User talk:Cuchullain

Click here to leave me a new message.

I'm still here?

I had a bit of a laugh about this. IIRC, I never said I was leaving the project. I've still been actively editing. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have no clue what happened. I was attempting to add someone who had not in fact edited since that date, and had said s/he'd be gone in the near future, but I mistakenly put your name (or an alternate version of your name) down instead of the correct one. I don't know how I got so mixed up with the names, and I have absolutely no recollection of who I was trying to add to the page. Again, sorry for the confusion, I certainly wasn't trying to write your wikiobituary!--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Politics

Hey...your last edit on Sexual Politics doesn't quite make sense; I think you left out some words. I would have changed it myself, but I wasn't sure what you were trying to say! NoahB (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I hope I've made it clearer now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Goeznovius, was selected for DYK!

On December 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goeznovius, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Williams Page

If you remove the following link one more time, I'm going to phone Jimmy Wales personally and tell him what you're up to. There's not one damn thing for sale at that site. Your twice now referring to it as spam is simply outlandish. I did however remove a link that truly was spam to the CW Society which, like nearly all literally societies, exists for the sole purpose of getting people's money.

• A Charles Williams Pictorial Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storch6308 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to threaten me. Perhaps your link was not spam in the strictest definition, but it's certainly not appropriate here per our external link guideline: the photographs do not add anything essential to the reader's understanding of the subject, so the site should not be linked to. I will go through the other links at some point and weed out other unnecessary links as well. Also, calling people personally about Wikipedia business is generally looked down upon; you should take it up through appropriate venues here instead, beginning with the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I decide to threaten you kid. Please conduct yourself like an adult to some small degree. If you keep calling my home phone you're only asking for trouble. LEAVE ME ALONE! Quit following me around on the Net. Quit calling my house. Get something better to do with your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storch6308 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Following you around and calling your home phone? I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. If you are just trolling, I ask you to find something else to do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Cuchullain!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Not neutrally worded

The language was taken almost verbatim from the source. I'm not sure what's not neutral about it. Could you perhaps reword it instead of just removing it altogether? Arrow740 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there needs to be any more than is already said. I tried to reduce that section to the basics of the story, with some commentary by historians. The rest belongs at the article dedicated to Safiyya.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Zaynab material, his critics were suspicious when he came out with the verses justifying the marriage. That's why the criticism didn't stop. If you'd like to truncate that please keep what Rodinson says in mind. Arrow740 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything by Rodinson. That must have been Bless Sins et al. All I did was try to summarize the stories themselves, while keeping the interpretations by scholars intact (the interpretations cited to reliable secondary sources, that is. I did remove some apologetical material, for instance Maududi, who attributed the story to rumors spread by Muhammad's critics.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Earthly Paradise"

I have nominated "Earthly Paradise" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mubarakpuri

The source you reinstated is this. It's not a work of history, as you can see from the first sentence. BS insists on using it despite this. Arrow740 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it per your recommendation. It was not listed in the references section, and seemed like pretty contentious but minor information anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He is a reliable source, atleast as reliable as Rodinson. The reason for this that since 1988 he has been a scholar at the research institute at the Islamic University of Medina. He also taught at Jamiah Salafiah in Banares. Finally the book he wrote won a world-wide competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979, by the Muslim World League.Bless sins (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That work does not look like a reliable source to me at all. It begins, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism." Come on, Bless, I'm sure you can find a better source to cite that phrase to. However, this is not the best place to continue this discussion, I'm going to comment at the article page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And what's wrong with the above statement? That is presents explicitly the Muslim POV without any hesitation? I'll concede that Mubarakpuri, a researcher at a major university, is biased. Does this mean we are to reject other professors and researchers that are biased/contentious as well?Bless sins (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source. If you found a reliable secondary source discussing his views then that secondary source could be considered. Arrow740 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Such language is not at all indicative of a neutral and objective source. Clearly the goal is to only use the very best sources that are available, and weed out the biased, contentious ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only troubled by the fact that sources are biased are bieng rejected when Muslim (as is now), but embraced when they are non-Muslim (e.g. Spencer is used in some parts of wikipedia). Why? Spencer (who calls Islam "the world's most intolerant religion") is atleast as biased as Mubarakpuri, if not more.Bless sins (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know anything about that. But it is not appropriate to add more biased sources you like to balance out biased sources you don't like. The solution is to remove all the bad sources. I'll look into your allegation about Spencer if you wish.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I've removed Mubarakpuri, so I'm no longer adding him. Secondly, I'd really appreciate if you looked into Spencer.Bless sins (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, just tell me where to start. Which articles use him?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed some sketchy links and cites to Spencer, but I haven't found much that actually uses him as a source for anything except his own view. The one that bothers me more is Bat Ye'or, but she's much harder to deal with, as, quite unlike Spencer, she has actual degrees in the field and there seems to be international recognition of her expertise, if not her opinions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking Criticism of the Qur'an. Yes, I know that Ye'or, is higher on the reliability scale than Spencer. In some cases, where her book is published by an academic press, she is quite reliable. But this is not true for Spencer.Bless sins (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you are under no obligation to remove Spencer, or other unreliable source. But it would be much appreciated if you did that.Bless sins (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into Criticism of the Qur'an and see what I can do about Spencer. I'll respond to your below comment back at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives

Hi Cuchullain,

Could you please explain [1]. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the sentence is supposed to mean either, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It mentions that a specific group (about whom there are many verses in the Qur'an) spread rumors about the marriage and criticized it. It also discusses the context for revelation of another verse relevant to the marriage. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained it in the edit summary: the sentence does not make sense, I could not figure out what you were trying to get across. "The suspicious of this group of the marriage"? The "context for revelation"?--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Let me quote the all the source says and leave it to you to kindly summarize it (the bolded texts are mine):

The communal debate is said to have preserved until two revelations established that "adopted sons are unlike real sons," and that "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men" (33:34, 33:40) Ibn Kathir and others call the revelation of 33:40 "the divine rejection of the hypocrites’ suspicion surrounding the Prophet's marriage with the wife of Zayd, his client and adopted son." This statement is important in that it identifies a prominent hostile faction that influenced the civic atmosphere in Medina during the fifth year after the hijra and in relation to which the largely negative public debate on the Prophet's marriage with Zaynab must be understood. The "hypocrites" of Medina were in name Muslims but in fact of unreliable loyalty to the Prophet. In times of Muslim military setbacks and other difficulties (such as the battle of Uhud in year 3 and the Meccan siege of Medina in year 5 after the hijra), hypocrites influence increased to the detriment of the Islamic cause. This group spread vicious rumors to divide the community and also harassed women, including the Prophet's wives, especially by night. According to the Moroccan sociologist Fatima Mernissi, it was the core of hypocrite strategy to attack the Prophet through his wives, of which rumors surrounding Zaynab's marriage are but an example.

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the full text, I've summarized it. Feel free to make improvements.Bless sins (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Stowasser's statements regarding the "hypocrites," but it shouldn't be overstated. She doesn't say that they spread rumors about Muhammad's amorousness. Arrow740 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. That should not be included (unless it is sourced to some other RS, of course.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please respond on the talk page, here. I'd appreciate if you responded to all the bullet points, sicne it appears you disagree with some.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will, but it will be a little while before I can, I've got to run right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How long will it be? As a practice, when you revert, you should give yourself time tor respond to others on talk. I guess I'll wait, but I have no clue what the justification for your edits is.Bless sins (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments. Notice I didn't revert, I went through all your changes and did some rewording and reorganizing. The bottom line here is presentation: I think the information is better organized now. I did keep most of your original wording.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I disagree with. I strongly think we should present facts before we present myths.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Freemuse

Hi Bill,

Yesterday the "Freemuse" article (which you have now deleted) was updated and changed in seceral ways in order for it to live up to the requirements which had been mentioned. So I don't understand how you can just come in and delete it in the middle of that process, without further warning? Those administrators who previously wrote 'Delete' had not seen the article in its new form.

The article was in for deletion, yes, but no one so far had mentioned exactly when this would happen. What was the whole point of discussing, and correcting, and adding more info, then? Just a joke?

You certainly made a joke out of the time I put into this yesterday.

Is there a way to get the article back? Did you make a back-up? ...and if so, could you send it to me - at least so as to have the records straight.

Yours, Mik "musiccensorship" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiccensorship (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion are up for five days, after which they can be closed at any time. You should have brought up your changes at the AfD, but at any rate, they were too little too late. I don't believe it clearly demonstrate the subject's notability with reliable sources (most of the sources were to the site itself, and the two in the notability section were minor mentions. You also failed to convince any other editors even after your changes.

