User talk:Huon/Archive11

@

guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Huon:The link is not a celebrity gossip website, it's actually a magazine webiste in Vietnam. I'm not associate with anyone, I'm still new to wikipedia and this is my first article about Asian woman who won American pageant. I'm still searching for more beautiful Asian women out there and promote them. I'm sure you're Vietnamese and so do I, I'm half Vietnamese and Hispanic. Not sure why you said the website is a gossip website and I'm not sure why you change my articles, I agreed on removing the personal site but I do not agree on removing the other link. ADT (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

your" article. I am not Vietnamese, but the Google translation of that "magazine article" is good enough for me to be certain that it does not mention the Susan G. Komen foundation, international ambassadors, or cancer prevention. All it focuses on is her looks and her "ideal measurements". That doesn't really look like a reliable mainstream source to me, and even if it were, it does not support the content it's cited for. It should be used in place of her personal website as a source for the birthdate, though. Finally, I'd really appreciate it if, while re-adding unsourced content (which you shouldn't do in the first place), you at least wouldn't also undo my grammatical improvements and re-break the citation templates I had fixed. Huon (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Huon:Well, if you're not Vietnamese then how would you know that the article doesn't mention that she's not the ambassador, the article on http://ngoisao.vn/hau-truong/hoa-hau/kelly-trang-tran-rang-ro-trong-cac-hoat-dong-tu-thien-sau-dang-quang-125030.htm stated that she's was asked to be the ambassador, you need a translator my friend

If you're not speaking or understanding another language, please make sure to use a good dictionary before editing any other foreign related article. I'm not here to fight with you but I'm trying to learn how to write article, please provide good source when you're editing an article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdorableTeddy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you tell me what sources you can use when editing posts....as I did with the question you helped me with..and also what third party is needed and why? Hope I am doing this right.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonharvey (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

verify the content, and secondly, to establish that that content is significant enough to discuss it on Wikipedia in the first place. If a newspaper article or a book on Emmerdale published with a reputable publisher says that the character of Scarlett Mary Nicholls is based on your fan fiction, great, then we can cite that source. If no such source has said so, then the role of your work in the development of that character apparently wasn't big enough to be noted by others, and Wikipedia shouldn't note it either. Huon (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Another test for User:Soni. Huon (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our

AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply

]

Hi, You have closed the discussion here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=597830744&oldid=597830349). Very well (although I did not find that very welcoming, but it may have been made in a friendly spirit that I could not perceive). Also, thank you for the link to WP:DUCK but...what do you mean? I read it but can not find the answer to my question: WHO on the WM projects sites can help me having FR WP Admin simply checking the facts? (As for your second comment, I had not used the account so that you can read my IP address, so I don't think it was useless). Danke schön.--Slinggelid (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Nothing the English Wikipedia can do here" was unclear to you? You're in the wrong place; we cannot help you here. I also doubt the WMF will second-guess the admins on specific projects (and neither will the admins on other projects, including me). So your only avenue of recourse is with the French Wikipedia. While I don't know the French Wikipedia's rules, on the English Wikipedia

Checkuser is never used to "prove innocence"; if the account you are accused of being a sock of hasn't edited for over a year, it would likely be stale anyway, so even if they were willing to perform such a check, it would probably come up inconclusive, and they'd still have to rely on behavioural evidence. And apparently by now multiple admins have concluded that your behaviour indicates you are indeed that indef-blocked user. Huon (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi likewise. What part of Assume good faith is unclear to you? I am not that user. Never mind. Thanks for the reply, anyway.--Slinggelid (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, I really hate to bother you with this, but the day after his block ended, Daniel was back to the same: [4] I highly recommend that you block him permanently, since he's exhibited a lack of awareness that you guys mean business. And thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dcelano seems incapable or unwilling to leave the Wiggles alone, and worse, he still doesn't cite any sources for his additions. Huon (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, he's socking over at HERE, editing the talk pages that involve him, and still injecting unsourced or poorly sourced Wiggles information. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP for a few days, but it seems to change rather quickly anyway. You may want to leave a note at a more central location the next time; AN/I or maybe AIV (depending on how vandalistic his edits are) will likely see him blocked quicker. Huon (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon,

I am a new user at Wikipedia. You deleted my write-ups on HCL's culture and branding. Can you please help me understand the reason for the deletions of the same? Look forward to your response. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bansal Simpi (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a detailed explanation of the problems with those sections at the

article's talk page, a better place to discuss the improvement of the article than my own talk page. Huon (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not going to stop the PROD, but I did want to ask, have standards changed with television stations and notability since I wrote the article? If so, and if the article falls short, just G7 it. About the only unusual thing about WDYR was its newscast, and even that only lasted a year.

