From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Holidays (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Duplicated section[edit]

The "Prayer and reading of the Qur'an" section shows up twice, this is a minor issue, but I don't know how to fix it. Also there is a reference to Muhammad that says: "...Quran was sent down to Muhammad (peace be upon him)" and I wonder if the "(peace be upon him)" belongs in the context of a wikipedia article? Just minor things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeles (talkcontribs) 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


thia is not ot much of a probelmThis page doesn't mention when Ramadan is, or where one can look to find out.

Try reading the first line of the article. It clearly tells you that Ramadan takes place in the month of Ramadan and links you to an article about that month, i.e Ramadan (calendar month), which explains in detail all you could ever want to know. (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That's clear once it's explained, but I must admit that when I read the article I wondered how I could find out the dates for a given year. Could perhaps an explanation be added {e.g. "Ramadan is an Islamic religious observance that takes place during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar... In the western calendar, the dates [with link to relevant part of the article on the Isalmic calendar] of Ramadan vary, moving forward about 10 days each year..." (or something like that)}? Just a thought. Ondewelle (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to ecjmartin for the addition. :-) Ondewelle (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Glad to help!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Another query:

In the article, it mentions the prophet Muhammed and after each use there is the phrase "Peace be upon him (PBUH)".

FROM THE WIKI ARTICLE: Peace be upon him:

"Peace be upon him is a phrase that Muslims often say after saying (or hearing) the name of a prophet of Islam..."

Surely this is not needed in an encyclopedic article as the author of the encylcopedia is not deemed to be Islamic. I suggest the deletion of the PBUH after each mention of the prophets' name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just becase one is not a Muslim doesnt give them the right to be insulting. The PBUH is a blessing. If Muslims say it and because they will be the ones that read this most of all I think this should stay. Please. The only way muslims will respect you and your beliefs is if you respect them and their beliefs. You've already seen the results of ignoring this. Zero (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So what about respecting the fact that a lot of people do not regard Muhamad as a prophet ? Respect has to be two ways, and Wikipedia should remain neutral ground, don't you think ? --Donvinzk (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides we also say Alay-he Salam (Sorry if its written wrong. Its hard to write Arabic in English) after uttering the names of Hazrat Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Ibrahim (Abraham) and all the other Prophets that came before. It means roughly the same thing I think. A Blessing. If we can show our respect for them then you should show respect for ours. Zero (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSISLAM [Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)] explains the standards for Wikipedia dealing with Islamic patterns of blessing persons & cetera... ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well then. I was just suggesting this. Your decision. If the Holy Prophet could endure the other Quraish twisting his name then I can endure this. Just be aware that others might not take this so kindly. Even though I urge them to ignore this. Zero (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero, what you are asking for is absurd. I'm a Muslim and I have to ask you, if someone wrote a perfect sirah of the Prophet(saw) but didn't use honorifics in their book, would you then tell people to not read it? If you did, I would say you are in the wrong. In the same way Holy Prophet(saw) could endure abuse, the "others" you mention should learn to cool themselves, especially on such petty grounds such as this. WWHPD. (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Ramadan startes when people can see the cresent moon...once it has been seen, the priests and shieks say when it is time to fast then u begin ends after 30 days —Preceding .140.46.38| (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Parts of this article is a mess. Someone with more knowledge of Ramadan than me should take a look. For instance, you can find sentences like this: Before the Fasts of Holy Ramadan were made obligatory by Allah Almighty, Holy Prophet PBUH used to fast on 10th of Moharram, as on this Date Pharaoh drowned in the Sea,but after the revelation from Allah Almighty, Holy Prophet PBUH left the Fast of 10th Muharram and started Fasting during the Month of Ramadan and asked his followers to observe fast during the Holy Month. I have deleted a big chunk of text copied directly from a copyrighted site, and removed som PBUH's. Ramskjell (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

GOOD EDITS. I read this article and found it informative and (as and atheist) not proselytizing. However, there are studies that show weight gain during Ramadan in some communities (Maghreb). I will try to find this interesting item and any others like it, to include. (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing all those 'PBUH's. With all due respect to the Muslim writers, if I write about Jesus I don't think the reader wants to see a big 'PRAISE JESUS!' every time I mention his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess - agree - and needs to be cleaned up!--Cladding (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

However, there are studies that show weight gain during Ramadan in some communities (Maghreb). I will try to find this interesting item and any others like it, to include. Well, has there any one told you that Ramadan was made for entering a modeling pagent? look, the purpose of Ramadan is the equality between rich and poor people, patience, feeling what others feel, solidarity and many other things. When you end your fast it's up to you whether you eat healthy food or junk food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Peace of Ramadan[edit]

It is told that in the Month of Ramadan. Muslims are forbidden from fighting. Muslims Armies that were on march used to make camp and move not one step further untill Ramadan was over. The only exception to this rule is when muslims are attacked during this month. Since they are devoted to peace during this month and attacking them causes disruption of that peace, The Muslims are commanded to only fight in case someone attacks them in this holy month. I cant quite remember the verse No. that says this. Can any body else do so. If the verse is found. Please add this information to the Article. For I remember it stated that the Muslims are commanded that if they are attacked during this month they must retaliate with full force to discourage further attempts. However, some of the terrorist muslims have forgotten this and so they continue fighting during this holy month. This is a grave sin. Please. Find the verse. Add this info. Everyone must be warned. The Muslims so that they may stop and The Non Muslims so that they may respect our way of life and not attack us during this holy month, the results could be devastating. This Command of Peace is the Reason Pakistani Government is offering Cease Fire to the Militants in Swat. Zero (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagan Origin of Ramadan[edit]

I wonder if its important to note the pagan origin of Ramadan, which is a pre-Islamic festival. I believe it mentions this in the Koran, that Ramadan was an ancient time of peace - also many Islamic scholars allude to the pagan origin. I think if we mention the pagan origin of Christmas or Easter, I think by rights it necessary. We need to fair and equal to all religions, as they are all of the same value - and as an athiest I see it important to show that all religions aren't God-inspired, but socio-politically and culturally inspired, and are formedthrough syncretism. User:Madkafir —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of there being a pagan origin for "Ramadan". Ramadan is the name of the month and existed before Islam, as opposed to Christmas and Easter which are *holidays* derived from pagan festivals. Fasting during Ramadan was mandated by Muhammad. Inf fg (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Forced on Muslims by criminal law[edit]

This article portrays well the self-improvement ideas of Ramadan. However, it fails to state that observance is forced, and that in many countries, anyone who does not obey (for example, if you drink water during the day) may be severely beaten and/or imprisoned by police. Certainly no one would argue with its 'spirituality' if it were solely a voluntary personal effort. Unfortunately, it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Yes sadly it happens. Ramadan is the best time to get in touch with God. To do this one must accept it from the bottom of his/her heart not having it forced onto them. And yet the extremists still do this and other cases similar to this. My God punish them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no body would be beaten nor imprisoned by government in an Islamic country if he/she committed the crime of eating and/or drinking during a Ramadan day unless such a thing happened in public. It's all about demonstrating respect to God's orders, the sacred month and other Muslims feelings as they would be fasting hoping to be rewarded by God who ordered and obligated them to fast on that day. Possibly, if someone would suddenly appear on road devouring a piece of donut in Ramadan before sunset just because of his/her inability to accept to fast from the bottom of his/her little tender heart, then a person like this may be punished and blamed by civilian individuals before the arrival of police. Ramadan is the best time to get in touch with God. As for this reason, it is the best opportunity to obey him and fast so that he may forgive us and eliminate all our evil sins. Otherwise, we would be causing the increase of his anger, as instead of getting more in touch with him we show disrespect and mockery with Islamic rituals in Islamic countries (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

My.... do you see any difference between encyclopedic neutral description and religious speech? "It happens that the people who don't follow the fasting rules may be severely beaten and/or imprisoned by police or lynched by the mob". End of story. The sort of your explanation about the heart and being in touch - it's only your opinion. Let's keep cold and neutral here. Merewyn (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Merewyn, this is a talkpage, not an article. Please allow people to express themselves as they like.
As to the subject at hand. If this can be sourced, then we should have it in the article. Anybody here who can come up with something? Debresser (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! I agree with both of you. So changes have been made to ensure wikipedia's Ramadan page remains more accurately encyclopedic, as we all seem to concur here.BuckLava (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

I added an undue weight tag to the section concerning a single instance of controversy in a US school. If there is evidence for this being a widespread issue, then it can probably stay but if this is the only instance, it's a bit out of place given this is an article on a rather core issue of the Islamic faith. It would probably be better suited for an article on religious freedoms in the US or something of that sort Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramadan Events- Please note that the surah revealed on Layla-a-tul-Qadr is Al-Alaq, 96:1-19, where the Angel Gabriel asked the prophet to read in the name of Allah, and the prophet replied that he could not. Surah Qadr talks about this night, but was not revealed on this night. Source: I am not sure about the other surah, but I think it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedparty5 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion request - Health impact[edit]

Two questions:

Question one - What level of participation is expected and generally received of the ill and infirm in various parts of the Islamic world and what differences exist between Sunni & Shi'ia practices when fasting? implies that such differences exist, but doesn't go into depth.
Question two - What impact if any does this have on the health of the population at large and hospital admission rates, be it negative or be it positive?

