Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 11) (bot |
Koreangauteng (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
I have just added [[Shufa (Islam)]] and [[Tajsim]] to the requested articles list. --[[User:Quuxplusone|Quuxplusone]] ([[User talk:Quuxplusone|talk]]) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC) |
I have just added [[Shufa (Islam)]] and [[Tajsim]] to the requested articles list. --[[User:Quuxplusone|Quuxplusone]] ([[User talk:Quuxplusone|talk]]) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
==Some issues with the current Wikipedia Quran articles== |
|||
Subtitle: '''Quran presentation in a 2020 electronic NPOV encyclopedia''' |
|||
See also [[MOS:ISLAM]] |
|||
1. Many current Wikipedia Quran Surah articles contain excessive amounts of primary source text, with limited secondary source citations. Some have no citations. Some content has been blatantly cut-and-pasted. Some article-content seems to be editor-[[WP:OR]] or editor-interpretation / opinions of the Quran. At times, the detailed theological explanations provided are almost incomprehensible. |
|||
2. Many Quran articles seem to imply the message the Quran is timeless, uncorruptable and self-explanatory. Many Wiki editors seem to use variations of [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]] to justify their edits. Many of those editor-responses seem to believe that [[WP:BOLD]] means being brutal with unexplained deletions, rather than the more constructive and collaborative form of Wiki editing. |
|||
Bit like: |
|||
{{quote| Surah Al-Hijr: "''Verily, We, it is We Who revealed the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely We will guard it (from corruption)''".}} |
|||
::I challenge Wiki editors and readers to easily find this Quranic ayat. (Hint > this ayat is Surah Al-Hijr 15:9). |
|||
::Examining the related [[Al-Hijr]] Wiki article. > It does not have any citations. It does not have URLs for any of the 'References'. The 'External link' is non-functioning. |
|||
:: The only link to a Quran in this Surah [[Al-Hijr]] page is from the Infobox. This links to a 'SAHIH INTERNESENAL (САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ)' Quran produced by the [[Tajik language|Тоҷик]] (a ''Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group''). This obscure version of the Quran https://en.quranacademy.org/quran/15 - provides a strange (Arabic-English-backwards-reading) translation. (further - every one of the 114 Wikipedia Surahs has this same problematic issue) This САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ version of the Quran has wording unlike other Quran translation - refer: https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/15/9/ I prefer for Wikipedia an easy-to-access, internet-compatible, version - complete with Tafsir, such as. http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsir%20Ibn%20Kathir/015%20Hijr.htm |
|||
2a. Question: Which English translation of the Quran is 'correct'? Pick any Chapter and Verse and compare. https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/114/6/ (currently this URL links to the last Quranic Surah and last Verse - otherwise you might investigate any Surah and any Verse) |
|||
:If you believe the Quran is "only revealed fully" in اَلْعَرَبِيَّةُ (Arabic), then, pick any سورة and any آية. Even then, there is 'confusion' > https://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html |
|||
2b. For controversial verses such as https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/65/4/ '''what information should Wikipedia provide for its readers, in 2020?''' Which citations are to be used in Wikipedia to underpin the article content? |
|||
:Criticism ?: https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/065.004.html |
|||
:Rebuttals ?: https://abuaminaelias.com/verse-65-4-child-marriage/ & https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/12/quran-654-the-child-marriage-claim/ |
|||
2c. In '''2020''' this is a real issue. According to a UN report, "40 per cent of Afghan marriages involve girls between the ages of 10-13". https://www.refworld.org/docid/584ab1f44.html |
|||
3. Citations containing 'Criticism of Islam' are often rejected, because they come from 'critics of Islam'. |
|||
4. With respect, for any Wiki Editor who self-describes as a "Muslim", as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much" etc etc and edits as per: |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799 |
|||
: - suggest he/she should consider [[WP:COI]]. |
|||
5. Various Wiki articles on the Quranic Surahs are presented in inconsistent formats. |
|||
6. There is a need to index and reference Surahs and Verses to provide an online 2020 English [[Lexicographical order|lexicographic]] structure. |
|||
: More on the indexing of Wiki Quran articles on this Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hud_(surah)#Status_as_at_18_December_2019 |
|||
7. The citations, located by using, {{Tlx|Cite Quran}} are exceedingly 'awkward in form and appearance' (eg 'clunky'), for a 2020 digital encyclopedia. [[Hadith]], [[Tafsir]] and other Islamic sources are referenced in complex varieties of inconsistent formats. |
|||
