Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Changes to sourced content

Would the IP please explain why he is making changes to sourced content without adding new references to support the changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

changes by mckhan

  • first paragraph is just repeating whats in the article
  • so is the 2nd paragraph + we won't define sufism on the ahbash article maybe that can be done on the sufi page
  • 3rd paragraph repeats some of the things already in the article & aicp.org only says quran is word from God not what that source says & this conflicts with the article [1]*
  • 4th paragraph, Tariq Ramadan is not neutral..mainly becuz he is a wahabi [2] [3] he is also grand son of the founder of the muslim brotherhood which would conflict with ahbash since they had quarrels with them. Baboon43 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not ready and not yet informed enough to comment on the edits, but I do have to disagree with the claim that Tariq Ramadan is Wahhabi, the most obvious reason being that Wahhabi is typically used as a slur and no group self-identifies with the term. The second reason is that no reliable source on the page for Ramadan here on Wikipedia denotes him as a Wahhabi. Regarding the two sources you've given, then the second source is simply the cover of the book and the first source is unviewable to me at least because Google Books is telling me the page in question is not part of the preview. Now, one thing I do know about Tariq Ramadan is that the man detests Salafists and Salafism and once claimed that all Islamist terrorism has its root with Salafists; while Salafism and Wahhabism are two different things, the terms are related enough to infer that his opposition to Salafism probably also means an opposition to Wahhabism. With that in mind and without a strong, reliable and contrary source I don't think he should be referred to as a Wahhabi.
Now, he is obviously a big time ideological supporer of the Muslim Brotherhood, but why does that render his testimony invalid for the purposes of this article? As controversial as he is, Ramadan is recognized as an academic and an expert on Islamic issues whether we, the editors here, agree with his views or not. If there is concern that presenting his case could give readers of this article an inaccurate picture of Ahbashism based on biased views, then the answer isn't to remove sources for quotes from very notable experts on the topic; it's to simply make it clear in the text that the views are opinions of that person and not objective fact. I'm not commenting on the edits as, like I said, I'm not yet informed enough on the subject matter or edits to do that. All that I'm saying is that I disagree both with the statement that Tariq Ramadan is a Wahhabi and the view that quotes from the man should not be included in articles for opposing movements. Most religious, political and social movements which have notable opposition contain sections about that on their Wikipedia articles, and of course those sections will quote people who disagree with said movement. I don't see any reason to enact a different rule here.
So I'm not commenting on these edits just yet; I'm only commenting on the issue surrounding this man. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This article must present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. The content which I added was NOT written by me but another editor who has left Wikpedia. I have had lots of extensive and long discussions with you and my conclusion IS that you consistently demonstrate "Al-Ahbash vs. Wahabish" mindset (Wikipedia is not a battleground and it only cares about NPOV), you do NOT want ANYTHING posted on any of Wikipedia page which may be perceived critical of the Al-Ahbash and/or expose them of having differences of beliefs with the mainstream Sunnis/Muslims. Since the people in the West consider Sufism to be "cool" thus you also want to make sure that those "Sufi" credentials of the Al-Ahbash - if any - are not put in doubt as well. Having said that I have highlighted the specifics in bold for everybody to see which is lacking in the current version:
Shaykh Habashi in his books and lectures blend[16][17] [18] [19] [20] elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism by supporting the legitimacy of Imam Ali and his descendants while condemning Mu'awiyya, the caliph and governor of Damascus, and his son Yazid as "seditious" thus adopting Shi'ite tradition whereas setting apart from all other Sunni jurists.[1] [7] [21][8] [22]. Although not explicitly stated, Sufism plays also an important role in al-Ahbash's doctrine as demonstrated by the practice of several Sufi traditions such as the pilgrimage to holy men's tombs (Ziyarat) and the support of three Sufi Tariqas.[1] The contention that it is a primarily Sufi movement[1], however, has been disputed[2].
Kabla and Haggai Erlich identify "moderation" as the key word in al-Ahbash's "necessary science of religion" [1] and instance the group's twelve-goal platform whose second item calls for "[p]reaching moderation [...] and good behavior as ways of implementing religious principles, while combating extremism and zeal." [2]. This position is also reflected in the groups's decided opposition to the Salafist movement and radical Islamist thinkers, namely Sayyid Qutb, Muhammed ibn 'Abd-al-Wahhab, and Ibn Taymiyyah. [2] [1]Al-Ahbash's rather progressive views on education, the role of women, and science contradict many of the above named writers' opinions. One further critical cleavage is al-Ahbash's strict rejection of any form of anthropomorphism of God which they accuse Wahhabism of [2] . Consequently, Shaykh Habashi holds that "it does not befit God to speak like that, and his word is not a voice or letters"[23] and that therefore, the Qu'ran contains the word of God but could be written only after "Gabriel listened to His word, understood it, and passed it on to the prophets and the angels"[19] [20] [2] - a highly controversial point of view within Islam which is not fully compatible with the consensus of Sunnis.[2] The arguably most important split, however, is the question of the relation between religion, politics, and the state. Departing from most Islamic writings on this topic, al-Ahbash advocates a separation of religion and state and thereby rejects the idea of an Islamic state. Consequently, the group repeatedly emphasized the need for Muslim-Christian co-existence and tolerance towards other religious groups in Lebanon. [2]
Tariq Ramadan's quote summarizes all the important elements of the above paragraphs quite succinctly. No matter what you think of Tariq Ramadan as "Wahabi" or grandson of the founder of Muslim Brotherhood, the fact remains that he is a bona-fide and well-respected Professor at Oxford with a Ph.D. in Arabic and in Islamic studies.
In a nutshell, the content which I added may look familiar but it elaborates way more on the subject than the current version (I am NOT the sole author of any of the versions) and spells out the differences of beliefs between the mainstream Sunnis/Muslims and the Al-Ahbash, which you don't want Wikipdia readers to know about at any cost, by using the VERIFIABLE / ACADEMIC sources and the words and material of Al-Ahbash/AICP and their own Shaykh:
  • al-Habashi, Shaykh 'Abdallah (1990). Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration). Beirut, Lebanon: Jam'iyyat al-Mashari'. pp. 86, 88, 90, 105 ('These ahadith are: "For whosoever I am master, this Ali is his master; 0 God support whosoever is"'), 111 ('Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law'), 107, 195.