Just curious, MrZaiustalk 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Questions updated, MrZaiustalk 10:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your first question but as for the second, if a person starts to have health problems they are to break the Fast. The purpose of the Fast is not to put people into hardship. Dumaka (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
1st Q: just the same. it only differs from country to country on the basis of religious culture and not by the islamic practices in itself (i.e: some societies find it O.K. while others don't)
2nd Q: the islamic world is a pretty shitty place that lives in the middle ages so don't expect any fancy statistics to be around.--7amada'sback:) (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Change Of This Page[edit]

Please move this page to a correctly spelled page.

I, along with many Muslims who want Arabic words to be pronounced correctly, would greatly appreciate it if this page was moved to another page called Ramadaan. Soleado (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The spelling without letter doubling is far more often used in English. The lead clearly writes the word in Arabic with a clear transliteration pointing out the classically long vowel. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, I've never ever seen anyone spell it "Ramadaan" before. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it a little, but still disagree. See WP's guidelines on Arabic usage (esp. regarding primary transliterations) at WP:MOS-AR. /Ninly (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramadan in space, polar regions[edit]

Dear all After the intense discussion about the first muslim in space during ramadan, I have checked many websites how he handled the prayer times. Sadly I found differnent answers, one said he did not have to fasten because he is on a journey, other said that he should use the times of makkah and some were claiming that he saw the moon in differnt shapes--> so no fasting. Interestingly is that similar questions and answers are discussed in the case of muslims living in the polar regions. Can anyone find reliable answers and sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How many muslims live in polar regions? Not so many. Therefore this question is not so important. If you live in polar regions and want to Ramadan, then pick the nearest muslim country and adjust your watch to that countries time. Or better, come to where it's not so lousy cold. -- (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few muslims living in the Nordic countries, where the sun sets for a pretty short while in the summer. So when Ramadan falls in the summer, there will be practical problems, having to stay up late or wake up very early if one wants to eat only after sunset and before dawn. TorLillqvist (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Read this article [1] saying that after hotly debating this issue, and asking Mecca, they (in Tromsø) decided to follow Mecca sunrise/sunset when they have none.--BIL (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Good source! it will help to develop the popular culture of this article. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ramadan 2009[edit]

This entry was recently cleaned up. As Ramadan approaches yet again it will be flooded with amendments, additions and external links of a commercial nature. I have tweaked a few phrases for grammar and included viable sourced citations for already existing copy. I have also removed recently added links to Ramadan timetables. The External Links section was removed recently so there is no viable location for such links and they don't really belong in an encyclopeadic entry. If people want to find timetables, they will on Google, no doubt.

The page still needs work with layout and general grammar improvements as well as some of the statements still needing viable sources (reputable outlets, news mediums, journals, books and religious texts) and sections needing expanding or moving around a little as some of it gets a little repetitive. I will work on that as I can.

I will also try and keep an eye on this page as are others, to ensure it remains neutral, up-to-date and non-vandalised. Your viewpoints will assist. thanks. UK 007 (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The new additions and random edits by unregistered users are coming in thick and fast now that Ramadan has begun. This entry is okay in term sof contacts but could be neatened up and expanded on in areas. It definitely needs to be edited to sound more like an encyclopedia entry as suggested. The content however is so far compact and largely fact based, though some citations are still needed. Will try and work on language of entry. UK 007 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone fix the large blank gaps left by image insertion please? Thanks. UK 007 (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramadan 1980[edit]

Hello, I am wondering in which day/month did ramadan start in the year 1980. Any help with this is highly appreciated. Thanks for responding. -- (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramadan's first day is usually disputed among Islamic countries. if you want an approx. date just add 11 days for every year from now to 1980 and you will get you date --7amada'sback:) (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

God or Allah?[edit]

(God is not the correct translation of ALLAH)

I note that an IP user has changed all instances of the word God in the article to Allah. While my understanding is that it's technically accurate, is it acceptable usage? My concern, especially considering some of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the US, is that it might be seen as bias in violation of WP:NPOV. My first impulse is to revert all such changes, but I want to gain consensus first. Alan (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Allah is the Muslim name for God. This is an article concerning a holy month in the Muslim faith. It uses the appropriate term as defined in the Qu'ran. To me, it would be POV to put God, just to appease any anti-Muslim feeling, irrespective of where it originates. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the information I was looking for. I'll leave the article as it stands. Alan (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Allah is not the Muslim name for God - it is the Arabic name for God. Even Christian speakers of Arabic use the name Allah when referring to God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramadan 2010[edit]

This entry goes untouched most of the year and then gets attacked annually around Ramadan time by people plugging all kinds of commercial Ramadan services, personal religious article blogs and websites. I suggest all acts of vandalism or cheap promotional publicity attempts by immediately removed and reverted, especially if users and guests fiddle with the main verified and reliable sources of this article which have been in good standing for the last few years and replace them with an near identical source confirmation but on a personal or less verifiable source site.

I've just re-instated a long-term BBC link which verifies information in the first paragraph but for some reason was replaced with someone's personal page in the last two days. (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've just cleaned up a few random recent links which are appearing purely to promote e-boosk and websites but don't add anything new or aren't aources well. External links are creeping in as references too. Will keep a watch UK 007 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultural aspects of Ramadan[edit]

There are a lot of Cultural aspects of Ramadan not mentioned in the article. I'll list sources about them that I find while surfing the internet:

  1. Ramadan series fever A lot of TV shows broadcast in ramadan.

Anyone who has any more links please add them.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Also" section[edit]

Text removed:

The political and military implications of Ramadan are often ignored, due to the fact that the holiday leads up to the celebration of the Battle of Badr of March 17, 624 when Mohammed scored his first military victory by defeating the Quraysh tribe that had rejected his claim to be a Prophet. From this first victory, Islam gained the resources and religious fervor that would sweep the Arabian peninsula, eventually spreading into Asia, Africa and Europe.

If anyone can see the relevance of this to the article, could they at least reword it to make plain how it helps and cite it. As it stands it's just obscure and unintegrated. JohnHarris (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fasting question[edit]

I understand Ramadan requires fasting from sunrise to sunset. But does it make any requirement on breaking fast? Is it required to start eating/drinking immediately at sunset? -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The start of Ramadan[edit]

This material really needs to be fleshed out more. A pretty good definition is given, followed by a nod to the controversy surrounding it. But the BBC article:

BBC - Religions - Islam: Ramadan

gives much more in-depth information surrounding the nuances of this controversy. Perhaps we can get someone with more familiarity on this subject to expound on this a bit more (with some good citations, as well). Thanks in advance!! WDavis1911 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the portion containing Prophet (p) and replaced it with prophet, this is not something that should be listed in an online encyclopedia. --Wes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC) \

The start of Ramadan is difficult to predict. When I was in Iraq in 2004, we didn't know the precise time it would start -- we had to wait for Grand Ayatolla Sistani to announce it, which I believe was based on a lunar sighting. Any prediction of a state date is, at best, an approximation. (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism in Intro?[edit]

Hey, I don't do much editing on wikis, so I wouldn't know how to tag this, but I do believe that someone vandalised the introduction to Ramadan, specifically after the reference to footnotes 3 and 4. At the very least, it's poorly written, and uncited. (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that it sounds like the Pastafarian holiday of Ramendan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramadan among immigrants to North[edit]

There are large muslim communities in the northern countries, like Sweden or Norway. How do they celebrate Ramadan when it happens in the summer and the sunset is at 11 pm, with sunrise already at 1 am? Do they REALLY don't eat or drink for 22 hours?? There must be some alternative solutions for them and it must be explained in the Encyclopedia. Similarly, for the winter time with extremely short days, traditionally considered Ramadan becomes just a break between breakfast and lunch. What then? Merewyn (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Merewyn, It sounds harsh, but they must fast even for 22 hours if its possible. But around these time they have the summer vacation like many countries. Thus some of them are having the Ramadan abroud. But many stay in the Northern countries and fast there. Conclusion: They must have ALOT of patience and willpower :) Ore they can use the Meccan times. Wich will ease their fasting. (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ramadan FAQ"?[edit]

How can this be a quoted source for anything? Why don't I create a Ramadan Fan Page and we can quote that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Daylight Hours[edit]

The phrase "daylight hours" seems simple enough but having been in Egypt during the Ramadan just finished, I heard several different interpretations of what that means. I am confused and came here for clarification - but found none.

