Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Islam-related articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 8 9 15 33 FL 1 1 2 FM 17 17 A 1 1 GA 6 13 39 79 13 150 B 72 97 232 410 88 899 C 109 144 415 1,540 1 278 2,487 Start 42 88 449 3,530 1 894 5,004 Stub 8 11 204 2,956 773 3,952 List 1 12 114 180 3 35 345 Category 1 1 5,444 5,446 Disambig 1 3 122 1 127 File 2 43 45 Portal 330 330 Project 113 113 Redirect 6 16 46 149 651 868 Template 1 478 479 NA 2 4 6 Other 1 106 107 Assessed 246 391 1,513 8,866 7,313 2,082 20,411 Unassessed 1 1 28 630 660 Total 246 392 1,514 8,894 7,313 2,712 21,071 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 61,678 Ω = 4.92

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:17, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Translation for the article Mosque of Uqba

Hi, Mosque of Uqba or Great Mosque of Kairouan is one of the best preserved and oldest monuments (mosques) in Islamic civilization. It is also a great masterpiece of architecture. The french version "Grande mosquée de Kairouan" is a featured article (in french Article de qualité). It would be very interesting to translate the french article. I can help for the architectural terms. Cordially Quincy2010 (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2010 (CET)

Can anyone rescue these articles?

We have a new editor, just blocked, who has created some problem articles:

Jafar Al Khadhab (one problem is his actual name, is it "Ja'far ibn Ali"?, sources are another).

Sarjoon is about someone called Sarjoon ibn Mansur and may be entirely copyvio. Is this this person? [1].

John ibn Jowey, maybe all copyvio also. If they are copyvio they may be deleted as they are so short and sources seem hard to find. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Admin deleted the ones red-linked above, so the only problem now is the first article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wikified the Jafar Al Khadhab article, but unfortunately I was late for the other two.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Further improved the Jafar article, but it needs better refs. He appears to get some academic coverage though: "Hasan's brother, Ja'far, has received noteworthy attention"[2]. Is this the guy that the Jaffariya sect is based on? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Matthew, you are right, the article needs better references and in incoming days I will try to add more (now I am a bit busy). He is not the man who established the Jafari sect. There were two Jafars among Hashemite descendant of early Islam (to be more specific among Muhammad's descendant through her daughter Fatima): Jafar al-Sadiq means Jafar the truthful (6th Imam and founder of Jafari or Twelver sect) and Jafar al-Kadhab means Jafar the liar. The adjectives truthful and liar are based on Muhammad's prediction that two of his descendant in the name of Jafar would claim Imamate, one is truthful and one is liar.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar problem, I think in the same family

Here's another fellow who I think is in the same Jafar imamate lineage; the article seems hugely POV though, taking a stance on the person rather than describing: Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Aftah. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I heard this name. Abdullah al-Aftah died few months after his father without any descendant and his followers joint Musa al-Kadhim. Heinz Halm in his book Shi'im has described this (See page 29 and 162 [3]). I suggest to nominate it for deletion.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had to read it a couple times to make sense of it, but it appears to state that a faction, the "Fathites", believed Abdullah al-Aftah had a son, which is not believed by anyone else. I've reorganised the article to make it more legible, and also copied some content to create Fathite to explain the existence of this group. EDIT: looked them up by another spelling on GoogleBooks, turns out that they briefly followed Abdullah before coming over to Kadhim's camp, and that a small faction of them claimed that al-Aftah had a son and had not died without issue, but apparently they about all eventually got on-board with Musa al-Kadhim. Still worth noting as a historical breakaway sect, however brief. Added references to Fathite to make it an okay start. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

AH year articles

Note, many AH year articles are being deleted. See PROD. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeemlingly all such articles are being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/320 AH . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Title selection for articles on Islamic prophets

Many of Islamic prophets are known by different names in biblical background. There exist main articles on these prophets with name known by the biblical background. There are also article of these prophets with Islamic prospective, but here also title is named by only Biblical names and Real Islamic name is not at all mentioned. Now think once a title has been allocated on biblical familiar name of a personality, the second article on the same personality on Islamic background should have mention name of Islamic context, when both biblical name and Islamic name exist in English reliable sources as common name.