  • ^ Manar al-Huda (Beirut, Lebanon: Association of Islamic Charitable Projects). November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37; April-May 1993, 45. http://www.manarulhudamag.com/.
  • ^ al-Habashi, Shaykh 'Abdallah (1994). Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith). Beirut, Lebanon: Burj Abi Haydar Mosque. pp. 46.
  • ^ a b al-Habashi, Shaykh 'Abdallah. Bughyat al-talib. Beirut, Lebanon: Association of Islamic Charitable Projects. p. 31.
  • ^ ab al-Habashi, Shaykh 'Abdallah. "Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003". Beirut, Lebanon: Association of Islamic Charitable Projects.
And you still consider it to be "biased"? That is just beyond me. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
anti sufi, pro wahabi scholar is not neutral…tariq not only attacked the whole sufi establishment he also lies saying ahbash consider majority of muslims non believers "Tariq Ramadan's own interpretation belongs to the trend of salafi reformism"-Sharing Lights on the way to God: Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Theology in the Context of Abrahimic Partnership-p.325..."it was revealed that among the members of the advisory board were notable apologists for Wahabism and even jihadi scholars, such as Dr Tariq Ramadan"-The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy-p.246 Baboon43 (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), You have quoted two sources which supposed to show the Wikipedia readers the "true" face of Tariq Ramadan and here is what the cursory web search reveals: According to The Center for Media and Democracy - SourceWatch, Walid_Phares, the author of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy "is a right-wing "terrorism" analyst who often appears as an expert on TV chat shows. In 2011, he was listed as a national security advisor to Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential hopeful." According to Professor. As'ad AbuKhalil, Walid_Phares has got Checkered history as "Terrorism Expert" Walid Phares is a "former commander of the Lebanese Forces militia, although that is stricken out of his c.v."). This source reveals even more about this author. Thus, the credibility of this author seems to be pretty dubious.
Pim Valkenberg, the author of Sharing Lights on the Way to God: Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Theology in he Context of Abrahimic Partnership also wrote (about Tariq Ramadan) that on the topic of Future of Islam in the West, "On this topic the Swiss Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan has written several pioneering studies." (Page 270) and that "Tariq Ramadan argues that Muslims should become active participants in the societies in which they live, including forms of political representation." (Page 326) and "Tariq Ramadan brings some interesting suggestions for the future of inter-religious dialogue between Christians and Muslims in the West." (Page 327)
I will let the Wikpedia readers decide on their own. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), I would like to reiterate that this article must present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Mezzo: i just proved your theory wrong that " no wikipedia source denotes him as a wahabi"..it doesn't matter what tariq once claimed he is a well known two faced jihadi wahabi salafi scholar..you just said wahabism is a slur and no group self identifies as a wahabi but you make statements like "salafism and wahabism are two different things" so what is "wahabism"? just an ideology that someone can put on whenever they want to get extreme?
Mckhan: you call yourself a traditionalist but you don't even know what that means..giving out wahabi websites to support your attacks on ahbash but now you have turned gear into some NPOV safeguarding editor..what?? i think "sufism is cool in the west"..when i first edited this page i tried to put ahbash heading as "religious movement" & was it not you who was reverting me with your socks?? & now you accuse me of pushing ahbash as a sufi group? your out of your mind..that ramadan quote has done nothing but boast ahbash's claim of adhering to sufism so its not me thats promoting ahbash's sufism..now you regret reverting julian because you have realized the ahbash page is out of your control so you decided to include his work..Baboon43 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Wahhabism and Salafism are clearly defined in the articles for both, and it is made clear that they are used interchangeably and as two different movements at times. Regarding Ramadan, then my comment still stands; no source on his Wikipedia page denotes him as a Wahhabi. If you would like to add the sources you provided here to his article, then you will need to take it to the talk page there first.
As for you (Baboon) and the issue with McKhan...I have a suggestion. Let's everyone read the comments here, notice that there have been some personal remarks made from multiple directions and not reply to comments until noon tomorrow by Greenwich Mean Time. Just everybody cool off before the come back to discuss content. The article might need attention, but the world won't end if it isn't discussed for one more day, and the wait might help calm this discussion down. This isn't about proving the theories of other editors wrong, it's about improving the articles. We all know that but sometimes a reminder can help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), It really doesn't matter what you think of me.
In my humble point of view, as per Darkness_Shines (talk · contribs)'s merger proposal (which is also kindly supported by MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)), the next step should be to merge Ahbashism_campaign with the Al-Ahbash page. However, it is extremely important to note that WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)'s version has been turned into a non-NPOV-compliant version. Since the Al-Ahbash page already has a statement ( i.e. "In 2012, protesters in Addis Ababa accused the Ethiopian government of promoting Al-Ahbash in the country.[28]") along-with other controversies, thus, it would be appropriate to make sure to keep Ahbashism_campaign controversy as short as possible to maintain the content equilibrium.
Given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, it is extremely important that this article (even after merger) MUST continue to present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Once it has been accomplished then this page should be protected by an administrator that nobody can alter it again arbitrarily. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr Mezzo your inflaming the situation with yet another unnecessary comment..i dont need to go to any talk page before i make edits to an article of my choosing,, understand? thats perhaps something you and mckhan have an issue of..you cant wp: own an article..now mckhan your proposing an administrative protection on ahbash article? forget about the proponents of ahbash..im more worried about the opponents which you have made clear that you are one on this talk page. Baboon43 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for enflaming the situation. Here's a suggestion, shall we pull another third opinion in place of myself? And are we all sure that we can't just take a day-long break and then come back to this? Or both? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard / Al-Ahbash