Relatedly, how would a Muslim cope above the Arctic Circle if Ramadan fell during winter? Tesspub (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Daylight Hours" refers to the time between the start of Fajr prayer and sunset. "Fajr" prayer starts at dawn, so the time for fasting is about an hour and a half before sunrise up until sunset.
In regards to Muslims living in places such as the Arctic Circle, there are various approaches. One approach is to not fast and instead feed a poor person for each day of missed fasting. This option is provided in the Qur'an itself. "...And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess - it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew." - Qur'an 2:184 (Sahih International translation). Other options, as provided by some scholars, is to use the dawn and sunset times of a nearby city that has daylight and nighttime. Alternatively, according to other scholars, one can simply use the dawn and sunset times of Mecca. SOW93 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

2:185 quote[edit]


What do you think of replacing the current English trans. of sura 2:185 in this article with Yusuf Ali's?

YUSUFALI: Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and judgment (Between right and wrong). So every one of you who is present (at his home) during that month should spend it in fasting, but if any one is ill, or on a journey, the prescribed period (Should be made up) by days later. Allah intends every facility for you; He does not want to put to difficulties. (He wants you) to complete the prescribed period, and to glorify Him in that He has guided you; and perchance ye shall be grateful.

or even the Sahil International trans.:

The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey - then an equal number of other days. Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you; and perhaps you will be grateful.


If not, then at least replace the word God with Allah. The former has different meanings in English and should not be used. God does not have a strict monotheistic meaning in the English vernacular like Allah does.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 
Strange, that there are so diverse translations of one and the same verse. These two translations say different things! Secondly, although the word "God" in itself is not necessarily monotheistic in English, in this article it obviously refers to "God" as understood in Islam, so there is no ambiguity. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Recent edits by BuckLava (talk · contribs) and/or/who is maybe an IP user are not up to Wikipedia standards: 1. they use capitals in the middle of sentences 2. they use all kinds of additions like "blessed be his name" 3. they seems to be interested more in bringing the reader to be a Ramadan keeping Muslim rather than give neutral information.

I know that it is about a month to the beginning of the Ramadan, and I am afraid we are going to see more of this the coming time. So please, editors, be alert here. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What is that you fear?BuckLava (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's goal is to compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia." :)[edit]

Response to posting by Debresser (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC):

Mr. Debresser, being that you are a four-year veteran perhaps it has been quite some time since you felt any need to review the guidelines for talk pages and the goal of Wikipedia. This is understandable. Therefore, I encourage you to take a quick moment to compare your approach towards me with the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, so that you can be a bit more merciful when others contribute sources that you personally may not like, but in no way conflict with anyone's Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia... especially for someone like myself who is new here (just a few days old).

Thus, even for a few-days-old rookies -- like myself -- to Wikipedia, the two links above are easy enough to abide by.

Nobody's perfect, and so, just as mistakes are inherent in life, so too are they on here, and so, of course, I will not hold it against you.


BuckLava — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckLava (talkcontribs) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not holding anything against me. But unencyclopedical edits will be reverted nevertheless. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I may add that your edits today were good edits, in the sense of "encyclopediality". Also, I appreciate your addition of sources.

Section on health effects: POV?[edit]

The section on Health effects only mentions positive effects of fasting. I suppose there must be megative effects as well. For example, Even gives a long list of negative effects: [2] . Is there anyone with more expertise in this area who could find reliable sources and try to make it more neutral? (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiislam is an extremely biased anti-Islam source with no scientific backings and should NOT be used as a reference for anything. The section on the health effects of Ramadan cite legitimate scientific studies, so any negative effects of the Ramadan fast should be cited with legitimate scientific studies. SOW93 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the question of bias, there is a more serious problem with that site, regarding Wikipedia's WP:RS|"reliable sources"]] policy: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."
There is another side to this issue though. The "health effects" mentioned are a by-product of fasting, 'not of the Ramadan. Therefore, they belong in the article about fasting, and having them here is misleading. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that Wikiislam is an anti-islam site, I should have noticed that. Anyway, I did not mean it to be used as a reference, but rather as as an indicator that there might be other opinions. I still do not believe that it's impossible to find any negative effect of fasting. Hence my request whether someone could find more reliable sources on this, which still stands. (talk)

As Ramadan implies fasting, and a particular kind of fasting in terms of rules and duration, I think it would be good to have the health effects on this page. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a reply to this user I shall quote myself: "There is another side to this issue though. The "health effects" mentioned are a by-product of fasting, 'not of the Ramadan. Therefore, they belong in the article about fasting, and having them here is misleading." Debresser (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont know that this is true. Ramadan is more than just fasting, it is fasting for an extended number of consecutive days. Impacts on health due to that surely belong in this article. nableezy - 17:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a few points here. One, and this I do not know, how often are people with what in the US are called "pre-existing health conditions" obliged to observe the Ramadan fast in general? For some people, and here I'm thinking of some forms of diabetics, I know that in other churches they are given a waiver from observing some fasts based on those health conditons. Such individuals might clearly suffer from a regular fast of any sort, let alone one of such a staggered nature as this one. Alternately, are there within the Muslim community instructions for how to observe the fast in such a way as to minimize impact on health? On that subject I confess ignorance. That would however raise questions regarding whether any possible health complications are specifically due to the fast, or are perhaps due to individuals observing the fast in a way which might be perhaps in some cases excessive or counterproductive. If they due to perhaps irrational application of the fast conditions, that should possibly be taken into account as well. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Origin of Ramadan section"[edit]

If one percent of the planet disputes something or offers one "research" opinion, does this merit it having a section on a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckLava (talkcontribs) 23:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't. And having seen/read the sources used for that section, I see that one source is vague while the other source is clearly biased (written by someone trying to entice Muslims to leave Islam). The second source (referenced as source #27) also makes no sense. It attributes Ramadan to "pagan" origins without offering proof, while calling Sabians (a monotheistic group) "pagans" which in and of itself shows the author's lack of knowledge on this subject. Furthermore, the entire section itself makes no sense. "Ramadan was observed by the pagan Arabs" (paraphrasing)? Of course it was. Ramadan is the 9th lunar month. Obviously the pagan Arabs observed a 9th lunar month. I propose deletion for this section on the grounds of nonsensical suggestions made in the section and on the grounds of a lack of (legitimate) sources for the section. SOW93 (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Not becuase you feel it is clearly biased, but rather because it is biased from a scientific, encyclopedic perspective. BuckLava (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Ramadan was observed by the pagan Arabs" obviously does not mean that they had a 9th month, but that the month of Ramadan was marked by the pagan Arabs in much the same way as Islam marks the month of Ramadan. If you do not understand a text correctly, don't be too hasty to decide the problem is with the text. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As already observed in the third previous paragraph, there is an obvious flaw in identifying all Sabians as pagan. The dispute arises from Maimonides' account that Harranian Sabians did not self identify as Sabians until threatened by Caliph al-Ma'mun in 830 CE. This would've been long before Ibn al-Nadim's 10th century survey of regional religions (in "al-Fahrisit"), but after the observation by Abu Zanad in 747 CE that "at least one Mandaean community located in northern Iraq observed Ramadan" (wording from Dr. Rafat Amari's web article). If Abu Zanad's writtings have indeed been correctly translated and he intended to signify the Mandaeans rather than the Harranians, then it is quite ambiguous as to which of these two groups possessed the oldest lineage of observing the ceremonies of Ramadan. Saying that Ramadan was a "pagan" ceremony is dependent upon attributing the origin to the pagan Harranians rather than the monotheist Mandaeans. This is very possible, but not certain. For the time being, I propose to disclose this ambiguity by modifying the sentence mentioning Ramadan as a pagan ceremony. Rather, I believe it preferable to state that the ceremony was performed by either/both of monotheist Mandaeans and/or pagan Harranians. A.Aboumrad (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a deviation from the source, which unambiguously uses the word "pagan". Also, Mandaeism is not as unambiguously monotheistic as you state it is, and the few things I know about it do not make the claim of pagan rites farfetched. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The article by Dr. Amari uses "pagan" in its terminology, but is this an appropriate description for both groups called Sabians?. Moreover, it is clear that the "Ramadan and Its Roots" article has a clear anti-Islamic agenda (as do other of Dr. Amari's works) and his own conclusions are perhaps less reliable than material which he himself sources. That Ramadan originates in pagan ceremonies is the claim of Dr. Amari alone, while his Arabic sources appear to show merely that different groups in the Middle East practiced it during the early centuries of Islamic dominance. I agree that pagan origins are not farfetched, as you said, but just because something is not "far-fetched" does not mean that it is confidently certain. This looks more like a "chicken or the egg" situation. As for the Mandaeans, their religious beliefs indeed have some ambiguity, but for the Qur'an itself to call them "people of the book" lends itself to classifying them alongside the other monotheistic religions rather than Hellenistic or Arabic polytheism. Also, there is not a single prophet of the Mandaeans which comes from outside of the Judean lineage. I realize that I'm splitting hairs with semantics here, but such a loaded term as "pagan" ought not to be applied indiscriminately. You are quite reluctant to admit Mandaeans to be monotheists (or at least "not-pagan"), yet very hasty in assuming that "if pagans fasted during Ramadan in the 10th century, they must have been the originators." The evidence is far from conclusive, and this claim ought to be given as possibility or theory, at best. I stand by my most recent modification, but I would love to have additional opinions on this. A.Aboumrad (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the points you make, that 1. the source seems to have an agenda, and 2. that the nature of Mandaeism is not clear-cut. In addition, let me add that I appreciate your personal knowledge of the matter, and the fact that you understand the importance of discussion. Perhaps we should start looking for a better source, and see what comes up. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-Muslim forcing insignificant dissention to be broadcast with its own section heading un-encyclopedic[edit]

