User talk:Lemming

Hi Lemming. Thanks for your contributions. However, I've reverted this edit to the terrorism stats page temporarily. When citing references, you need to link directly to whatever it is you are citing and, if needed, cite the exact page number or chapter (this would also apply to some of your previous additions, but those are fine for now). The page you linked to, branches off into several more pages. I had a quick read through the main "Terrorism arrests - analysis of charging and sentencing outcomes by religion" and could not find the quote there. Any how, the same quote and more additional information is given in this news article, so I'm going to replace it with that. --Sahabah (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2013 (PDT)

Hi again. I've reverted this edit for now. A few points that need to be mentioned:

1. One of the statements in your edit is factually incorrect. I checked the source and 7 out of 8 most corrupt countries are not majority Muslim (both Myanmar and N.Korea are within the bottom 8).

2. How you present your sources are not always clear and easy for readers to verify. For example, your first source is an interactive map, not a written list. If a list is not available, then a footnote should be added naming the 6 least peaceful countries.

3. Your edits also require other users to perform a lot of cleanup. Naked URL are not acceptable at all. Please use the "cite web" template in the future (it's in the bottom edit toolbar). Thank you. --Sahabah (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2013 (PDT)

Just a quick update. I've added back the factually correct part of your edit, now including a quick list of the 6 countries. I've also found a proper reference (the PDF of the report rather than an interactive map). You can look at the formatting here. Note that I added the name of the report, publisher, date of publication and the exact page where the information is located. Now it is very easy for readers and editors to verify. As I noted earlier, your second statement was incorrect. If editors like me found it hard to verify everything then errors like that would continue to creep in and the standard and usefulness of this wiki would be lowered. Normally we also archive every reference, but WebCite is down at the moment. --Sahabah (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi. I will say it a bit clearer; do not add statements 'supported' by references which make it hard for us to verify. I searched and found the full article you claim says beheading is only used in Islamic countries. It says no such thing. As far as I understand, they are specifically discussing only Muslim majority nations. And again, please use the "cite web" template from now on. Thank you. --Sahabah (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi Lemming. I thought you may be interested in knowing that the List of Genuine Islamic Inventions, Innovations, Records and Firsts has now been linked from 2 of our core articles (Propaganda & Science). So it should receive much more views. --Sahabah (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (PDT)

hi Lemming, I made a table for that page [1] (the table is not visible for most site visitors yet and will be visible when you click Edit). Would be great if you can complete that section. If not we can put it on the to do list. I had done a few of the incidents in the beginning and the first in the UK. Thank you! --Axius (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2013 (PDT)

There is a huge amount of reports where a veil has been used in crime, so I cannot partake in such a task. The alternative table I have added, I think is a good half way point between simple text examples, and a full data set.--Lemming (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2013 (PDT)

(moved here to keep on one page so its easy to follow)

hi, we have big tables like this one Honor Killing Index so its not a problem. Having all the stuff in the table makes the data look more impressive and easy to browse. Having the ref numbers [1] or [2] in a table cell by itself is not user friendly because we have to hover, look at the ref section and then back. So keep collecting the links (in any way you like) and we'll see how to best present it in the end when you think you have enough links. Thanks for starting this page, this is a good page. --Axius (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2013 (PDT)

Ok, we could have both. It should go on a separate page such as List of crimes commited in Muslim veils.

Here are some proposed headings

--Lemming (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2013 (PDT)

Ok, sounds good. Date can also be added after location. --Axius (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2013 (PDT)

I think most of the lead will have to be removed/rewritten for numerous reasons. The style, tone and content doesn't go with what WikiIslam is aiming for. The title will also have to be changed ("Hijab and Crime", or something similar).

I also must say that I agree with Lemming that if we're going to use a list format, it should be a separate page. Long lists don't really belong in a middle of an article. There should be a "regular" page for subjects for people to read uninterrupted, and if need be, a separate page created for lists. I know I've been guilty of this in the past, but I've also tried to fix it (e.g. the table of stonings you placed in the middle of the stoning article was moved to a separate page listing punishments, the lists placed all over the Honor Violence page was moved to its own "Honor Killing Index" page, and the quotes on Muhammad's pedophilia at the end of the Aisha article was moved to its own page).

The other issue we need to consider is lists like this need to be constantly updated. As it is, we're barely able to keep up with the lists we already have. In fact, that list of punishments has been left unfinished since a year or so ago. The Accidents and Disasters page has also been barely touched in a year. And as soon as lists like this are not updated, they're out-dated.

I think the way lemming had the page earlier was fine as a regular article (either divided by type of crime or by country). And if anyone is willing to invest their time in creating a separate indepth list, then they can do that also. --Sahabah (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2013 (PDT)

I hadnt seen the text and just saw the table. Yea I agree with you. I started this page so editors can see examples of bad/good text WikiIslam:Content Guidelines.

