Talk:Cheraman Juma Mosque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Cheraman Juma Masjid)

Factual Accuracy Disputed[edit]

The claim that it is the oldest mosque in India has no general acceptance. The sources quoted are not reliable. Conversion of King Cheraman Perumal and his pilgrimage to Mecca and subsequent death there are not attached much credence by the historians. The caption for the image is patent nonsense. It is not the original structure. The mosque underwent several renovation over centuries. No image of the original structure is available. 59.91.253.14 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--thunderboltz(TALK) 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source[edit]

One of the sources, http://www.iosworld.org/interview_cheramul.htm, provides several instances patently wrong information. Kasaragode is not in Karnataka and a the interviewee, a Keralite, couldn't have said so. The claim that original structure of the mosque is intact is either based on misconception or tendentious. The interview is thoroughly unprofessional and lacks circumstantial information. Cheraman dividing his kingdom is pure myth rejected by all historians of note and there is no point in rehashing the nonsense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.15 (talk • contribs)

Revision of History section[edit]

The whole history section needs a revision, as the Cheraman Perumal converting to Islam has been debunked as a hoax. I'm removing the history section. If found reliable sources (other than websites and blogs), please consider adding the History section back. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where from you found that it is a hoax?. The citations given there are reliable and NO BLOGS are added. If found any the relevant message can be removed. Don't go high handed by deleting sourced contents before arriving consensus at the talk page line by line. Wasif (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been accepted in Talk:Cheraman_Perumal_myths that Cheraman Perumal converting into Thyajuddeen is one of the several hoaxes surrounding his sudden disappearance. And do not call me Vandal. I hope you understand what Vandalism is. Vandals blank a section/article without informing in Talk pages. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one sentence along with three reference. The first one is from a story book which ends with the statement that they did not convert and retained their faith. The second does not discuss any conversion. And since there are sources that conversion did not take place we cannot put it there backed by the third reference alone. You may find contrary views here too. If there is better unambiguous reference by credible historian then only such a claim may be put in Wikipedia voice. Jyoti (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jyoti.mickey (talk · contribs) How is a website considered a reliable source? [1]. This article needs a lot of revisions. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vatsan34 it is definitely not a reliable source. Yes, the article needs considerable cleanup. I only removed the most recent addition which was backed by spurious contradictory references. --Jyoti (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vatsan34 as you say don't come up with some fake websites. Include some sourced books with ISBN numbers to substantiate your claims. Even if it true add both sides of that with sources. DO NOT simply DELETE when the discussion is ON in Talkpage. Wasif (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Tell me who came up with fake websites? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jyoti Out of 3 Books, 2 clearly read out that Cheraman perumal accepted Islam in his life time. Do not put same lame Edit Summary and get high handed on DELETING before the discussion is over.

My suggestion to resolve teh conflict would be, if you have a valid source claiming his acceptance of Islam is not true, then include it. Then we shall have both sides of that. Its not fair to simply delete a sourced content.Wasif (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasif kindly indent your replies. Are you referring to the 'removed' link I have given above? There are only 2 google books reference in that diff not 3. One is a story book and says no. Other start with "the story goes like" and "it is believed that". Aside: I have three academic sources which says Cheraman Perumal was a general title and there is no mention of conversion. --Jyoti (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do NOT try to mislead readers to push your POV. The word beleived by the people of kerala is mentioned for the date and not for the incident in the 1st instance. Then it runs as believed for his travel to Makkah. So before that the incident mentioned in that book is crystal clear in saying According to Burnell Cheraman Perumal was a contemporary of Prophet Muhammad. For argument sake, even if you consider that believed to be is mentioning the incident, you can very well include a prefix It's believed while writing that incident. Histories before a millenium are written generally in that context. Its not at all justifiable to completely hide this part.Wasif (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not have a reliable source to make that claim. Please read my earlier replies. --Jyoti (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is very much reliable as per WP norms. Refer to my discussion of lines in that book above. Wasif (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided one flimsy reference for an exceptional claim which starts with "the story goes like" and "it is believed that" and whose publisher cannot be traced and the book does not even have an ISBN number! Here is a reputed academic source[1]. I have more. There is no mention of conversion, they do mention battles with the "Ishmaelites". If you revert a third time all the 8-10 intermediate edits I will report such conduct in administrative noticeboard. --Jyoti (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How you call that flimsy? No. Not at all.This is not a place for you to decide what flimsy is and what is not based on your willingness for certain contents to be in this article. A simple browse over your contribs page will give a clear picture of what your idealogies are and how you do you push with all flimsy sources in WP. But i am not interested on that.
  2. I am not sure if you pretend as if you don't understaand what is written in that book. It is regarding the matter of travel is says belived to be.
  3. What makes you to turn a blind eyeed to this line in the source.According to Burnell Cheraman Perumal was a contemporary of Prophet Muhammad.
  4. I have also added one more source.