I have no idea what the standards were back when you wrote the article, but I'd say the relevant guideline is

WP:ORG, which says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I do not think the FCC's station database satisfies that standard. Huon (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I seem to remember that the notability guideline was really low, and it is (

t • c) 04:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That's an essay; the relevant guideline still is

WP:ORG, which has significantly higher standards. If the station is notable, find the sources to prove it. Huon (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If the bar's higher than it used to be, I completely understand. This station really only stands on that newscast.

t • c) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for introducing me to the project. I have leanred so much in chat about how things are done. 400 Lux (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello, Huon. There is a new message for you on my talkpage. Thanks. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Ive seen no problem regarding on the List of wars involving the Philippines , the format of that was also look like on List of wars involving Japan (Please look for comparative sources) For the highly non-standard layout you talk. And i added sources and References to my new article ,

'Please improve it, not to delete , Also The point of making this article was to show the whats the history of the Philippines as a country not only an island (like

Anyway i remove the Deletion tag (As you said to my talk page) and i add a reasons also .

Thank you Cheers! Philipandrew (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over your comments and appreciate them Huon. However, I think that this is an important Wikipedia page. Mustang News has recently won 13 awards at a national convention including the fourth consecutive College Newspaper of the Year award. Mustang News is an important part of journalism becoming digital, and if you take a look for yourself, you will see this is important. Thank you for reconsidering and for helping to educate others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kff2010 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We would need

verify that. I looked and failed to find any. If you know of reliable third-party sources that cover the newspaper in some detail, please provide them. Huon (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Huon, kindly un do decision in CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa because it was based on FRAUD played by ZORDANLIGHTER , he misrepresented my edit summary for other protected edit request relating to Controversy section for critical reception protected edit request . He used that summary to show the WP consensus by me but that is not the case. He must also be blocked for playing CHEAT. Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

یہ گلت الزام لگا رہا ہے. اسکی باتوں میں کوئی دھیان نہ دے تو ہے . اسکے پاس کوئی ریفرنس ہے ہی نہیں. جبکی زوردان کے پاس بہت ریفرنسز ہیں --Whistlingwoods (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xcrescent9, I'd be really, really careful about accusing others of fraud without good evidence. ZORDANLIGHTER quoted your edit summary correctly, and he gave enough details to allow others to check it for themselves. Now I agree that the edit summary refers to something else, but if ZORDANLIGHTER only looked at the combined effect of your three subsequent edits, that may have been a honest mistake. I also have to note that, while you found the time to edit that talk page multiple times, you have yet to provide any objection to my suggestion for that section. If you don't like it, say why, or provide a suggestion of your own, so we can discuss it and improve the article.

Whistlingwoods, since this is the English-language Wikipedia, it's a good idea to write in English. Huon (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Xcrescent9 accusations that how wrongly consensus was achieved by misrepresentation, I will suggest a middle way. Whistlingwoods on behalf of ZORDANLIGHTER (since he is blocked ) will favour current critical reception section full cherry picking of negative reviews but that was with out consensus and ignores all positive reviews. On other hand Xcrescent9 after block removal will try to put all four positive reviews. Keeping in view all the reviews from both sides,It is a clear case of Mixed average reviews i.e. a combination of good and bad reviews. This fact is also supported by http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/ which says that movie got average reviews from critics with average score of 37. In pakistan too (from where the hero of the movie belongs) it got mixed reviews from movie critics on the premier please see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival . Forth evidence of mixed reviews is IMBD rating of 6 out of 10 including nine critics see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/. I think in order to wind up quickly this prolonged discussion. I request a new edit to critical reception section. Since we already know one pool stances of ZORDANLIGHTER , Whistlingwoods and Xcrescent9 no further discussion from them is invited on this proposed edit (see below).

