User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Topic ban for PIA areas reduced in duration to "time served"

Please note, you have a tban and a block in your log now. This means the threshold for harsher, and longer duration sanctions is much lower, and if basic policy on editing in these areas is not followed, will likely come without any warning. Please be careful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Time served" :) WB. Don't do anything I wouldn't do! Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown - Thanks, and noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I hate giving these kinds of warnings, but I *really* hate seeing good people get tbanned and such because they got carried away, and policy says we have to. So please know it is a friendly note, not a mean one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The PIA requires extreme patience, and requires editors who (a) don't hurry (b) read widely in RS (c) think twice before commenting and (d) step away where tempers threaten to undermine detachment. Remember that a lapse is always possible, ergo extreme care. Far higher standards than are normal for wiki are required there for editors to stay the course and articles to achieve significant improvements. Consider that both a burden but also a challenge, both moral and intellectual. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nahid Angha

rev. 1063067063

Hello, Iskandar323, Dr. Nahid Angha participate in “The “Women Gathering for Change” Conference” which held on Bibliotheca Alexandrina in in collaboration with the Human Foundation on march 2016 ,I'm on of the organizer of this confrance .

AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Iskandar323 Shrike (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Stay calm, Iskander. This is only evidence that your editing will be the object of persistent persecution on the flimsiest of grounds (hostility to your assumed POV), as was apparent long ago. Get used to it, draw a wry smile and move on.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

ARBIPA

Just so you're aware; ARBIPA covers everything in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Disruption frequently relates to the Indo-Pakistani conflict, but there's plenty of disruption elsewhere. As such the AE filing was within scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Halal status of Jell-O non-halal gelatin

Hi Iskandar323 ,

Can you locate sources that you consider authoritative for halal/haram status of Jell-O gelatin, and add those to the Jell-O article? You deleted my original cite, but you didn't offer a better alternative. To be fair I am not Muslim so I don't know ifMuhammad_Al-Munajjid is a reliable authority for this issue, but since his response gave references, I assumed it was OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAPwiki (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@TAPwiki: While it may reflect mainstream Muslim views in this regards, the platform Islam Q&A is not a reliable source. On a secondary note, the article in question is not specific to Jell-O or its products, so it cannot definitively be said to relate to that brand, and it is not clear that Jell-O is always pork-based. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want a general statement on gelatin, you could take it from here: Gelatin#Dietary_restrictions_and_gelatin_substitutes Iskandar323 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and merged the one strong source from the Jell-O page into the relevant section on the gelatin page (on 'religious considerations') and transcluded that material back into the Jell-O page as its own separate section on religious considerations outside of the 'in culture' section. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskander323: I don't know if it is the best way, to basically duplicate the content of the Gelatin section in the Jell-O section... would it make more sense just to have a short statement that there are religious considerations with animal derived gelatin (which Jell-O is) and have a link to the gelatin page? TAPwiki (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@TAPwiki: That material is pretty concise (within scope). If one was to shorten it any further, why bother including anything? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Salafi view of Crescent in Islam

I see that you removed my usage of Islam QA as an authority for the Salafi tendency to not use the Crescent in the Article on the Flight 93 memorial. I know from you revision history that you have a tendency to remove Islam QA is an authoritative source in bulk. In this case however, I feel that you misunderstand why I am using it and relying on Muhammad Al-Munajid's opinion. I do not claim *at all* that Munajid is a source that reflects consensus on fiqh in Islam more generally. I am not trying to use him as a source that reflects mainstream beliefs in Islam. Rather his statements reflect a Salafi opinion that is very relevant to understanding Al Qaeda's stance on certain issues, in this case particularly with Islamic Symbolism.--UshankaCzar (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@UshankaCzar: I'm not hugely invested either way. My priority was to remove Islam Q&A sourcing on matters of theology. At the same time, I would note that the statement that you restored appears to involve WP:SYNTH - there is no sourcing directly supporting the notion that Al-Qaeda are mainstream salafist. Jihadist Islamist groups tend to hold to no mainstream religious framework at all, but instead rely on their own internal, often quite propagandistic ideology. Equally, it is not a salafist position that the crescent and star are not fundamentally islamic; it is quite verifiable historical fact. See Star and crescent - the origins of the symbol goes back to the hellenistic era and only became associated with islam under the ottomans, who borrowed the symbol from the byzantines. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim that Al Qaeda are necessarily mainstream Salafis. However, it is widely understood that at least in some form Al Qeada is representative of a portion of the Salafi movement and using the term Salafi-Jihadi to refer to them is widespread among mainstream sources. It is also, of course true that Salafis are not the only Muslims who think that the Crescent is not a symbol of Islam, but I don't see how that is relevant when describing the justification that Al Qaeda would use. With this in mind, I think linking to Islam QA is a good way of safely citing a Salafi justification very similar to one al Qaeada would use because I don't actually want to go find it on an al Qeada affiliated website.--UshankaCzar (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Iranian politics general sanctions notification

