Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests
Archives
Abrahamic Religions: Mandaeans
Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been consistent emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans in the article on Abrahamic religions. After undoing the polemics twice with no avail, I have been threatened with having a SPI case started against me. I have been accused of having a religious agenda. Mandaeans are a vulnerable minority religious group in the middle east. Strong language in the article such as considering Mohammed and Islam demonic along with other Abrahamic religions and the use of words like "hating Abraham" persist in the article. One of the sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith which been ignored. Other words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses are used. Previously Mandaeans have been completely removed from the article. Considering they live in the middle east, this can only cause them considerable harm. There are other religions listed in the article, but polemics are not emphasized apart from the focus on Mandaeans. I don't think polemics should be emphasized for any religion, especially vulnerable minorities. I try to check for polemics against all religions, but this one seems obvious. I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to have an agenda against a religion or certain group of people.GF46238 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC) I have edited the post to remove editors user names to comply with Wikipedia policy. (I am new and just learning the ropes)
- Hi, not quite sure if it is appropriate for me to comment here, but as my user name was mentioned, I thought I would comment (if it is inappropriate please delete) - everything I wrote about the Mandaeans is from cited sources, particularly "The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics" by Edmundo Lupieri. The question is whether or not the Mandaeans are an Abrahamic religion. The article section Abrahamic religions#Common aspects states that "All Abrahamic religions accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham." The Mandaeans do not accept that God revealed himself to Abraham, so to include them as an Abrahamic religion requires some explanation.
editor Epinoia has consistently emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans
- everything I included is from cited sources, and I have only used material relevant to the relationship between Mandaeanism and Abrahamic religions.Epinoia used strong language such as..."hating Abraham"
- Lupieri states, “they hate Abraham” (p. 66) and quotes another writer Ricoldo who said, “They detest Abraham” (p. 65). This is not vitriolic polemics, but a statement of what the Mandaeans believe.one of Epinoia sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith which Epinoia chooses to ignore
- none of the sources I cited say that Abraham was a founder of their faith. On the contrary, Lupieri says, "Shem, chosen by the Mandaeans as their own founding father" (p. 50) and E. S. Drower says, in "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran", that Abraham was a priest who left the Mandaeans and started his own religion worshipping the powers of Darkness (p 266-268).Epinoia also uses words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses
- again, this is directly from Lupieri who says that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are regarded as false prophets (p 116). I do nothave an agenda against a religion or certain group of people
. My intention was to clarify the relationship between the Mandaeans and the Abrahamic religions. A reader seeing the Mandaeans listed in the Abrahamic religions article without knowing what their beliefs were would be misled for, as Dr. Dylan Burns says, that while they are biblically informed they are "not-exactly-Abrahamic". Sorry to go on at such length, but I feel my views and contributions have been mischaracterized. I have no prejudice against the Mandaeans whatsoever, but they do not have a clear claim as an Abrahamic religion. There is further discussion on User talk:Epinoia#Mandaeans User and on Talk:Abrahamic religions#Mandaeism is not an Abrahamic religion - as no other editors contributed to the Talk page discussion I would be welcome additional input - Epinoia (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
There are consistent references to Edmondo Lupieri who could very well be a biased writer. There is a reference to an article from The Telegraph that states "followers of a pre-Christian religion that considers the prophet Abraham as one of the founders of their faith." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/16/pictures-day-16-march-2019/iraqis-sabeans-followers-pre-christian-religion-considers-prophet/ but this appears to be ignored. There is also a documentary (in Arabic) on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6CJWOrnS_s where a Mandaean priest describes Abraham in their religion as a prophet in their faith and he is called "Bahram Rba" meaning Abraham the pure. Again, this is ignored. Wikipedia articles about them in French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mand%C3%A9isme and Arabic https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9 clearly state they are Abrahamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC) GF46238 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Another article from Spanish Wikipedia on Abrahamic religions also counts Mandaeans as Abrahamic and Abraham as founder of their religion https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_abrah%C3%A1micas — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Article from Latin Wikipedia listing Mandaeans as Abrahamic https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_Abrahameae GF46238 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)GF46238 (talk)
- The issue is "what do followers of this religion believe?" Unless we have cited evidence that they lie about it, it must be better to go by what they say than by what their enemies say. Maproom (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a new editor but a sockpuppet and I've struck through their posts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANMC001. As an aside I did look at several reliable source and none of them confirmed that they were Abrahamic. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
minimum refernce to publish a new article
i like to know how many reference do i need to publish an article?