Names are personnel noun and no names are called to be English or Arabic. The names are just names still Biblical names are only considered for the title. For the title selection Wiki has a policy and definite guidelines are framed for title selection. ‘Most common name in English’ is one of guideline, but it has been treated by some as only guideline overruling major criteria of ‘recognizability/familiarity’. The article on ‘Isa’ is named as ‘Jesus in Islam’which needs further analysis.The name Isa should come in the title. There is lengthy discussion in talk page of this article, but the issue was turned down on the single logic of ‘Most common English name’, all other logic placed are not accepted in absence of consensus. Somebody has suggested bring the issue here.

Hence I want to discuss the issue again here .A questionnaire was prepared on the subject, interested may answer so that we can know what is consensus on this platform. Title selection Policy is also described in brief here followed by questionnaire:

‘Wiki Policy:'

Wikipedia:Article titles

This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. ‘’’The principal criteria’’’ used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:

“Recognizability –

an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject”. + 'Naturalness'...+Precision...+Conciseness...+ Consistency.. Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice.

Further Wiki guide line to above points

Common names:

1.‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.’

2. ‘When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above’.” Now point by point analysis is done .I request all the contributors to answer each question in yes or No only.

Questionare:

Q.1- Is the policy guideline taken above from Wiki policy is ok to decide on title ?

Q.2-Should be the ‘main criteria’ listed above to be main guiding factor?

Q.3.Is Recognizability, + 'Naturalness'...+Precision...+Conciseness...+ Consistency.. are main criteria?

Q.4- Recognizabilty is listed first in main criteria have lot importance ?

Q.5 ‘An ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject’ describe ‘ recognizibility’.Yes or No?

Q.6 Hence title should; ‘confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic’.Yes or No?

Q.7 One aspect of recognizibilty(Q.5) is ‘use of common english name’ . It is one of ‘important aspect’, but ‘principal criteria’ is fulfiling ‘recognizibility’.Yes or No?

Q.8.Title to be selected on ‘principal criteria’ of ‘recognizibility’ and ‘When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above’.Yes or No?

Q.9.Hence the ‘other criteria identified above’ namely 'Naturalness'...+Precision...+Conciseness...+ Consistency..’ are the ‘main criteria’ which have lower order preference than ‘‘recognizibility’ ,but will guide further in judging common name.Yes or No?

Q.10 In matter above, policy has asked for at least a ‘single obvious common name in english’.Yes or No?

Q.11.There is policy guideline available for ‘common name’ which guide further in case of common name vs.Title, which says that ‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.’ .Yes or No?

Q.12 ‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer the subject.’As per policy above. Hence’ most common name’ is not compulsory .Yes or No?

Q.13 ‘Recognizibility’ is ‘main criteria’ deciding title and not ‘the name most commonly used’.Yes or No?

Q.13 (a). Hence an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. Common name in English would be acceptable . If in dispute most common name and then other criteria to be referred.Yes or No? Now on the specific case of article “Jesus in Islam’;

Q.14 Type of article= Biography of Religious person related of specific religion Islam.,Yes or No?

Q.15; Detail of person: One of prophet of Islam, known by the name

Amongst Islam ;First name :Isa(known to all,even to less educated English reader)), Second name :Jesus etc. ( only known to well educated )

Amongst Christianity and others ; Jesus,Yeshu etc.etc.( some of them also know him as Isa)

Yes or No?

Q.16;Most person ‘who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic’ are follower of (directly concerned with) topic, hence follower (directly concerned with) of religion of the topic. Yes or No?

Q.17;Concerned Religion of the topic is Islam,Yes or No?

Q.18 Hence Most familiar person ( ‘who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic’) are follower (directly concerned with topic) of Islam.