The title speaks for itself.

Dispute about Ramadan is insignificant, merits more mention than the opinion of one citation and is not helping inform anyone who needs wikipedia to be informed. Rather, the inclusion of insignificant items, as when an overwhelming number of verifiable items are given back seat to one or two opinionated citations, dilutes the purpose of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckLava (talkcontribs) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone were to type in "origin of Ramadan" in a search engine, this is what they would be subject to. Is this really an accurate depiction of what Ramadan is today? BuckLava (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the title of this section "Non-Muslim forcing insignificant dissention to be broadcast with its own section heading un-encyclopedic" and of the first sentence? Debresser (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Debresser said that the body already mentions what i aded, but it doesn't. That section does nto state fasting is obligatory, and says nothing about the ill or travelling. Furthermore i think this desrves mention in the lede because it mentions the conditions for fasting. This is lde-worthy. Pass a Method talk 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote "It becomes compulsory for Muslims to start fasting when they reach puberty, so long as they are healthy, sane and have no disabilities or illnesses. The elderly, the chronically ill, and the mentally ill are exempt from fasting". We see here repeatedly the ill. And I quote again "Also, those traveling (musaafir) are exempt". So here we have travelers. I recommend reading the article before you start editing and discussing it. Debresser (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignore anyone who detests your religion and single-handedly insists on reverting your changes. Trust me, it's worked wonders for the fidelity of the Ramadan page since I joined Wikipedia just for the sake of improving this one page and taken major advantage of SEO.! If you saw what it was before, you'd have been disgusted at how un-encyclopedic it was. Slowly, but surely, honest, well-intended, moderate persons like us have the duty to ensure information is concise, relevant and properly cited by the sources that originated the ways Ramadan is currently fasted and has been fasted for over 1400 years. When someone types in "origin of ramadan" now, they get a more accurate idea of what they need to know, not "the name of ramadan is in some dispute" as debresser had preferred and continuously reverted the page to. So, like I said, ignore anyone who sounds biased and detests clarity in explaining Islam-related subjects to English readers and also try to avoid using the word "Islamic". Instead try to use words that are not innovated from English like "Muslim" and "Islam" as appropriate when discussing a topic or word originating from Arabic or Islam, as this will inherently make the topic more encyclopedic.

Best wishes as you sinerely intend to add clarity to the page and make it easily to read and understand what Ramadan is relevantly all about.BuckLava (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Whom did you mean by "anyone who detests your religion"? Debresser (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Debresser, you have not explained why that sentence is not lede-worthy. I think its lede-worthy information because it demonstrates who should fast and who should not. Pass a Method talk 01:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are already details, and as such should be kept in the section on fasting. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Ramadan shifted to logical place... the beginning![edit]

Beware the revert-mad touch of Debresser that is guised under dedication to spelling and grammar. It is inevitable. Clarity on Muslim-related sections to be more encyclopedic is not consistent with his persistent contributions to this page.

KEEP AN EYE OUT and you will see exactly what I mean.

Do you have any specific problem with my edits? Debresser (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a disgrace that such an important article like this had spelling mistakes, superfluous words and sentences, unencyclopedic paragraphs, bad Wikipedia markup (references, internal links, tags, etc.), and no internal order in sections. If 1 billion Muslims can't take care of that, then one Jew can. :) And I think I did quite a good job of it, especially to the hopelessly mixed up "origins" section. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
LOL, I'm glad the word Ramadan has been on your mind more often this year than perhaps any year before. As one of the 1.6 billion (be accurate and encyclopedic when making references that are verifiable) I just joined Wikipedia and I agree the English-speaking community of Muslims has done a poor, poor job with basic English grammar (although the same page in their native tongues seems to be just fine). Thanks for your amazingly dedicated care to the grammar and spelling of the "Ramadan" page. Your obvious zeal to ensure that the planet Earth reads a properly spelled, properly cited, properly organized page about a pillar of Islam cannot be questioned! On behalf of the 1.6 billion Muslims world-wide, I want to publicly thank you, Mr. Debresser! :) BuckLava (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I am glad we can laugh about this. Let's work together to make this article better! Debresser (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I see somebody removed the paragraph about the origin of the word "Ramadan". That paragraph was unsourced and vague, but in general I think it would be important to have something about this. Is there something sourced we can add there? Debresser (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Peaceable editing[edit]

There is really no reason to have anything other than reasoned debate on this talk page. The article needs to be about Ramadan, it should not express an opinion about Ramadan though it may report on significant opinions of others. Therefore it should be possible to reach agreement on content regardless of the creed - or lack thereof - of the contributors. Making ad hominem arguments is not only contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (and most religions) but also a complete waste of time,and I encourage editors to abjure such arguments.

While I am ignorant of any detail of the subject, let me address some of the points in the above sections:

  1. Poorly capitalized sentences and stylistic variations at odds with the MoS should not be held against an editor, but quietly corrected, and where appropriate, a friendly note left for the editor in question.
  2. What is feared is primarily that the article moves from being a neutral and reasonably well written encyclopaedic article into something else.
  3. If one percent of the planet disputes something, then almost certainly it should be noted, that would be the population of a large country.
  4. "Origin of Ramadan" should certainly not be a reflection of what Ramadan is today.
  5. Do not "ignore anyone who sounds biased" but rather listen to all, compare the merits of the statements themselves, not of those who propose them.

Keep editing! Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Copy edit in the lead[edit]

I made some correction in the lead with good faith, citing of sources is required, the article is overloaded with multiple sections, need to merge the sections with related one. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is good to have separate sections as much as possible for different subjects. Which sections would you want to merge here? Debresser (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't user wikipedia much, but look harder - the duplicate content is in a paragraph directly adjacent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The section Practices during Ramadan shall be renamed as Practices all the sub-sections in this can be made as side heading only and shall include lailatul qadr and end of ramadan.
  • The section cultural aspects may be renamed with popular culture and need to expanded.
  • The section Origin shall be move to top and renamed as etimology. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with DeBresser and the other's comment about duplicate content. With too many random changes by different users, however, the disorganization will persist. After the page has been semi-protected (which is long over due for such an important annual global topic), then we can have a better chance of avoiding "duplicate content", improved organization, etc.BuckLava (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should fasting criteria be in the lede?[edit]