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ypatch (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Hi, you cannot change the order of editors posts to where you want them to be since that defeats the purpose of a neutral RFC. After Iraniangal777 said that they "agree with Hogo-2020 that much of this is true and can be stated in wikivoice"[1], you changed[2] the RFC format to a (Yes/no) format, and then moved comments[3] to make it look like most voters support "no" but most voters support replacing that quote. When I undid this[4] you reverted it again also deleting one of my comments[5]. Please self revert and let the answers to your RFC question remain as they were and not how you would like them to look. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the yes/no point because a lot of people commenting in the RFC don't seem to understand that an RFC is not simply a normal discussion, and that they way of casting your vote in and RFC involves stating an answer clearly in bold type. And when Hogo made a comment about my edit, he was quite clearly not responding to the comment before but starting an entirely new thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Your edit to American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Adding short quotations is okay, but adding the surrounding prose is not okay. I removed the entire addition for this reason. — Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa I'm not quite sure how you came to this conclusion - that material was multi-sourced and paraphrased. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian says "The US’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby group has been accused of putting support for Israel before American democracy after it declared its backing for the election campaigns of three dozen Republican members of Congress who tried to block President Biden’s presidential victory." Your version says "After the formation of its first political action committee (PAC) in March 2022, AIPAC was criticized for putting its support for Israel before democratic ideals after it declared its backing for the election campaigns of 37 Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying Biden’s 2020 United States presidential election victory after the 2021 United States Capitol attack."

The Guardian: The former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, described the endorsements as a “sad mistake”." Your version: " Abe Foxman, the former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, described the endorsements as a “sad mistake”"

The Guardian: "(Aipac) has defended the move by saying that support for the Jewish state overrides other issues ". Your version: "Aipac defended the endorsements by saying its support for the Jewish state overrode other issues". Overlapping content is shown in bold.— Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I think that's fixed now. I excised the bulk of the offending passages, and re-paraphrased the remainder. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some less important details to clean it up further. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Tow. I noticed that you recently removed content from Halal without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tow (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tow: I explained perfectly well why in the edit comment. You attached a source containing a trivial mention about the subject and unduly aggrandized it into a new section. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, read your edit summary. Ignore the above, I have added multiple more sources. Tow (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have gotten back to editing Wikipedia after a long time. I appreciate your very helpful edit summaries on Halal. Thank You! :) Tow (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Need move a page

Move the page

The page Sufi–Salafi relations should be moved to "Sunni–Salafi relations" or "Traditional Sunni–Salafi relations" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348940722_Islamic_Traditionalism_in_a_Globalizing_World_Sunni_Muslim_identity_in_Kerala_South_India page 2, 3. Traditional Sunnis are called Sunnis and Wahabis/Salafis are called as such in the Kerala contexts. Moreover Sunnis in Kerala are not identified as Sufis, rather Sunnis itself. Deobandism is reformism. So common name for traditional Sunnis is "Traditional Sunnis. Only that can include all Ash'aris and Mathuridis in its definition. They may not necessarily follow Sufism. So the current name of page is incorrect. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Neutralhappy (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is not about Kerala or Sunnis, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. An oddity though the article may be, it is about comparisons between Salafism and Sufism, mysticism within Islam, and is named as such. Your attempted renaming seems to imply that you think it should be rescoped, but that is an entirely separate kind of discussion from a simple page move. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban

Be cautious with edits like this and this. You are still subject to a broadly construed topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict and these edits (particularly the first) clearly breach it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I appealed the TBAN and it was commuted to time served. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies Iskandar323, I saw that immediately after I posted the message above. Sorry, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Some vaguely Buddhist thoughts

Thanks for your input in and surrounding the RM regarding The Buddha.