8. The [[WP:MOSISLAM]] ''Religious sources'' covers Quranic religious experts. Fine. These scholarly-citations are often presented without a URL - making '''2020''' citation research & confirmation very difficult. Ancient Islamic scholars, Hadiths, Tafsirs etc do not necessarily answer serious '''2020''' questions. [Imagine (unrealistically) some acknowledged '''2020''' Islamic authority clarifying the various Quanic / Islamic positions for us in 2020.] |
|||
9. I understand the many tensions, sensitivities and consequences associated with the competing narratives - in trying to characterize Islam in '''2020'''. Frank and fearless discussion is needed more than ever. |
|||
10. It is [[Irony|ironic]] that my last Wiki edit was of the Arabic word '[[Kitman]]' (defined as "the concealment of one's convictions by silence or omission") - was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taqiya&diff=932998210&oldid=932980493 |
|||
11. All of this devalues Wikipedia as source of unbiased information. |
|||
12. You can track my wiki edits at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koreangauteng |
|||
13. Recommend the need for improvement of Wikipedia in the above areas. |
|||
[[User:Koreangauteng|Koreangauteng]] ([[User talk:Koreangauteng|talk]]) 00:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:28, 1 January 2020
Islam Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Which language terminology to include in articles about Islamic topics
The question is which languages should be included in topics related to Islamic law and Islamic concepts, particularly in regards to literature about Islamic systems or Islamic-inspired systems in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Should the articles:
- Only include Arabic names for terminologies and not include any other languages
- Also include names of terms in Ottoman Turkish, of the Ottoman Empire, which held Mecca until around World War I
- Include names in other languages commonly used in the Islamic world
Arguments in favor of only having Arabic: Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, and the topic is not related to any particular country.
Arguments in favor of having other languages: The information would help users understand older English documents (circa late 1800s/early 1910s) using Turkish words (instead of Arabic ones), and that Wikipedia articles like qi already display terminologies of other languages.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- (Should be separate from my statement) Example of older English usage using Turkish instead of Arabic words:
- wikisource:Ottoman constitution of 1876: "ART. 7. [...]he causes to be executed the dispositions of the Sheri (sacred law) and the laws;[...]" (Trans. from the French which uses "[...]dispositions du Chéri (la. loi sacrée)[...]")
- Explanation on Strauss p. 39 (PDF 41/338 ): "Other terms, like iradèh (“ordonnance;” Turkish irade), which have become obsolete today, were quite common at that time in the European press.93 “Chéri” may sound ambiguous in French but the term, used in our context for Islamic law (Turkish: şer’(i), is widely used in the legal literature at that time. The same applies to the term “fonds vakouf (art. 48; “pious foundations,” Turkish vakıf), which did not sound exotic either."
- Direct Eng. translation from Ottoman Turkish: [...]and of the provisions of the sherī'at- and of"
- WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 5,000 bytes, the statement above (from the
{{rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC) - Expanded comment: The reason why I advocate for Ottoman Turkish names on Islamic calendar months is that I need the spellings of those dates to check for legislation in Ottoman legal documents. The British-made law collection Corps de Droit Ottoman (which uses French, used like English is used today) lists laws by acronyms of the Turkish names of the Islamic months (even though the Rumi calendar was already installed, the dates here are Islamic or Gregorian ones). The Wikipedia articles on the Islamic months couldn't help me check the dates because they didn't use the Ottoman names. I needed to use dictionaries to find what Ottoman Turkish names the months have, so I can tell which is which. This is why I strongly feel NOT a dictionary is wrongly applied against this: Wikipedia articles need relevant terminology so the reader can understand them, and without the terminology the article is far weaker. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- There are at least two distinct contexts in which foreign terms appear on WP:
- parenthetical after the first appearance of an English term in a general discussion of the concept it refers to (e.g.: Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía...)). This is an etymological note, which gives the language from which the English term has originated. There are some variations on this usage, such as giving the native name for a place, which may not be etymologically related to the English name (e.g., Ancient Greece (Greek: Ἑλλάς...)). In this case WP is not a dictionary is a good rule of thumb, which, among other things, prevents the parenthetical from serving as a repository for translations into all the favorite languages of our fellow editors.