I have taken the liberty to take the matter to NPOV Noticeboard. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash

FYI:

  • Dr. `Ali Jum`ah, Professor of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University, issued a Fatwa (Islamic Decree) against the Al-Ahbash in which he stated: "This sect follows `Abdullah Al-Harary Al-Habashi, and it has surface and deep levels. At the surface, this sect seems to adhere to the Shafi`i School of Jurisprudence, and to Imam Al-Ash`ari’s School as regards creed. However, at the deep level, their main intention is to corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam." Source: Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs
  • Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) - Fatwa

Thank you. McKhan (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

that is unreliable and irrelevant. Baboon43 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is it "unreliable and irrelevant"? It is a letter / statement issued by the Al-Azhar's own President on Al-Azhar's official letter-head distancing Al-Azhar from the Al-Ahbash. Here is a suggestion for you: Either you remove "The organization runs islamic schools affiliated with cairo's Al-Azhar university." altogether or properly spell out what exactly transpired between the Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash (i.e Al-Azhar eventually distanced itself from the Al-Ahbash). Let's not make it a battleground as the topic of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and cooperate. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
sure ill do that once you get a reliable source that claims they distanced themselves NOT a wahabi fatwa site & also make sure your sources are in english...RS only please Baboon43 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is an authentic, verifiable and original letter / statement issued on the letter-head of Al-Azhar, dated and duly signed by its own President which is also available on-line (e.g. here).
  • Why would the President of Al-Azhar (a University located in an Arabic-speaking country) issue such a letter / statement in English?
  • Here is the rough English translation of the letter / statement issued in August 2001 by Dr. Ahmad ʿUmar Hashim, the President of Al-Azhar University, on Al-Azhar's official letter-head distancing and disconnecting Al-Azhar University from the Al-Ahbash:
"When I visited Lebanon 2 years ago, a lot of pressure was exerted upon me and I had presented with some papers to sign. When I came back and learned from the Egyptian Ambassador and another source that this organization is not credible and their Islamic mindset is not healthy, we broke off contact with them and we canceled everything they asked of us to sign. Between us and them there is no longer any relationship exist. Al-Azhar University and between them, there is no single form of recognition and cooperation. All the papers which were asserted otherwise, do not correspond to the truth."
"We oppose all attempts to misuse the name of the prestigious Al-Azhar University by an organization or association that does not abide by fully with the Qur'an and Sunna to follow."
  • Why would you suddenly have a problem with a source (i.e. Onislam) and consider it to be "Wahabi" when you didn't have on Ahbashism_campaign?
I would like to remind you that this page is about an extremely controversial subject, thus, it must present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
well on the ahbashism campaign there's other RS to back up the claim like reuters and such but with what your proposing there's no back up...if the ahbashism campaign was just alleged "on islam" only, it wouldnt be reliable. i was already aware that on islam was a wahabi site but it was news they were reporting and was backed up by other sources Baboon43 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
As usual, you have NOT responded to my other question (i.e. Why would the President of Al-Azhar (a University located in an Arabic-speaking country) issue such a letter / statement in English?). It really doesn't matter whether any source belongs to "Wahabis" or not. Like I said before that this page is about an extremely controversial subject, thus, it must present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I am not indulging into edit-warring but trying my best to use this talk page, although, as usual, this "discussion" is not going anywhere. Should you like then I will be more than happy to escalate this matter further to an administrator. Please, let me know. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Guys, why don't we try WP:Third Opinion for this. It seems my attempts to mediate didn't help much. How about we see if another third party can come and help work out this dispute? Would you both be comfortable with me trying to find someone else who could objectively mediate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo, Thank you very much for your kind and very useful suggestion. Should you be kind enough to find someone who can objectively mediate on all the Al-Ahbash-related pages then that would be great. . Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Ahbashism campaign article is never going to get much beyond it's current size, it ought to be merged here with the Ahbashism campaign left as a redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: I am for it as long as it presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I know very little about the subject matter and in general, I prefer expanding existing articles rather than merging. In this case, however, the original creator of the Campaign article made three edits and then seemed to disappear from Wikipedia, and other concerned editors since then have been unable to expand the article beyond its current size. All things considered, I can see just makeing a section within the Ahbash article and merging the Ahbashism Campaign article into that section of the main article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)*
  • Oppose: Ahbash article is currently too small & merger would give the campaign undue weight. perhaps if the ahbash article expanded more then i would support. Baboon43 (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2013
Request: Just for clarification Baboon, if editors give a community wide pledge to help you and those concerned expand the main portion of the Ahbash article, would you then be willing to support the merge based on good will? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Help me? im not interested in expanding this article..first i would like to see the article expanded before a merger takes place not after. Baboon43 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2013
I just expanded the article and you reverted it which proves the fact that you are only interested in "expanding" the article as per your own agenda. I dare you to prove that the content which I added is "biased". Go on. McKhan (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thats not good enough and all you added was pov. Baboon43 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC

As per the kind suggestion of Magog_the_Ogre, I would like to use Wikipedia:RFC as the initial process. I admit that this is the first time I am using this process.

With reference to the Talk page of this page (Ahbashism_campaign) andTalk pages of the Al-Ahbash page, it becomes abundantly clear that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial, thus, few Neutral Wikipedia editors who would kindly help with a version of Al-Ahbash page and Ahbashism_campaign page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines would be really great and helpful. Please, feel welcome to read the Talk pages of Al-Ahbash and this page (Ahbashism_campaign). Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Has the RfC been opened yet? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually before this RfC starts, was Wikipedia:Third opinion tried? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no experience with the RfC but I have followed the steps listed under Wikipedia:RFC. I intend to gradually extend this RfC (or open a new one) to the mainAl-Ahbash page. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
You have not posted the RFC as yet, would you like me to do so if you are unsure how? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Please, go ahead. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
McKhan, please use ~~~~ (four tildas) and not ~~~ (three tildas) to sign your posts on talk pages. You lose credibility when editors cannot see when your posts were made. In the process of reviewing this dispute I found it very difficult to judge your motives without the date attached to your signature. I had to rely on the edit history of talk pages to compare your article edits to your posts to determine if your edits were motivated by edit warring or actual concern about content. This is very difficult compared to having dates in the text of talk pages.
I would like to thank both of you for your recent adherence to WP:CIVIL. Can I get either one of you or both or three to list what is actually still in dispute. Please use a list format to detail what about these two articles you disagree with. Or is this RFC only for "help with a version of Al-Ahbash page and Ahbashism campaign page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively". If so what statements would each of you like to be included and what are the best sources for that statement. That way other NPOV editors can evaluate their reliability and best placement in either article. In my humble opinion, if the statements are included in the form "According to X, ..." then the actual POV of the statements are inconsequential. The goal should be to reach a NPOV by including varies POV. But first we must determine if the sources can be relied upon to present the statements accurately without influence.— አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Janweh64 (talk · contribs), Thank you very much for kindly coming forward to help with the Al-Ahbash and Ahbashism_campaign pages. First thing first, since you are from Ethiopia [[[User:Baboon43|Baboon43]] (talk · contribs) is also from Ethiopia but based in Canada and actively contribute to Ethiopia and Al-Ahbash related pages)] and the leader of Al-Ahbash, Abdullah_al-Harari, is also from Harar, Ethiopia, I sincerely hope that there will be no conflict of interest and you will be able to remain neutral. Having said that I hope that you have already gone through the Talk pages of Al-Ahbash andTalk pages of Ahbashism_campaign if you have not done so then please feel welcome to do so as it will greatly help to understand what are the main NPOV issues with these pages. Is this RFC only for "help with a version of Al-Ahbash page and Ahbashism campaign page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively"? Indeed, it is.
Regarding this particular page, Ahbashism_campaign, this was the version which was written by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs). Please, feel welcome to compare WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)'s [4] to Baboon43 (talk · contribs)'s version under the light of Baboon43 (talk · contribs)'s following edits:
Baboon43 (talk · contribs) succeeded to highlight the "Saudi funding" as per his "Al-Ahbash vs. Wahabism" mindset, reduced "Ethiopian Muslims accuse the government of recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad to take positions in the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, the ruling body over Islam in Ethiopia.[2]" (by propping up theAl-Ahbash and by replacing theReuters' source and cherry-picking theCSM soruce) to "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2]".
Thus, I cannot stress enough that we need few Neutral Wikipedia editors who would kindly help with a version of Al-Ahbash page and Ahbashism_campaign page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Once again, please, feel welcome to read the Talk pages of Al-Ahbash and this page (Ahbashism_campaign). Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43 (talk · contribs), :With reference to your recent edit, what "rationale" are you referring to? You replaced the source, inserted your favorite statement and when I opened the RfC you didn't even participate in that. Please, feel welcome to elaborate. Thank you.McKhan (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