Your comment on baiting was particularly welcome. You might find my (longstanding) thoughts related to this at how to reveal yourself without really trying interesting.

It is sad that some participants seem so far from Buddhist ideals. See my essay the middle path and of course comments are very welcome. There's a link there or another on my Wikipedia user page to put us in touch by email if you like. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pavel Ponomaryov

Hello Iskandar323. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pavel Ponomaryov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just to say that I've left you correctly placed BLPROD tag on the article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazali

Abu ali Farmadi page literally states he is a Naqshbandi sheikh with the sources attached. You could have just added them simply on :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juice3kh (talk • contribs) 22:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Juice3kh: Al-Ghazali's teacher was a Naqshbandi, but we do not know if he adopted their creed or believed in their teachings. This needs a reliable source. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly my point? Not sure what the issue is. Juice3kh (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I must have been staring at the screen too long - thought this was talking about Ghazali and not his teacher - I've restored it. Many apologies. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! All the best! Juice3kh (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Striking other users comments

You not allowed to strike other users comments except very special case(like socks) if you think that you user is incorrect you may add your comment or react to his. Please revert your strike. Thanks. Shrike (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 We need you to put your opening comments. (Okay sorry for the bad Uncle Sam Uncle Sam impersonation, but can you please put your opening comments in here? It would really help. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

reliable source or not!!

@Iskandar323 NCERT is national council of education research and training(India) . It is the one of the most reliable sources of India. not a author but a committee of authors wrote books together Yritu (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

please revert your action!! other reference;

The earliest mentions of the Nights refer to it as an Arabic translation from a Persian book*, Hezār Afsān (aka Afsaneh or Afsana), meaning 'The Thousand Stories'. In the 10th century, Ibn al-Nadim compiled a catalogue of books (the "Fihrist") in Baghdad (( from that page))!!!

• Indian Persian Yritu (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Yritu: The first stop is providing some properly expanded citations and url links to credible hosting platforms. Also, I suggest explaining your edit in talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

History of Islam

Hello, thank you for conveying your reason to reverting of my edits to the wikipedia page 'History of Islam'. I would like to present my point regarding the translation of the Qur'an in the 1992 excerpt which was quoted stating the Qur'an as an ARAB book. The author of that paper might have not intended for that, but there arises a fine difference while referring to the Qur'an as ARAB book rather than an ARABIC book. Where the latter, denotes the language in which Qur'an was revealed which is the correct translation of the verse, from which the author of the 1992 excerpt paraphrased. A reference to Qur'an as an ARAB book, falsely hints towards an idea of it being a book for the Arab Nation solely, which was the point being made in the section. The correct fact is that it is a book meant for the entire Humanity but had to be sent down in Arabic (language) so that the Arab (people) would not object/reject it altogether. As a supporting evidence, I had included the Qur'an text (primary source) and its authentic, widely used translation and also an exegesis (popular), all of which are recognized among the muslims as correct sources on this matter. Since you objected on the addition of this last part, for reasons you believe to be right, I didn't object either on its removal. But in addition, I had to remove the section about the 1992 excerpt. I am convinced that the reasons I have given are fair and in good faith to the Qur'an as well as to wikipedia. Hope you understand my point of view. 122.175.18.210 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@122.175.18.210: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide one 'correct' version of knowledge or events, but to present all valid viewpoints neutrally. (See WP:TRUTH). Here, the author's choice of words and opinions are their own. Perhaps it is a mischaracterization, perhaps not, from their viewpoint. But their perspective (as a religious professor) is still valid. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Origin of Salafism

