when I tried to edit, so it was either say thanks or preserve text - I chose the former; feel free to revert.

And feel free to stop by anytime.Timothy Usher 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Aiden, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] Jesus and Matthew 5

Please see Talk:Jesus#Edit war over Matthew 5. (It's an AOL IP again). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new look

Are you a universalist now? :) —Aiden 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There was never a point where I was not a universalist; I just didn't express that as clearly as my Muslimness before. Similarly, I know the Interstate Highway System (essentially) by heart, but I choose not to depict that on my user page. joturner 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. :) I find it pretty interesting. I have many Muslim friends but none that are universalist. If you don't mind me asking, wow do you reconcile your beliefs with say, the image of a cross, when you do not believe Jesus died on a cross? —Aiden 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We must be thinking of separate definitions of universalism. From the universalism article...

In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that true and valuable insights are available in many of the religious traditions which have grown up in various human cultures. It posits that a spiritually aware person will respect religious traditions other than his own and will be open to learning from them. It does not deny that immersion in one tradition is a useful anchor for an individual's spiritual development. While it celebrates the richness and value to be found among humankind's religious traditions, it does not necessarily deny that some things done in the name of religion, and some religious practices, are not constructive. But it distinguishes itself from the view that there is only one true faith, one uniquely chosen people, or one final prophet superseding all others.

I would have to have to distance myself from that last statement, of course. I do believe that there was a final prophet superseding all others. As for the one true faith and one uniquely chosen people, I will withhold my opinions on that. I'll just say that I believe there are many paths to peace in this world and the Hereafter. I don't exactly subscribe to the belief that all non-Muslims will go to Hell.

The universalism article as another definition states...

Universalism can also mean the wish for a closer union between all people of the world (the emergence of world citizens) and/or the aim of creating common global institutions (democratic globalization)

In these two manners, I believe I am a universalist. I don't believe that I have to believe that Jesus died on the cross to be a universalist. Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought. joturner 05:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Mount

Do you have any knowledge about this topic? Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Can't do it while I'm still involved too. Isa is clearly the best name. However, the article really should be moved to Isa again because I can not find any agreement on it having been moved. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You can move it back, but someone not involved probably will have to do locking. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not how this is supposed to work. Locking isn't supposed to be an endorsement of a version, such that we arrange for something in particular to happen, then to have it locked into the "right version". Although we have noticed a certain pattern in this regard...Timothy Usher 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not meant to be an endorsement of a version. It was meant to return the page to its pre-controversy state and allow those that wish to have it moved to file a RFM. —Aiden 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Template

Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce (Friendly smile)
• {{smiley|2}} will produce (Confident)
• {{smiley|3}} will produce (Mocking)
• {{smiley|4}} will produce (Hysterical)
• {{smiley|5}} will produce (Hurt)
• {{smiley|6}} will produce (Very Sorry)
• {{smiley|7}} will produce (Sleepy)
• {{smiley|8}} will produce (You are Nive)
• {{smiley|9}} will produce (I am not happy)
• {{smiley|0}} will produce (No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] militant

I suggest to drop it. Zeq 06:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zeq here Aiden. I see it as a pretty small issue that is not worth pursuing to the degree that you have. I will say that I agree with you but nevertheless I would rather follow the consensus in this case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tlkn user box

Hello, just wondering if I am seing the same thing as you: to me it is not much better, but your comment on the new version says "made readable". Can you really read the tolkien user box? With my browser it shows Tlkn in black and then white text over a white background: Totally not good to me.

[edit] Christianity

Aiden, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism.Timothy Usher 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aiden. Kudos on the intro fix. Just to avoid confusion, my edit summary was referring to discussion of Islam. I agree 100% that "monotheistic" should appear w/out hedging in the intro. Slac speak up! 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic religion phrase

As we seem to be the ones ones who care about this phrase, and as it covers several pages, I post here:

v1) Like Y and Z, X is an Abrahamic religion. v2) X is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Y and Z.

I prefer v1 because it's plainer language. X is an Abrahamic religion not just along with, as it happens, Y and Z, but for the same reason it is like them, historical descent. It avoids the ubiquitous "is considered", which isn't really necessary here, because the term "Abrahamic religion" is more or less defined by these three members. Whether the genetic descent from Abraham is real (as it isn't with most Christians) or whether Abraham would have preferred one to another isn't known and shouldn't matter.

