Yuyuhunter

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Yuyuhunter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Catalan Republic (2017), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Philosophy" Section on Philipp Batz

"Philosophy" Section on Philipp Batz

Greetings I am the author of the new "Philosophy" section on Philipp Mainländer's page. In a recent edit summary you made, you mentioned that you would like to talk about the validity of this section. I am open for a discussion, especially with the translator of his great work. So far my sources are Beiser's Weltschmerz, some sections of your wonderful translations that I've read and a few mentions by Thomas Ligotti in his TCATHR, aswell as what little other online sources I could find about his philosophy. My goal with this new section was to give an easy overview of Mainländer's thought, so that when a young researcher that has heard something about him finds him on wikipedia, he can get his further research going by having an elevated "bird's eye" view. Thus I tried to avoid doing any original interpretations or categorical claims, as I am not an expert and was afraid I'd say something wrong. I intended to summarize his thought with as little mistakes as possible, so that a future Mainländer researcher can know what he is coming into. Seeing as you are the main contributor to Mainländer's page, I was, in all honesty, expecting (even hoping) that you would see the new edits so that you can check if there was anything wrong about them. I am eager to hear about your opinion and recommendations for editing. Oh, and one more thing. Again, thank you for the amazing and much needed translation! I've lost hope in the upcoming academic translation, and even if it does get finally released, I fear it would be dubious (for... *academic* reasons). Thankfully, there is a non-profit contributor such as you to instill hope. I'd also be really excited if Julius Bahnsen received a few translations on his main works, but that isn't even upcoming. Thank you for your time Sinveil (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Sinveil, Did we ever have a conversation on reddit? Anyway, it’s great to talk to someone who has much knowledge about the philosophy of Mainländer. When the new Philosophy-section was published I immediately read it. But I thought that eventually someone would start to remove things, because in that form it would not be suitable for Wikipedia. It reminded me of this blog (which you have probably already read): http://philosophy-of-redemption.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-rotting-god-mainlanders-metaphysic.html The Philosophy section started with a poetic quote, that seemed unusual for a Wikipedia-article. That quote has disappeared, and sources have been added. So that issue has been solved. I also wanted to change some things about the content. These could hardly been foreseen by you or any other Wikipedia-editor, as they are the faults of the authors of the secondary literature on Mainländer. 1) Beiser heavily suggests that Mainländer was influenced by Max Stirner – and even places him in the “Young Hegelian Tradition”, claims for which he gives no sources whatsoever. In this section, “Mainländer and the Young Hegelian Tradition”, Beiser mentions three sources. All three sources are writings of Mainländer. Mainländer never mentions having read Stirner (and he mentions many authors), so there is absolutely zero evidence for his suggestion. And Beiser is one of the best recent sources on Mainländer. 2) One can often read that Mainländer was a philosopher of entropy. Yet, he was completely unaware of the second law of thermodynamics. Mainländer believes that his teaching is in contradiction with the scientific beliefs of his time, because his doctrine about a “weakening of the force” would be in contradiction with the law of the conversation of energy. (He adds that he is convinced that eventually science will prove him right about the weakening of the force.) It’s fantastic for me to hear that you have found the translation! :-) Please send me messages, if you want to, when you find mistakes, significant issues or small errors. No one proofreads the translations, so they are full of errors. I hope you enjoy his work. I find every page of it interesting and fantastic (this can obviously not be a surprising opinion!). I hope to hear from you again. Best wishes, Yuyuhunter (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yuyuhunter. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Challenge of the Quran

Yuyuhunter wrote: "The academic source does not "hate" Al-Ma'arri. As I am unable to judge the Arabic source that supposedly contradicts the academic source, I suggest that we sort things out on the talk page if someone disagrees. (The user who reverted the edit has made one edit only so far, so I don't know if it will be necessary"

I know that "the academic source does not "hate" Al-Ma'arri", but the source took the words of Al-Ma'arri haters as if it's a fact but it's not and also the quote that attributed to Al-Ma'arri is unreliable. The Arabic source is the original Arabic version of (Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt) Al-Ma'arri book and the other link contains the words of the student of Al-Ma'arri, which conflict with that "academic source"

Also the reference to that words in that "academic source" as in page 37 I'm quoting here: "21 There are several versions of this anecdote, see, e.g., Ibn al-Adlm, Bughyat al-talab, pp. 879-80."

Bughyat al-talab book consists of forty parts and ten volumes, but it is not clear to which volume of this book this "academic source" refers to, there mentioned just the page number 879-80 without volume number, so this "academic source" is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWriter2020 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you AWriter2020 for your message.

I would first like to note that on Wikipedia we assume good faith (WP:AFG), meaning that in discussions we understand that everyone here wants to improve Wikipedia. This means that most disagreements can be solved by friendly discussion. In our case, perhaps we don't even disagree.

What statements in the paragraph that I wrote are according to you incorrect? Just to have it before our eyes, the paragraph was:

The classical Arab poet Al-Ma'arri wrote Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt ("Paragraphs and Periods") which was criticized by some as an attempt to surpass the Quran. Rhyme on two levels was employed, a short and a long range, in alphabetic series. The idiom has a Quranic flavor while also being exceptionally difficult, with rare and obscure words that required the author to regularly interrupt the text with his explanations. The text praises God and calls for piety. When confronted with the similarity between this work and the Quran, Al-Ma'arri replied "Wait until it has been polished by tongues for four hundred years; then see how it is."

If I understand you correctly:

←: 1) You doubt the validity of the quote attributed to Al-Ma'arri that starts with "Wait until ..."

2) You agree that some people, "haters", have accused Al-Ma'arri of parodizing the Quran.

Is that a correct summary? In that case, you would argue that the last sentence should be removed based on point 1. Or do you also have problems with the part "The idiom has a Quranic flavor while also being exceptionally difficult ... The text praises God and calls for piety." ?

Moreover, I think we could add a sentence that clearly states that Al-Ma'arri never suggested that he wanted to imitate the Quran and that this is an accusation of his opponents.

The reason I used an academic source is that these are generally most valued on Wikipedia. That you use Arabic sources is welcome, altough it makes it difficult to convince other users that your information is substantiated.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

First we have to know from where the author took the words and the quote, I want to check first, because according to the "academic source" page 37 here is what written about the reference of the words : "There are several versions of this anecdote, see, e.g., Ibn al-Adlm, Bughyat al-talab, pp. 879-80."

So the reference is Bughyat al-talab book pages 879 and 80, the problem is Bughyat al-talab is a book consists of forty parts and ten volumes, those pages 879 and 80 in which volume, this what is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWriter2020 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you answer the questions which I asked you? Then we can look at the sources to see what claims actually need sources. I asked whether or not I was correct to summarize your views as follows:

1) You doubt the validity of the quote attributed to Al-Ma'arri that starts with "Wait until ..."

2) You agree that some people, "haters", have accused Al-Ma'arri of parodizing the Quran.

I hope to hear this from you.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Answer is Yes.

When someone says that Al-Ma'arri intended with that book to imitate the Quran, this like saying that Al-Ma'arri did not understand the Arabic literature and he did not know what the challenge of the Quran exactly is,

because the challenge of the Quran is not about just Words, phrases, rhythm, and meanings but also mainly about the patterns,

E.g. In Arabic poetry there are approximately 17 pattern, poets compose their poems according to these patterns, The Quran brought new pattern into the Arabic language and challenged the Arabs to bring such as new patterns with compose appropriate words

Al-Ma'arri in his book (Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt ) he was not trying to compose new patterns, the book in general is close to a type of prose and even some paragraphs of the book without rhythm, also Al-Ma'arri himself did not claim in his book that he is imitating the Quran or parodying the Quran.

On the contrary, Al-Ma'arri wrote in his other book (Resalat Al-Ghufran) on page 472, he wrote prose words praising the Quran,

Here is the reference of Al-Ma'arri words that praising the Quran - "Resalat Al-Ghufran" page 472: https://archive.org/details/3665pdf_202001/page/n481/mode/2up

As for the reason of what made some people said that the book of Al-Ma'arri (Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt) is a poor attempt to imitate the Quran or a parody of the Quran, the reason because the book is a text praises God, and some people considered al-Ma'arri as an atheist, then an atheist writing a text praises God, this is what some people saw it as kind of parodying and they though al-Ma'arri meant by the work to be as a type of parody, but that is wrong,

Al-Ma'arri had some ideas against religions in some time of his life, but this does not mean that he did not believe in God, so he was not parodying, but he was really writing a real praise to God

Also, there are some people who lied against Al-Maarri and attributed to him false quotes that Al-Maarri did not write them in any of his books, and there is no reliable source proves that Al-Maarri said them.

This book below published at the first time in 1986, it's about Al-Ma'arri:

https://books.google.com/books/about/%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D8%A7.html?id=Me9DxQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

The author concluded his book by describing the doctrinal aspect of Al-Ma'arri, stressing that his poetry compositions are the clearest proof of his innocence of the characteristic of infidelity with which he was stigmatized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWriter2020 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion: The text that Al-Maarri wrote praising God, he was never intended by this to be parodying but he wrote a true praise to God, he really meant that.

in below link you find the original Arabic version of Al-Maarri book (Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt ), in this page of the introduction they wrote that Al-Maari was not parodying:

https://archive.org/details/1744pdf_201912/page/n7/mode/2up

here you find what Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji the student of Al-Maarri and he said that Al-Maarri was not parodying:

https://al-maktaba.org/book/11544/284 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWriter2020 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

My proposal would be to add these two sentences: "Others have strongly dismissed such claims. Al-Ma'arri never indicated that he meant to imitate the Quran."

As for the quote of which you doubt the validity, it looks like the academicians Schoeler and van Gelder are partially correct. Other sources report the same quote, for example Ameen Fares Rihani reports it as "the polishing of four centuries of reading in the pulpit" instead of "wait until it has been polished by tongues for four hundred years". This affirms the Schoeler and van Gelder are right to say that "there are several versions of this anecdote". They are incorrect however to maintain it as they did on page xix.

The current text on Wikipedia says "When confronted with the similarity between this work and the Quran, Al-Ma'arri replied "Wait until it has been polished by tongues for four hundred years; then see how it is."" but this is incorrect. We don't know what exactly Al-Ma'arri said. Because there are several versions of the quote, as you noted in your first edit on this talk page. So we need to edit that.

I suggest we change that to "Some sources maintain that Al-Ma'arri supposedly replied, when contronted with the similarity between this work and the Quran, something along the lines of: "Wait until it has been polished by tongues for four hundred years; then see how it is.", although there are several contradicting versions of this anecdote."

Do you have other suggestions? If not, we could finish the disucssion. If you have other suggestions, I would be pleased to hear about them. Otherwise, the paragraph becomes:

The classical Arab poet Al-Ma'arri wrote Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt ("Paragraphs and Periods") which was criticized by some as an attempt to surpass the Quran. Others have strongly dismissed such claims. Al-Ma'arri never indicated that he meant to imitate the Quran. Rhyme on two levels was employed, a short and a long range, in alphabetic series. The idiom has a Quranic flavor while also being exceptionally difficult, with rare and obscure words that required the author to regularly interrupt the text with his explanations. The text praises God and calls for piety. Some sources maintain that Al-Ma'arri supposedly replied, when contronted with the similarity between this work and the Quran, something along the lines of: "Wait until it has been polished by tongues for four hundred years; then see how it is.", although there are several contradicting versions of this anecdote.

You can sign your edits on talk pages by typing four times ~

Yuyuhunter (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Now let us return to the important issue, we have to know from where the author took the words and the quote, I want to check first,

because according to the "academic source" page 37 here is what written about the reference of the words :

"There are several versions of this anecdote, see, e.g., Ibn al-Adlm, Bughyat al-talab, pp. 879-80."

The reference is Bughyat al-talab book pages 879 and 80, but Bughyat al-talab is a book consists of forty parts and ten volumes, these pages 879-80 in which volume this what is not clear, so your "academic source" is completely inaccurate

If the "academic source" mentioned a clear reference able to be verified, then your paragraph above can be accepted, but the "academic source" mentioned reference has an ambiguous page that cannot be verified, so the whole quote must be deleted completely.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AWriter2020 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

An academic source alone suffices. Most users on Wikipedia will agree with me on that. It's unfortunate that Schoeler and van Gelder aren't more specific, but it's not essential. It's not difficult to find other sources for this statement by Al-Ma'arri, for example: https://archive.org/details/luzumiyatabulal00rihagoog/page/n22/mode/2up

I recommend you to sign your comments on talk pages. I personally don't mind, but sometimes people who don't sign their comments are taken less seriously as it suggests that they don't know how Wikipedia works. You can sign comments with four ~ signs.

In conclusion, there's enough sources the back up the quote.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Your source above does not support that "academic source" and does not prove those words and that quote that we are talking about. I have read page 14 and 15 but nothing is there, it's known that he wrote texts glorification of God, this is not the point of contention here,

Conclusion: The arguments that are against those words and that quote:

1. Al-Maari did not claim that his book is a parody of the Quran. Also that quote is not found in any book of al-Ma'arri books.

2. I gave you the original Arabic version of the book and the introduction of the book refused such as claims and such as words, as well as Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji the student of Al-Maarri.

3. Al-Ma'ari’s book does not actually resemble the Quran. The Quran contains history ,stories, commandments, prohibitions, and talks about unseen matters, while al-Ma’ari’s book contains a text praises God.

The People who said that words about the book, they had a problem with al-Ma'ari, not the book, if someone else not al-Ma’ari wrote that book then they might said nothing and no one of them would say the book is a parody.

4. important point is the auther of that "acadimc source" did not provide a clear reference to those words.

So, there are serious arguments and sources against those words and that quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWriter2020 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that my suggestions for a compromise have not been succesful. It seems improbable to me that there will be many user that will agree with your position, but we will see. By the way, I think that you might find that the Wikipedia page of Al-Ma'arri himself presents him as a disbeliever and therefore more worthy of attention than the relatively minor discussion that we were having.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

On Philoſophé

Hello, do you happen to be active? Hælþ (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Hælþ

• I'm not very active on Wikipedia. Yuyuhunter (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)