If you wish, I can undelete the page and move it to your user space, where you can continue to work on it. If, in the future, you are able to find enough external reliable sources to demonstrate notability, the article can be recreated. Barring that you can file at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

There is no ban on further reading sections, though they should be meaningful. In many cases the deletion of such sections is warranted. However, please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading.Bless sins (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. However I think I was justified in removing the sections I did, considering they were mostly full of books by Islam critics with no direct relevance to the topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliability vs Content

Cuchullain, if a content adds value to the article, I think, even if it is not properly sourced, it should be kept until a better source is found. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. From WP:V: "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed". The caveat is that editors may object if they haven't had a chance to do that. That wasn't the case with anything I removed today, it was stuff that had been there for long enough.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article status of Shining Path

As someone who heavily edited Shining Path, you may be interested to know that the article's status as a Good Article has been put on hold as a result of a review of it. The review was part of the "sweeps" of all Good Articles. Talk:Shining_Path#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold contains more information about the whole affair. --Descendall (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Regarding this, there is no Wikipedian policy that says "a person must be as notable as Martin Luther in order for their comments to be included". We arent including everyone's comments, because we cant. Not everyone is notable. Zwermer is notable ofcourse (has his own article). What is your justification for excluding him? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that says we must include the opinions of every person who has a Wikipedia article, either. Only the most notable and important criticisms should go into that article, and I don't see how Zwermer makes the cut.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<r>Robert Spencer is pretty notable, yet we didnt use his opinion and you agreed. Notability is not the issue. Clearly, something else is. I feel we might be applying different standards when it comes to deciding who to keep and who not to keep. The sourcing on Islam related articles is very problematic. If a person doesnt have peer reviwed journals and is not known for scholarly input on Islam, should we exclude them? What if they're notable? Since you're an admin I'm asking your advice on what to do about this. We have to decide once and for all who should be kept in and who not, and what the fair standards are. Subjective opinion based standards wont work. Anyone can have those. We need some standards by which we can decide objectively if they deserve to be kept in Islam related articles or not. This has been a long standing problem in Islam related articles. Some of the people under scrutiny are:

• Robert Spencer
• Karen Armstrong
• Maurice Bucaille
• Muhammad Husayn Haykal

These last 3 people are being used and we're not applying standards uniformly. The more you read these Islam articles, the more people you find who's reliabilty we cant be sure about. Something has to be done instead of battling this day in and day out. Do you have any suggestions? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In cases where a person isn't reliable themselves... if particular critiques of theirs are noteworthy, they will have been reported in reliable sources. The source for the Luther opinion for example, while dated, is comparatively reliable. ITAQALLAH 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Matt. None of those authors seem to have anything about them to demonstrate they are reliable sources. No PhDs in Islamic studies, nothing but their own opinions and in some cases, popular history books. They should not be used to source anything other than their own opinions, or information about themselves. However, they are all notable, so sometimes their opinions will be notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia. Even in that case we still need to use reliable sources - that is, not their own books, but some other reliable, secondary source commenting on their opinion. This was the problem at Criticism of the Qur'an, it was basically just a list of Spencer's personal criticisms sourced to his own books. He does belong on that page, but he should be referred to as something like, "According to the New York Times, Spencer is one of the most prominent critics of the Quran. He has criticized so-and-so about it, according to this peer-reviewed article by a real Islam scholar." As for a policy on this, I don't think there needs to be much more than WP:SOURCES already says: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There are plenty of these about. If you see any specific cases where an unreliable source is being used, please let me know, and I'll try to help rectify it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you...

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).

I heard some "comments" when I first starting sending them out, so I stopped for awhile. But thanks for the support and subsequent comment as well. I just hope I live up to it all. :) John Carter (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

SGGK

Just wanted to make you aware that I'm pushing this toward FA status. I've got some good reviewers and copyeditors together on it, but I think you'd be another great addition. Feel free to drop by and offer comments or help out as it is currently undergoing a peer review. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Killer. I'll be sure to do whatever I can to help.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Boruca

Why do you know/care about Boruca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg8472 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I visited my sister in Costa Rica about a year ago learned about them there. I figured they should have a Wikipedia article. I'm glad to see you've expanded the stub I created.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bastards (disambiguation)

An editor has nominated Bastards (disambiguation), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastards (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Eight (novel)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Eight (novel), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Eight (novel). Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Katherine Neville

"(She is a notable author, which is asserted by the first sentence.)"[2]

I don't see that:

"Katherine Neville (born April 4, 1945) is an American author."

How does that assert notability? Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is implied by that sentence. Most other author bios start the same way. Herman Melville does not say the subject was a "notable American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and poet". Now, you can argue that Neville isn't actually notable, but the article surely implies that she is. The appropriate way to deal with this would be AfD or putting a tag on it and waiting for someone to expand it. Looking around, it will be hard to argue she isn't notable, since The Eight was reviewed by any number of reliable papers, such as the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a key difference. No one said that the first sentance of the Herman Melville article is "asserted by the first sentence." His notability is asserted by "his longest novel...one of the chief literary masterpieces of both American and world literature." That's backed up by refs to The Cambridge Companion to Herman Melville. That is an assertion of notability.