There is no consensus onto the wording of the sentence. Specifically, whether to include the who and exclusions. There is, however, consensus to mention fasting in some form in the lead. I would suggest more discussion take place about the actual words keeping WP:LEAD in mind and specifically that the lead should summarize the article with appropriate weight. The question everyone should ask themselves is: "Is what we are including in the lead as important or more important than what we are no including?"--v/r - TP 18:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you support or oppose adding the criteria for fasting be in the lede? Specifically this sentence [3] Pass a Method talk 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support The criteria for fasting is an important aspect of islam. For example in Islamic countries the only public places where fast food is served openly during midday hours is generally in airports and similar travel-related venues, or in health-relaed locations such as hospitals. Another important reason to include it is because when it comes to fasting all the different sects diagree on several issues, including the timing, moon-sighting methods, application of tarawih etc. But the criteria for fasting (adulthood, health, travelling) all sects appear to agree on. Noneheless Debresser wants to keep this in the article body only. Pass a Method talk 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, If it were a long and arbitrarily legalistic set of criteria, I'd be opposed, but it seems like we already have a succinct wording, and the information 'who' is at least as relevant as the information 'what' the fast entails and 'when' the fast happens that's already included. Darryl from Mars (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article as it stands has roughly seven sections of information, and right now a two-paragraph lead. I think that it would not be unreasonable in this instance to expand the lead to perhaps even five paragraphs, but I would not myself seek to go into any specific details about specific content regarding details of one aspect, even if it is one of the most important aspects, until the lead were expanded and a clearer idea of what information is not yet included is available. In summary, this is, I guess, a provisional "no', which might become a "yes" later once the lead is a more comprehensive summary of the contents. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Debresser's comments below. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly for two reasons That Ramadan involves fasting is very important, and should be in the lead. The details of who yes and who not, should be kept in the section. Because they are just that: details. And a second reason why I find that we can not have this in the lede, is because there are different opinions and customs in these details, and that for sure should not be in the lede. Debresser (talk)
    • Thats a false statement. Can you tell me which part of my addition is controversial, including a source for that claim? There is arguably a consensus in the Muslim community on this issue. Pass a Method talk 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Pass a Method, we all know that you want the details to be in the text, but to go from that to accusing me of making false statements, is not nice of you. Not only are there differing opinions, and I am sure you yourself are aware of them, but we have even seen them here on Wikipedia in this article. I must admit, that I am not inclined to flook through all the many edits of the last month and find them. But just have a look at this article, and you see that there are many different opinions about all of the categories for exemtion. QED. Debresser (talk)
Nothing in that source contradicts my proposed sentence. Pass a Method talk 10:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
And nothing necessarily supports the proposed sentence, either. One is as important as the other. So, basically, the only reason given to include the information is the opinions of editors. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it is not the matter to be discussed in the lead, It shall be discussed in the section, as said above it has different point of views by multiple schools of Muslims. We shall concentrate to include in the lead about popular culture, first revelation of Quran, since when Ramadn fasting is declared obligatory, the first battle of Islam which was fought in this month, etc. Involving in who is supposed to and who is not will complicate the lead. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mention that it is the month of fasting is important. Criteria for such fasting is additional explanatory information that can wait for the body of the article. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Darryl from Mars summed it up concisely. In addition, Ramadan is the most famous consecutive-numbered-days-of-fasting in the world, and has been so for over 1400 years. Therefore, this unique context, warrants a brief mention of such info, one might argue. If we can just semi-protect the page from overzealous newbies, unfamiliar with the best practices of wikipedia editting, then as-is, the section poses no problems, I argue. Thanks, 16:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckLava (talkcontribs)
  • Support It is entirely appropriate. It is short, neutral and expanded upon later in the article. It does not overload the lead with superfluous detail. Remember that some readers will only read the lead to get an overview of the topic and will only visit the detailed sections if they are interested enough. Jschnur (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment John Carter you seem to have created your own Catch-22 because the lead will never be a more comprehensive summary of the contents without this inclusion. Jschnur (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, pardon me for saying that I think that is misleading. My point was that there are seven existing subsections of the article, and at present two paragraphs of lead. It is not necessarily problematic to say that the seven sections could be expanded to perhaps five paragraphs with the inclusion of the major points of each. And, honestly, if one reads the comments below about how it is problematic to apply these standards in polar zones and elsewhere, inclusion of this information without the necessary qualifiers is itself problematic. So, yes, expand to five paragraphs possibly, ensuring that the essential data of each of the seven sections is included first. Then determine on that basis where and how in the lead to include information of this type, which needs some qualification regarding how it is applied in various regions, and whether the necessary text to present that clearly and completely might be excessive, even for a fully developed lead. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: For those opposed, what is your opinion of this page's structure: Yom Kippur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckLava (talkcontribs) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The content of other articles is not necessarily a guide for the content in this article. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Debresser: that it involves fasting, yes; how the shariah details who is and isn't to fast, no. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It is entirely appropriate as per comment by Jschnur above; ditto comments by BuckLava; in the Interfaith movement, Ramadan is principally perceived as a time of fasting and community meals when the fast is broken. Whiteguru (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - the fact that it is obligatory is sufficiently relevant to rate a mention in the lede, and thus the criteria/exceptions for the obligation are also relevant to mention. The proposed wording is brief, to the point, and appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Can someone show me anywhere on this page where this idea has already been discussed? I see no evidence of any such discussion regarding this subject on the talk page here at all. In general, we are supposed to try to see if the parties involved can reach some sort of agreement first, before calling in others. I see no evidence of that here, and I think it is generally considered poor form to not try to reach an agreement before calling in outside parties. On that basis, I have to question the basis for this RfC, without any sort of prior discussion on the talk page here. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is discussed :under the heading "section" Pass a Method talk 11:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You are right, and you have my apologies. I compliment you in this instance, and retract the comment above. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a somewhat difficult question as what "fasting" means goes beyond the three things mentioned in the lead. Among the things prohibited while fasting is smoking, which isnt mentioned at all. And, depending on how strict you might be, some consider things like swearing to also break ones fast. Im not really sure where I stand on the question of how much detail on the actual fast is necessary in the lead. But the way it is currently constructed makes it seem like those are the three things observant Muslims abstain from while fasting. That isnt accurate. nableezy - 20:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


After all these years, this page is open to vandalism? Are you kidding me? This page should be granted semi-protection status.

As a word, Ramadan is commonly known today, around the world as one associated with the month when Muslims fast. It's prominence is entirely due to the growth and presence of observing Muslims among the 1.5 billion+ community today from the few hundreds back in the 7th century. It is one of the Pillars of Islam. It should not be subject to anonymous vandalism for even a moment.

Therefore, I propose it be granted "semi-protection" status.

So how do we go about making that happen?

Thanks! BuckLava (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No page is "granted" protected status (of whatever level). If we have to protect a page, that is not considered a bone. We protect articles only because of vandalism, and consider that a loss. Because we on Wikipedia would like everybody to be able to freely edit Wikipedia articles. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the policy, Wikipedia:Protection policy. This article gets little vandalism and there is no way it is going to be protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arctic circle, etc.[edit]

So, if a Muslim moves to Nome, AK, do they just starve to death?

This is a serious question that some prejudiced person just decided to delete as an "unworthy comment" -- it's a bloody question. The article addresses situations wherein someone is sick, menstruating, etc, but not one in which it is simple impractical to observe. At a certain latitude, the sun will not set during all of Ramadan. This would seem to make it impossible to observe, or alternately could be taken as a general rule that if one is to follow the tenets of Islam, one must not move to, for instance, Nome, Alaska.

Do not delete this with prejudice. Asking a question is NOT an "unworthy comment" and how dare anyone suggest it is? (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions are best asked at the WP:Reference desk, but no, an observant Muslim would not starve to death if he or she lived in such a place. Different sources say different things, but all of them (that I have seen) agree that a person who is in a place where the sun does not set should follow the schedule of another location (I've seen a source saying to follow the fajr/maghrib schedule of Mecca, and I've seen a source say to follow the schedule of the closest place where the sun does set). nableezy - 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
IP editor, please cool down a little. The question was added by the same editor who wrote "You all need to be tolerant of everyone, even people who think you should be dead." and right behind it. Therefore it was removed. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP brings up a reasonable point about how the fast has to, at times, be interpreted given unusual circumstances. I presume the same question would apply to a Muslim astronaut.This is one of the reasons I think it makes sense to not add an unqualified description of the nature of the fast in the lead, because adding it would give the impression that it would apply in these cases, and that would be counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a news report on this the other day but it's behind a paywall. Basically the guy was living in Yellowknife and said that some people follow the hours used in Mecca, while others used the times from Edmonton. There is another report on it here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

'jews waited to unlettered prophet'[edit]

In the section about the 'origin of the ramadan' it was mentioned that the jews who migrated to madina waited to an 'unlettered prophet' (obviously implying Muhammad pbuh). The source for this statment is the Hadith. This is clearly POV, since the Hadith is clearly a bias source on this matter since Muhammad was 'unlettered' so it is pretty clear comes to gives him more legitimacy as a prophet. If there is no other information supporting this statment I dont see a reason to leave it there. Also, it has nothing to do to the subject of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would Jews await a prophet, let alone an unlettered one? Debresser (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hadith is not a bias source, it is a source just like the Qur'an for Islamic beliefs, you should have left it, your bias is obvious. It does not matter why Jews would await a Prophet who is unlettered, just that someone can prove that Muslims do actually believe it, i.e. it is an Islamic belief (hich they do per the Hadith and sections of the Qur'an). It's clear you don't believe that because your Jewish, but the point of this article is Islamic Beliefs not Jewish ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Hadith is about as neutral as the Pope is when it comes to Catholicism. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


Per TParis's statement above, input on the specific wording of the paragraph is welcome. Pass a Method talk 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What paragraph is this comment referring to? Debresser (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Either the first or second. Pass a Method talk 18:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If this note is related to any of the sections above, please place it there. Otherwise, it is completely unclear what your are talking about with this post. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research in Pre-Islamic observation of Ramadan sections[edit]

"Abdel Allah ibn Zakwan Abi al-Zanad claims that Ramadan originally had roots in India and the Middle East. He said that it is evident from Abu Zanad writings, that Ramadan was a pagan ceremony practiced by the Sabians, whether they were Mandaeans or Harranians."