The movement known as Salafism originated in Egypt in the nineteenth century as per the source I had cited. My statement was not at all contrary to the body of article; not even the opening sentence of the article. The opening sentence clearly contains "reform" making my edit in line with body of the article and even the opening sentence. I kindly request to explain your objection to my edit you undid. In addition, I request you to show what part is contrary to my edit. Or are you of the opinion that the statement should be : Wahabism emerged in the name of Wahabism in the ninghteenth century in Egypt. I eagerly wait for your response. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, first things first, Salafism and Wahhabism are totally separate things, so you need to read both those pages and gain an understanding of that. Secondly, I explained in my edit comment was was problematic with your lead addition. Third, the source you provided was never a reliable one in the first place. There are many quality books and journals to reference. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Query

A terrorist who was executed for bombing innocent civilians,is Wikipedia supposed to add his achievements like what degrees he has acquired while he was in jail?Its like adding Osama Bin Laden's achievement after killing thousands in 9/11. So,can i conclude this by saying wikipedia promotes terrorism? Shubham010000 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shubham010000: Wikipedia reflects verifiable facts, and education is a relevant component of any biography, regardless of the activities of an article's subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian citizens of Israel

Was it you who mentioned recently the issue of East Jerusalem Palestinians being included in the Israeli stats as citizens of Israel? I have been looking around and can't find that discussion. (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: No, it wasn't me, but I vaguely remember the discussion and I think it might have been @Nableezy that quoted the information to that effect. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It was Tritomex trying to dispute the Amnesty report on Israel saying that x% of Palestinian citizens were in a certain area by saying more than that are in Jerusalem, forgetting the fact that those are not citizens and that is not Israel. In the AI RSN RFC here (under discussion). nableezy - 13:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to forget these things, what's been illegally annexed, who gets citizenship, who only gets residency permits. Reality is so fuzzy at the edges. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the one! Ta very much :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Al-Wishah

1st, thanks for welcoming most changes to your great new article. I know some are unquestionable ("a 14th century" > "a 14th-century work") where you just forgot a word, but articles can be like art and people can get protective and cranky about them. 2nd, in particular, I tried to make the links as on-point as possible so marriage > Islamic marriage, marriage contract > Islamic marriage contracts instead of prenups, Egyptian > Mamluk Egypt, &c. I think that's the most helpful for understanding this work in its context but, if I overdid it and you prefer (eg) to link to Yemeni people instead of 14th-century Yemen, please do go in and put things where you think they should go. — LlywelynII 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind more contextualised links. More generally, I've found it that you get more done and waste less time on Wikipedia if you bend like a reed to change. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

3rd, I see a redirect you should create. xD — LlywelynII 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Iskandar323! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Quirks of the WikiProject Military History ratings, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hello, You've reverted content on Israel here, and less than 2 hours later redid the same revert. These two revers violate WP:1RR, which is not permitted as you were made aware previously. Kindly self-revert, otherwise I will have to involve WP:AE. You have been warned against edit warring and violating 1RR before. “WarKosign” 08:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Done. But this is palpably untrue and the use of this false allegation of a WP:1RR, a serious charge, in order to stonewall and block changes that you disingenuously reverted on the charge of 'no valid reason' being given does you little credit. Please show me the diff you suppose the first edit was a reversion of. That was a isolated, independent edit. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You removed content that some other editor(s) added to the article previously. Feel free to track who added this content, I have better things to do with my time. “WarKosign” 08:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

All content was previously added by an editor at some point. That is not how WP:1RR works, and without giving a reverted diff, you admit your error. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Using terms like "disingenuously " could be construed as violation of WP:NPA. Please be careful about that Shrike (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

PMOI

FYI about your revert at People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, which is technically a violation [6]. Please discuss edits that have been reverted in the talk page and try to get some consensus before adding them back to the article. Thanks. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: That edit restored reliably sourced material attributed to topic experts from a stable version of the article that you deleted without consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah

On 19 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah, a 15th-century Islamic sex manual by Egyptian writer Al-Suyuti, was based on both traditional hadith literature and material influenced by Indian erotology? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,388 views (615.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: Sex sells. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

And decent sex education (let alone moral sex education) is a public good. Win-win-win-win-win. It's too bad your page couldn't easily link to a free translation. I had even tried to find the manuscript at KSU's huge manuscript website. I don't doubt your source, but KSU isn't making that one easily available on the internet... probably for the same reason you just noticed.