as mentioned in the above discussion no source was removed all i did was insert a new source. Baboon43 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Thank you for finally participating in this RfC. Here is the evidence that you DID replace theReuters' source with theCSM soruce. McKhan (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
a few technical issues did arise but reuters quote remains in the article thats all that really matters. Baboon43 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This statement "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2]" is not NPOV nor it is substantiated FULLY by the theCSM soruce neither by the theReuters' source. McKhan (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
reuters has nothing to do with that input..the csm article says the following "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash".& the article says they are on trial for terrorism "Currently, 29 leaders of a Muslim protest movement, and representatives of two Islamic charities are on trial in Addis Ababa, facing charges of plotting violence to create an Islamic state". ..last time i checked using violence in politics is considered terrorism..so my input is not NPOV thats what the article says. Baboon43 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Why did you have to insert the CSM source in the first place? Is it because that the CSM article is using the word / term "moderate"? Why didn't you also include the terms like "coercive campaign" or "pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims" towards the Al-Ahbash which identifies itself "with a more moderate strain of Islam."? Why would you use the term "moderate Al-Ahbash" when the CSM source doesn't outright imply that but carefully use "more moderate strain" of Islam? Why would you bring it to the top? Why don't you support the merger of this article with the main Al-Ahbash page? You know exactly that this subject is extremely controversial and yet you keep on marketing the Al-Ahbash which is categorically against the Wikipedia policies and that's exactly why I put those tags which you removed claiming that they are "stale." What exactly do you want? Do you want the free-hand to insert whatever and however and whenever you want to all the Al-Ahbash and Wahabism-related pages? Please, feel welcome to elaborate. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
personal attacks, accusations & going off topic is typical behaviour which you have not adjusted..so basically if i dont have your approval or blessings then i shouldn't edit? why are you dictating to me what i should have done regarding my edits to this article..it is the anniversary of our meeting on wikipedia, have some courtesy..why are you going off topic about topic merger and how i edit other articles on wikipedia??..either stick to the topic or close the rfc.Baboon43 (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), You always tend to forget that your own edits speak volume about your own editing behavior. Given I have had very long and extensive discussions with you on almost all the Al-Ahbash related pages, my comments doesn't and shouldn't come across as "personal attacks" or "accusations." Having said that - as usual -you haven't answered any of my questions at all. Thus, I am still waiting for the answers. McKhan (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
aside from the mumbo jumbo you wrote..sticking to the edits, it basically wouldn't make any difference if i added "moderate strain" rather then just moderate or if i had added coercive campaign..my input just sums up what was reported..i brought it to the top because it sums up the campaign, it certainly doesnt belong in the protest section. Baboon43 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me remind you that one of the purpose of this RFC and my extensive and lengthy conversations with you is to help with a version of Al-Ahbash page andAhbashism campaign page (and all other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (i.e. "Wahabis", "Anit-Ahbash", "Kafirs", "Infidels") objectively. I don't agree with your "rearrangement" (As I indicated above, you succeeded to highlight the "Saudi funding" and intentionally reduced "Ethiopian Muslims accuse the government of recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad to take positions in the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, the ruling body over Islam in Ethiopia.[2]" (by propping up the Al-Ahbash and by replacing theReuters' source and cherry-picking theCSM soruce) to "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2]") nor I support the insertion of such an unsubstantiated statement in this article. Since the subject is extremely controversial and you and I don't see eye to eye, thus, we need a Third Opinion. In the meantime, it is only fair that the article remain being tagged. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
its all RS and thats what wikipedia accepts if you want original research inserted then wikipedia is not the place to do it..if you make your own blog you can rant about anything you like. Baboon43 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It is NOT only about RS but it is also about the essence of Wikipedia which aspires to be NPOV and your edits - under the light of your own edit history - does not come across as NPOV specially when you keep on cherry-picking the sources and continue to insert favorable POVs to the subject of Al-Ahbash (and its related pages), which is extremely controversial. I am NOT interested in blogging. Thank you for the suggestion. McKhan (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • merge- I'm a randomly-selected-to-comment editor, and based on a quick look the Ahbashism campaign article looks like a good candidate for WP:MERGE. It's pretty insubstantial and could make a subsection of Al Ahbash with some rewriting. BoogaLouie (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment. I also support the merger as do others. Thank you.McKhan (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
why do you have to confuse editors by opening an rfc thats so broad..you have listed two articles al ahbash and this one..my advice is you stick to an issue at a time.Baboon43 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the votes for merger, I will be merging these two articles together along-with migrating this RfC to the Al-Ahbash page. McKhan (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Guys, just merge the two articles. This one is short already and seems related to the movement's spread. The main Ahbash article needs a lot of work as it is, and a lot of the material there could be trimmed down, making a merge even more appropriate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have migrated the RfC (along-with the pertinent comments) from Ahbashism campaign talk page to this page. Should you like then please feel welcome to contribute further. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What about the talk page for Ahbashism campaign? It doesn't appear to have been moved or merged or anything. What process did you use? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I just moved the RfC and its pertinent comments here and left a note in due course. I am not aware of any such process. Should you know any then please feel welcome to help me. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), What sort of "consensus" are you talking about here? These are the editors who support the merger proposal put forth by Darkness_Shines (talk · contribs):
You are the only one who doesn't support it. That's why I merged the both articles. McKhan (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
well i dont support it as discussed above & you removed key facts under the guise of merging. Baboon43 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), I inserted the content from WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)'s version under the heading of "Ahbashism campaign" as s/he is a THIRD PARTY thus way more NEUTRAL. I even kept your favorite CSM source (i.e. Davison, Williams (14 Feb 2013). "Ethiopian Muslims protest government 'interference'" - 'CS Monitor) intact. Why do you have objection on his/her version? Please, feel welcome to elaborate. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
what do you mean "your favorite"? i suggest you stop deleting my RS inputs & edits which you dont like. Baboon43 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I told you already that it isn't only about the RS nor it is about my "like" or "dislike." Thus, I would suggest that you must stop cherry-picking the sources and insisting on / inserting your pro-Ahbash POVs. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
you dont even contribute to this article, all you do is yammer on about other peoples edits & once again you accuse me of "POV" because you would prefer this article to be 3 lines...what exactly are you saying? the RS itself is pov? Baboon43 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Your edit history speaks volume about your POVs. I don't have to "accuse" you. At least, I have got the integrity not to push my POVs on all the Al-Ahbash and supposedly anti-Ahbash (i.e. Wahabis, Salafis) related Wikipedia pages. With reference to the lengthy and extensive discussions on these pages, I have provided several examples in which you have deliberately cherry-picked the sources just to make sure that it fits to your agenda. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
nothing i inserted is not backed by academics so its not OR that i made up..your obsession of trying to censor this article is getting out of control..i think 8 plus years of sockpuppeting is enough..& yes i do edit the other articles you mentioned but what does that have to do with anything? & what is my agenda? is it to contribute articles with verifiable sources which you try to censor?? Baboon43 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Quit beating around the bush. I have had very lengthy and extensive discussions with you and have provided plenty of examples on the talk pages of Al-Ahbash, Ahbashism_campaign and Abdullah_al-Harari that how you cherry-pick the sources and beyond. Why don't you focus upon the content for once and cooperate by being fair, just and balanced without pushing the pro-Ahbash and anti-Wahabis/Salfis POVs to Al-Ahbash related pages? Here is the purpose of this RfC: "Given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, it is extremely important that this article (even after merger) MUST continue to present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines." Should you like then you are more then welcome to help. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Guys, isn't the point of an RfC for previously uninvolved editors to comment? The way this RfC section is bloated now, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody comments. Would the two of you agree to moving your dialogue into a separate section of the talk page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43, Please, quit cherry-picking the sources, bullying and throwing around the accusations.