I find this additions to be of original research , to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source (According to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines) .

see Extended content:

it should be noted that an adversary Web sites to Islam ( Runned by an organization with an adversary goal ) is not a reliable sources (including its books , authors , unless supported by a reliable source .

Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources see Extended content:

Tommy symbol (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

1328101993 Rename.png Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on AbrahamIbrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible ambiguity[edit]

The third paragraph in the "Fasting" section seems ambiguous to me. I think it's saying two things: that some children fast, even though they're not yet required to do so; and that adults who are, for some reason, unable to fast, are supposed to make up the deficit later.

Should this be broken into two separate paragraphs for clarity, or not?

Mhagerman (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And since the second paragraph mentions these very same categories, I have reordered both. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the "A Month of Opportunity" section be deleted?[edit]

The Universality of Ramadan
Around the globe, as they have done for centuries, Christians and Jews choose to fast alongside Muslims during the month of Ramadan. Ramadan presents humanity with a unique, month-long opportunity for today's Jews, Christians, and Muslims to come together not solely for the sake of solidarity, but to better serve their Creator and each other with love, promoting peace in their communities and around the world. The month of Ramadan is an opportunity to unite and thank God for the gift of revealed scriptures that make up the Torah, Bible, and Quran.
The prophets of Judaism and Christianity are indeed the prophets of Islam and all belong to one family tree, starting with Adam and ending with the final messenger to humankind, Mohammed. The scriptures were revealed by the angel Gabriel to all of God's messengers during the 9th lunar month, Ramadan.
Muslims believe the Quran to be the re-confirmation and clarification of God's divine guidance and direction for humanity revealed through the various prophets and their scriptures. The Quran states that Islam is not a new religion. Islam ("version 1.2") is simply an upgrade to Christianity, just as Christianity ("version 1.1") is an upgrade to Judaism ("version 1.0").
Scriptures Revealed by the Angel Gabriel During Ramadan, the 9th Lunar Month
Week 1: The messages revealed in the first week of Ramadan over the course of history included those revealed to Adam, regarded in Islam as the first prophet, and continued with the Scrolls of Abraham (Islam) (Suhuf Ibrahim) and the Torah or Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible);
Week 2 and Week 3: The Psalms of David and The Gospel of Jesus (Islam) were revealed
Week 4: The compilation of the first 3 weeks of scriptures known collectively as the Quran was verbally revealed through angel Gabriel from God to Muhammad during the last week of Ramadan gradually over a period of approximately 23 years, beginning in 609 CE, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death. The Quran is viewed by Muslims as God's final revelation to humanity, containing the solutions to all the problems of all of humanity for all times. Many stories of the prophets found in the Bible are presented with rich detail in the Quran. For example, Chapter 19 is titled Mary ('Maryam" in the Arabic language), and provides details of the birth of Jesus Christ that is not present in any of today's Bible translations.
Fasting was ordained in the Quran, as well as in divine messages given to Jews and Christians prior to the Quran, although the particular fasting rules may not be identical. Fasting the month of Ramadan in Islam is done by eating an early breakfast, skipping lunch, and eating dinner at sunset. Increased prayer, giving charity Alms giving to the poor, and being on one's best behavior while temporarily abstaining from food, drink, and sexual relations during a number of hours during the day, for one month of the year, one feels the hunger and thirst of those in need, the closeness of God, and develops self-control of human greed for food, drink, sex, wealth, and power.
Ramadan is a time of unique opportunity for today's Jews, Christians, and Muslims to come together to express gratitude to God for the gift of the revealed scriptures that make up the Torah, Bible, and Quran -- and together find solutions to end obesity, addiction, oppression, poverty, world hunger and violence in their own communities and around the world.

A user has added the above uncited section. This section seems to be a personal point of view. I think it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not meant to be forum for personal points of view or a soapbox for individuals to attach their personal views to articles, and it is not a place for publishing original research.

I have no idea whether there are a few Jews and Christians who celebrate Ramadan; but if there are, they are a minority. Even if someone could find some citations to show that such people existed, we should beware of giving undue weight to them.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1. I already removed this crap once, and just now did it again. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No, this should not be deleted. I posted this information and it is factual. It is not personal opinion, and it is certainly not original research. The information is so very basic and the source is the Quran. I have linked to the other wiki sites throughout. Specifically, Surah Baqara (Chapter 2), one can read and verify all that is written.
If you believe the Quran's call to action behind Ramadan is "crap", to bring the human family together for the common good, and if you don't know that this is such basic information on Ramadan that is universally known by all who have read the Quran and commemorate Ramadan, I question your intentions as to why you keep "trolling" over the Ramadan wiki and deleting all of the historical edits on this post.
Both of you who keep deleting my postings have a retaliatory history with many other people posting on wiki.
Please be specific with the content that you would like sourced and I will add them. If you delete again, we can peacefully resolve it at the next level according to Wiki guidelines. Peace & Blessings. IslamIsSimplyAnUpgrade (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2013‎
The Koran is a religious primary source. So anything whose only source is the Koran is original research. For Wikipedia you need reliable secondary sources. The section has no citations whatsoever for any of the statements in it.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any secondary sources on any thing in the Ramadan article. Give an example of a secondary source found. Why are you editing the Ramadan page if you do not use the Quran as the only source of information? Spelling Quran with a K (Koran) gives you away. You and degresser do not have good intentions and you are both destroying the whole idea of WIKI because you are afraid of that people will know the truth, that Islam is simply an upgrade and attacking Islam is the same as attacking Christianity and Judaism. We all follow the same 10 commandments and worship God, the Creator of all. Intriguing. How sad that people like you will be the end of WIKI. Soon it will just become fiction, just something fun to read for entertainment when bored until it ends up in the Internet archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslamIsSimplyAnUpgrade (talkcontribs) 16:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
About half the sources cited in the article are secondary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Law and restrictions in Ramadan[edit]

Legal issues in Ramadan need to be covered more fairly and without undue weight. For example, while many Muslim-majority countries penalize eating publicly in Ramadan, some countries, like China, try to restrict Ramadan fasting.[4] Additionally, because Ramadan is widely practiced, it would be undue wieght to give prominence to single incidents.Bless sins (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, judicial practice especially if there is no room for appeal ought to be very clear. Even if it appears abusive or exceptional. Hence the DM reference on Iran on 6 non fasters. Whole pages are dedicated to singular examples of judicial severity, it's perfectly appropriate to allude to these in passing here.Pcrobertson (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Pcrobertson. That notwithstanding I think that if the claim that some countries try to restrict Ramadan fasting is true, then that is very noteworthy as well. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ramadan in 2014[edit]

In a recent edit the predicted dates for Ramadan in 2014 in the top-right infobox were changed. Although the original dates were incomplete (citing only the start of Ramadan in the Umm al-Qura calendar) it did link to an Islamic calendar site. The infobox now links to what appears to be a Hindu calendar site which seems to be inappropriate as the Hindu lunar calendar and the Islamic calendar are computed/determined by different rules. Nor does it reflect the fact that the begin and end dates of Ramadan depend on the sighting of the lunar crescent. AstroLynx (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Both Hindu and Islamic calenders are lunar and fortunately there is only one moon that shines on Earth as of date. The crescent is hence seen on same day to all people irrespective of their religions. I have no objection to changing the reference from Kalnirnay to any other Islamic calender. But currently written dates (29 June, Sunday – 29 July, Tuesday) would most likely remain same. The previous reference is neither Islamic nor a calender. And "Nor does it reflect the fact that the begin and end dates of Ramadan depend on the sighting of the lunar crescent" because thats whats its not meant for. Those dates are supposed to mention days per Gregorian calender and not per any lunar calender. The fact that the observance is per moon's sighting is mentioned in the article and infobox is no place for that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the first editor, that an Islamic website is more logical here. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

'Swearing' Forbidden?[edit]