- use of a foreign term in a discussion of specific linguistic context where that term appears. Thus, a discussion of Ancient Greece may include various Greek words, a discussion of Turkey may include Turkish terms, etc. In a multilingual context like an article about the Ottoman Empire things could get a bit tricky, but, I think pretty clearly, that linguistic complexity should not be exported to general discussions of concepts for which there were words in the languages of the Ottoman Empire.
- Word forms found in various languages may be useful for one or another reason, but this is not the role for a general-purpose encyclopedia to provide those resources. This role is played by dictionaries and various specialized publications. Coming back to your example, I see no solid rationale to include Ottoman Turkish pronunciations of Islamic concepts outside of an Ottoman context, unless they happen to be etymologically relevant to the English terms used by RSs on which the discussion in based, which would generally reflect current English usage. Eperoton (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Essentially the words used in English today are the ones used in Arabic. Formal written Ottoman Turkish deliberately adopted many words from Arabic. If the Ottoman Turks borrowed a word from Arabic, wouldn't that would make it "etymologically relevant" to the current term used in English, which is the Arabic term? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow. If we have material about a term based on RSs that identify it as Ottoman Turkish, then certainly giving the Turkish pronunciation is appropriate. If we have material about a term based on RSs which identify it as Arabic or originating from Arabic, without discussing a specifically Ottoman context, then I don't see why we would give its Turkish pronunciation. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Several of these variations have been discussed in an Ottoman context in English sources. For example, Sharia discussed in an Ottoman context means using the Turkish word "Sheriat" :
- "local purposes, and the administration of the law in accordance with the Sheriat. [...] that in 1913 the Ottoman government felt obliged[...]withdrawal of atheist officials and the restoration of the Sheriat."
- Macfie, Alexandre Lyon (2014-06-06). The End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1923. Routledge. p. 212. ISBN 9781317888659..
- Also Corps de droit ottoman (the French-language Ottoman law book from the UK) uses the Turkish variation spellings for Islamic calendar dates, as the laws are indexed according to the Islamic calendar. This is another form of Ottoman context.
- If somebody wants to include the Ottoman Turkish version of a word, then he/she/they should find a reliable source, in any time period, using the Turkish spelling in an Ottoman context, correct? If this is the case I can help build a portfolio of sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Our article on Sharia reflects reasonably current sources, as it should, and so it reflects the terminology currently used in English. Neither the sources you mention above, nor the forms of Islamic terms found there reflect current usage in English, so this isn't really relevant to general encyclopedic treatments of those notions on en-wiki. They may belong in a more specialized discussion on the lexicological history of some those terms in English, such as we have in Muslims#Lexicology, but that's a different matter.
- If you wish to develop a systematic resource that would help your particular line of investigation, please consider Wiktionary. It would be perfectly appropriate to add Ottoman Turkish variants for the Islamic months and other Islamic terms there. Eperoton (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Macfie's book is from 2014 so that's quite current. Initially I was actually surprised that a book from 2014 is not using the Arabic terms and instead is using Turkish ones, but nonetheless there it is. I can find other sources within the last 20 years (beginning in 1999) also using "sheriat" in an Ottoman context:
- Campos, Michelle (2011). Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine. Stanford University Press. p. PT86. ISBN 9780804770682.
[...]dispositions of the Sheriat law;[...]in virtue of the Sheriat[...]ignorant of the laws of the Sheriat[...]
- From 2011 - Erdem, Hakan (2005). "'Do not think of the Greeks as agricultural labourers': Ottoman responses to the Greek War of Independence". In Dragonas, Thalia; Faruk Birtek (eds.). Citizenship and the Nation-state in Greece and Turkey. Routledge. p. 70. ISBN 9780415347839.
Armed with the stipulations of the Sheriat on the law of war,[...]norms of the Sheriat.
- From 2005 - Gradeva, Rossitsa (2004). Rumeli Under the Ottomans, 15th-18th Centuries: Institutions and Communities. Isis Press. p. 166. ISBN 9789754282719.
Sheriat court[...]which the sheriat court merely[...]
(Isis Press seems to be a publisher based in Turkey) - Note Gradeva also wrote "Orthodox Christians in the Kadı Courts: The Practice of the Sofia Sheriat Court, Seventeenth Century" which was published in 1997.
- Campos, Michelle (2011). Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine. Stanford University Press. p. PT86. ISBN 9780804770682.
- NOTE: I haven't determined whether a majority of sources discussing an Ottoman context made in the last 20 years use "Sheriat". I would think a majority use "Sharia" but I am not certain, and this would need a literature review. Nonetheless there are sources in the past 20 years using the Turkish word in an Ottoman context.