With reference to

"According to Thomas Pierret, Ahbash's ideology "can be termed "neo-tradionalist", in that it aims to preserve the Islamic heritage of the Ottoman era[8] - which they consider themselves to be the inheritors."[11]

, I cannot make it more clearer than this. For further breakdown, please, see the following:

  • "can be termed "neo-tradionalist", in that it aims to preserve the Islamic heritage of the Ottoman era[8] Source/Reference: Pierret, Thomas (2010). "Al-Ahbash". Basic Reference (Scotland, UK: Edinburgh Academics) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017%2FS0020743800063145. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  • which they consider themselves to be the inheritors."''[11] Source/Reference: Pierret, Thomas (2005). "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context". ISIM Review (The Netherlands: International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World) (Spring 2005): 15. Retrieved 2009-04-10

I would like to reiterate my request highlighted in the above RfC: "Given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, it is extremely important that this article (even after merger) MUST continue to present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines." Should you like then you are more then welcome to help. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

mckhan continues to tamper with my edits

kindly revert back my edits. what do you mean "according to" stop trying to devalue RS material..i know you hate the mainstream media because its my way or the highway with you. Baboon43 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

seeing mckhan refuses to discuss his POV changes and just reverts its time for a block. Baboon43 (talk)

Baboon43 (talk · contribs), "Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly."
I have already discussed with you (here and then on RFC here) enough. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Al-Ahbash, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
McKhan, you have been here long enough to read the page you just referred to. If a content dispute between yourself and Baboon43 is editing disruptively, then you would also be blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring. Discuss the content, don't just copy-paste templates that belong on user talk pages as if that's some sort of discussions.


Baboon43, it is most certainly not "my way or the highway"; that kind of comment isn't going to make someone want to discuss anything with you, especially when you say that "its time for a block"; that kind of comment would belong here or here, but it doesn't do anything on this talk page but cause problems, and make McKhan less likely to want to discuss the content with you. - SudoGhost 19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sudo, I have already discussed with him (here and then on RFC here) enough. He doesn't want me to post any sort of warnings on his Talk Page. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean post them on an article's talk page, which is inappropriate. "I have discussed with him enough" is a quick way to get blocked again; if you're not going to discuss it, don't revert it, especially not repeatedly and with erroneous edit summaries claiming that the edit you're reverting is disruptive and with an edit summary of "per talk page" when there's nothing here but inaccurate and inappropriate user warnings that have no place or purpose on an article's talk page. - SudoGhost 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sudo, Please, feel welcome to read the previous discussions which I have had with him - about this edit - here and here. He inserted his POV / personal analysis first time here. It is a fact that I have already discussed with him in detail. I also warned him that he is being disruptive by keep on reverting to his personal analysis / POV which can be found here and then see what I was told in return. I hope that clarifies further the reasons behind my edit summaries and users warning being posted here. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
He is being no more disruptive than you are, in fact judging by this talk page it appears that you are being more disruptive, if anyone is. Your edit summaries and talk page comments are inappropriate, as was this. Regarding this, you have been told previously how inaccurate that rationale is; WP:BRD cannot occur without editing, and there is no basis for requests that "any changes should be discussed on the Talk page first". Most importantly, a discussion on another article is not a discussion about this topic and this edit; if you do not discuss it, do not revert it. Do not allude to other discussions about other articles, because that isn't a discussion about this edit. - SudoGhost 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sudo, I hope you will appreciate the fact that Ahbashism campaign was merged (as per Darkness Shines's proposal) into this article which can be verified through this: "Text fromAhbashism_campaign was copied or moved into Al-Ahbash with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attributionfor that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Ahbashism campaign." Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Enough. Really I have had it with you both, either get along or I swear to god I will go to ANI and demand a topic ban of the both of you. And yes, I have the diffs to get that passed. So quit bitching and work it out, I have referred this page long enough, and cheers Sudo for your input, Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