Total Siyapaa received mixed reviews by domestic and overseas critics. Kirron Kher's performance and Ali Zafar comic timings were seen as one of the strong points of the movie. ^{[1] [2] [3][4]} However Critics were critical on the lack of a solid plot,^[5][6].

please take a quick decision to wind up this prolonged discussion. Archtexlic (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xcrescent9 and Archtexlic why both of you behave like a single person--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are. Both accounts are now blocked for

sockpuppetry. Huon (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You're welcome, I'm there to help. Huon (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some blocked user wrote all garbage in my talk page. At first I couldn't understand but reading the lines written in urdu usingEnglish alphabets(check the link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whistlingwoods#Mza_aya), it's clear the user is Xcrescent9 or Ibnebatutaji . The translation in English is this "I wrongly presented my statements to make sure my favorite movie gets good opening overseas................"rest is abuse in vulgar language which I don't want to translate. This person is writing in urdu so that International administrators don't understand what he is saying. Now in last few weeks I was busy with critical reception section of one movie only Total Siyapaa.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whistlingwoods stop thinking wikipedia a war ground. Do not remove others comments neither place disruptive allegations. Archtexlic (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same thing for you- this is not your war ground.Wikipedia administrators are more clever than you. Today or tomorrow they will find the truth.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whistlingwoods, you're hardly the right person to complain about others writing in Urdu. That said, Archtexlic is blocked already. Huon (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Huon. I was not really expecting an extensive, in-depth overhaul-cum-cleanup – merely a preliminary impression, from a knowledgeable wiki expert, of how the article would ‘come across’ to the average international AfC Reviewer – and whether there are any obvious – (but hidden to my author’s 'blind spot') – blemishes/pitfalls. (Your Spanish colleagues used to call this "cosas para mejorar’: ‘things which you need to put right’. - first - and, boy, were there cosas para mejorar!!) Kind regards. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately I was even more busy than expected and likely will remain so for the next few days. At a glance the draft looks good to me, with two comments: Firstly, I just noticed that we have an article on capacity building; if there is a source contrasting capacitation and capacity building, it may be worth the effort to add a little on the difference to your article, likely either where you currently mention capacity building or at the end of the history section to describe the shift of focus away from (large group) capacitation. Secondly, you provide a few sources that seem rather off-topic, such as the "generic" footnote with a dictionary reference for that term - unless such terms take on a special meaning in the context of the article I'd say we don't need an explanation for common English words. In contrast, the "transitive" and "intransitive" footnotes both are relevant to the context of capacitaiton.

Neither of those issues are particularly severe. There's also a little copy-editing to be done, such as tidying up some links, applying Wikipedia's preferred style to the "History overview" and "Theory overview" subsections and the like, but that too is easily fixed. Huon (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• :: Reply: I knew you were busy, Huon, and I am sorry if I appeared to have been pressing you – However, in terms of article development I felt I was stalled in ‘neutral’, so much so that, in the meantime, I had already started on a Spanish version of same. . So, your reply is more than welcome, not least as your assessment is overall positive as well as, at first blush, there appear to be a rather moderate number of cosas para mejorar, but certainly enough to keep me busy for the next few days. One quirky detail I have been struggling with: there are a lot of ‘repeat’ refs (same author) in the ‘Notes and References’ section. So I have been trying to streamline the "{harvnb}" refs using "{sfn}" (same footnote). Problem is, even though often the authors are the same, the page references are different, so, the "{sfn}" does not 'work'. However much I tried, I only ‘managed’ a solitary "{sfn}", ie in the very last sentence of the article (re: note 54): (Andersson){sfn|Andersson|2004|page=168}}. I would really have liked to ‘compress’ the number of notes (54) in a relatively short article – at least I tried. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

--

• : PS: subsequent to your remarks this morning, I have already done some major juggling with the outlay of the page, so, the notes/reference numbers indicated above have changed already. Sorry. (Hope the new outfit looks better/more wiki-like?) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Total Siyapaa#Infobox_budget_figures_discussion. I started a discussion to avoid what seems like an edit war. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

thanks (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Kindly review the new edited article for creation. Since you are the protecting administrator. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sandeep_Maheshwari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikarzish (talk • contribs) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Huon! Much appreciated. Will be in touch again once I have gone thru all the details. thnx. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