- 2. Corps de droit ottoman is not reflecting current usage, of course. I do appreciate the recommendation for Wiktionary and will look into that. While I make efforts to add the variants to Wiktionary, I also believe on the encyclopedia front that past usage should be clarified there too, on the basis of helping the reader understand the subject - Sharia law in the Ottoman context. The word "gay" meant different things in the past, and the article contains a well-developed section about past/historical usage. Wikipedia's articles use current terminology but the articles also do teach about past terminology or the articles themselves won't be complete. For example people in today's world will use newspaper articles written in the 1950s or so to do research on the Civil Rights era or 1950s popular culture, and they need to understand the terminology in use then.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- All the sources you cite use these terms in an Ottoman context. That's the case #2 I listed at the start of this discussion, where the use of Turkish pronunciations would be appropriate. It's common for modern RSs to use local pronunciations: Persian in a discussion of Iranian history, Malay in a discussion of Malaysian history, etc. In using local pronunciations in these contexts, we are following the usage of current RSs. However, if we give Turkish pronunciations of Islamic notions in a general discussion of those notions, alongside the Arabic-derived forms which are normally used in English now, we aren't following the usage found in general encyclopedic discussions of these notions found in current RSs. Eperoton (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't mean to endorse using only local pronunciations of Islamic terms in articles on regional history. For some terms the use of local pronunciation is consistent (e.g., millet), but for many others it's not. Some care should be taken to gauge the prevalent usage in RSs and also to avoid confusing the general reader. However, this isn't the topic we're discussing here. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Duly noted! Indeed general discussions generally should consistently use the "original" spelling and focus on that. However readers may expect a general concept article to address the specific contexts: Guanyin#Names_in_other_Asian_languages is an example of a pan-East Asian topic where regional spellings are noted; Buddhist topics have these a lot as they are approached from regional and original contexts. However Christian ones won't note all of the European languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc are) see Jesus#cite_note-16. I think a good question is when should a general religious concept address the specifics, and how. Should only original liturgical languages be considered for notation? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's a good question, but we don't have a mandate to answer it in general terms as WP editors. Per WP:NPOV, our mandate is to reflect the body of RSs on any given topic. If RSs on a religious concept prominently cover some regional context for it, we should include an appropriate subsection on that subtopic, consult the RSs on it, and go from there. Eperoton (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- The reality is that editors have to make a judgment of some sort on how to use, interpret, or evaluate sources (which is why Wikipedia:Original research is allowed on talk pages where people hash out the content): The RS's aren't going to explicitly say "Never use any language other than Arabic when talking about Islam in a scholarly way" ~~and they're also not going to say "The relevant languages are A, B, and C" explicitly~~. One has to judge based on context, frequency of use, and time period of use.
- It would help to ask editors of Buddhist and Christian topics how/why they chose the languages: there are certainly sources on Buddhism in a Japanese context using Japanese terms and editors there judged that these would be important for a reader of the overall topic. Likewise editors of Christian topics decided against including names in French, German, Italian, etc. (even though Christianity came from the Middle East, the Europeans spread it around the world).
- While the religious liturgy/practice in Islam is of course all Arabic, Ottoman Turkish was used in the specific legal (not liturgical) context as that was the language of the state. A reader is not always going to look for articles on Islamic months in the religious field strictly, but he/she may also do it in regards to the historical legal field too as in he/she wants the context, like a reader of a Buddhist article may want the Japanese context specifically. Anyway see Someguy1221's comments here Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Does_policy_only_restrict_original_research_and_point_of_view_comments_from_article_space? - Wikipedians have to use judgment in determining what to include/what not to. They use sources as a guide, but they still have to interpret and contextualize them.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- On second thought I do wonder if there is an indirect way to answer "The relevant languages are A, B, and C" in regards to the study of Islam (not the liturgy) if the English-language scholarship indicates which role each language had in the field. I might check to see what roles Persian, Urdu, and Turkish had.... WhisperToMe (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the part where (I think) you say that we need to review the Islamic terminology found in RS "based on context, frequency of use, and time period of use", but not the part where you (seem to) suggests that this may involve OR or analogy with WP articles in other fields.