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the second paragraph of the article, where it is claimed that some interpreters proscribe Muslims from swearing. However, I would also prefer some clarification as to what sort of "swearing" is prohibited. In English, "swearing" properly means "taking an oath" in this case a vain one (e.g. "Oh God!" as a non-religious exclamation). Yet, by extension the English term tends to be used also for vulgarity in general (such as terms for biological waste or copulation). Which is meant here? Anthrakeus (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Murder rates[edit]

A short referenced section about murde rates increasing in Turkey in early Ramadan was removed with the explanation, 'wrong section', the 'correct section' was not identified and the piece was not replaced. I await clarity and have reinserted the section.Cpsoper (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Murder Rates -- Correlation to Ramadan?[edit]

Entire section is based on data collected by coincidence, It has no ties to actual Ramadan (even the article says there is no official link) only that maybe these crimes happen in the same month. There needs to be a solid connection, like with health across the board to make it notable. Can we add a section called Rock Landings from the moon in Ramadan based on two article? I dont feel the section offers anything. Even the Turkish newspaper talks about murder in general on the rise in the last 6 months.--Inayity (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The title of the second article is 'Crime rates increase in Ramadan', the subtitle of the first article says, 'Murders increase in Ramadan'. The 'rock landings' analogy (whatever that means exactly) is inapt. It was the author's intention to draw a link between the crime/murder rate and the month in all three references. As to the issue of a strict statistical correlation that is not directly pertinent to the validity of these reports, they are newspaper reports and no statistical claim is made. The section is appropriately encyclopaedic and should be included.Cpsoper (talk)
The criteria for Wikipedia is not because one or two random opinion articles mentioning it. Per WP:WEIGHT it has to be significant a correlation to deserve mention. Backed up by RS aka academic research to be valid entry. so statistical correlation is necessary for such claims. Pregnancy declines during Ramadan, Weight increases during Ramadan, Road Fatalities may drop, all kinds of things happen according to someone somewhere. To cite Turkey and one other place fails to represent the 1.5 billion people who observe Ramadan.(the theme of this article) Just because something is a news item does not make it WP:NOTABLE--Inayity (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a different argument from your first, and, I grant, a better made one. Much of Wiki relies on RS news sources for weight and notability, not academic papers. However there is an academic source linking crime and Ramadan, so I will see if I can rephrase this section.Cpsoper (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And it must be a worldview, not Turkey or one other country. Because then it belongs under Holidays and Turkey or somewhere like that. There must be a direct relationship between Ramadan and Crime rising. Personally I would be shocked to find any rise in crime during Ramadan as some peculiar phenomenon of fasting and praying. It does not seem notable for inclusion in this article and per WP:WEIGHT would need multiple sources to prove it is not just a fringe study.--Inayity (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong. Even a local event, which is related to Ramadan, can be mentioned. There is no rule saying otherwise. Also, WP:WEIGHT does not specify there has to be more than 1 study. WP:WEIGHT means that is there are 10 studies saying one thing, and 1 study saying the opposite, and it is not otherwise relevant, then you should consider not to mention the 1 study. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Avoid having a debate of "You are wrong" I see no merit in it. It fails WP:WEIGHT, it is has no notable correlation. Weight also means in an article on Ramadan you mention something which causes an undue focus on something non-notable. It causes the the non-issue of crime in ramadan to become more significant than it actually is. That is WEIGHt. --Inayity (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As a 5-year+ active editor on Wikipedia, I am helping you by explaining the Wikipedia policies and guidelines involved. I am most definitely not having a "I am right and you are wrong" debate with you. I don't care much for the paragraph in question myself, just wanted to explain that you presented the pertaining Wikipedia guidelines incorrectly. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Been editing wiki much longer than 5 years do you want me to quote WP:WEIGHT?--Inayity (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Weight. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. By discussing Crime rises in Ramadan it causes the reader to take this non-issue with no serious worldview of Ramadan as something notable, factual, it is unbalanced. It gives focus on something deserving no special focus. --Inayity (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand WP:WEIGHT both here and in the next section. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There are also reports from Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, as well as other locally reported accounts from Indonesia and in which the director of Jakarta Police’s General Crime Unit, Sr. Comr.Muhammad Iriawan called on Jakarta residents to be alert as crimes tended to increase during the fasting month of Ramadan'. This is not just a local report, nor is it a coincidental finding with Ramadan. In Algeria's case the findings were:

Commissariats de police (06 points enquêtés) - Petites délinquances : +220% - Rixes, disputes, voie de fait, agressions : + 320% - Femmes et enfants battus au sein du foyer durant Ramadhan: +120% - Dépôts de plaintes : +40% - Délits pour vente et consommation de drogues et autres stupéfiants : +96% - Vols de voitures, escroqueries, faux et usages de faux : +180%. Brigades de gendarmerie (05 points enquêtés) - Accidents de la circulation : +52% - Rixes et troubles à l'ordre public : +320% - Femmes et enfants battus au sein du foyer durant Ramadhan: +72% - Accidents professionnels graves, incendies: +20% - Agressions physique avec coups et blessures, voie de fait : +160% - Vols et escroqueries : +42%Cpsoper (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What I am looking for is an Academic study of stats by experts on stats which shows a direct relationship between the Muslim (a World Population) and rise in crime. As stated before Muslims are 1/5th of the planets population, if there is such a correlation I am pretty sure it should be easily represented in academic journals. I mean if the criteria for health stats requires academic sources, then crime stats also need academic sources not WP:CHERRY--Inayity (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate use of the criterion to filter all inclusions. Was the head of Police in Jakarta 'Cherry-picking' when he made the statements above? Nevertheless, as I wrote before there is some academic work, and I will allude to this.Cpsoper (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
YOu are cherry picking, It is very easy to google through the entire web and combine anything to make any point. Increase in pregnancy during ramadan, rise in sun stroke during Ramadan it is not scholarship. It is cherrypicking non academic sources to build a case. If notable then surely scholars did stats on something so Important to be included. And per wikipedia if it is not seriously covered elsewhere, Al-Jazerra etc, then why is it important here?
Excuse me, the question I asked was, 'Was the head of Police in Jakarta 'Cherry-picking...'? There are a multitude of testimonies in different locations to a considerable rise in crime rates, including murder, in Ramadan from local RS newspapers. This is noteworthy, but we can ask for third party opinion if you prefer. I will allude to the stats in my contribution.Cpsoper (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Review WP:SYNTH What you need is an academic who makes the connection, not random articles googled from across the known Universe. Does crime rise in the USA, UK, TnT, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan. What about War and Ramadan, do more wars happen in Ramadan, where is the criteria for saying why add one thing and not the other. ? --Inayity (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Cpsoper, perhaps you could add the sources you brought above to the article, if they are reliable? Debresser (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Inayity What you call "cherry picking" is actually no more than gathering sources on an issue. An issue that you might have personal reasons to want to keep under the radar. You radiate WP:LIKE! 20:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If someone suggested that there was health concerns during ramadan and I found 10 papers on it (as I can find), then that research is valid. Original research is making general conclusions about a Islamic Month based on picking a report from Turkey for 2014, a report from Mars from 1992 and putting them together to make a statement about Rising Crime. So if it was about me liking stuff, I would have a lot more objections, but I go with solid research not what I like. --Inayity (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is making any general conclusion: just saying what the source says. What you describe is WP:SYNTHESIS, but that is also not the case here. There are simply 2 sources that say the same thing. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, have reedited and reworked the section and called for outside comment.Cpsoper (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on crime rate in Ramadan[edit]

1.Are references to reports of both crime rates rising or falling during Ramadan appropriate to this page?
2.If so, are statistical analyses necessary to justify inclusion? Cpsoper (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not put back information in discussion before you get comments from un-involved neutral editors. It is not productive, i have already told you, you need academic sources that specifically discuss Crime and Ramadan not a collation of articles from across the globe with a plethora of crimes to put under one heading. --Inayity (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please clarify this statement? Does it refer to here or the article in question? If the latter, I have sought to explain in detail above why the insertion is justified, it is comment on this section that is requested. At your request, it now includes reference to two academic studies, and four references include detailed statistics. The concerns raised about weight, notability and cherry picking seem insufficient to me and another editor, nor have I cited conclusions which are not already explicit in the sources themselves, as already stated above, but am content to weigh other judicious editorial opinion. If on the other, the comment refers to this page, as its syntax indicates, I am mystified at its purpose - the whole point of requesting comment is dialectic, and as you know the simple neutral questions above are part of the stipulation for WP:RFC.Cpsoper (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
News articles are perfectly acceptable sources. No academic sources are needed. Do not try to censor Wikipedia with unreasonable demands that are not back up by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Such a section can't be based on singular incidents or what was observed in simply one year. News articles are acceptable sources, but they actually have to make a claim about a general trend of crime rise or drop during Ramadan. Simply saying "this year has seen a sharp rise/decrease in crime..." is not noteworthy enough to merit inclusion as crime rates fluctuate from year to year.Bless sins (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I would think that a reference to "Crime rates are noticeably lower on average in Muslim countries X, Y and Z during Ramadan" or something like that would be relevant. Anecdotes or individual instances would not be satisfactory. Red Slash 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That would contradict several of the sources indicating habitually higher crime rates not anecdotal incidences in Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen. Do you have other sources. Evidence indicating the primary religious motivation of many of the sources suggesting a reduction has recently been edited out of this section.Cpsoper (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hajj and Health[edit]