Siyanco (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) -
- Siyanco, per WP:GNG, there is no set number, but editors fairly often suggest something like at least "3 good ones". "Good ones" here means that they are at the same time reliably published, independent of the topic and mentions the topic more (the more the better) than in passing. Your article will easier be accepted if you go beyond the bare minimum. Try to make it obvious via your refs that your topic is WP:NOTABLE.
- The number of refs is only part of it, their quality and what they say is very important. If you are trying to write a WP:BLP the demands will be higher, but you can probably get away with 3 good refs even then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2019 (
thanks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyanco (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Professor Johann Cook
In the following wikipedia article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Organisation_for_the_Study_of_the_Old_Testament_(IOSOT) ) Professor Johann Cook is briefly mentioned. I request that an article about Professor Johann Cook be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.255.54.28 (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Follow these instructions and you can do it yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Uploading a photo: John Fleming.jpg
I have attempted to upload a personal photo (of me) to Wikimedia Commons but it was not approved. I went through the appropriate steps to have it licensed. Can an editor with more experience assist? --Book Reader 205 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Book Reader 205, I know this isn't a particularly helpful answer, but the people at C:Commons:Help desk will be better placed to assist than here. - The different Wikimedia projects are independent of one another, so policies etc differ. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've had a look at commons, and they are asking you to use OTRS (i.e. email special Wikimedia volunteers) to confirm you own the rights to the image. Please see C:Commons:OTRS ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Finnic peoples
Hello, is someone able to jump in to help with regards to the Finnic peoples article, which was renamed into Baltic Finns by an editor without discussion or consensus on the article's talk page. The article had previously been moved into Finnic peoples about a year ago with an overwhelming majority on the talk page. The editor that reverted this has not provided any reasoning or sources for their action, and has not been responding on the talk page anymore. I am unable to move the page myself, because they created a new disambiguation page for Finnic peoples, hence the page move is not working for me. "Finnic peoples" is the most common synonym for "Baltic Finns". It is more commonly used than the "Baltic Finns" term. The editor moved the page, because they thought "Volga Finns" are also Finnic peoples, hence a disambiguation page is needed. But as is evident on the Uralic languages article, "Volga Finns" belongs into the "Volga-Finnic" group, not Finnic group. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that language groups may be named after ethnicities (which is why the Finno-Permic languages were originally called 'Finnic'), or spuriously ethnicities after language groups, but language does not necessarily define ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Dave Meltzer/ Peyton Royce Controversy
A editor keeps deleting my my edit about Dave Meltzer body shaming a WWE wrestler. It was covered by the BBC in the UK and numerous famous wrestlers commented on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Meltzer
Source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45214183
The editor has deleted this section before according to the Talk page and seems biased.