recent edits makes news facts look like opinions therefore the wording should be changed. why was i warned in my talk page when the other editor doesn't even discuss his changes?? Baboon43 (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Contrary to your accusatory claim "when the other editor doesn't even discuss his changes??," I have already discussed this edit of yours in detail with you which can be found here and then on RFC here. Since these two articles, Al-Ahbash and Ahbashism_campaign, have merged together, thus, the previous discussions remain pertinent and referable in due course.
Regarding your claim "recent edits makes news facts look like opinions therefore the wording should be changed,", let me remind you that you made this edit and inserted "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2] (your POV / personal analysis) on 14 February 2013 at 20:51 (by replacing the Reuters' source, introducing and then cherry-picking the CSM soruce) and since that day you have been trying your best to insert your POV / personal analysis again and again (First to Ahbashism_campaign and then to the Al-Ahbash) and in return, all I did is to take the pertinent quote (i.e. "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash."[29]) and put in the article along-with naming William Davison (Christian Science Monitor correspondent) of the CSM source for all the Wikipedia readers to decide on their own. But apparently that is not satisfactory to you BECAUSE it does not use the keyword of "moderate Ahbash" nor it refers to "trial for inciting terrorism" that you could bring Saudi (Wahabi vs. Al-Ahbash) element to this page as per your POV / personal analysis (i.e. "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2]). Never mind the fact that the CSM source, a source which you introduced by yourself, indicates very clearly that "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash."[29] without using the keyword of "moderate Ahbash" or "trial for inciting terrorism" at all.
And then you turn around and accuse me of "tampering" with your edits and not discussing with you? Amazing.
Let me reiterate my goal: "Given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, it is extremely important that this article (even after merger) MUST continue to present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines." You are more than welcome to help. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Any more edit warring by either party will subject that party to a lengthy block. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
can you stop referring links to old threads and discuss the current issue at hand? the source clearly mentions the word "moderate" you even quoted it.. "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash". <-------means ahbash is moderate & also the source mentions clearly that the people arrested are on trial for terrorism.."Currently, 29 leaders of a Muslim protest movement, and representatives of two Islamic charities are on trial in Addis Ababa, facing charges of plotting violence to create an Islamic state". <---thats terrorism charges..i basically summarized it and added it to the article but your changes will deceive readers into thinking the CSM editor is basing this on his opinion and therefore isn't facts & the quote you added doesnt even mention why they are on trial. [5] Baboon43 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Since you insist quite brazenly that it is an "old thread" and not "the issue at hand" and accused me that "when the other editor doesn't even discuss his changes??," I would like to take the liberty to copy and paste the excerpts of the previous discussions here which I have had with you on Ahbashism_campaign talk page after you made this edit and inserted "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2] (your POV / personal analysis) to the Ahbashism_campaign page on 14 February 2013 at 20:51 (by replacing the Reuters' source, introducing and then cherry-picking the CSM source) as per following:
  • Who has replaced the Reuters' article with CSM article? It is you. Why would you do that without even discussing it? And the CSM article has not used the word "moderate" for Ahbash. Here is the complete paragraph: "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash. They allege the government is fearful of a perceived new radical Islamic impulse and is attempting to strengthen its control of Ethiopia’s main Islamic national council." So, according to your perception and POV, Wikipedia readers should ignore the sentiments of the protesters and simply take Ahbash as "moderate" because you or other say so. You are simply cherry-picking the source again as per you own history. McKhan (talk)
  • This statement "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2]" is not NPOV nor it is substantiated FULLY by the the CSM soruce neither by the the Reuters' source. McKhan (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Why did you have to insert the CSM source in the first place? Is it because that the CSM article is using the word / term "moderate"? Why didn't you also include the terms like "coercive campaign" or "pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims" towards the Al-Ahbash which identifies itself "with a more moderate strain of Islam."? Why would you use the term "moderate Al-Ahbash" when the CSM source doesn't outright imply that but carefully use "more moderate strain" of Islam?" McKhan (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me remind you that one of the purpose of this RFC and my extensive and lengthy conversations with you is to help with a version of Al-Ahbash page and Ahbashism campaign page (and all other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (i.e. "Wahabis", "Anit-Ahbash", "Kafirs", "Infidels") objectively. I don't agree with your "rearrangement" (As I indicated above, you succeeded to highlight the "Saudi funding" and intentionally reduced "Ethiopian Muslims accuse the government of recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad to take positions in the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, the ruling body over Islam in Ethiopia.[2]" (by propping up the Al-Ahbash and by replacing the Reuters' source and cherry-picking the CSM soruce) to "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2]") nor I support the insertion of such an unsubstantiated statement in this article. Since the subject is extremely controversial and you and I don't see eye to eye, thus, we need a Third Opinion. In the meantime, it is only fair that the article remain being tagged. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Above excerpts (in addition to the above discussion) does not only demonstrate that we have discussed all of your points before (contrary to your claim of it to be an "old thread" and not "the issue at hand" and accusing me that I have not discussed it with you by saying that "when the other editor doesn't even discuss his changes??") but also present my argument against the insertion of "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash [2] into the Al-Ahbash page. I rest my case.
I cannot reiterate and stress enough upon the fact that given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, and given that we do not see eye to eye, we desperately need the involvement of some non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors here who can help with a version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Till that transpires, that would be really great and rational if the current version should remain intact in interest of warning and in the spirit of WP:PREFER. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
stop trying to censor RS input if you truly are for preserving NPOV on this article then the following must be allowed to be added on this article..1. ahbash being moderate or moderate strain of islam like the article says..2. the people that accuse the government that ahbash is being forced upon the population are on trial for terrorism or that they are trying to establish islamic sharia government through violence..it also must not be put together as if its an opinion. Baboon43 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is a POV whether you see it or not and I have already given my reasons and arguments many times through extensive and long discussions with you. Thus, it is about time that some non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors get involved. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
how is it POV? when thats what the article says? Baboon43 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Is that the ONLY article which has been written on this subject? Let some non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors get involved. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
so why didnt you say your rejecting the source instead of beating around the bush? you were denying the source doesnt say such and such and im misinterpreting it but now you dont want that source used..which proves my point your trying to censor RS just as you previously did for the past decade on this article. Baboon43 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), I am sorry but it is getting really tiring now. You keep on forgetting that everybody and anybody can see your edit history. I know you don't see it but you are not only misrepresenting the source but also cherry-picking and twisting the source [just like you did with other sources which you introduced by yourself (i.e. on Abdullah_al-Harari page)] which is a tantamount to marketing the Al-Ahbash by pushing their POVs through painting them as a victim (i.e. "moderate", "human-rights friendly", "religious pluralists", "women-friendly", "pro-Westerners") and the other side (i.e. mainstream Sunnis, Wahabis, Salafis, "Anti-Ahbash") as the "aggressors", "terrorists", "fundamentalists" or indulging into "political violence." And yet you have QUITE BRAZENLY accused me of NOT discussing the matter with you when in fact I have discussed with you the very same matter (and more) and offered you explanations for several times but yet you read what you want to read. In addition to that, you have been trying your mighty best to get me banned from the Wikipedia that you could have a free hand. Despite all that, I offered you a compromise by taking the pertinent quote (i.e. "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash."[29]) in full and put in the article along-with naming William Davison (Christian Science Monitorcorrespondent) of the CSM source for all the Wikipedia readers to decide on their own which was not satisfactory to you either and then you started edit-warring on the premises of false and frivolous accusations (i.e "when the other editor doesn't even discuss his changes??,"). MezzoMezzo is right when he indicates that you and I "have polar opposite ideas" (i.e. we do not see eye to eye) but here is my goal (which I have reiterated countless times) that given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, and given that we do not see eye to eye, we desperately need the involvement of some non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors here who can help with a version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. You can certainly help without crying foul. I don't think it is too much to ask. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Full disclosure: Baboon asked for my input here, and per my talk page he didn't ask me to take his side or anything; just to review the discussion. Think of this as another WP:Third Opinion attempt.
I think this current discussion won't get us anywhere. This editor's third opinion is also that even if there have been instances of incivility, they're directly related to the content; despite the long nature of the discussions, I don't think Baboon and McKhan dislike or even care about one another personally, but it's that they have polar opposite ideas about the direction in which this article should be headed.
An RfC was tried and didn't produce much result. Unfortunately, I think that we must take it to the next level per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in order to resolve this, as I think we can all agree the primary goal is settling things, improving the article and moving on. I would like to ask, has the issue of the Ahbash article been brought to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard previously? If not, that may be the next step. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Mckhan its quite simple you are censoring RS & you hate this group with a passion calling them sects, cult etc..your mission as you have said on previous threads on this talk page is to censor ahbash's positive side and most recently you have done your best in contributing to ahbash's criticism. The RS i provided is straightforward so if you dont accept sources reliable then wikipedia is not the place to be. Baboon43 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), I regret the fact that I have been trying to cooperate and work with you but you always turn around and accuse me of something and you do it quite cunningly and brazenly. You tend to overlook the fact that under the light of your own edit history and my extensive, long and laborious discussions with you, it becomes abundantly clear that you are here to promote, market, sanitize and portray the positive side of the Al-Ahbash - by hook or by crook - with your Al-Ahbash vs. Wahabis battleground mindset and thus willfully refuse to cooperate on the subject of Al-Ahbash which is extremely controversial and purposely, knowingly, actively and sublimely insert their POVs to the Al-Ahbash page and its related pages as possible as you can. As I have stated before that given that we do not see eye to eye, we desperately need the involvement of some non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors here who can help with a version ofAl-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Section break

