Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 7 August 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 48) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Malik Shabazz}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message.

This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days

CRT on the Supreme Court

Hi Malik, Your improvements to the critical race theory page caught my attention. To my interest, my research has turned up that Sonia Sotomayor was strongly influenced by CRT some years ago and is the only one on the Supreme Court with this in her history. During the last week, I have been adding material from 3 new books on the Roberts court to her page and am almost done. Because of her unique background, I thought to ask you if the article is anywhere close to an upgrade by peer evaluation. She would be the first woman on the Supreme Court to reach the highest level of peer evaluation at Misplaced Pages. Possibly you could give the article a once over when/if time allows to let me know if this unique judge deserves this attention. I ask this only if this field is of interest to you and if time allows. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. I'll try to take a look at Sonia Sotomayor in the next week or so, but my schedule is tight and I may not be able. You might want to request a review at WP:Peer review. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

King David Hotel Bombing

Please do not undo my edit of the King David Hotel bombing. The Irgun wass obviously a terrorist organization. To call them a paramilitary or underground organization is blatant propaganda.Loki51 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The obstacle in your way, as Malik has already pointed out, is the Manual of Style and its list of words to watch. Use of labels such as terrorism tends to be highly subjective. If you can pick out organisations which you wouldn't see as terrorist but others would, you might see the value of the ruling given in the Manual of Style. With the KDH article, you're trying to force a change which has been brought up periodically by individual editors many times in the past. --     ←   ZScarpia   09:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just because you (and a group of like-minded apologists) spew forth propaganda, doesn't make it fact. Obviously there is NO GROUP that EVERYONE on the planet would agree is a terrorist group. Does that mean you do not use the word terrorist? Loki51 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1: "Are you serious?" Yes. 2: You're trying to impose one particular viewpoint as fact, which I consider an act more worthy of being labelled 'propagandistic'. 3: Personally, I, along with what I would consider all sane sources, consider the Irgun to have been a terrorist organisation. Further, I consider the particular strain of murderous, fascistic, ethnochauvinistic nationalism which motivated it to be putrid and abhorrent. However, I don't consider I have a licence to impose my own views in that regard on Misplaced Pages articles in contravention of its ethos and policy. 4: "Does that mean you do not use the word terrorist?" For starters, we are concerned with what reliable sources say, not popular, or unpopular, opinion. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Can you prove that there are no reliable sources that would argue that the Irgun didn't practise terrorism? Unless you can, I think that we should abide by what the Manual of Style says about using the label 'terrorism'.     ←   ZScarpia   10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As ZScarpia wrote, regardless of our opinions, we are bound by the Manual of Style. I don't think you'll find Misplaced Pages referring to many people or groups as terrorists in the narrative voice; instead, we write that so-and-so described them as terrorists. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's so absurd. I notice both of you seem to only take this stance pro-Israel. Interesting.Loki51 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not true. You'll find the same is true in articles about Palestinian militants as well. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"I notice both of you seem to only take this stance pro-Israel." In what way? You might like to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Writing for the opposition. By the way, when Malik wrote, "instead, we write that so-and-so described them as terrorists," I think that he was referring to the articles on particular groups, not suggesting that it was alright to insert text stating that some country or body viewed or views that group as a terrorist organisation wherever it is mentioned in Misplaced Pages. These things work both ways: if you're going to go around doing that for Zionist terror organisations, then you should also do it for the many organisations and people that Jewish Israelis consider to be terrorist.     ←   ZScarpia   09:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

African American change

Hello Malik,

I changed the African American population info to 44.5 million (or 14.2%) as according to the Blackdemographics.com website. You can check it out at http://blackdemographics.com/. PLEASE undo the Warning, the information I presented was legit and proper.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansarathy (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Next time, please cite your source so it doesn't look like vandalism. You left the US Census Department as the source, but the Census website doesn't have that information. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad

Dear Malik Shabazz, I'll have you know that according to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation Of Islam, the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad is indeed alive. That is why I removed the death part of his summary. You see, Mr.Muhammad is currently on the Wheel, or as others call it, a UFO. He is alive and well.

