Talk:Amman Message

Star Trek

I removed the Star Trek picture of King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein. Even if it was a photo of him, the context of the article is in too much a contrast with the obvious Star Trek context of the photo. There must be more appropriate photos available. 128.214.32.200 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC) User:RandomMonitor

I removed the reference to Sohail Nakhooda, editor-in-chief of Islamica Magazine, in the reception section since it was a baseless claim with no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Especially considering that Islamica Magazine supports the Amman Message and continues to advertise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homosapien1 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ismailis

I'm bringing over a discussion from the Ismaili page over here. I cannot find any reference within the Amman Message including Ismailis as a subset of the Jafaris, except for the letter by the Aga Khan himself. Nobody else seems to have taken this stand, and as far as I can tell from other references Ismailis are specifically excluded from the other two Shia groups of Jafaris and Zaydis. If anyone has any source material to clarify this please share. MrOakes (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki add?

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86 ? 109.188.127.164 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amman Message. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130202045430/http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=74 to http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Critic

Can we not add stupid minority opinions ? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you being serious? You just deleted information sourced by a document from the International Crisis Group; who are we, as editors, to declare certain opinions as stupid, much less ones reliably sourced by recognized NGOs? And even if an opinion is "stupid," how is that relevant to its inclusion? What does stupid even mean here? It's like you aren't even trying to engage in a reasonable discussion.

Please do not delete reliably sourced content without a justifiable reason again. Calling the content that's sourced "stupid" isn't a valid reason. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: HAVE YOU EVEN READ MY EDIT SUMMARY? I BET YOU HAVEN'T, STOP FALSELY ACCUSING ME. I MENTIONED FOUR WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop yelling and calmly discuss your concerns, and stop edit warring. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I will calm down when this user stops falsely accusing and ridiculing me. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You can only control your own behavior; getting upset is not helping you discuss your concerns. No one is 'accusing' you of anything. Take a breath, stop edit warring, and calmly discuss what your concerns are here. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? "like you aren't even trying to engage in a reasonable discussion", naming wiki guidelines doesn't seem to be "reasonable for him". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The way to respond to that is not by getting upset, but to counter with a logical, reasoned argument like "I am being reasonable because I have brought up Wikipedia guidelines" or something similar. When you get upset, the discussion becomes about that and your actual issue(even if legitimate) gets lost in the discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"I MENTIONED FOUR WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES" I can get upset if I want to. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel that way. Continually getting upset and edit warring will likely result in your being blocked as disruptive, and will not help you get the changes that you seek. I've said all I can say; I only hope that you will change your mind. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh perfect, now you are accusing me too. I did 4 reverts and he did 3 reverts, suddenly I became the devil here. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made no accusations. As I indicated, you can only control your own behavior. I have nothing else to add unless you indicate a willingness to have a calm discussion about your concerns here. I truly hope that you do. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I already stated four guidelines, in return I expect an elaboration on the four guidelines not a spin on me. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned them, but you haven't explained how they're relevant. Guidelines and policies aren't a trump card; you'll need to show the community how they relate to the disputed material. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The relation of the message with "infrastructure", "economy" and "king's lifestyle" is shared by no one except this guy which makes this a minority viewpoint and so it is WP:FRINGE. Now since this is the only criticism in the article, it also becomes WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. Also there is no argument to counter the criticism on how its relevant to socioeconomic things, aka WP:BALANCE, I doubt you will find any source with that kind of information, so good luck per WP:BURDEN. The content in its current form is unacceptable and you need to do much more than reverting my revert to let this nonsense stay. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: The source you are admiring is a dead link!! How do you even know this information was on this source? WP:SWYGT. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Link rot, expired links aren't deleted; new versions of the citation should be found, such as those available at this working link. That's one.

Two, a minority opinion and a fringe opinion aren't the same; I think you need to review Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

Three, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (which you cite twice) doesn't mandate that there must be an argument as a counterbalance. Posting the link here in this discussion isn't a valid method of discussion; you actually need to be able to point out which part of the text supports your point (in this case, there is none).