Can you please review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddydavis69 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have never been to this page, so I'm a bit unsure if I'm allowed to comment here, since I am the editor Freddydavis69 is refering to but I will state that I removed the section because I and another editor (LM2000) who has been on the wrestling project for a long time both agreed that Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (as well as Wikipedia:UNDUE) applied, celebrities say dumb things every day, this is likely only one of thousands of dumb things this man has said in his life, there have been no actual fallout from this event and it has had no impact on his life/career or anyone elses in the long run. I have urged Freddy several times to take the discussion to the talkpage, which he has refused to do, instead I started a conversation on the Wrestling Project, which he has not replied to either.★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So 2 editors don't think this isn't relevant and that is fine? This editor has removed this before by another editor, so at least one person agrees with me. Please do a Google search on this subject, and you will see many videos and articles on this subject. I was important news and should be covered. I feel Trekker is biased towards Dave Meltzer. - Freddy Davis 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddydavis69 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not biased, and I won't magically become so because you keep claiming it, I simply know Wikipedia guidelines.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Here is my take on the matter. Meltzer said something foolish about a female wrestler but not actually vile. He then withdrew his comment and apologized repeatedly. Meltzer has been a professional wrestling journalist for 36 years and it is fair to assume that he has said other things in bad taste. Wrestling revels in bad taste. This seems like a pretty trivial incident in the context of such a lengthy career, so I am oppose to adding it. The proper place to try to resolve the matter is Talk:Dave Meltzer, where no one is discussing it currently. As for bias, I am not a wrestling fan and have never read Meltzer's work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- The incident happened a year ago and has proven to have caused no long term damage. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant here so it should stay out.LM2000 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Here is my take on the matter. Meltzer said something foolish about a female wrestler but not actually vile. He then withdrew his comment and apologized repeatedly. Meltzer has been a professional wrestling journalist for 36 years and it is fair to assume that he has said other things in bad taste. Wrestling revels in bad taste. This seems like a pretty trivial incident in the context of such a lengthy career, so I am oppose to adding it. The proper place to try to resolve the matter is Talk:Dave Meltzer, where no one is discussing it currently. As for bias, I am not a wrestling fan and have never read Meltzer's work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Film Soundtracks
I was editing The Rebel Set and I saw an area set aside for the soundtrack. Should the movie soundtrack songs be listed for films or is that an area that has been stopped by film editors? Eschoryii (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I disclosed a conflict of interest on the article's talk page when creating the page but it's copied my COI disclosure several times within the template and it looks really bad. How do I fix this?Essayist1 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Editing conflicts with myself
- I have a very aggravating issue that over a not so long of a period of time I started receiving edit conflicts that proved to be with myself. The problem is that it is not actually a "conflict" as the edit will post. I will edit a page, preview it, and when publishing any changes I made I may hit an edit conflict. This has happened several times but in nearly 10 years of editing it had never occurred before. I brought it up "somewhere" (technical I think) but did not receive any constructive comments.
- It causes me to have to open a second tab to verify that the shown edit conflict is actually with myself and that the edit actually posted. Surely I can't be the only one that has had this issue so I thought I would check here. Otr500 (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I started to experience this two or three months ago (I only use the source editor). Maproom (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are you still having the issue (@ Maproom)? I think I use the regular editor but not sure. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't noticed it for a week or two. (I don't know the term "regular editor". There's the "visual editor" which I believe is now the default for new users, and the "source editor" which used to be the default, and which is still preferred by most users who've tried both.) Maproom (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose then I use the source editor. At a point I was given an option on the editing screen but now it just states "edit source". I have still encountered the issue a high percentage of the time. Since there apparently others are not having this issue it must be on my end somewhere. Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Amazing! I hit an edit conflict with myself again, when posting the above, and the page gave me an option of which I would like to use. I opened another tab to check and it was posted. I suppose throwing the laptop across the room would solve the issue. I can't see how it in not somehow an issues within Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Will my email address be visible?
Hello! Please refer me to whom/where I should ask if it's not you here.
I'm brand-new to contributing to Wikipedia. Please tell me:
If I choose the option that readers may email me, will my email address be visible to readers or to those who email me?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiepZeiDeMuis (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @PiepZeiDeMuis: If you answer those e-mails, yes. Otherwise no. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Question about multiple accounts.
Are WP users allowed to operate 2 WP accounts as long as they never use one of them deceitfully? Such as trying to get a leg up in an argument on an article's talk page. As long as they don't do that, they can operate 2 accounts? TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for a list of things you can and can't do with multiple accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Wrong date
Zoltán Pál Dienes (anglicized as Zoltan Paul Dienes) (June 21, 1916 – January 11, 2014) This means that he was nearly minus two years old when he died.