Notice for future reference, though, how much traffic you let get siphoned off to Al-Suyuti with that link. Better to force people to click through via your page if they're curious what his story was. — LlywelynII 13:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I guess you warned me ... How do you monitor traffic? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There are different tools that work a little better, I think, but the easiest way—over on the left you can click on "Page Information" and click the number that displays next to "Page Views in the Past 30 Days". — LlywelynII 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice

Hey! During your moving of Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the |archive= parameter in the {{User:MizaBot/Config}} template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rashid al-Din.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Iskandar323. Thank you.

Topic ban?

Hello, you were topic banned from topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for one year in September 2021, yet you seem to make a large number of edits related to this area all the same. Unless your topic ban has been revoked, these edits are in breach of that ban. Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Yes, it was appealed and commuted. See User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 3#Topic ban. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see any problems with your edits so just wanted to check to be sure. Apologies for bothering. Jeppiz (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

This edit is tendentious. The term "Temple Mount" is and has been the agreed upon term on Wikipedia for the last twenty years. As you know well, there is no consensus for its replacement by other terms, or labelling it in articles as a term "known for Jews". Forcing this point of view before any consensus is reached is considered disruptive and tendentious. Thanks. Tombah (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: The term temple mount was not removed, so I have no idea what point you are making, and that it is the Jewish term for the site has been established almost beyond reasonable doubt on talk:Temple Mount, and if you have not grasped this yet, I suggest you go and re-read the sources provided by @Selfstudier. You should explain not here but on the talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: On the other hand, your removal of the dispute neutrality tag at Temple Mount, when you haven't even bothered to respond to the relative talk page discussion despite being specifically asked and pinged, is very much tendentious. The presence of an active and very much open-ended discussion on the purpose of the tag is the very picture of disputed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Islam. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Restoring your edits when challenged and when a discussion about them is underway in the talk pages is disruptive. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hossein Nasr

Hello Iskandar323, you have added the "self-published" tag at the top of Seyyed Hossein Nasr's page. I don't see any self-published sources; do you? Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hamza Alaoui: It was in reference to the huge volume of citations to Knowledge and the Sacred - some quoting is ok, but this is dozens of primary citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

So "primary sources" should be more accurate than "self-published sources". I shall change the tag. Thank you, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Professional achievements and family history cannot be deemed non neutral

I simply added his professional achievements which were sourced from Oxford University's official website. And his family history was sourced from his interview. There was nothing objectionable there. HarshitMishraaa (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You added a bunch of accolades, half of which were sourced to a personal website, making it self-published material. Also, the lead should only include material already contained in the article. At the same time, you removed other sourced material, the part about mixed book reviews, while not mentioning it in your editor summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	We may not see eye to eye on every topic, but I admire that you make a sincere effort to uphold Wikipedia policies. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Where Heaven and Earth Meet

On 24 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Where Heaven and Earth Meet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2009 book Where Heaven and Earth Meet introduced the term "Sacred Esplanade" as a politically neutral term for the religious site known as al-Haram al-Sharif or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Where Heaven and Earth Meet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Where Heaven and Earth Meet), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