- I think you may be misreading the history of Islamic legal terminology in the Ottoman empire. The language of Islamic law throughout the Ottoman empire was Arabic until the late 19th century, though the legal terms had a distinctive pronunciation in the Turkish-speaking regions. Wael Hallaq has written about this history in several of his texts. I used one of them for Sharia#Ottoman_empire. Eperoton (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- What you said in the last paragraph is true since, for much of its history the civil law in the Islamic liturgy was not codified as overall empire civil law; as stated in the presented section, this changed with the Mecelle. I still feel that Ottoman Turkish is still relevant due what happened in the post-Tanzimat/1880s-1923 period despite what happened elsewhere in its history, and the law books I referred to are from that era. In particular want to post Turkish spellings in Islamic calendar dates as post-Tanzimat civil law was organized as such in the Dustur and other criminal law collections. It would also help to look at English and French spellings used in newspapers et al in the 1880s-1923 period, but prominence can vary; such spellings can be footnoted and don't have to be in the lead. Honestly I think the most important ones are just for the Islamic calendar months.
- Remember that the entry for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes it clear that at times the argument may be used: I believe one should consider what other fields are doing and determine the applicability to this one. That doesn't automatically mean Islamic articles should do one way or the other way, but I feel consideration of what other religion articles do is a virtue here as it's important to find what's the best practice for this particular field.
- Re: OR, a judgment of what is relevant or not to a subject comes from our evaluations of other people's sources, and it's not common that a decision will be so cleanly cut with what the source actually says. WP:OR says the policy does not apply on places where we "evaluate article content and sources", which includes determining what's relevant and what is not. I would prefer judgments that qualify such opinions with sources, especially if one that explicitly does state "the important languages are". I found a source that did say that Arabic was the main language of Islamic scholarship (it would seem obvious, but I prefer having sources blatantly making qualifying statements).
- WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. There are several guidelines relating to consistency. WP:Consistency provides a handy reference. As you can see, the only one that involves comparing multiple articles is MOS:TITLECON.
- For the rest, the RfC has expired. I think it's pretty clear that we don't have consensus for new global, MOS-type guidelines on the use of Turkish, of the kind that you've suggested. If you feel like any particular article should include Turkish variants and currently doesn't, you're welcome to start a discussion on its talk page about it or even make a WP:BOLD edit to the article, hopefully with reference to RSs. Eperoton (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's a good question, but we don't have a mandate to answer it in general terms as WP editors. Per WP:NPOV, our mandate is to reflect the body of RSs on any given topic. If RSs on a religious concept prominently cover some regional context for it, we should include an appropriate subsection on that subtopic, consult the RSs on it, and go from there. Eperoton (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Duly noted! Indeed general discussions generally should consistently use the "original" spelling and focus on that. However readers may expect a general concept article to address the specific contexts: Guanyin#Names_in_other_Asian_languages is an example of a pan-East Asian topic where regional spellings are noted; Buddhist topics have these a lot as they are approached from regional and original contexts. However Christian ones won't note all of the European languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc are) see Jesus#cite_note-16. I think a good question is when should a general religious concept address the specifics, and how. Should only original liturgical languages be considered for notation? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Macfie's book is from 2014 so that's quite current. Initially I was actually surprised that a book from 2014 is not using the Arabic terms and instead is using Turkish ones, but nonetheless there it is. I can find other sources within the last 20 years (beginning in 1999) also using "sheriat" in an Ottoman context:
- Several of these variations have been discussed in an Ottoman context in English sources. For example, Sharia discussed in an Ottoman context means using the Turkish word "Sheriat" :
- Sorry, I don't follow. If we have material about a term based on RSs that identify it as Ottoman Turkish, then certainly giving the Turkish pronunciation is appropriate. If we have material about a term based on RSs which identify it as Arabic or originating from Arabic, without discussing a specifically Ottoman context, then I don't see why we would give its Turkish pronunciation. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Essentially the words used in English today are the ones used in Arabic. Formal written Ottoman Turkish deliberately adopted many words from Arabic. If the Ottoman Turks borrowed a word from Arabic, wouldn't that would make it "etymologically relevant" to the current term used in English, which is the Arabic term? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Scope of an article
Please join me at Talk:Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques#Scope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Byzantine–Ottoman wars
Byzantine–Ottoman wars, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Do people watch the "requested articles" subpage?
I know that Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion#Islam exists, but (1) is that the best place to request new articles from WikiProject members? and (2) could someone place a link to the requested-articles page somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam?