In part 51 of The Time and What Must Be Done webcast lecture series, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan revealed to the world an aspect of his personal faith and belief. He said that he believes that his teacher, the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad is not dead, but is alive. In part 51, the Minister’s word were, “Brothers and sisters, since 1981 I have been saying to the world that Elijah Muhammad is not dead! He is Alive. I am saying to the world that Elijah Muhammad is “The Messiah” that The Qur’an is speaking of. I am saying to the world what The Qur’an says of The Messiah: He escaped a death plot against him. Of course, you still may hold on to your thought “Elijah Muhammad is dead”—but how could he be dead, and he speak to me on The Wheel? This is incredible…”

Smartbrainiac101 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://researchminister.com/elijah-muhammad-is-alive-exploring-the-bold-faith-of-minister-louis-farrakhan-part-i/

That's why we rely on reliable sources such as newspapers and journals. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

• Book review: Knowledge or unreality?

• Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate

• News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Misplaced Pages find?

• Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World

• Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit

• Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Marcel Hillaire

Hi Malik Shabazz,

Why did you delete the page on Marcel Hillaire? He was a notable TV character actor in the B&W days, who appeared in such shows as LOST IN SPACE, THE TWILIGHT ZONE, GET SMART, MAN FROM UNCLE, and in Woody Allen's TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Goblinshark. The first article about Hillaire was a copyright violation, and the editor who started it blanked the page. See WP:G7. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have re-created the article, using my own words and referencing his IMDB bio. Hope that's ok! Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Meetpavan

https://en.wikipedia.org/%CE%9CTorrent

I am wondering how it got edited from my account... I did not add any link or edit this page in any way... dont know how it got edited from my account... Let me know if u need any clarification... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetpavan (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been edited from your account. Maybe an anonymous editor using your IP address edited it. Whatever the case, don't worry about it. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Any input would be appreciated

You were mentioned, also. Here: . Faustian (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Would you mind adding some input here, also? It looks like someone not as familiar with this longstanding situation is trying to sanction me and COD T equally, which seems very wrong: .Faustian (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mohammed Dajani Daoudi

On 4 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mohammed Dajani Daoudi led the first group of students from Palestine to visit the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammed Dajani Daoudi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

deletion of evidence of antisemitism

i received a message that original research to imply conclusions was not allowed, but what was deleted was instances of antisemitism occuring. Since I fail to see why a sign saying "No Jews allowed, but dogs are" being called antisemitic is drawing a conclusion from an article, I would like a non-biased editor to review this and fix the article and restore that example, thanks. A modern day no jews allowed sign absolutely belongs in the modern antisemitism page, there is no reasonable argument against that- it's modern and it's antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.143.113 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, to have an article on bigotry but refuse to allow examples of such acts is fairly ridiculous. Misplaced Pages articles on bias etc are typically well-supported with actual examples of such occurences. It weakens the argument of the page when there are no cited events to demonstrate what is being talked about. I feel you are intentionally attempting to undermine the article via refusing to allow a page on antisemitism to list actual instances of antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.143.113 (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources you cited simply summarize other sources and contain no original reporting. Far better to link to the original sources. One of the sources is clearly an opinion piece rather than a news source. A single sign in a shop window in Belgium and word of mouth reports of insults shouted at one Boston demonstration do not rise to the level of convincing evidence of a trend, in my view, though abhorrent as individual incidents. Your summary is not supported by the sources. Typographical errors, such as "Caucasian" and "tenet", while minor in comparison to the more substantive points, detract from the persuasiveness of your argument. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You cite those reports as examples of "new antisemitism", but the sources didn't mention "new antisemitism". That makes your inclusion of them as examples original research, specifically synthesis, which is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation...

Both the editor who started the RfC and another who supported it have been blocked as socks of an editor who's had a deep-seeded issue with me, thus confirming the suspicions I've had all along. Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You were right, and I assumed too much good faith. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is a gift of my appreciation! Lycahmae (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)