CoD

In principle I agree with your effort to clean house. Might I suggest doing the King's Garden (Silwan)/King's Garden (historical). The first is al Bustan neighborhood of Silwan (rebranded as KG but also a thing of itself apparently, like CoD). Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thanks, I'll look at those too. It's all rather fanciful. As if adding a branded real estate development or tourist project to an area somehow supersedes or extirpates the geographical name of that area, as opposed to just being an example of a branded real estate development or tourist project within that area, name unaffected. But I suppose 'fanciful' is exactly what a lot of revisionism is. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Background Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've read about it a little in the past, after seeing the headlines. I'm still surprised to see the 'rebranding' being masqueraded as a historic place name on Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The cable car has been approved now. The POV editing went on for years, the CoD article was an unholy mess (have a look back in the history) and it was all too complicated for most people so getting it fixed was a bit hard.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If someone did want to make an article strictly about "ancient Jerusalem" (assumed equivalent to CoD) and not related to the archaeology/tourist park then the title of that could be City of David (ancient Jerusalem) (this was the original intent of CoD (historic)). I think "freeing up" CoD for an article title would just result in the same mess we had previously. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The comment I think you are referring to was more with the respect to a prospect of an article about the theological concept, which has a rich literature, more than flights of archaeological fancy. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

But you may be right ... the lack of clarity around all of this stuff and the blurring of the biblical, archaeological and nationalistic has already created quite the Gordian Knot of counter-factual nonsense. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Helping

Hi, can you please help me in the wikipedia page of the Beta Israel community? There is a guy there ( which I think is the manger ) and he keep deleting sources and writes whenever he wants. Can you please provide me help with that? 2A02:6680:1106:1FCE:250E:E104:93A1:5652 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol. That’s me reverting socks. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hasan ibn Ali

Hello Iskandar. Do you have time to deal with issues mentioned in the table here, part 6a. I am not so familiar with the issues. Here they are:

• File:HassanSVG.svg should be removed, or more detailed metadata is needed, such as a US copyright tag, an artist, etc.
• File:Coffin of Imam 'Ali, Folio from a Falnama (The Book of Omens) of Ja'far al-Sadiq.jpg needs a US public domain copyright tag
• File:Baghi tomb.jpg is incorrectly licensed - it was clearly not published by the copyright holder (who would have taken it in 1926) and so needs a US public domain copyright tag.
• File:The first three Shiite Imams- Ali with his sons Hasan and Husayn, illustration from a Qajar manuscript, Iran, 1837-38 (gouache on paper).jpg needs a US public domain copyright tag. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I've resolved the third and fourth. The second seems fine already? The origins of the first are potentially too mysterious to tag as public domain. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I take this discussion to the Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/GA1.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of my edit

Hello, I am Teolog1986. My edit was neutral because pastor Terry Jones did burn Obama's effigy for Obama's embrace of homosexual agenda, didn't he? I am not saying whether or not homosexual agenda is good or bad. I am only saying that pastor did it because of Obama's agenda. Why do you think it is not neutral?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teolog1986 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Teolog1986: "Homosexual agenda" is not, in of itself, a neutral phrase or neutral language, and should not be used in Wikivoice ... assuming it is a reference to support for LGBT rights, if there is a reliable, secondary source providing a quote of Terry Jones using these specific terms, it could of course be quoted, but your edit did not provide such a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it is Teolog1986 again! I didn't know that homosexual agenda is pejorative according to you - I apologize for that! I am from Poland and in Polish homosexual agenda is neutral. And what country are you from?? And if I write gay-lesbian agenda will it be neutral and OK?? Thank you for response! Teolog1986 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Teolog1986: As a general rule, anything suffixed with "... agenda" carries a slightly negative connotation, can imply "an underlying often ideological plan or program" [7] (and that politics, and not the rights themselves, is the driving factor), and is just generally not very encyclopedic language: it is better replaced with "support for/opposition to ...". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Edict of Cyrus is a mess

Huge quotes, for a start. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, basically just a stub + overly long quotes. Possibly also an entirely unneeded creation alongside Cyrus Cylinder#Biblical interpretations. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe start by stripping it down and see what it looks like and what could be added? Doug Weller talk 15:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Blacklisted source

Hello Iskander323 I hope all goes well. I notice the explanation of your edit of the Shamir article refers to a “blacklisted source” which is something I have not come across before. How does a source become blacklisted? Is there a list of sources to avoid? Padres Hana (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Padres Hana: Notes on many major news outlets, including lenta.ru, can be found at WP:RSP. Blacklisting comes about through discussion at WP:RSN. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maizbhandari

Hello! Your submission of Maizbhandari at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Please avoid edit warring