Yea having the list on a separate page is fine, as long as we're giving the information in a format where everything is visible easily. Its up to you guys, those were just my suggestions. We can revert back to text format or put it in another page etc. --Axius (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Thanks Ax! That new guideline page is a great idea. Having a visual guide would be really useful for new editors. I will try to expand on that later with as many different issues that I can think of. --Sahabah (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Great thanks. Yea I had thought of this since a long time. It can be renamed too. I wasn't sure of the name. --Axius (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Sahabah added a link which is a long page containing lots of good stuff: Talk:Hijab_and_Crime. --Axius (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi Lemming. Could you fix the references by using the "cite web" template as you go along, and also archive links via WebCite? Articles will not be removed from the "under construction" stage while they still contain naked URLs, and leaving them all until the end will only result in adding another big task to our ever-growing list of stuff to do. Thanks. --Sahabah (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2013 (PDT)

Lemming, expanding on what Sahabah said above, if you could that add Cite web template to the ref links for this article (Hijab and Crime) that would be great. Here's an example:

<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/06/12/the-naked-truth-how-body-language-reveals-the-real-you/|title= The Naked Truth: How Body Language Reveals the Real You|publisher= Forbes|author= Keld Jensen|date= June 12, 2012|archiveurl= |deadurl=no}}</ref>

So you just need the URL title, publisher, author and date. You can then also add the archiveurl parameter by using Webcite.org or archive.is. --Axius (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2013 (PDT)

I will start this when I have finished the article, but I still have many ideas and sources yet to be added. I want to add:

1. a map of the world where covering ones face in public is illegal, like File:Map_atheist_persecution_by_islam.jpg
2. CCTV gallery
3. quotes from people saying it a security risk, not including critics of Islam
4. Add any interesting finds from my research, such as "The Islamic dress has been used in crime on every populated continent of the world"

You are free to help with any of the above.--Lemming (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2013 (PST)

Great ideas. At the least I can help with the map (if I have a list), that will be easy. Yea we can have multi color areas for different things (1. illegal, 2. partial restriction, etc. etc). --Axius (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2013 (PST)

Hi Lemming. I've reverted several additions you made (see here).

Addition 1 (the women who made the false accusation in Sweden): Unless the observance of hijab was used specially to facilitate the crime, it does not belong on that page. For example, if the same crime was committed while in a sari or skirt, would what they were wearing have any relevance? Absolutely not.

Addition 2 (assault in Tunisia): The Islamists attacked the school because of a ban on the veil. The news says nothing of the attacker wearing veils or that it helped them commit the crime.

Addition 3 (the UK bus incident): Again, the veil did not really facilitate the crime.

Unfortunately it means someone will have to individually check all incidents and references before the article is complete. But that's okay. This page has potential, so thanks for what you are doing. Keep it up. --Sahabah (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2013 (PST)

Hi again. I noticed you added a few images of crimes being committed while observing hijab. We have a page for images of hijab here. It would be awesome if you can find more such images (with a link to the original news articles describing the incident). We could then create a sub-section on the hijab image page especially for crimes. Thanks! --Sahabah (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2013 (PDT)

I'll start by saying that I don't like the idea of a table. It gets in the way of the article and makes it a less pleasant read. Of course, that can be easily fix, and I'll do that soon. The 2 major problems I see are:

1. Why are only European (or white majority) countries covered in the table? I haven't looked into this issue, but I'm 100 percent certain there are restrictions on wearing veils in several Muslim majority countries.
2. What relevance is this to crimes being committed with the aid of a veil? Certainly, the fact that Judges in Denmark are prohibited from wearing religious or political clothing in a courtroom or that face coverings are prohibited during citizenship ceremonies in Canada are totally irrelevant.

I've toned down and deleted sa few things, but this article still runs the risk of reading like a politically motivated piece. That is something that we do not need --Sahabah (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2013 (PST)

1. Turkey and Tunisia is the only Muslim countries I know of with restrictions, but it's a bit blurry. The rest are at the other ends of the scale, where the dress is encouraged or forced.
2. The table is to show how countries have enacted laws in response not being able to indentify wearers. Or do you dislike it because they are just statements with little context not showing how it relates to crimes, that would better fit in several sentences instead.--Lemming (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2013 (PST)

1. If Turkey and Tunisia have restrictions, then they should be on it. Tunisia has even seen violence due to these restrictions. That fact in itself deserves a mention if we deem the table appropriate.