Fourth, WP:BURDEN is a part of Wikipedia:Verifiability which has already been satisfied above.

The problem, sir, is that your central point still revolves around this criticism somehow being wrong, yet it isn't our prerogative as editors to make that call. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Consensus still favors the current version of the article, which has not only stood for a few years but has also been demonstrated in two separate editors opposing your deletion. At this point, I can tell you that at least one representative of the years-long community consensus (me) is not convinced by your argument.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That way, the community at large can decide once we post notices for the RfC on relevant Wikiprojects. Such a decision wil be more decisive, for lack of a more creative term, and will most assuredly lay this dispute to rest. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The source you gave doesn't even mention the Amman Message. " a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight" - Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Is there really anything more to say?? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The full version of the source (available right there in the citation) mentions the Amman Message six times. Did you read it?

As for fringe theories, then I'm sorry, but you didn't actually read it so there's no reason for me or anyone to respond.

Given that you don't seem to have an actual valid reason to oppose the line's inclusion, do you concede to said inclusion? Or would you like for us (or perhaps an uninvolved mediator) to draft an RfC so the whole community can decide on whether the consensus version should change or not? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop "threatening" with RFC, that will only come after there's a thorough discussion, and we've just started. I read the full version, doesn't change anything about how a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

An RfC isn't a threat; it's one of several means to a resolution. A threat would imply there's something bad about it, which isn't true.

As for thorough discussion, then it's difficult when you keep jumping around when your points are disproven (a minority view = a fringe view, the link is dead, the source doesn't mention the Amman Message). The impression I'm getting is that you didn't even read the source and don't really have a solid principle to oppose the consensus version of the article, because you didn't appear aware of what the source contains in terms of information nor do you seem moved when your concerns about the material are proven false.

Thorough discussion isn't really possible when you refuse to actually read material relevant to the discussion. Please read WP:FRINGE, because I don't think you have. Also, I'd highly suhhest reading Wikipedia:I just don't like it. It's an essay and thus unofficial, but it's a good explanation of how these discussions tend to work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"concerns proven false"? The link was dead and it was replaced, full source was also replaced, how do you want me to react? Want me to add sound effects to the discussion?? I did read the source before. Whats wrong with fringe? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Salafi movement or Salaf

MezzoMezzo If "true salafi beliefs" means salafi movement beliefs why on Earth would well known anti-Salafi movement individuals sign the message. At the very least nothing should be linked. By linking Salafi movement you are perpetuating a false equivalence between salafi thought and the salafi movement. Every Sunni Muslim claims a connection with the Salaf.

Do not ignore my talk page edits like you have in the past MezzoMezzo. It's not in the spirit of reaching truth and producing a reliable encyclopedia. --2604:2000:B088:7000:A148:982B:2E5B:8A2E (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC) ZaynfromNY

Moreover, the phrase "salaf thought" doesn't make sense. Salafi thought means thought attributed to the salaf. Salaf is the noun salafi is the adjective. Just like you wouldn't say Shakespeare thought you say Shakespearean thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynfromNY (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of previous talk page comments you're referring to, but I'm sorry if I ever failed to see any.

As for this comment, then your reasoning simply isn't acceptable; you aren't the author of the Amman Message, and you aren't entitled to decide what you think it does or doesn't mean. The text of the message says "Salafi thought" not "Salaf thought." Until you can come with more reliable sources explaining that the text somehow means what it doesn't say, then you can't alter the wikilinks as it appears to constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the edit. I don't think my reasoning is unacceptable and I don't think having NO link is POV. Without a source from either of us the most NPOV thing to do so to speak is leave that part without a link. I explain further below.

To repeat my point MezzoMezzo, you are saying that Salafi thought means Salafi movement thought and I am saying Salafi thought means the thought of the Salaf because in Arabic Salaf is a noun and Salafi is an adjective. I am not saying the Amman Message means something other than what it is saying. We just both think it says something different. In the interest of neutrality and since we both don't at the moment have a source saying what we both think the message naturally means, I removed the link.