Section break for the TLDR above. McKhan, if the source describes them as moderate then that ought to be in the article, if you have a source which says otherwise that also should be in the article. That is how NPOV works. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Here is the full quote for your kind review: "Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash."[29] By reading both of the sources (Reuters' and CSM), it becomes clear that there is more than certain specific terms which Baboon43 (talk · contribs) has been insisting upon and then only form one source (i.e CSM). It is only fair and NPOV that it should be mentioned that Ethiopia’s 31 million Muslims have been forced through a coercive campaign by its government by recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad towards Al-Ahbash's version of Islam - if we are going to use certain specific terms (i.e. "moderate Al-Ahbash" despite the fact that the CSM source doesn't outright imply that but carefully use "more moderate strain" of Islam). And last but not the least, with all due respect, we do need the involvement of some previously non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors here too which should greatly help with such an extremely controversial subject of Al-Ahbash. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
why are they on trial? my input makes it very clear unlike yours. the article is also not an opinion piece for you to include "according to" Baboon43 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, when Baboon43 (talk · contribs) is using "according to" by himself then it is totally kosher and not an "opinion" but when others do, it becomes "opinion." Amazing. McKhan (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Am I to understand the current dispute is regarding this version by McKhan and this version by Baboon? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo, I don't have a preferred version per se. I just added the pertinent quote in order to provide the full and balanced context from Baboon43 (talk · contribs)'s own preferred source. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
do you understand the difference between a news article and an academic review? how did you provide a "full and balanced context" by removing key details about why they are on trial and transforming the source into CSM'S personal opinion by skillfully adding "according to". Baboon43 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), Let me try one more time. I offered you a compromise (after having a long and extensive discussions with you) by taking the pertinent quote (i.e. Those on trial say the state is leading a coercive campaign, pushing the nation’s 31 million Muslims towards identifying with a more moderate strain of Islam called Al Ahbash."[29] ) from your own preferred source (i.e. "Ethiopia airs jihadi film amid sensitive Muslim protest trial" - by William Davison, Correspondent / February 14, 2013) in full and put in the article along-with naming William Davison (Christian Science Monitor correspondent) of the CSM). I did not "remove" any "key details" which you are accusing me of as your own preferred source does NOT mention the word / term "terrorism" at all which you are so adamant to insert in the Al-Ahbash page. However, the word "violence" appears twice in the CSM article. Here are the pertinent excerpts: 1)."Ethiopian Muslims are furious about the film, which they say dishonestly blurs the distinction between legitimate political protest and violence by using lurid images of foreign terrorists that have nothing to do with them." 2). "Currently, 29 leaders of a Muslim protest movement, and representatives of two Islamic charities are on trial in Addis Ababa, facing charges of plotting violence to create an Islamic state. The trial is being held behind closed doors in order to protect some 200 witnesses, according to the government." (Of course, you are only focusing upon the second excerpt) but no "terrorism." I regret that you insist to portray the "positive" side of the Al-Ahbash and yet quite conveniently ignore and discard the legitimate grievances of Ethiopia's 31 million Muslims who have been forced through a coercive campaign by its government by recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad towards Al-Ahbash's version of Islam. Pretty sad. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
now your moving in circles to avoid the point..the word terrorism doesn't have to be used BUT the reader should be aware why they are on trial..& for the hundredth time plotting violence is inciting terrorism..it seems you dont want that included in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What does your suggested article has to do with the Al-Ahbash? McKhan (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
i hope other editors can see how your avoiding discussion. do you see my post of suggesting that article in this thread? if your looking for the word terrorism specifically in the article. [6] Baboon43 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), I have had very long and extensive discussions with you. In response to your statement "do you see my post of suggesting that article in this thread?," let your own edit history speak for itself for the evidence. Here is the first diff and here is the second one and here are your exact words with the time stamp, "we can perhaps use an article that headlines the word "terrorist" for better understanding...[2] Baboon43 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)". And after some more googling, you came back with this. Now with reference to your recent "discovery" / preferred source and above long and extensive discussions, it is quite apparent that you are trying your best to insert the word "terrorism" and portray the positive side of Al-Ahbash (you just inserted another keyword, "apolitical," by cherry-picking from this source without any discussion whatsoever to the Al-Ahbash page) somehow in the Al-Ahbash page at the expense of legitimate grievances of Ethiopia's 31 million Muslims.
Having said that please let some previously non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors come along and contribute to this Al-Ahbash page and other Al-Ahbash related pages with a version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines - hopefully - in response to the following RfC. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thats what i thought..when i provide you RS you accuse me of spreading positive side of ahbash but your own negative input (protraying wahabi apologist ramadan as mainstream sunni) is overlooked. Baboon43 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have restored Baboon43 version as it was fairly neutral and was validly sourced. Shabiha (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Shabiha (talk · contribs), Did you participate in the following RfC? Did you have ANY discussion whatsoever with the other editors before "restoring" to Baboon (talk · contribs)'s POV / Personal Analysis which he has been trying hard to insert for weeks now? OR you are simply here to help and return the favor to your buddy Baboon43 (talk · contribs) (He added Barelvi, your school of thought, under "See also" section of the Al-Ahbash while back, thus, rendering you not so neutral nor impartial under the light of your own edit history in which you have constant tug of war with the fellow editors such as MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) on pages like Barelvi, Sufi-Salafi_relations, Wahhabi_movement, Salafi_movement) upon his request contrary to the advice given to you by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) in liew of RfC? Your changes will be reverted (unless you volunteer to reverted by yourself) to predispute version in interest of warning and in the spirit of WP:PREFER as per Magog_the_Ogre (talk · contribs) since that is a POV / personal analysis and there has been a long and extensive discussion around it. Please, feel welcome to discuss an NPOV compromise here on this talk page or participate in the following RfC (as long as you are being impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable and contribute to this Al-Ahbash page and other Al-Ahbash related pages with a version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines)) before reverting to Baboon43 (talk · contribs)'s version otherwise it will be a tantamount to indulging in edit-warring which Magog_the_Ogre (talk · contribs) has already warned against. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
simply not wanting to include my input because you dont like it is not a valid reason to censor contribution to wikipedia articles. Baboon43 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43 (talk · contribs), First of all, working in consort with your buddy Shabiha (talk · contribs) to have your POV / Personal Analysis inserted in theAl-Ahbash page on your behalf without any discussion or participation in the RfC (by him) is a tantamount to instigating the edit-warring and bypassing the warning by Magog_the_Ogre (talk · contribs) (who restored the Al-Ahbash page to predispute version in interest of warning and in the spirit of WP:PREFER) on your part.