What do you think?Timothy Usher 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

I'll drop by. But I do not know how much help I can be with the war on at Luther recently. --CTSWyneken 10:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is monotheism, of course, but I don't know if I want to jump into another firestorm, especially since that article is the center of the "cabal" allegations. I think what is happening is that people are confusing angels and demons with gods—but that is a very, very old problem. Don't even get me started with the veneration of saints: that's one of the areas in which Protestants diverge from the Catholic and Orthodoc views.

I have been watching the page, though.

BTW, whatever happened to your quiz farm scores? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have either. It was a reminder. Jkelly 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, Aiden, not to be rude, but I don't think that last revert was for vandalism.... Homestarmy 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to edit summary. Oh! I thought it was someone casting doubt on the phrase. --CTSWyneken 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ironic that someone who digs up personal information about editors is himself stalked and forced to shut his site down (as he made several editors leave Wikipedia.)"

Who left Wikipedia besides KHM03? Besides that, as I check now, the site is still up. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you could be the deciding vote

Please reconsider your neutral vote to either yes or no. Zeq 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 day war

just saw some of your comments on the talk page. thanks for taking the effort to contest POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.131.107 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

Saying that I censor talk pages is a very unpleasant accusation that does not improve the pleasure of contributing to this community project. I did explain in the edit summary why I removed the text. Also, you referred to Wikipedia policies, can you show me just one policy that states that anything that is dumped by anons at talk pages, even if unrelated to the edit proces, should remain there? gidonb 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aiden: Thank you for your comments regarding Gidonb totally removing my contribution to the talkpage on Baruch Goldstein. I really appreciate your comments. Here is the message I just sent to Gidonb:

Dear Gidonb: I was rather dismayed to read your "reasons" for deleting my contribution to the talkpage on Baruch Goldstein. These you stated to be that they were my "personal opinion" and that they were irrelevant to the article on Baruch Goldstein.

However reading through one of your contributions to this very same talkpage you wrote "Goldstein was a terrorist". Since no Court of Law has found him guilty of being a terrorist, this is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION! In addition, if it is RELEVANT for you to make such a comment on the talkpage, it is NO LESS relevant for me to bring the counter view.

You also mention "Wikipedia policies". If you would study the "Key Policies of Wikipedia" you would see that one of them is "Respect other Contributors". However despite this you totally removed my contribution and when "Aiden" accused you of "censoring talk pages" you classed this as an "unpleasant accusation".

I consider my contribution to this talkpage no less relevant than your contributions and I am therefore restoring it. Simonschaim 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Simonschaim 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that Talk pages exist so user's can offer their views on a subject. Talk pages are not subject to WP:NPOV or other article policies and there is no reason to remove another user's comments, save for vandalisim. —Aiden 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on monotheism

I just stumbled across and read the latest tome of this debate, and I want to thank you for your intelligent and level-headed comments. Kudos to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lcee (talk • contribs) .

[edit] My Lai Massacre

Regarding the tags you added to this article. There is a very long list of references at the bottom of the page. In-line citations are not required on Wikipedia, though they can certainly be helpful. Speaking of helpful, you might like to consider making a request for in-line citations on the article's talk page rather than tagging a subject that is so well-known as this, and for which the principle controversies concern the intentions of the parties involved and the apportioning of blame, not so much the incident itself. I suggest this because I can imagine these tags provoking an edit war - and that would be very unfortunate and counterproductive. I think it's better (particularly with subjects of a politically divisive nature) to discuss first, raise problems and try to resolve them, and if that fails, to tag and take it to the next step. Pinkville 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the references listed in the References section, only three are actually cited in the article. The intro includes no citations, nor does the entire Background section. The Massacre section, comprising nine paragraphs, has only two references cited. Of the Cover-up section's five paragraphs, only one sentence, a quote, is cited. The remaining two sections, Courts martial and Aftermath have no citations. Throughout the article, there are many things claimed as fact, such as the "body count" mission evaluations, with absolutely no references to back up these claims. This systematic bias, unsourced as well, is flagrant in this article. In-line citations would be required at the end of nearly every sentence in the article. For these and other reasons I have disputed the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, as well as cited lack of sources for the individual sections. Please see the Talk page of the article for further discussion. —Aiden 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias, indeed. Thank you for being there to try to keep it straight. --Beth C. 09:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haditha incident

217.235.215.177 whom you've been reverting has petitioned the admins' noticeboard, saying you're reverting him without discussion. It would be helpful if you did reply to his post on Talk:Haditha incident about the 'speculative' thing. If you have a good reason for not having replied yet, like because you've gone to bed (as I should have done at least an hour ago), I apologise :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Since its the last topic I will just add here. I think your work on Haditha Incident has been very good, you keep the article NPOV and prevent it from placing guilt before any is found. Just a heads up to let you know someone appreciates your work. --zero faults talk 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second zero faults' commendation. Thanks, Aiden. --Beth C. 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another remark about Haditha: Your reverts on the Killings/Massacre/Whatever are useful, but please take care not to revert too much. The remark about the journalists is clearly POV. --217.235.254.124

[edit] just wanted to say

I loved the quotes on your user page :) --Cyprus2k1 16:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."