I am again going to revert your edit because without a source you are propagating a false equivalence between the Salaf and Salafi movement. Every Sunni claims a connection to the Salaf. The word is not automatically in reference to the Salafi movement. No source. No link. Seems fair enough to me. -ZaynfromNY —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not acceptable, and you're out of line attempting to claim that this is somehow neutrality. There is no false equivalent between Salaf and Salafi because Salaf isn't mentioned. YOU are the one inserting Salaf here, and you have absolutely no basis for doing so. If you revert again based on what is essentially an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument, then you will be knowingly in violation of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and the Wikipedia:Edit warring. You have no case, and have brought nothing relevant to what's actually in the article or its subject; stop now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive" That's my understanding of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is no consensus here. There is your interpretation and my interpretation and no source. There should be no link until someone has a source. I won't revert your edit because I don't want to edit war. I am going request dispute resolution. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynfromNY (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, this dispute is over whether the term "Salafi" in the list item "##true Salafi thought" should or should not be linked to Salafi movement. There seems to be a false presumption here that linking means equivalence, but the Manual of Style guideline on linking says that a link only requires that the link represent "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". I know absolutely nothing about either Salafi thought or the Salafi movement, so I have to ask this: Are the two subjects so utterly unrelated that the Salafi movement article has nothing which is relevant to Salafi thought? Perhaps that's the case, but in light of the similarity of names my a priori presumption would be that there's something of relevance to Salafi thought in the movement article, but perhaps I'm wrong. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC) (Drive-by neutral editor)

@ZaynfromNY: I highly suggest that you review Wikipedia:Consensus alongside the WP:BRD supplement.

@TransporterMan: Thanks for chiming in. Salafi movement and Salafi thought are exactly the same; there is nothing in the modern era that carries the name "Salafi" except the modern-day group inspired by a limited number of post-17th century clerics. In my ten years of editing articles and reading sources, I've never come across any disagreement over that. The Salafi movement is also called Salafism, Salafiyyah, Salafi group, Salafi creed, Salafists and other related terms.

What ZaynfromNY is suggesting we link to is Salaf, which refers to the first three generation of Muslim people from the early 600sCE to the early 700s. What I'm suggesting is that we link the word "Salafi" in the article to the article formerly called "Salafi" (currently called "Salafi movement" after a contentious RfC that was won by three separate, now blocked, sockpuppets). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To say they're completely unrelated would be wrong-- so your a priori judgment is correct. But MezzoMezzo seems to suggest that linking anything other than Salafi movement would be POV. in fact, linking Salafi movement which would at least suggest something about the content that the signatories of the message agreed upon WITHOUT a source would be POV. This my problem at this point. At first I made my edit because I thought the Salaf link to "##true Salafi thought" was the most natural link based on my understanding of the Anglicized Arabic word.

Furthermore, even the Wikipedia page which addresses the topic MezzoMezzo wants to link is called "Salafi MOVEMENT" and not Salafi which is an Arabic adjective of the noun Salaf. ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynfromNY (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I had to do a bit of laundry and shot the previous message out rather quickly. One more thought and to directly address TransporterMan's concerns, this is not so much a dispute about whether or not Salafi movement should be linked in "##true Salafi thought" but what this link suggests and whether this suggestion should be permitted without a source. The equivalence between Salafi and Salafi movement is clearly a topic of contention on Wikipedia as evidenced by the "contentious" RfC MezzoMezzo pointed out above. I wasn't there for that but I can see why it happened. This is essentially a similar dispute. I do not think -- and for good reason -- that every time the word Salafi is mentioned on Wikipedia Salafi movement should be linked. It can be oftentimes misleading when this is done without a source. I have attempted to search for a source explaining the meaning of the usage in this message but it has been to no avail. Linking Salaf or Salafi movement is not at this point justified based on a DIRECT source -- and I admit that. But to arbitrarily choose one based on either my (and have my arguments) or MezzoMezzo's arguments would be incorporating my POV or his, respectively. We need another compromise and we need consensus. There is no consensus here though I have chosen not to edit war and to leave the current link as it is.