---

• : 21:25hrs: I have now revised the entire AfC text at the hand of your suggestions and made some further (minor) adjustments of my own. I left 'Categories' untouched. Next stage: time to press the 'Submit' key?? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

---

27/03: I left a messge on my talkpage - (A certain "Fram"(?) apparently made some changes to AfC which puzzle me) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Hi, Huon - I just left you a message on my talkpage. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• : A: If ever proof were needed, there is nothing in wiki-granbretanland that the ‘grand immortal King-Emperor’ does not know an answer to. . .chapeau! Indeed, ‘hiding’ from google would be pointless. You reassure me, though, (thanks!) that facsimils will not in any way influence the review process of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Large_Group_Capacitation> (to which I can of course continue to make the occasional edit until such time a reviewer takes charge) . . .

PS. Apropos - clicking on (some of) the 800-plus AfCs in progress and I see that Roger the dodger is still a very active reviewer. I do hope my andragogies and zones of proximal development wont frighten the horses.(!)(Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Huon, there is a proposal ongoing about a development of Wikipedia mentoring, to make it slicker and a better, more standerdised process. We would love to have you on board, and would appreciate your help, anything you can do, from reading the proposal and leaving comments to volunteering to be a part of the scheme is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Matty.007 16:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the sub-category of "torture in antiquity" about which we spoke earlier.
This is my first experience here, my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and it has been a bit frustrating. I am fully aware that my lack of knowledge may very well be playing a role here, so I am trying to figure this out, and am entirely open to learning the correct approach/method, as I have made the same corrections more than once - each time I have followed the "instructions," yet met the same results.
Following our interaction in the chatroom, you posted the following: "I'm a little concerned about the "antiquity" section, particularly the "Romans, Jews, Egyptians and many other cultures during that time included torture as part of their justice system" part. I don't think the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be considered a reliable source on ancient history or sociology. And the source for Jewish stoning confirms that Judaism had stoning, but does not put it into the context of torture. Thus we're left without a reliable source connecting those execution methods to torture. A section that asserts modern scholars' opinions should clarify who exactly those scholars are and where they said so. Huon (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)"
I took the time to expand on this, and provided what I feel are multiple valid reasons which would justify removing the reference in question. Each could stand alone, yet taken together, I feel that the rational for my edit was solid. I wrote:
I have removed all references to Judaism from the "antiquity" section, in light of the issues as described by Huan, as well as other reasons which I will list shortly; my contribution has been limited to torture in Judaism, as I do not have sufficient knowledge regarding torture in ancient Rome or Egypt. Regarding the portion which I deleted (torture in Judaism), I first examined the source which had been cited to support this statement. It made no mention of torture, and furthermore, made no conclusive statements of any kind. The source was based on the writings of Philo, though did not directly quote him. Furthermore, without exception, all references to "stoning" in Judaism (the original justification for including Judaism to the list of torturers in antiquity) were suppositions and assumptions; the following are representative examples from the text: "Stoning is probably..." "The precise nature of method of stoning is not stated precisely, however..." "To Philo stoning seems to be...but he does not invariably state the method..." "Philo has relativly little to say of the ways execution was to be carried out..." "Hence, while stoning is not always stated explicitly by Philo, it seems probable that this was the most natural way of punishment carried out." I feel obligated to point out that the statement made in the section was presented to be a statement of fact with a citation as proof of its authenticity and accuracy - yet upon examining the source cited, I was appalled to discover that the statement a) made no reference to torture at all, and b) made no conclusive statements of any kind regarding "stoning." To make matters worse, the source itself justifies the lack of facts/clarity by stating that there is "no need for such an interpretation to be understandable," and provide a citation to bolster this claim - amazingly, upon examining this source (ie. the "source's source), I discovered that this source relied on the Christian bible ("New Testament") to support their position - they cite 8 verses in the bible, then conclude by saying: "but none of these suggest the procedure... nor do they need such a procedure to be understandable." This entire episode is very disturbing. In this case, we had an article which stated unequivocally that torture was/is a part of the Jewish religion - a loaded accusation with profoundly negative connotations - which falsely provided a citation to a source which failed to support the claim, and in turn relied on another source which failed to support the claim, and used the Christian bible their source. Not only is there no mention of torture anywhere in any of these rather dubious sources - but the entire use of the word "stoning" is in of itself an incorrect translation, the result of Hebrew being translated to Greek, then Greek to Latin &tc... One only needs a basic working knowledge of Hebrew to know that the root of the word which is used each time this method of execution is mentioned is Resh-Gimel-Mem (ר-ג-מ), which can connotates tossing, heaving, or pushing, yet when a person throws a stone or other object/missile, the following roots are used: Shin-Lamed-Chaf (ש-ל-כ) (flinging) or Zayin-Resh-Kuf (ז-ר-ק) (throwing), or even Tet-Yud-Lamed (ט-י-ל) (casting/hurling/launching) - which is why all authoritative scholars of Jewish jurisprudence agree that the method known in English as "stoning" in fact involved the "tossing/heaving/pushing" of the condemned (by one of the two required witnesses to his crime) from a specific height, to fall and be killed on a stone courtyard below - and only if the condemned somehow survives this fall, is a boulder pushed from the same place (by the second witness) to crush his body below. This is further bolstered by a textual analysis of the conjugations involved and the context. Also, any death that would cause a) mutilation to the condemned (ie. that would cause his corpse to be mutilated after death), or b) avoidable suffering (making all previous 'torture' references doubly inappropriate) is prohibited, as it would bring the witnesses/judges to transgress a significant number of commandments, both positive and negative. Again, I have chosen to elaborate on this specific example, as I feel it serves to represent a) an example of extreme distortion/misrepresentation/outright falsehood being presented as a cited fact b)having that cited source also present distortions &tc as cited facts as well c) having those cited facts be based on the Christian bible d) admitting that even in the Christian bible, those facts are not stated conclusively! If this were an article on, say, the culture/religion of the Akkadians or other ethno-religious minority which no longer existed, it would still be unacceptable - yet this is a profoundly "inaccurate" statement on Jews and Judaism, a highly maligned and persecuted minority - and it served to portray them in a violent and unseemly manner. I have no right to explicitly question the motives of whoever chose to insert these misrepresentations, yet I would be naive to assume that the possibility of malice could not have played a role either. I am very new here, so if this is too long/in the wrong place/written in an incorrect fashion, or inappropriate in any other way, please let me know, so that I can learn what is considered acceptable here on Wikipedia. Abu~Labid al~Zuraiqi [נשיקות פיהו] (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)"
Almost immediately, I received a notification from the same user who had undone my previous attempt at the same edit.
He had again restored the original phrase, with the original cited source, effectively declaring that my lengthy explanation of my rational was irrelevant. He explained his decision by stating:
"Stoning is w/o doubt death by torture no matter who did or still does it. I.E. see "History Of Torture" Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://books.google.com/books?id=PVPYAQAAQBAJ&dq=death+by+torture+stoning&source=gbs_navlinks_sCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
I then examined the "History of Torture," the source which was cited to justify the removal of my edit. Firstly, I does not address any of the issues which I raised, as the example of stoning refers to methods employed in the 17th conflict between Irish "Papists" and English Protestants. The following description is given, the source of which is "The History of the Persecutions of the Church of Rome and Complete Protestant Martyrology, 1809."
The text states: "Judith Mandon, a young woman, for refusing to embrace popery [italics not present in text], was fastened to a stake, and sticks thrown at her from a distance, in the very same manner as that barbarous custom, formerly practiced on Shrove Tuesday, of throwing at cocks. By this inhuman proceeding, her limbs were beat and mangled in a most terrible manner, and at last, one of the bludgeons dashed her brains out."
I have many issues with this. Firstly, there is no source presented which even can even remotely link the methodology of "Papists" and Protestants to that of Judaism. As I took the time to point out, the Philo source both admits that the methods were not described by Philo, as well as referring us to another "source," ie. the Christian bible - yet still states that even there the method is not described. So I am at a complete loss as to the justification for deleting my work and providing this new source. I am in complete agreement that what is described in the newest source is torture, yet I have seen zero cause to link that with the matter which I am addressing: Judaism.
Yet there is another issue with this source. I am questioning its very legitimacy, as it employs terminology which is racist, antiquated, and reflects views which are no longer considered acceptable in public discourse. For example, it the first part of the book is entitled: "Torture among the Savage and Primitive Races." [Italics not present in text.] Another example I found in less than 5 minutes of examining this "source," is as follows: "Of all the initiatory rites ever practiced by savages, however, those adopted by the North American Indians probably ranked as the most terrifying, involving excruciating and diabolical torture. The procedure varied in different tribes, but that adopted by the Mandans appears to have been the most pitiless and sanguinary." [Italics not present in text.] Furthermore, it would seem that the entire justification for the stance of the user who is deleting my edits is the following line: "Yahveh, the God of Israel, according to the wealth of testimony provided in the Old Testament, for sheer cruelty, terrorism and frightfulness, surpassed belief...He approved the punishment of dereliction of duty and petty offenses by such tortures as stoning to death and burning alive." [Italics not present in text.]
Now, I am going to state, unequivocally, what should be obvious already: this source describes stoning to be torture - it provides no proofs, justifications or reasoning, and can only be viewed as the personal views of the author - the same author who writes of "Negroes," Savages," "Primitive Races," "Popery," and the Jewish God as a "cruel" and "petty" "terrorist." For this source to trump everything that I wrote is, in my honest opinion, quite obscene. I would very much appreciate your assistance in rectifying this matter. I expressed these thoughts in as polite a manner as possible to the user in question, named "The Magnificent Clean-keeper," and included the following authoritative sources of Jewish Halachic Jurisprudence which describe the method in question, and in no uncertain terms, render this entire business irrelevant; even if the "History of Torture" was not an outdated, offensive source of "racial superiority theories," the sources which I provide clearly illustrate that the method did not involve what is described in this "source." They are indeed in Hebrew, yet I think that it is fair to say that anyone who wishes to forcefully control the definition of a topic should at least have a basic knowledge of that topic. I would not presume to edit pages dealing with subjects which I knew nothing about, did not have the tools to even learn about, and had a clearly biased opinion. The sources which I provided are as follows:
1. Mishnah, Order of Damages, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 6:4
2. Tosefta on Damages, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 9:3
3. Mishneh Torah leRambam, Judges, Laws of the High Court: Capitol Offences: Methodology and Application of Penalties and Execution.
There are countless commentaries written on this as well, yet these 3 sources are the base for all discussions on the issue, as they outline what exactly was done, and why.
I also mentioned that I have translated the names of the tractates, chapters, and sub-topics named, and of course I will be more than happy to provide them in either the original Hebrew or a transliteration. Please understand that I find this to be quite frustrating indeed. I feel that there is zero justification to ignore my rationale for the edits I made, and to do so based on the characterization described in a book which clearly employs language that is outside of the realm of acceptable, is not scholarly, and is actually quite archaic and offensive. Please reply when you can, I thank you in advance.
Abu~Labid al~Zuraiqi [נשיקות פיהו] (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you may want to take a look at

WP:TLDR

. A wall of text such as this one will discourage many prospective readers.

That said, the author of History of Torture clearly considered stoning, as prescribed in the Old Testament, as torture. It's an often-reprinted scholarly book, reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and what is and what isn't torture clearly is that book's core topic. (Also, that book is old, first published in 1940; "Negroes" at that time may still have been politically correct. Newer sources of course are preferable.) And according to Josef Blinzler's The Jewish punishment of stoning, the comparatively humane methods described in Sanhedrin only came in use after about 70 CE and differed significantly from "Biblical" stoning (which was in use earlier). The Sanhedrin itself is a

primary source, just as a modern code of law would be; Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources, and in any case the Sanhedrin doesn't discuss whether stoning is torture or not. To put it more bluntly: I do not think Wikipedia considers the same kind of sources authoritative that you do. Huon (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Huon, Please could you help me out here? Thank you! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the help desk. Huon (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review—I would do more research on the subject, tinkering mixed up the citations. Sorry about the "copy-pasted message"; usually, I would have alerted the both of you that I made same request to the other, but I acted in a hurry this time as some days has past since I asked Excirial. In any case, I am alerting Excirial now that you have answered my question. Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Grover Page

Huon--I think this reference would be better for Qubool Hai---http://ibnlive.in.com/news/karan-singh-grovers-exit-from-qubool-hai-who-is-really-to-be-blamed/442371-44-124.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkapoor21 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]