We need to stop connecting things. Infectious disease and Ramadan? No, it is one guy talking about Hajj or travel to Mecca. The word Ramadan occurs only TWICE in the entire article. Twice for such a huge statement. In addition it is not an academic paper, but a very general casual relationship which goes on to mention other holidays where a lot of people come together. none of this fits the definition of Ramadan apart from the casual slight rise in pilgrimage. It is one source with an entire section. --Inayity (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

1. This "guy" is scientist at the World Health Organization, and from what I see on the web, he is a recognized expert in the field. 2. Ramadan is mentioned there specifically in connection to this health issue. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The primary mention is HAJJ, or trips to Mecca. Trips to Mecca or the Holy Sites is not a condition of Ramadan. And again, this one source for a section is a problem. Use talk page before reinserting disputed content. Two minor mentions in an interview is not Notable enough for an entire section esp when it talks about one country. Where is the criteria for inclusion,?
You can not remove sourced information just like that! Primary issue or not, the Ramadan is mentioned in a reliable source, and you can not remove the info without violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you will try to do so regardless, you will be reverted by me and countless other editors, and eventually banned from the article, the subject area or Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to revert but Let us discuss. Have you actually read that article? And read what this wikipedia section says? I just read the section which is a gross misquoting of the sources. I will leave you to read it and get back to me. Are you predicting the future to me about what will happen if I revert something? Where is these rules coming from. Please i have been on Wikipedia for a while now try that nonsense on a newbie. Banned from article because of what? Where is it written just because you have a ref you cannot delete content? Please just explain that and focus on some solid rationale and leave the nonsense threats out of the TK page. And speak for yourself not other editors. --Inayity (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to be hostile. I was just describing what happened to tons of editors who decide to ignore the rules and go on a crusade for what they thing is the right thing to do . I resolved the 2 issues that you correctly marked in the paragraph, synthesis and failed verification, but the "one source" issue is not a valid issue for a one-sentence paragraph. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for that tone on Wikipedia, you discuss the article not the editor who has violated no rules. People try and out Wikipedia people but I was part of the debate when Wikipedia was re-structuring WP:WEIGHT so I know a thing or two about it. The sentence still fails per WEIGHT, why is this piece of information needed in this article. The article itself says it is very rare, Rationale needed to keep.--Inayity (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The article gives a few examples, and does not say it is rare. I strongly disagree with you assessment that this information fails WP:WEIGHT, and suggest you turn to somebody for help in explaining WP:WEIGHT to you. The issue of WP:WEIGHT is not even relevant to your arguments, which reek of WP:LIKE. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There you go again with that silly tone. Let me repeat when Wikipedia was discussing WEIGHT I contributed to that Before you were ever here. Do not lecture me on what I need to do. You have this empty habit of playground arguing, pLease Try and be specific in your rationale. What that means in grown up language. Is cite the policy that we are discussing, do not offer you opinion of it. Cite the exact phrase in WP Weight i have missed, I already quoted it for you. And stop bending wikipedia to cover for your poor understanding of policy. --Inayity (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Your posts are not pleasant, you know that? May I remind you of WP:NPA. In addition, your first edit is from 2012, while I am around over 5 years, so your claim that "I contributed to that before you were ever here" is clearly untrue. May I also remind you that I am by no means obligated to prove you wrong. It is enough that you are wrong. To help you along in the right direction: WP:WEIGHT concerns the proportionate reflection of opinions regarding the issue at hand. There are NO opinions that Ramadan and Hajj are events which help prevent the spread of infectious diseases or can not possibly be connected to the spread of such. Therefore the issue of reflection of opinions does not even begin, as there ARE no other opinions. Nor can there be, since logic dictates the truth of the statements made in the article, apart from the fact that they are sourced to a WHO scientist. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we can read your comments and your total condescending tone with off topic personal remarks. Why is the opinion there. What is Wikipedia a collection of every opinion ever made on Ramadan? So what is the criteria for inclusion. If only one person is making it then why is it important to understanding Ramadan. What about the million other opinions. Your previous post reveal a problem in understanding, a problem is reading sources (yet reverting me saying I gave no rationale) finally you went and changed the problem. Now you are boxed in, DId you miss the quotation from WEIGHT? Or should I return you to it again. --Inayity (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You clearly do not understand what I explained to you. Which is what I expected from the beginning, and why I recommended you to ask somebody else. There are no "million other opinions", so WP:WEIGHT is not a factor here. Please do not reply to this post before you ask somebody else to help you understand the issue. I apologize for being condescending. I have that problem with people who show from the beginning they do not understand the issue at hand at all. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Now you telling me what to do on Wikipedia? I have a problem with arrogant editors who get boxed in and cannot admit there error. To date you had to go and change the text I objected to, WHY? Why am I discussing this with you anyway? --Inayity (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS? Debresser (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Then request for opinions on the Islamic or Religious noticeboard, why keep the debate private?
This is the talkpage of a heavily edited article. What is private about this location? Why go WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Debresser (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Better Source Needed in Benefits Sections[edit]

I see a challenge has been raised to every statement (with Ref) on the section on Health Benefits. Its is funny the criteria for negative stuff is different from the criteria for positive stuff. Anyway, What is the problem with the sources given? I understand that one is not an academic source but NHS is pretty qualified to make such statements. Do we need a academic source when it is a medical body like the NHS? Also this book was tagged but here is its sources Multicultural Health--Inayity (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with Inayity that the NHS is a reliable source. Please see their editorial policy. I am comfortable with removing the betters source needed template where NHS is given as a source. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed.[5] Bless sins (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

world health authorities consider Ramadan, along with the Hajj, a "mass event"[edit]

Is the above statement true, is that what the article says? Does it say Ramadan is a Mass event? nonsense. Also to show it is a non-notable occurrence so rare that does not meet criteria of inclusion even the author states: To date, only limited, non-sustained human-to-human transmission of MERS-CoV has been observed.So why does it have this priority in an article which is discussing a month of fasting? I put this as a sep section to draw focus to what the talk page is supposed to be used for. Not discussing how long we have been editing or who will get blocked.--Inayity (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And it is so important then why is it not in the Hajj article? Ramadan does not cause the exposure to any disease per the site, it is the mass event of people gathering in Mecca during peak season. has nothing directly to do with Ramadan as defined in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The connection with Ramadan is explicitly in the article. Regarding Hajj, since you insist, I will add the same paragraph to the Hajj article as well. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Virgin Atlantic takes people to the Caribbean, who later get sun burn. Sure there is a relationship but it is not an EXPLICIT relationship. It is not notable for inclusion since it is not a wide concern, it is not covered by enough sources to make it topical. It shows a sub-low popularity as an issue in Google Search, it is not central to any debate around Ramadan. --Inayity (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The connection need not be causal, but it exists and is sourced. Therefore it can be mentioned here. The issue does not have to be widely debated to be notable; this article is debate enough. Regarding Google search, please see Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Every Health benefit and Health concern needs to be from primary source such as medical journal based on true medical studies, trial and experiments or claims must be deleted[edit]

In medicine, we have to use primary source such as medical journal based on true medical studies, trials or experiments to make a health claim. If it is not backed by true medical studies, it should be deleted. Most of the medical benefit claims are from this Yahpp article: This is not a reliable source. I could not find some of the studies this article talked about. Tarikur (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Signalling a link to an unreliable external website[edit]

The currently uppermost external link Ramadan Dates Till 2022 claims to give dates for the begin of Ramadan from 2013 up to 2022. However, from 2016 onwards the same dates Wednesday 10 June or Thursday 11 July are given which is obviously wrong. Both dates should be a day apart, not a whole month, and they should also fall 10 or 11 days earlier in each successive year. The dates for 2013 are also clearly wrong.

I flagged this error yesterday but this note was removed by someone who obviously did not bother to check the facts. As this link will confuse readers who are not familiar with the Islamic lunar calemdar I would strongly recommend its deletion or least flag it as unreliable. AstroLynx (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Debresser, you reverted an IP. However the information is not in the source cited. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it as an unexplained removal. I never said it was in that source. That source is for the sentence after that. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I do see at least the first half of the sentence in this source: Rodney Stark. One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism.