Wikipedia on Mecca

[Peter]

In the Wikipedia article on Mecca, someone included a paragraph regarding Islamic "tradition" in the "Early History" section, as the second paragraph. I created a new category "Tradition" and moved the paragraph there. I made no other changes to the article or to the paragraph. The new category is still included within the general "History" section - though in my opinion it doesn't even belong there.

It should prove pretty difficult for someone to justify undoing the changes. Indeed impossible, legitimately. Another opportunity to see what Wikipedia is made of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca

Here is how the previous version looked
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mecca&oldid=391341111

[resistingrexmundi]

David Swindle just did a piece on the issue of Wikipedia and its' ever growing leftist slant. He ended it by encouraging people to get active on Wikipedia and bring some balance to their coverage of things like Islam.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/17/the-5-most-blatant-wikipedia-smears-of-anti-jihad-activists/

Their is the article if anyone is interested in reading it.

[Peter]

David Swindle just did a piece on the issue of Wikipedia and its' ever growing leftist slant. He ended it by encouraging people to get active on Wikipedia and bring some balance to their coverage of things like Islam.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/17/the-5-most-blatant-wikipedia-smears-of-anti-jihad-activists/

Their is the article if anyone is interested in reading it.

Indeed we can participate effectively in a few areas. I balanced the article on "Bakkah" with an additional "arguments against" section, that still remains intact - even further embellished by someone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah#Arguments_against_the_identification_of_Baca_with_Mecca

[Peter]

Just an hour or two later, the changes detailed in the OP have been undone.

I just undid the undo.

later

I think I just sent the following message to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather the person who did the undo.

"Regarding your undoing of my edit on the "Mecca" page, since when can 7th and 8th century penned "Islamic tradition", stand as a substitute for a couple thousand years of prior history? Particularly since that "tradition" neither references the historical record, nor is there prior historical or archaeological record that supports it?"

still later

I quickly got a personal message in reply saying that the undoer had made a mistake.

"Sorry about that I must have hit revert on the wrong tab. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)"

Demonstrating that we shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions, regarding the motivations of the other person, without clarification first.