Q.19 Population of these most familiar person are 1.8 billion. Even lowest literacy of 53 % , 1.0 billion most familiar English readers. Yes or not?

Q.20 One billion familiar readers are sufficient qty to have right to have the separate article on the subject of their interest.in Wiki.. Wiki has already provided the article on the subject.?

Q 21. Hence as per wiki policy title of this article should confirm to these most familiar readers(1 billion) who are follower (directly concerned with topic) of Islam?

Q.22 As subject of article is most familiar to these most familiar reader by name ‘isa’ . Tittle confirm to these readers are ‘Isa’. There is no ambiquity for this name amongst these most familiar readers’?

Q.23 ‘Isa’ name is also one of ‘common name in English reliable sources’.

Your Suggestions on the issue and answer to above are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. These are good questions, and I would like to know the answers, but I don't. I am still trying to get my head around the organization and development of this encyclopedia, especially the Islamic articles. The Islamic material on Wikipedia seems like a coral reef to me. There are relatively few editors interested in developing the articles, and there are forces constantly working to degrade the material once it's in place. In addition, a lot of the material going in comes from people with strong feelings one way or another - which manages to turn up in their work: not always very NPOV. Then there are obstacles such as the cultural conflicts on whether figures are being addressed in a respectful manner in the material, their titles and honorifics, ie a morass of regrettable cultural misunderstandings. Then we come to the topics of multiple spellings in English, and finally article names.

Article naming is of special interest to me because I wish to see this material developed in a neutral, factual manner. I am beginning to think there may be a case for integrating Islamic materials into their main, English titled articles. With improved visibility, some protection against vandalism, especially sneaky vandalism, might be afforded. Extreme bias might be more easily warded off.

In addition, I feel Islamic thought, history, culture and beliefs deserve a rightful place within the main articles of Wikipedia, rather than just alongside them in separate articles. It's an apartheid of Islamic content, and I expect much of it is self imposed.

Which brings me to your specific topic. In a perfect world, I would say Islamic views of the Abrahamic figures should be presented within the main, English-named articles so the reader has the most accurate, balanced view of the subject. However, I wonder if such an approach is practical. Would the Christian, Jewish, Muslim - and other - editors of these main articles be tolerant enough to support the inclusion of large amounts of differing and sometimes contradictory materials on subjects central to their beliefs? Are we ready for that? Perhaps, for now, a separate Islamic article with the Islamic name of the prophet, linked from a stub Islamic section in the main article is the best we can do.

Regards,

Aquib (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Aquib for your kind reply and understanding my basic feeling toward Wiki first and then for Islam. I am not in favor of giving any undue advantage to any religion or any specific view. Wiki's basic aim and its policies are framed like that only but they are misunderstood or the group of editor at present don't want to understand that way. If you have time please go through my complete discussion in the Talk:Jesus in Islam and User Talk:Md iet page. Hope understanding the need by people of like mind would help Wiki make more neutral and effective.

Your concluding remark for the article on Islam would go long way. Separate article exist linking stub Islamic section but there also the name is not as per known in Islam. Peoples are confused and defining Islamic name as Arabic. Name is name, it can't be English or Arabic. Name is important to identify or get imagine the thing in one word then why there is hitch in identifying by name 'Isa' of Islamic personality when it is described in that context. --Md iet (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Answer to my questions is not difficult. Just see the Wiki policy on title and use your common sense. Answer is only to be given in Yes or No, no justification required. This will make clear view points on these issues, to reach on some consensus.--Md iet (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ergun Caner?