[edit] Featured Picture

An image you uploaded, Image:Us declaration independence.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture. Congratulations, and thanks for uploading it. Raven4x4x 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Jesus

I'm asking you and The_Thadman (talk • contribs) to stop edit warring immediately. I won't ask again.

[edit] Restorationism

The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, -Kevin/Last1in 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian "Cannon"

You gave me quite the chuckle with a simple, one-letter typo. I laugh because it's the kind of thing I do, not in any way to belittle you. You wrote, "...the Gospels are Christian cannon anyway." A canon is an ecumenical doctrine, rule or foundation; cannons are things you shoot people with. I really, really, really hope you meant the former... Kevin/Last1in 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you reverting my changes and claim them to be POV?

Dear Aiden, In the last couple of days you have twice reverted my attempt to make the Greater Israel article a bit more NPOV. The existing text says that claim that Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah stretches from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates is nothing but an anti-Zionist and Islamist conspiracy theory, while at the same time adding that "no prominent Zionist or Israeli intellectual or political figure advocates pursuing such borders". That text is really bad, as it one the one hand says that it's a false claim invented by critics or enemies of Israel, but at the same time recognises that some Israelis have that view, as the addition that no "prominent" Zionists, intellectuals or politicians have this view indicates that some less prominent people do.

So, I think that my attempt, "According to a few Revisionist Zionists, who try to keep the views of people like Avraham Stern and Israel Eldad alive, the proper borders of the Land of Israel stretch from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. This extremist view has frequently been used in anti-Zionist and Islamist rhetoric as a proof of Israel's true intentions, although it is rejected by most Israelis" is more accurate and more NPOV, as it clearly states that this is an extremist view, held by only a few, which is being used as "proof" by critics and enemies of Israel, although most Israelis don't share that view.

As you have reverted my change twice, without any other motivation then "POV", I would very much like to hear your reasoning behind it. Unfortunately there are small extremist Jewish/Israeli groups who claim that Israel should encompass all the area mentioned in the Bible. I see no reason to suppress this fact. However, I do think that the article should be moved to "Complete Land of Israel" with a rewrite and redirect from Greater Israel, as the term "Greater Israel" is an extremely poor translation of Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah, and is a major reason for some of the worries among Israel's neighbours for Israeli expansionist plans. It's bad enough that several groups today interpret Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah to include all the occupied territories as well as, in some cases, most of Jordan. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Okay, so you want sources to the claim that Stern and Eldad advocated a Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah in accordance with the Bible:

Lehi, founded by Avraham Stern, advocated the establishment of a "Hebrew kingdom from the Euphrates to the Nile", according to Jewish Library.

According to an article in The Jewish Press, April 7, 1972, Eldad launched a monthly publication after the establishment of Israel, "named "Sulam" (Ladder), in which he sharply criticized Israeli government policies and advocated the establishment of a new "Malkhut Yisrael" (Kingdom of Israel) through the liberation of the entire Land of Israel as defined in the Bible". Save Israel Eldad biography. "Israel Eldad is famous for his advocacy, throughout the l950s and 1960s, of a Jewish state stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates", says Ian Lustick in chapter 5 of his book For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.

Both Stern and Eldad still have admirers and followers. The US-based website Save Israel is only one of many devoted to the writings of both men, so obviously there are people who think like they did. According to Ian Lustick, Yaacov Feitelson, former mayor of Ariel, has stated: "I say that Israel should establish new cities throughout the entire area. I mean really the whole area of the Middle East, without limiting ourselves", and Yehuda Elitzur, one of the most respected scholars in Gush Emunim, according to Lustick, considers the "promised" boundaries - extending to the Euphrates, southern Turkey, Jordan, and the Nile - to be "the ideal borders" for the lands Israel is required eventually to conquer and settle.