Secondly, for the umpteenth times, your "input" is a POV / Personal Analysis (I have had a very long and extensive discussion with you over this but you don't see it. That's precisely why I opened the RfC again and THEN you brought your buddy Shabiha (talk · contribs) to accomplish that) BECAUSE it does not only misrepresent the CSM article (There is no "terrorism" nor "moderate Al-Ahbash" explicitly mentioned in that article) but also ignores and discards categorically the legitimate grievances of Ethiopia's 31 million Muslims who have been forced through a coercive campaign by its government by recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad towards Al-Ahbash's version of Islam.
I regret to reiterate that as per your Al-Ahbash vs. Wahabis battleground mentality, it is totally kosher to portray the positive side of theAl-Ahbash on Wikipedia (at every cost and by hook or crook) on Al-Ahbash page by itself and other Al-Ahbash related pages including Wahabism .etc either 1). by removing or discarding any pertinent source, quote, wording .etc - which you perceive even remotely critical of the Al-Ahbahs- completely or by castigating, treating and discarding it as "Wahabi", "anti-Ahbash" or "Kafir" thus insistimg upon removing it from the article 2). and IF that is not possible then by misrepresenting or twisting the pertinent available source to fit to your agenda of portraying the positive side of Al-Ahbash at every cost (And that's what exactly you have been doing by keep on inserting your "input" / POV / Personal Analysis again and again and when that didn't help and you saw me opening up another RfC, you quickly brought your buddy Shabiha (talk · contribs) who interestingly enough share your passion and agenda of doing the same for his Bralevi version of Islam.)
It is important to note that I have been willing to cooperate with you. I even offered you a compromise (which you didn't like, of course, as it doesn't include your favorite terms "terrorism" or "moderate Al-Ahbash") but all you have been doing is to frivolously accuse me of "not discussing with you" (despite having very long and extensive discussions with you) or "having my way or high way" (although, you are having "your way" as you have involved your buddy Shabiha (talk · contribs) involved to accomplish that) and trying your best to get me banned that you could have a free hand to remove even the slightest content which you perceive to be critical of the Al-Ahbash. Had you been really sincere for the NPOV, you would have stopped inserting (or have it inserted by Shabiha (talk · contribs) on your behalf) "Those currently on trial for inciting terrorism, accuse the state of driving muslims towards the moderate Ahbash."[29] and started discussing some real alternative statement which is truly NPOV and fairly speaks for the legitimate grievances of Ethiopia's 31 Muslims and highlights the role of the Ethiopian Government that recruited the Al-Ahbash imams from abroad in the first place to install upon them.
This article is literally littered with SEO friendly keywords (which has been cherry-picked from various sources just like youcherry-picked and added the keyword of "apolitical" under "Ideology" fromthis source and yet quite conveniently ignored the word "sect" next to "apolitical" in thatvery article) "Sufi," "anti-fundamentalists," "Religiously pluralist", "Traditionalist,"'"Apolitical," "Sufi religious movment," "Al-Azhar university," "anti-Islamist," "anti-Islamism," "human-rights friendly," "women rights friendly," "anti-Wahabi," and so on and so forth. Enough is enough and this practice has to be stopped somewhere as this page (or Wikpeida in general) is not a Marketing Flyer or Catalog for the Al-Ahbash to portray ONLY the positive side of the Al-Ahbash.
One should appreciate the fact that no human being, group, sect, school of thought, organization, version of religious beliefs .etc is immune to criticism and given that we are on Wikipedia, which aspires to NPOV and given the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial, it is only fair to ask for this glorification of the Al-Ahbash to be stopped and let the NPOV prevail through facilitating the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents(including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines to be incorporated into this article (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) without edit-warring and intimidation against those who support NPOV. I don't think it is too much to ask for. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
what RFC? this is a content dispute between me and you..the rfc you opened doesn't even make any sense as pointed out by an admin below..i already provided you a 2nd article that states the charges being terrorism..i can add the 2nd source in as well if you insist..Barelvi followers are the majority sunni group in south asia so don't try to dismiss the group as some stray sect. Baboon43 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This RfC is extremely important as the the subject of the Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and since we do not see eye to eye, we do need some previously non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors who can contribute to this Al-Ahbash page and other Al-Ahbash related pages with a version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc)objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
In response to your offer, "i already provided you a 2nd article that states the charges being terrorism..i can add the 2nd source in as well if you insist..", here is what I wrote yesterday, "And after some more googling, you came back with this. Now with reference to your recent "discovery" / preferred source and above long and extensive discussions, it is quite apparent that you are trying your best to insert the word "terrorism" and portray the positive side of Al-Ahbash."
Why do you insist so much upon inserting the alleged "terrorism" charges to Al-Ahbash page? What that has to do with the Al-Ahbash? Is it because that helps you to castigate the Saudis ("Wahabis")? Why ain't you so much interested to keep the equilibrium by incorporating the legitimate grievances of Ethiopia's 31 million Muslims who have been forced through a coercive campaign by its government by recruiting Ahbash imams from abroad towards Al-Ahbash's version of Islam? Please, feel welcome to elaborate.
And last but not the least, let me remind you that this Al-Ahbash page (or Wikpeida in general) is not a Marketing Flyer or Catalog for the proponents of Al-Ahbash to keep on glorifying and portraying ONLY the positive side of the Al-Ahbash by hook or crook. This page must contain what the perceived opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) have to say about the Al-Ahbash objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
the accused terrorists are claiming ahbash is being installed by the government..so that has a lot to do with ahbash. & correct me if im wrong but was it not you who included ramdans quote to point out ahbash is women rights friendly? are you now complaining against your own edits.thats bizarre Baboon43 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do then the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and all of these articles (this, this, this and "Ethiopian Muslims: Religious Freedoms, the Ahbash and the War on Terror") talk about or highlight the legitimate grievances of Ethiopia's 31 million Muslims and mostly blame the Ethiopian Government and its interference (i.e. recruiting the Al-Ahbash imams from abroad)? McKhan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
its already mentioned in the article that there is protests against what they say are government involvement in installing ahbash, infact it was me who highlighted that in the article which dismisses your accusations that im only providing positive ahbash information to this article..what more do you want? a big banner and some flashing lights with baloons? Baboon43 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly my point when we already have "In 2012, protesters in Addis Ababa accused the Ethiopian government of promoting Al-Ahbash in the country."[28] in the article then why do we need yet another POV / Personal Analysis loaded with two more SEO friendly keywords of "inciting terrorism" and "moderate Al-Ahbash." McKhan (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either version needs to be "restored" for the time being - it won't kill anybody if an incomplete version of the article sits for a while. That being said, I think there is too much back and forth going on here. Is there a way to narrow down the current discussion to one or two specific disputed edits? I think that more outside commentary (from other than Baboon and McKhan, I mean) is needed to settle this; the current back and forth seems to be leading to a stalemate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive_8&oldid=728807401"