Notability is not asserted in the rest of the article either. It lists three of her novels, with no hint of significance, where she was born, previous non-notable jobs and who her partner is.

Failure to assert notability is A7 in speedy. Instead, I tagged it for improvment.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on this. I believe the article asserts her notability perfectly well - it's implied she's a noteworthy author, and she's written several novels of note, which have been reviewed by virtually every American paper that reviews books. Clearly you don't agree. I'm well aware of the SPEEDY criteria, and I don't think you'd have gotten very far trying to speedy it or the book, especially since you already know I contested your PROD. I think the real problem is that it's unreferenced, which is a related but separate issue. I'll be adding a few cites to both articles, hopefully that will resolve the issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"I believe the article asserts her notability perfectly well - it's implied she's a noteworthy author,"

Implied is not asserted.

"and she's written several novels of note"

The notability of her novels is not asserted in the article about her or the one article about one of her novels.

"the real problem is that it's unreferenced"

Sure, it's unreferenced. That's a problem. That it does not "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is more serious.

I've tagged the articles and spelled out my concerns on their talk pages.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Norteamericano"

Hi. I changed the text because "norteamericano" isn't a translation of North American. That fact comes from América del Norte isn't the same that North America. So, an explanation must be maked about the Spanish meaning of the term. Reference of Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas was supporting this claim. Maybe other person with more English redaction skills than me could write it better. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel

Cuchullain, I'm from south Louisiana, but have never heard of this singer named Johnny Rebel. I'm sure that more than likely you are correct about his music being racist type recordings. However, short of a reference characterising his genre as such, I think, that you are injecting a bias in wording which is contrary to Wikipedia policy and also contrary to your CSB userbox views. I understand that some may call this guy a racist, but others may characterize him differently, which is why I think we need neutral wording (which you refer to as weasel words). Sf46 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you were trying for neutral wording, but some of what you were doing is not the way to go about it. First off, the guy's only claim to notability is a couple of songs he recorded decades ago, which were quite objectively racist (they exalt one race and denigrate others). All of the sources say this or something very close to this. Your changes to the diambig page introduced syntax errors and made it unclear why exactly the guy was notable - what exactly are "racially charged issues"? It's much clearer to note the racist character of his songs. And when I called your changes to the singer's page weasel words, that means a very specific thing - a word used to avoid making a straitforward statement - who are the "many" who deem his music racist? Such words only give the semblance of neutrality. This isn't a statement of opinion, but of fact - he is a racist by the definition of the term, and I imagine he'd want to be known as that. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you bring it up on the talk page so others may weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I'm not going to get into this with you. You're displaying a bias, and you should take down your CBS box down because this whole situation is exactly what you "claim" to be against. How's it feel to now be a part of the bias machine? Sf46 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I already explained why the adjective is appropriate, and why your changes were not. And the CSB box states that I'm a member of a WikiProject about Countering Systemic Bias, that's a very specific thing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I concur with you that Sf46's alteration of the word "racist" to "anti-African American" constitutes the use of weasel words. As such, I have reverted his recent reversion of your reversion (!), and should he make the change again, I will request mediation in the matter. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people just don't get the difference between actual neutral language and unspecified statements of opinion. In fairness, "anti-African American" is much better than "what some might consider to be racist".

I don't approve of the phrase "what some might consider to be"; I think the single word "racist" is accurate. Do you concur? Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, weasel words should almost never be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sf46 has changed the word from "racist" to "anti-African American" again, stating that he will restore "racist" if I can prove the subject was indeed a racist. I think I have done so in my reply. If he does not concur, however, I will ask for mediation, as I don't think many people would deny that someone who sings a song titled "Nigger Hatin' Me" is anything but a racist. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Hi,

I've now updated the section on the pre-Galfridian Arthur with corrections, full refs and some additional content. I've made 3rd person reference in the text to my own academic monograph, Concepts of Arthur, as it covers a number of factual issues only touched on elsewhere. I hope this is ok... Let me know what you think :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about using your book. I looked into it, and it seems pretty well received and provides us with a lot of good information not found elsewhere. As long as you're not trying to promote yourself at the expense of the encyclopedia, there's no conflict of interest.

Keep up the excellent work. If you wish, you should join the Wikipedia:WikiProject King Arthur - it's not very active right now, but it's always good to have people who know what they're talking about on board.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's what I thought was the case but decided I better check, lol; just wanted to make sure I could cite it where necessary and appropriate as part of the updating and referencing process :) I'll keep going through the rest of the page until have got it all up-to-date and referenced. Have now joined the WikiProject :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)