To address MezzoMezzo argument directly. Yes, the followers/participants/supporters of the Salafi Movement call themselves Salafiyyah or Salafi but they are often rebuffed and called a movement or called neo-Salafists. This because people recognize that there is a false equivalence being drawn. The Salaf are the first 3 generations of Muslims from the time of Prophet Muhammad on and EVERY Sunni Muslim claims a connection to them. No Sunni Muslim would reject being called a Salafi. Why? To them, Salafi is an adjective. Salafi thought -- to them -- means thought attributed to the Salaf.

My contention is this. There were several well known critics of Salafism or neo-Salafism that signed the Message like Nazim Qubrusi and many of the Shia imams that signed it. And they like any other Muslims would have no problem endorsing a message that said true Salafi thought, i.e. thought that is truly attributed to the Salaf, is acceptable. But just like you my argument is NOT backed up by a direct source other than the views of those who signed the message and the logical belief that they would not sign something that contradicts their views.

Finally, yes, I am a new editor and I am really amazed at how Wikipedia works on the back end. It's impressive. ZaynfromNY

@ZaynfromNY and MezzoMezzo: Can you explain your interpretation of difference/similarity between terms Salafi movemnet & Salafi thought in objective terms, preferably point by point, it'll be appreciated if you provide some verifiable references preferably available online.

Also, this article says The word 'Salafi' comes from the Arabic phrase, 'as-salaf as-saliheen', which refers to the first three generations of Muslims (starting with the Companions of the Prophet), otherwise known as the Pious Predecessors. i.e. these people were there around 1400 years ago while The 100-year-old Sunni-based Salafi school of thought aspires to emulate the ways of the Prophet Mohammed. So, what I gather is that Salafi thought is different from thought or way of Salafs (how other muslims interpret & define modern salafism), this modern term refers to thought & belief of modern Salafis. But then Amman Message has one added twist, it states true Salafi thought, now if you go through this analysis there is no clarity on that term.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all: are you guys watching the page, or should we continue pinging each other each time a comment is made? It doesn't take much time to do but I wanted to check.

Second of all: Zayn, you're calm and reasonable and even though I disagree with you on this specific point 100%, I felt you deserve hearing that. This is an easier discussion than I'm used to with new editors.

Third of all: I'm not sure (in regard to Faiz's question) that a point by point breakdown is possible for a single link for a single word; there doesn't seem to be that much to discuss.

Signatories to the agreement all criticize each other. Shia and Sufi scholars also criticize each other, yet they signed the agreement. And even Salafi scholars signed the agreement as can be seen at the official document containing a list of signatories. So for any of us to speculate about intent based on which sect likes which other sects is, quite simply, merely an exercise in flexing our preconceived notions, i.e. POV.

Hence we're left with a plain text: Salafi. We have an article: Salafi movement, to which Salafi redirects, as adherents of that movement are called Salafi by academic, non-polemical analyses and studies. The clearest and most plain option to take is to assume that when the Amman Message says peace, it means peace; when it says real, it means real; when it says Tasawwuf, it means Sufism and not preferring to wear wool clothing; and when it says Salafi, it means the people called Salafi whose representatives also signed the document. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I REALLY really appreciate the compliment MezzoMezzo. Except for the bolding above (haha), I think you've been calm and reasonable as well. As for listing the differences point by point, I also don't know how helpful that will be. The dispute is really about the word "Salafi" and not a phrase. MezzoMezzo suggests the natural plain language meaning of the word Salafi is Salafi Movement. I object to that. It does not have to mean that -- this is evidence by the Wikipedia page Salafi Movement and the usage of the word for hundreds of years. Even the followers of the Salafi Movement I assume picked this word to connect themselves with the Salaf.

Here's the kicker: Because Salafi cannot necessarily mean Salafi movement we need a source to determine what it means. If there is no source there should be no link. This is my position. I believe it to be reasonable.