You shouldn't remove any mention to hadith sources without consensus. As you have already been reverted a couple of times, this is no longer a bald edit but rather a way of forcing your will upon the discussion. There are many ways of moving forward short of engaging in an edit war. The first one is just to wait for other editors' comments and see if a new consensus emerges. You can also notify the discussion to the relevant projects and/or to the appropriate noticeboard. Finally, you can open an RfC on this. But reverting my revert should be avoided. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: You literally left an edit comment saying to revert to an earlier version. You shouldn't be messing about with the article mid-discussion. End of. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I said we could restore the text before the 5 July bold edit. That we can do, if you think it's an improvement please do it. What we cannot do, however, is removing any mention to hadith sources on Aisha's age from the lead: you see, there's no consensus for this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Zalman Baruch Melamed

This looks useful.[8]

And Beit El yeshiva makes it sound like any ordinary Yeshiva. Kushner was a funder. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

reverting

I think you would be better off considering maybe the user with 147k edits over 15 years might have a solid understanding of the rules here and not just revert them. And I would characterize that as canvassing because no notice was left at WT:ISRAEL. You cant just notify a select group of people when others will also be interested. nableezy - 07:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Perhaps, but that only holds if you assume attendance at either of those two WikiProjects follows purely tribal lines - sure, notifying as many relevant WikiProjects as possible is best, but anyone is free to follow as many WikiProjects and related talk pages as they like, and I don't like the idea of establishing the notion that, as a principle, certain WikiProjects might be objectively partisan, or that posting to a WikiProject constitutes targeting a certain demographic of editors. Seems like a slippery slope of assumptions about the make-up of editors in WikiProjects. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats already been established, it has long been understood that selective notifications to one WikiProject can be canvassing. Just think you should consider maybe people with considerably more experience may understand the rules. They may not, but you should consider that experience before reverting them. nableezy - 08:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if it's already been established (not on WP:CANVASSING), but even so, wouldn't a better step have been to copy it to all appropriate WikiProjects? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is a thing, then I think it should be written more explicitly into the guideline that certain WikiProjects can be considered a partisan audience. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, no-one simply reading WP:CANVASS could automatically deduce this, and it doesn't seem good to leave as informal convention. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Maizbhandari

On 21 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maizbhandari, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Maizbhandari order of Sufism in Bangladesh is each year host to reportedly the fifth-largest gathering of Muslims in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maizbhandari. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Maizbhandari), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Haram

In this source it has a footnote at p.9:

"Al-Aqsa Mosque is often referred to as “Al-Haram Ash-Sharif ” (“the Noble Sanctuary”), which is incorrect from an Islamic point of view as the only two Muslim Harams are in Mecca and Madina. Al-Aqsa Mosque is also often confused with the silver-domed Al-Qibli Mosque, which should instead be regarded as a praying hall within Al-Aqsa Mosque. In this publication we therefore use the term “Al-Aqsa Mosque” to refer to the whole compound."

Is that first sentence true as far as you know? Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:It's definitely contradicted by many other sources. That WAS correct up until the 15th century, when the Ottomans ennobled the site as a full Haram - hence third holiest site. Of course, the phrase "from an Islamic point of view" basically means very much open to interpretation based on your theological leanings and the relative emphasis you place on sources such as the Quran, hadith and sunnah. But one could certainly argue from a theological perspective that for the most of Islamic history, Haram it was not, and that the 15th century decision was a bit of realpolitik. Here's one fairly useful source that Once produced that lays out the pros and cons in fairly ample detail. The Hanbali school has generally rejected it. I couldn't rightly say if that means Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi is a Hanbali, or if he is just playing the side that best fits his agenda here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for that. That might well explain the rise of al-Aqsa as well. Would it be fair to say that "moderates" (loosely) would be OK with Haram and "fundamentalists" (again loosely) might not be? Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to paint Hanbalism with the very broad brush of "fundamentalist", but "most conservative" yes - the school does lean towards harder stances and against zeitgeist. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

