User talk:Liskeardziz

Liskeardziz,

The article on Qur'an desecration has poorly supported claims about St Ethelburga's - I note from its editing history that you have an interest in this. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User Nsa1001, since User Liskeadaziz and I both have personal knowledge of this event, both of us can confirm that these events DID happen, in that allegations WERE made, and a fatwa WAS issued in the direct context of these controversies. User Liskeardaziz whom I know, and I disagree about the whether the allegations were justified or not, but she and I both know that the allegations were in fact made, as a historical fact. And to this date, no independent Islamic juridical authority has been allowed by the other party to investigate, hear both sides and evidence, and give a ruling as to the moral aspects which prompted this desecration allegation. BTW, secular political bodies have NO jurisdiction or relevance on issues relating to Islamic Quranic desecration and moral conduct alleged to pertain to it (ie. lies that are alleged to have been told by the other party, and moral inter-relational bad faith, alleged breach of trust both professional and personal -- all these being crucial moral concerns for Islamic law but not so for secular bodies), and has no validity in relation to any matter of Quranic scriptural desecration.

It is also factually incorrect and inaccurate to state that the funding body delivered a clear ruling -- they did not. They said simply and clearly, that the specific area which was raised as the basis of the complaint (ie. copyright theft, intellectual property, etc) was NOT within their remit to cover and advised that it be referred to external legal process. They said that in accordance with their standard procedure, they reviewed OTHER aspects of the funding application (about which no complaint had actually been made by the complainant) and were found to be without concern (eg. has the money been embezzled or properly spent on what was applied for, was work delivered to time, are the accounts in order) -- and all are agreed about that, but that wasn't the basis for concern in the first place.

You as ever, want more specific detail, and of course as you have learned from the history on another article, when you have demanded such greater detail, it has indeed come out -- however embarrassing to your colleagues and other people and organisations it might potentially be. And has as I say, has in that case resulted in causing a certain amount of collateral damage to inter-organisational relations off-Wikipedia.

I am therefore considering these requests from you for more citations and more factual detail. However, as both you and User Liskeadaziz know and have had collaborative relationships with St Ethelburga's you might want to consider the "sleeping dogs lie" advice, accept a limited comment as it stands, and subtler referencing via Fatwa which already alludes to issues of moral/immoral financing of Quranic text publication, which arose out of the St Ethelburga's case. Though of course if more gruesome factual details and ever more referencing is what you demand to meet stringent detail, then as has already happened elsewhere you WILL get it -- whatever the external consequences. Though I have already suggested to you about taking advice from your friends and thinking with wisdom, and being careful what you ask for. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've said to Scripturalreasoning elsewhere, the only acceptable citations are ones compliant with WP:RS and WP:V. If you can't provide these, and the citations and detail come from unpublished insider sources, the material has no place here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)