A third point and to engage in a little bit of language construction: The phrase "true" if applied to Salafi meaning Salafi movement would apparently suggest that some of what the Salafi movement adheres to it is not true. If it refers to Salafi meaning the adjective of the word Salaf it would mean the thought TRULY attributed to the Salaf. The later interpretation would be (1) uncontroversial and (2) in line with the belief of Muslims which is adherence to the hadith of the Prophet praising the Salaf.

For anyone else watching this discussion (Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider, TransporterMan), what is the next step here? I feel like we're at a breaking point. Do we link Salafi movement or do we leave it alone until we can find a reliable source interpreting the phrase. If we leave Salafi movement linked, how is that decision differentiable from renaming the Salafi Movement page Salafi or typing out any other piece of information without a source. ZaynfromNY (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC) ZaynfromNY

(I'm assuming that Zayn is watching the page and the others have been pinged) Personally, I find it reasonable from your third point that "true" applied to Salafi means that some of what the Salafi movement adheres to isn't truly from the Salaf. The Amman Message is affiliated with the Jordanian government's official mouthpiece on Islamic issues, and if you've read their list of 500 influential Muslims, you know that they frequently make the point that some beliefs of Salafism have no basis in Islamic tradition. Thus, "true Salafi thought" would allow the Message to include Salafis (who did sign alongside Sufis and Shias) without the Jordanian government endorsing everything the movement espouses.

This is, of course, based on more speculation as to the intentions of the document; I don't think we have a basis for that. And at this point, I do suppose that both positions are clear; we're talking about not even the inclusion of a word, but the linking of a word. To expedite this process, would you (Zayn) agree to an RfC so we can solicit community feedback from uninvolved people? Although we disagree, the issue is small enough such that outside involvement could probably resolve it quickly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that works. To be clear, the question we are asking is whether there should be a link to Salafi Movement given that there is no source indicating that interpretation. I appreciate you working on this and your patience with me as this is my first time engaging in a "dispute". ZaynfromNY (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you made it easier to be patient - vitriol is the norm on Islamic articles, as you'll learn with time. Plus, the issue in and of itself is a small one. But here, let's take this as an opportunity to run through the process. You might need to do this again with other people in the future.

What we're going to run through is Wikipedia:Requests for comment (I'll try to be easy on the links). That's one method of dispute resolution; the other is Third Opinion (which we aren't eligible for since more than one uninvolved editor has chimed in already) and the noticeboards. The noticeboards are generally a dead end unless all other options have been exhausted, as the people offering help there will usually ask what other methods of resolution were tried. Arbitration is after that, but that's for major problems; they're so rare that in then years, I've never had to deal with anything that high level. That leaves us with the RfC, which is usually the next step after Third Opinion. The parties involve (us) basically just let the community decide and then we move on.

First, we need a neutral draft question or statement; we then post that statement here in a separate section. I think you should do it, because it's good practice. After that, we need to publicize it per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. I can handle that or we can both do it, since that's mostly the more toiling work of posting a notice/invitation for comment on other talk pages and projects. It just alerts people so they can come and participate; you and I can also participate even though we're formulating the question. Usually, our reasoning will come within our responses ("support" or "oppose" in bold followed by comments). The closer will be someone uninvolved. Beyond our individual responses, there isn't anything else for us to do as it's out of our hands.

This has been an easy dispute to mediate, so if anybody asks why we're still using an RfC, just remind them that the two of us still don't agree on this after a Third Opinion, so it isn't just practicing dispute resolution for the sake of practice. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the phrase "##true Salafi thought" be linked to Salafi Movement?

Should the phrase "##true Salafi thought" be linked to Salafi Movement? ZaynfromNY (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support for the reasons stated above. Since I was the other party in the discussion with Zayn, I'll forego the threaded discussion since my reasoning is already viewable to other users. Thanks Zayn and I'm glad this has worked out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated above as I was also an original party to the discussion. Thank you too MezzoMezzo. This has been, above all, a great learning experience for me. ZaynfromNY (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)