With this editor.[9] ANI? Too late in my day though. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: They've been blocked. Possibly for a personal attack, or something now revdel'd at George Soros, or both. Who knows. Threat eliminated. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That was fast. We’ll see how he responds. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly this single edit account that has picked up right were Walapo left off. Not sure what non-CU tools, if any, are available to verify this though ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Your edit to Tantura massacre has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa I have checked a recently added text [10] and I saw some close paraphrasing in my opinion for example. From a source: " With regard to Indonesia, Chomsky reported 9 that Israel served as a conduit for the United States when Indonesia needed military aircraft for the massacre of the Timorese in the late 1970s." Iskandar edit : In Indonesia, as reported by Noam Chomsky, Israel served as a conduit for the United States when the Indonesian military needed aircraft for the massacre of the Timorese in the late 1970s. I didn't removed the text myself but please take a look. Shrike (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed it and requested revdel, as I think that's clear copyvio. Iskandar323, could you take some time to review your recent edits for anything similar? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is in pdf format, so whatever text was there, I re-typed and summarized as I went (no copy and pasting possible) - though perhaps the last sentence veered a little close to the original and could have simply been quoted. If you type my version into google, the algorithm doesn't bring up the source though, unlike the original sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone actually plug the page into the copy vio detector to determine if the passage at large had real problems from an empirical perspective? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The tool won't work on PDFs it can't access, but we don't really need the tool here. Whether typed or copy-pasted, your version duplicates

• "Israel served as a conduit for the United States when"
• "aircraft for the massacre of the Timorese in the late 1970s"
• and the order of the sentence.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have visually inspected the pdf and your addition, and agree that it's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy - not just the portion that @Firefangledfeathers highlights, but the entire addition. You presented the same material in the same order using only slightly altered wording.

Tips on how to do better: One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Try to formulate your addition without looking at the source. It helps to have multiple sources on which to draw. Stuff should be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words

Dianaa's suggestion reminds me of Aubrey de Sélincourt's approach to translating Herodotus. He'd read a complete paragraph in Greek, and then recast it in the English that came naturally to him, without reconsulting the original.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

More periods

A practical example, Shuafat. There is a section there, Second Temple period, apparently referring to some archaeology dating to 2nd–1st century BCE (Seleucid/Hasmonean, right?). "Biblical" identification is another problem, I'll get to that later. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that section's a right mess - first it says 2nd century to early 1st century, and then Herodian, but Herod was only born in the early 1st century and only reigned from the late 1st century (3 years before the earthquake). But overall, yes, Seleucid/Hasmonean would be more apt. "Second temple period" just bridges a fairly arbitrary portion of classical antiquity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Or, of course, all of the classical period stuff could just simply be folded into a classical antiquity section: prehistory -> classical antiquity -> middle ages. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I was only ever interested in modern history tbh, so all this is new to me, "classical" is -8 to +6 ? Seems quite a large period, isn't it as well arbitrary?

Might as well clear up (part of) "Biblical", do people refer to a "period" when they say this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, not really, since that's A) deep miscellaneous iron age (often 9th-8th BCE), and B) not trusted - that's what the "In the Bible" sections are for. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Classical antiquity has a whole array of further subdivisions, see for yourself - I would go by how much material there actually is to write about - but here, for example, all of the second temple stuff would fall under the Hellenistic period, the later stuff under the Roman period, further sub-divisible into the Roman Republic and Roman Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

K, so telescope the divisions up to the larger divisions according to the info available. I dug around and found this, seem OK to you? Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a handy event guideline, though I'm not sure "FROM ALEXANDER TO AUGUSTUS" is the catchiest of options for section header ... Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I will have a go at Shuafat, you can check it, lol :) Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Turns out Second Temple period had the same questions needing answering (fixed now) - it basically bridges the Hellenistic/Roman periods. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

R u sure :) Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha, expected. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Odd how the Persian period never seems to get much of a look in. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit of a P.S. I didn't bother to add - should start with the Persian or Achaemenid period in the 6th century BC. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Look at the list in Second Temple Judaism and click on the Persian period. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite hard to find decent material on these divisions, I did find this, nicely potted for people like me:) Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)