Should this page be under the scope of WikiProject Islam, and listed as articles affected? Caner is a purported former Muslim (Turkish father, Swedish mother) who has stated some blatant lies about a supposedly past as a "jihadist". The article has been vandalized a few times.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

In the wake of the recent events in Egypt, many mainstream English media sources have reported on the Muslim Brotherhood, including in articles that provide an overview of the organization. Some, for example a recent article published by the Wall Street Journal (see the link on the talk page), have emphasized the diverse character of this organization. This may be a good opportunity to improve this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Need page for Jafar ibn Ali (Kadhab

There was previously an article Jafar al-Kadhab that was deleted (discussion earlier on this page). Not quite sure why it was deleted, but this figure does appear verifiable, and is mentioned in plenty of other articles such as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Hasan al-Askari. The fact that he was called Kadhab (liar) is notable, though I don't know if it's overly POV to have that in his title, but we need some way to disambiguate him from Jafar ibn Ali back from Muhammed's generation. Any ideas on how to approach this page, and reliable sources? I'm finding plenty of non-RS religious sites on Google that give great explanations of Jafar al-Kadhab, but not finding any good gBooks references.MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Put Prophets and Messengers up for deletion?

It seems this article is just OR, and an unreferenced essay on the concept vice an actual summary of scholarship. Anyone object to putting it up for AfD? If we do though, recommend we communicate well with the main editor, as he's put good work into it, showing definite skills we'd like to keep on Wikipedia. I'd hate to discourage a good writer by sinking an article, but I'm just not seeing the WP validity of this one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely original research, and deleting it may be the best option. However, this is a topic that can be written about using only secondary sources, such as this or this. So I think an article could exist on the topic, but this isnt the article. nableezy - 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also this article, Messengers of Islam. Is there any legitimate/academic/non-OR reason to lump the Islamic concepts of "Messenger" and "Prophet" together? Ah, and then there's also Prophets_of_Islam#Distinguishing_between_prophets_and_messengers, which our [[Prophets and Messengers

]] is the {{main to. There's got to be some way to sort these out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FA review of The Autobiography of Malcolm X

The Autobiography of Malcolm X has been nominated as a Featured Article candidate. The editors who have nominated it would appreciate it if editors would volunteer to review it.

If you're interested, please see the second blue box ("Supporting and opposing") at the top of WP:FAC and the review FAQ for additional information. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Stumbling upon Qasim Ali Zahir Nejad I was surprised at the modern terminology used in an article about such an ancient person, but then I realized that all the dates in the article are in the Islamic calendar. I'm not sure if there's a conversion template to show both or whether the dates should all be converted to Gregorian or what. (Plus one of the dates is given as in October.) I'm just very confused and wondering if someone here could help. Danger (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The article depicts an important and controversial general who served in the Iranian army during the Iran-Iraq war. [4] The dates are not accurate Hijri or Gregorian dates, there must be a conversion error. The 1357 date (if it were an AH date) would translate to 1938 CE, but the revolution being referred to is actually the 1979 Iranian revolution. [5]

The name is hard to find because his first name is often spelled many ways other than Qasim. Qaseem Qassem Qasem Ghasem... Take the Qasim Ali off, and you will see his name appear prominently in books on the war. Whether we can find his birthday and year of death in English is uncertain. But there are many interesting hits on his name out there, and quite a story to his life, it seems.

Aquib (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Hijri dates, Persian dates. See Persian calendar. The current Iranian calendar also starts Year Zero from the Hijrah, but rather than counting lunar years (like the Islamic calendar), it counts solar years starting on 21 March. We're ending 1388 in the Persian calendar now, turns 1389 this 21 March. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was turning 1390 - Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting! -Aquib (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Too bad there isn't a conversion template someplace. So dates could be left in their original (referenced) form and still be listed out in standard. There are conversion sites on the web, of course, but using one is "kind-of" or-ish. Opportunity for error. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My bust, Eulenspiegel is correct, it's turning 1390 in the Persian calendar at the end of this month. Converting from Persian years to Western is actually pretty easy provided you know what month it happened it. Otherwise you could be a year off, since Persian years start/end around March 20/21. Both Persian and Western are solar calendars, so their years are almost exactly the same length (they do the fractions/leap-years a tiny bit different), the issue is just that they don't both start in January. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Steyn

There is currently a dispute on Talk:Mark Steyn as to whether or not Steyn should be identified as a human rights advocate. CJCurrie (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)