So, Stern and Eldad clearly held this view, and there are obviously a few, both inside Israel and outside, who still feel the same way. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg 04:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Gibson Net Worth Vandalism

Dear Aiden,

Please avoid stating false financial information, as you did in the article Mel Gibson. I have been actively pursuing another individuals edits and he has been doing similar things as well. I don't know whether you reverted to his previous edits accidentally or added the bogus financial information yourself, but please be careful. Always cite your information and discuss unclear things on the discussion page. Thank you. --Theelectricchild 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli-occupied territories

Hi Aiden,

I was wondering why you reverted the minor change I made on the above article? Could explain how the Israeli military administration in Palestine would not qualify as a military dictatorship?

Thank you, Louis

[edit] Moved

The following discussion (in a sub section) was originally started on the talk page of the evolution article. I judged it to be very unlikely to result in any improvement of the article (or even of a change). My reasons for this were many but mainly I noted that the same concern has been raised many times on the talk page and has very rarely (or possibly not at all) resulted in an improvement of the article. As talk pages are for the purpose of improvement to an article your user page seemed a better place to carry out this sort of discussion:

Regards, Barnaby dawson 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. —Aiden 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI the talk page on evolution is regularly trolled and issues surrounding the creationist perspective are often raised. Long and pointless discussions are regularly carried out on the talk page of the evolution article. Many editors have agreed to remove irrelevent and pointless discussion to user talk pages (To get an idea of the scale of the problem with such postings take a look at the archives of the evolution talk page.). This is not against wikipedia policy and hardly amounts to "censorship". Barnaby dawson 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, on your questions about Irreducible complexity and NPOV in the evolution article see [2]. Nowimnthing 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please watch and consider Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I have answered you on the talk page about my revert. Nowimnthing 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irreducible Complexity

You have been petitioning to have IC included in the Evolution topic and have repeadetly ignored my arguement why it should not be included. Just for the record, I will write it once more. IC, by the admission of it's leading proponent, Bahe, has no scientific evidence to support it. Not a single study has been done to confirm this theory. Now, this fact makes this theory no different than an infinity of other theories proposed over the ages. To include IC into the article would require us to give space to all those other theories (it's gonna make life hard that there are an infinity of them) as there is no way to differentiate the validity of one thoery over the other. I agree that IC has a much higher support from the general public (due to ID's great PR campaign), but science is not decided by majority rule. So please, unless you can provide a reason why IC is better than another theory, cease requesting that it be included in the article.--Roland Deschain 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"You don't seem to have a problem including arguments against evolution based solely on faith, so why not one of the most popular 'logic based' arguments? —Aiden 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"

I would have a huge problem if arguments based on faith (for or against) were included into the evolution topic. Can you point them out to me in the article so I can state my opposition to them and try to remove them (the misunderstanding section does not include arguements against evolution, it contains widespread misconceptions about the theory of evolution). I've read through the article twice and haven't found them. As to logic arguments: every single logical argument in biology (and science in general) must have some scientfic evidence behind it. And as Bahe has said, IC does not have any evidence going for it at all, so his logic is based on premises that have no validity to them (more than that, his premises have been proven false--see Irreducible Complexity. Bahe has based his entire logic on premises that cannot be differentiated from an infinity of other premises. --Roland Deschain 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may presume to add my two penneth, I would put in that 'irreducible complexity' is manifestly not a 'logic-based' argument. In fact, it is quite the opposite: a logical fallacy. It is an argument from personal incredulity. Instead of actually proposing scientific evidence that an organism or part thereof could not possibly have evolved through natural means, it simply argues that some things appear to be so complex that they must therefore have been designed. It's not much different from the discredited Watchmaker/teleological argument. It does not take into account that there are several natural paths proposed for every one of its examples - from the celebrated flagellum to the old hackneyed 'evolution of the eye' - and even if there weren't, that in itself would not be enough to prove that such a natural explanation could not exist and must necessarily therefore imply a designer. While it may be acceptable as a philosophical argument, it is certainly not a scientific argument and does not belong as a scientific criticism of evolutionary science. JF Mephisto 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I tried to expand on your NPOV point on the bottom of the Evolution discussion page if you are interested.

Bioliquid2fusion

[edit] "Salvation" section

Hello! I notice that you are a contributor to both Christianity-related and Islam-related articles, so I suspect we shall editing the same articles from time to time!

Regarding your reversion of my edits to the "salvation" section of "Christianity", please don't forget that your deletions on wikipedia should, ideally, be carefully justified.

Your deletion of clear, relevant and verifiable information does not appear to really be in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. The salvation issue has several points of view, so I suggest all of which should be properly explained (in line with the NPOV policy).

