User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 95

This talk page is archived every month (if I remember). The older pages are indexed at User talk:NawlinWiki/Archives.

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

Wondering why your pages were speedily deleted? Check this list first.

Do you want to move a page that I've move-protected? Discuss the move first on the article's talk page. If there's a consensus for the move, let me know and I'll unlock the page.

Please add all comments at the bottom of the page (or I may not be able to find them).

---

Arthur Zaharchuk

Hi Can you look into this page Arthur Zaharchuk. There is a case of Edit warring. But i thought to ping you so that you can look into it and take requisite steps. Thanks. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Slavery and "Family Life" -- request for comments" 2

Would not it be better to temporarily remove the object of the dispute, waiting for other users to express themselves?? Some of the point raised by Dustylappss, like the extremist online preacher or the openwiki, have already been dismissed for not being realible sources. Others use the news in a distorted way: for example in the openwiki linked by Dustylappss news regarding sex traffcking crimes are part of the section "Muslim Statistics (Slavery)": is a blatant manipulation, like describing the romanian's woman sex traffcking in Europe "Orthodox Statistics"! And so on. A BBC link we're provided to explain the reason why te slavery thing must stay; i provided multiple resources proving that slavery it's not part of modern islam, it's not part of muslim family life and it's condemned in every form by the highest Muslim authorities, and that both muslim and western scholars dismissed the position of groups like isis, boko haram and others extremist ideology. It seems to me that this point about slavery being pushed despite all evidence to the contrary, for this reason I ask whether it would be better to intervene? Thanks for your time. CallAng222 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the merits, but I've already reverted twice and so can't revert again because of WP:3RR. That's why I posted the RFC, to try to get other editors involved. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

These users force their idea on WK, no matter how many editors are involved... The involving of other editors will only create another edit war. Mainstream sources that i and other users provided, and the sources that were provided by pro-slavery editors herself (BBC1 and the book 2 ) write clearly that slavery is a fact contextualized in the past: as far as i know WK is based on sources, so i don't understand why a group of users that rely their opinion on open wiki and online preacher can impose their opinion on an important page like that - moreover distorting the content of their own sources. As you can see in talkpage i and other editors we have made great efforts in an attempt to lean on reliable sources, for those reason and for the fact that no other editors were involved in the discussion, I would ask an administrative intervention for two reasons:

• The sources clearly show that slavery must be contextualized in the past;
• There has never been consensus on these entries; as you can see from here: 19:36, 4 October 2014‎ Helpwoks starting from this insertion then there has always been an edit war.

Thank you;CallAng222 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)