First you said, the websites are not good. Now you say the book is flimsy. I have added one more source too and This would be my last reply to you regarding the inclusion of the line. If you continue to delete and be with the same crooked mindedness saying some lame X or Y reasons, i am planning to take up the matter to right forum to get this resolved.Wasif (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait. You can take this to NPOV noticeboard right away. - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)'[reply]
Wasif your tone is consistently abrasive and you are warring. At least indent your replies to read conveniently. Any ways, take to noticeboard if you please. One of your reference says he ruled in 9th century and other says 6th century! Amazing, no? You don't want to accept that I have provided more reliable academic source which contradicts this. Jyoti (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of tag is unexplained. The tag was better source needed. I am rolling back. I explained why I said flimsy for the particular source -- no isbn number of book and publisher not traceable. Before that you even gave a story book as your reference. The 'new' reference you have added is worse. See the next page in the reference it says 'From Wikipedia', it looks like a copy paste from different free sources. Besides both the sources contradict. --Jyoti (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[book you cite is no more reliable]. It is a self-published book with no research. Please bring some other valid sources and stop typing in CAPS. Do read WP:Civility -Vatsan34 (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's you Jyoti who is warring to hide one side which is against your POV violatin the WP NPOV.I have clearly told while removing the tag the citation is well sourced. An editor in WP shall not get your consent for all the sources. The sources i have added so far is better. Now i am adding more number of sources and referring teh matter to NPOV notice board and let the matter get settled there. Finally i am repeating again.If you find the other part of this, with a reliable source you can very well add. But completely hiding one side of it is against WP:NPOV and you repeatedly do that.Wasif (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Matter posted to NPOV notice board. Post your views and please be open minded to agree with whatever is being decided there atleast. Wasif (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two editors including me who have explained you why the sources are not reliable. I went to the extent of giving you an academic reliable source to say it is contradicted. Did you check that the reference that you provided in your third attempt was also totally useless as discussed in WP:RS? You simply put it back and also add a page from a hotel promotional? Get a good source, or establish in noticeboard of your choice about the addition that you want to do, till then keep it out of the article. Regards. --Jyoti (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had posted a Temporary full protection on 18 June for this article, which was Declined, If it's one editor warring, report them to WP:3RRN. Accordingly I have put the notice on your talk page. Kindly establish your argument then have it inserted not vice versa because the content contradicts academic references and you have to provide a rs -- specially no story book reference, or hotel websites (they may be rs for the hotel itself but definitely not in this context), or the strongly vetted reference. --Jyoti (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources which i have added are reliable except one. Already i have posted the matter to WP:NPOV. It's you who violated 3RR and and made me to follow. Do not mislead readers. which site are you pointing to? Stop reverting and discuss here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cheraman_Juma_Masjid_article. Wasif (talk)
You have just now restored the [vetted] reference once again. If you have posted in WP:NPOV 1. You should post relevant notice on my talk page. And 2. Wait for discussion to happen there? If I have violated 3RR you may report me. About "which site are you pointing to" you have added a reference that is a hotels' site. I don't have to discuss there, I have responded here. Let other not-involved editors respond, if there is new discussion I may participate. --Jyoti (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And once again! Can you not see 6 editors said the reference is unreliable, not even one said it is good, yet you have reinserted it a third time? At the same time reverted a reference improvement by another editor? --Jyoti (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the existing source itself in NPOV page. Also, please be aware that Majority is Not a deciding method in WP. so number of users doesn't matter here but the reason. Wasif (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus and try to build a consesus. Refer to NPOV notice board and reply there. Wasif (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV board is for other un-involved editors to comment not to merely copy discussion among same participant from article talk page to there. I don't see any new discussion there, would you like me to copy-paste my old response from here to there? Besides, this is not even worthy of NPOV board. The issue is not at all of NPOV. --Jyoti (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What i am suggesting is to have our discussion there in NPOV notice board page and i never asked you to copy - paste all previous responses. It will be better to resolve and to arrive at a consensus. And regarding NPOV, Yes the issue is clearly about NPOV only since you want to completely remove 1 portion of the story and hide it without any mention whereas i abide by WP:NPOV and i ahve told several times that i am open to have the other side of it too in the article. Wasif (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly redo the citation improvement of Auric that you reverted. Also kindly remove the [vetted] reference that you have reinserted a third time. This is not story and there are no 2 portions, I do not think it is npov issue, I am wishing for un-involved editors to respond there, what is the point of same three editors rehashing it there? --Jyoti (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out. I have reverted it. I see only a NPOV dispute here. As you rightly said, some un-involved editors shall respond with valid references regarding the reliability of sources. Wasif (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove the [vetted] reference also? --Jyoti (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasif, I have removed the [vetted] reference. The content stays because you have another lesser dubious reference. If you re-insert the same reference a fourth time I will be bound to report such conduct to ani. The reference has been unanimously rejected by a discussion involving 7 editors, 5 of them with no relation to this discussion!. --Jyoti (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ al.], edited by Nathan Katz ... [et (2007). Indo-Judaic studies in the twenty-first century a view from the margin. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 131. ISBN 9780230603622. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)

Rewrite History section[edit]

History section has been written as a promotion of Islam religion. Needs an imminent rewrite. RAFiFan (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qibla[edit]

Do prayers in this mosque in the present day face the direction suggested by its architecture, or face Mecca? If the former, have Islamic scholars issued opinions that there is anything wrong with this, since it's clearly an unusual way of doing things? Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many newsmedia citations[edit]

There are many news based citation which do not supply any peer reviewed citation. What to do about those? If we keep the citations, people who do not examine citations will be misled by taking the sentences as verified. On the other hand, if we delete those weak citations, we shall lose information that may become useful (which can be searched in peer reviewed sources). Furthermore, some links are inactive. Kawrno Baba (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Cheraman Juma Mosque. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheraman_Juma_Mosque&oldid=1218442346"