I have just added Shufa (Islam) and Tajsim to the requested articles list. --Quuxplusone (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Some issues with the current Wikipedia Quran articles
Subtitle: Quran presentation in a 2020 electronic NPOV encyclopedia
See also MOS:ISLAM
1. Many current Wikipedia Quran Surah articles contain excessive amounts of primary source text, with limited secondary source citations. Some have no citations. Some content has been blatantly cut-and-pasted. Some article-content seems to be editor-WP:OR or editor-interpretation / opinions of the Quran. At times, the detailed theological explanations provided are almost incomprehensible.
2. Many Quran articles seem to imply the message the Quran is timeless, uncorruptable and self-explanatory. Many Wiki editors seem to use variations of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to justify their edits. Many of those editor-responses seem to believe that WP:BOLD means being brutal with unexplained deletions, rather than the more constructive and collaborative form of Wiki editing.
Bit like:
Surah Al-Hijr: "Verily, We, it is We Who revealed the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely We will guard it (from corruption)".
- I challenge Wiki editors and readers to easily find this Quranic ayat. (Hint > this ayat is Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).
- Examining the related Al-Hijr Wiki article. > It does not have any citations. It does not have URLs for any of the 'References'. The 'External link' is non-functioning.
- The only link to a Quran in this Surah Al-Hijr page is from the Infobox. This links to a 'SAHIH INTERNESENAL (САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ)' Quran produced by the Тоҷик (a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group). This obscure version of the Quran https://en.quranacademy.org/quran/15 - provides a strange (Arabic-English-backwards-reading) translation. (further - every one of the 114 Wikipedia Surahs has this same problematic issue) This САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ version of the Quran has wording unlike other Quran translation - refer: https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/15/9/ I prefer for Wikipedia an easy-to-access, internet-compatible, version - complete with Tafsir, such as. http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsir%20Ibn%20Kathir/015%20Hijr.htm
2a. Question: Which English translation of the Quran is 'correct'? Pick any Chapter and Verse and compare. https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/114/6/ (currently this URL links to the last Quranic Surah and last Verse - otherwise you might investigate any Surah and any Verse)
- If you believe the Quran is "only revealed fully" in اَلْعَرَبِيَّةُ (Arabic), then, pick any سورة and any آية. Even then, there is 'confusion' > https://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html
2b. For controversial verses such as https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/65/4/ what information should Wikipedia provide for its readers, in 2020? Which citations are to be used in Wikipedia to underpin the article content?
- Rebuttals ?: https://abuaminaelias.com/verse-65-4-child-marriage/ & https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/12/quran-654-the-child-marriage-claim/
2c. In 2020 this is a real issue. According to a UN report, "40 per cent of Afghan marriages involve girls between the ages of 10-13". https://www.refworld.org/docid/584ab1f44.html
3. Citations containing 'Criticism of Islam' are often rejected, because they come from 'critics of Islam'.
4. With respect, for any Wiki Editor who self-describes as a "Muslim", as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much" etc etc and edits as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799
- - suggest he/she should consider WP:COI.
5. Various Wiki articles on the Quranic Surahs are presented in inconsistent formats.
6. There is a need to index and reference Surahs and Verses to provide an online 2020 English lexicographic structure.
- More on the indexing of Wiki Quran articles on this Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hud_(surah)#Status_as_at_18_December_2019
7. The citations, located by using, {{Cite Quran}}
are exceedingly 'awkward in form and appearance' (eg 'clunky'), for a 2020 digital encyclopedia. Hadith, Tafsir and other Islamic sources are referenced in complex varieties of inconsistent formats.
8. The WP:MOSISLAM Religious sources covers Quranic religious experts. Fine. These scholarly-citations are often presented without a URL - making 2020 citation research & confirmation very difficult. Ancient Islamic scholars, Hadiths, Tafsirs etc do not necessarily answer serious 2020 questions. [Imagine (unrealistically) some acknowledged 2020 Islamic authority clarifying the various Quanic / Islamic positions for us in 2020.]
9. I understand the many tensions, sensitivities and consequences associated with the competing narratives - in trying to characterize Islam in 2020. Frank and fearless discussion is needed more than ever.
10. It is ironic that my last Wiki edit was of the Arabic word 'Kitman' (defined as "the concealment of one's convictions by silence or omission") - was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taqiya&diff=932998210&oldid=932980493
11. All of this devalues Wikipedia as source of unbiased information.
12. You can track my wiki edits at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koreangauteng
13. Recommend the need for improvement of Wikipedia in the above areas.
Koreangauteng (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)