Anyway I look forward to working with you in the future!

N-edits 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your NPOV attempt

Someone reverted your NPOV edit on the opening of the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima page. I didn't revert it back since I thought you might like to be the one to provide the rationale, or perhaps you will accept his reasoning (and because I've been editing the article quite a bit lately). Personally, I think it's good wording regardless of where the article winds up.

I have no idea the best way to start out the article, but it seems that both sides are at odds with one another. I appreciate you taking the time to try to help with a solution that worked elsewhere. If you add it back, I might suggest you note the parallel between the Palestinian territories article you mentioned on the talk page--it seems the reverting user didn't read it. LactoseTI^T 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death and Resurrection of Jesus

Ignoring verifiability issues and citations for the time being, you have changed:Because the historicity of these two events are usually considered the religions' point of falsifiability to Because the historicity of these two events are considered by some to be the religions' point of falsifiability. I was wondering what are some other points of falsifiability for Christianity? Hypothetically speaking, if it was proven without a doubt that Jesus did not rise, would Christianity still be true? Just somethings to think about.--Andrew c 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Aiden, you've added some information to this article for which no sources are cited. Please remember that all information added to Wikipedia must cite verifiable, reliable sources. In fact Transjordan did not invade Jerusalem: the Arab Legion was determined to stay out of Jerusalem for political reasons, assuming that Israel would do the same, but in fact the Jewish Agency had decided early in 1948 to establish west Jerusalem as capital of Israel by force. Israel also attacked east Jerusalem on 17 May; Transjordanian forces entered the Old City on 19 May, i.e., Israel attacked the "Corpus seperatum" with a view to annexing west Jerusalem and Transjordan responded to that action - see Klein, Jerusalem: The Contested City, pp. 44-45. Iraq occupied defensive positions in the hills of the West Bank, and didn't invade Israel except for brief incursions, none of which lasted for more than a few hours - see The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, pp. 93 and 125. Lebanon didn't invade Israel either. There are perfectly good reasons why history books refer to Arab armies "entering Palestine" rather than "invading Israel". --Ian Pitchford 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Patently false. The Arab Legion invaded not only the Old City (and its Jewish quarter) on May 15, but various blocs and settlements north and south of Jerusalem (including the Etzion bloc and the Sheikh Jarrah district) as well. —Aiden 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember WP:NOR! With regard to your question on my talk page all I can say is that the Palestinians didn't invent Zionism - but who cares about the opinions of Wikipedia editors? That's why we don't change articles without citing our sources - right? --Ian Pitchford 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see sources in my reply above! --Ian Pitchford 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI : Kfar Etzion felt on May 13 (Efraïm Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflit - The Palestine War 1948, Osprey Publishing, 2002) And it is Transjordanian Arab Legion that took it. nb:(on the kibboutz's website they talk about May 14). Alithien 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' life

Just wanted to drop you a note saying thank you for your efforts in getting the new version into the main Jesus article. Job well done!--Andrew c 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus's Genealogy

Hi. Why did you revert the genealogy section? Was it done without discussion? I seemed to have missed it. --Haldrik 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We implemented the condensed version we had been working on for weeks. The discussion is there. —Aiden 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But as far as I can tell, the discussion ended like this:

• Your proposal dwells more on the Gospels than on Jesus. —Aiden 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Fair point. For that reason the fuller text seems better as it conveys how the Gospels portray Jesus himself by describing his special status. Barring objection I'll post it when the time comes. Haldrik 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Posted. Haldrik 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It was posted and there was no more discussion after that. Am I looking at the wrong archive? --Haldrik 01:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

Might I enquire as to why you think that a person who belonged to two officially designated terrorist organizations (JDL and Kach) and who committed a premeditated massacre of 29 civilians should not belong in the terrorist category? Deuterium 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If your motive here is simply because you dislke the existence of the terrorist category, then why aren't you removing the other 100 or so entries in Category:Terrorists? Why have you singled out Goldstein to be removed from the category?