2. Yes, there is no indications as to how many of them relate to crimes. If you can find reliable sources that confirm each law was enacted due to the risk of crime, then it would make sense. --Sahabah (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2013 (PST)

Wikipedia has a map of the world showing the legal status of hijab. According to that page, there are restrictions in Azerbaijan, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, Philippines, Thailand, South Sudan, France, Germany, Senegal, Singapore, and Kosovo. --Sahabah (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2013 (PST)

Hi, for the new information you added here, it looks like its a partial duplicate (87% vs. more than 85%). Could you check if thats the case and combine it if needed? --Axius (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2013 (PST)

Yeah, it is. I've sorted it now. --Sahabah (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (PST)

Cool thanks. --Axius (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2013 (PST)

When you put a "<BR>. . .<BR>" in between text, it indicates the preceding text is from a different paragraph. But you seem to include it in random places. You also seem to break off quotes with a "..." for no apparent reason eg. here you could have simply added the remaining text [(Butler, 2003)]. This leaves quotes looking butchered. Nobody will trust quotes that look like that. Please sort this out. Also please archive each reference here: http://www.webcitation.org/archive . --Sahabah (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2013 (PST)

I am not familiar with that service, can you insert them? Also what is the guidelines behind it? The core articles don't have them.--Lemming (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2013 (PST)

1. No. You are a regular editor so you cannot seriously expect other editors to clean up after your edits indefinitely. Using WebCite is simple. Click on the link I provided. Paste the URL to archive in the first box and your email address in the second box. Then click "submit". After a few moments, you will be given the archived link. The service does not keep you email address, but if you would like, you could always put in a false email address.

2. Guidelines are simple; every reference should be archived.

3. The core articles were written before we started to archive references. Plus, references on core articles are not really needed because they are simply summaries of other articles. --Sahabah (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2013 (PST)

This feels like military camp compared to other wikis that let you put content of any quality up.--Lemming (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2013 (PST)

Yeah, I'm sure it does. But your own words validate our approach. Wikis that let users' insert "content of any quality" will ultimately lower the overall standard and reliability of their site. We are one of the few sites about Islam, if not the only one, which is taken seriously by people other than "anti-jihadists". That would not be the case if we were to give everyone a free run. --Sahabah (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2013 (PST)

This is getting tiring. You're still not doing it right. Look at your edits vs my corrections. When you put a "<BR>. . .<BR>" in between text, it indicates the preceding text is from a different paragraph. I.e. people who read it will know there was some sentences in between that were not quoted for relevancy or brevity. You did not do that. You simply put in one "<BR>". This is something that reader would not be able to see without pressing "edit" and viewing the formatting. To them, it would appear that there was nothing missed out. You did a similar thing lower down; where there should have been a "..." you placed a "<BR>". Then there is the fact that you cut a sentence in the middle (i.e. "pupils of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin performing poorly in comparison to other minority groups while at the same time doing better than their socio-economic position would suggest"). You only cut off sentences like that if what is cut is not relevant. This could be interpreted as quote-mining/misrepresenting sources or whatever. Do not do it. If you cannot quote a source without butchering it, what does that tell you? Just do not quote it. You keep on focusing on certain things and I think it's also hurting the pages in a way. We're ending up with a long confusing wall of text that no one will want to read or will understand. --Sahabah (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2013 (PST)

Another option is to dump the text or links on a Sandbox (or talk) page for later retrieval and processing but the best alternative is to work on the text as its put in. We attempt to be a high quality resource and people like us for that reason and that does mean that any new text should be added after being checked carefully. --Axius (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (PST)

Again, you are misquoting sources. Our policies and guidelines say:

"In order to be a regular editor you must understand what the site is all about and the approach that is taken for criticism of Islam. Existing editors on the site will make every effort to initially guide you, but they do not have time to continually make corrections to your edits so if you are not able to take instructions and contribute to the site in an independent self-monitored way, it is best for you to not edit."

So from now on, please do not make any more additions to our statistics pages. They will be reverted immediately. Thank you. --Sahabah (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2014 (PST)

"be written in a professional scholarly manner" - I'm not a scholar in any religious field. Surprised you don't want any more stats, I submitted some very telling statistics.--Lemming (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (PST)

You do not have to be a scholar to write in a scholarly manner. The fact that you would quote a random line from our guidelines and suggest otherwise tells me that your are just trying to be irritating. Plus, as I'm sure you are well aware, your style of writing was not an issue. Nor is us not wanting any more statistics. You can obviously read English. So please do not embarrass yourself by feigning ignorance or wasting any more of my time. Thank you. --Sahabah (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2014 (PST)

That is the last straw. Bye. --Sahabah (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (PST)

I've unblocked Lemming (in accordance with our blocking policy which forbids blocking without consultation for existing users who have positively contributed to the wiki) and if he returns I'll watch his edits. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:25, 27 April 2014 (PDT)