This also seems a WP:POINT violation - if you dislike the category you should push for it's deletion via the regular channels, not disrupt articles that use the category. Deuterium 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is that Goldstein was a terrorist. He belonged to two terrorist organizations and committed a major act of terror, killing 29 civilians. You can't get any more terrorist than that. Deuterium 14:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Only an extremist minority believe that Goldstein pre-empted a Hamas attack, and there is scant evidence for it. Just because a tiny minority disputes something doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to take them seriously. I'm sure there are still flat-earthers around, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can't say that the Earth is a sphere and categorize it as such. Deuterium 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that even his supporters believed he was committing an act of terror designed to disrupt the peace process - Goldstein is not known to have given any reasons for his actions. However, immediately after the attack, Mike Guzofsky, spokesman for Kahane Chai in New York and a close friend of Goldstein said, "He wanted to stop the peace process dead. He couldn't have picked a better day – Purim, when Jews fight back." (from Cave of the Patriarchs massacre)Deuterium 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Terrorist category

I agree that this category should not exist, but I am concerned about the reverting happening on the Baruch Goldstein article. I saw you have tried to get the category deleted before but was unable to reach consensus and that is a shame.

There is no official policy on Wikipedia that states to avoid the word Terrorist. There is Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which is a guide... And it argues both for and against the use of said word! What it does state is that the word should be used in a manner that describes who is calling them what. Is a notable organisation calling Baruch Goldstein a terrorist and are there reputable sources that backs that up? If so, I believe the category should remain. mceder (u t c) 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Personal Award

Check out Christianity_Personal_Award--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ra'anana

Thanks for making the changes to the Ra'anana page. However, to be pedantic (and with my tongue firmly in my cheek), I have to say that Montreal is an American city, just as Mexico City, Buenos Aires and Santiago are all American cities. America does not consist soley of the United States of America. Cymruisrael 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad reverts

Hey, just as a note - I revert more often than I would like, and need to end the practice because of the collateral damage it causes. Take a better look at this revert you made - it ended up reintroducing two copies of the same image, which another editor had corrected in the meantime. Reverting is a touchy matter and should be done carefully. As for the content dispute over that section, I can't and won't address that - I think it's best if you and Aminz resolved that one on your own.

By the way, if you happen to see me doing the same thing on any of the articles you have on your watchlist, let me know. I think it's important that we all get feedback on our edits. Captainktainer * Talk 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Muhammad's talk page about your reversion of my edit. Thanks --Aminz 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're Right

I put on my squirrelly thinking cap and produced a weasel. Thanks for correcting me.Nodekeeper 00:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a diplomat

Aiden, you may find something of interest in this article.Proabivouac 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture promotion

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. KFP (talk | contribs) 07:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on December 10, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Christianity Template

I have created a new merger template, per the request, to replace both the Christianity and Christian Theology templates. I noticed your interest in the template. I would appreciate your comments. Please place comments on the template discussion page, so others can read them. Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanakh

The Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament are the same thing. They are synonyms. The only difference between various editions is the arrangement of the books and a few words, similar to the way the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are slightly different. Wjhonson 12:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. However, the Tanakh article is not an article on the Tanakh, but appears to be solely an article on the term "Tanakh". Hence my comment that I wish there was a comprehensive article on the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and not simply individual article discussing only the terms. —Aiden 06:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you were viewing the Tanakh article and not the Hebrew Bible article ? The Tanakh article is not just about the term. Wjhonson 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad quote removal

The quote you just removed was added by Str1977. --Aminz 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a word by word quote. What's the issue then? --Aminz 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have had. What else should be included in the quote? --Aminz 08:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, what sentences of the source can provide the required context?

Sorry, this last bit "What you've been doing is the primary reason why this article was removed from the Good Articles list" is kind of funny. The article was removed from Good article status long ago, before i touch it. How did you come up with this BTW? --Aminz 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert report

Aiden, Aminz break 3RR TWICE in past two days but no one do anything yet. Please see report on WP:ANI/3RR and comment on your experience dealing with this.Opiner 06:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning all parties to stop the edit warring on Muhammad

Reach a consensus on the talk page or I will have no choice but to fully protect until you do - and this always happens to the wrong version. Consider this effective immediately.  Glen  08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Arab_Custom

--Aminz 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Aiden, that was intentional. IMHO the section is already much too detailed. In any case, it doesn't belong at the end of this paragraph but in the proper context. Maybe you can work something out so that this works, if you insist on having it in the article text. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aiden. I think a footnote is a good middle ground between simply removing details and turning the persecution section into a "persecution of Christians with a focus on Islam" section. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reforms under Islam (610-661)‎

Hi Aiden, look at this new article with old Muhammad material. Aminz and Truthspreader now attracting the helpful reverters including Nielswik with the anti-Semitism history and undoing all my edits. Making Muhammad look like St. Francis againOpiner 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

Hi, this is a new article we're having problems with. You might be interested in helping out. Check out the history for the state of affairs [3]. Arrow740 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)