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 2 GA 6 13 39 78 13 149 B 80 112 239 430 110 971 C 113 153 423 1,559 325 2,573 Start 39 88 450 3,623 1 935 5,136 Stub 8 11 204 2,967 787 3,977 List 1 12 115 182 3 39 352 Category 1 1 5,477 5,479 Disambig 1 3 122 1 127 File 2 43 45 Portal 330 330 Project 113 113 Redirect 6 15 44 149 688 902 Template 1 481 482 NA 4 12 16 Other 1 114 115 Assessed 255 414 1,528 9,013 7,401 2,210 20,821 Unassessed 1 2 21 570 594 Total 255 415 1,530 9,034 7,401 2,780 21,415 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 62,889 Ω = 4.91

Sexual slavery in Islam

I would be grateful if some people with subject knowledge could assess the sweeping edits currently being done to that article. I'm getting the impression that this is the wholesale replacement of one interpretation with another, based on very selective sources, but I simply don't know the subject area. In any case I suspect these big deletes/replacements need some talk page discussion before being implemented. - Also notified WikiProject Women's History. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Biblical and Quranic narratives - almost all original research

Pretty much needs rebuilding from scratch. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what happens when people interpret WP:PRIMARY texts for themselves.VR _talk 05:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll attempt a cursory rewrite based on Gabriel Said Reynold's The Quran and the Bible (Yale University Press, 2018).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Karaeng Matoaya Thanks! And that looks like a great source. You should also look into the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. Its always best to use multiple scholarly sources.VR _talk 12:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Thanks for the encouragement, I'll look into that source when I have the time. Thanks also for the great job you do with Islam-related articles!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. It is a bit Christian-centric as currently written, so the opinions of those with knowledge of other religions is especially welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

There are few references are available, indicating Aurats (word) had considerable origins from medieval era Classical Arabic , medieval era Persian and Ottoman Turkish too and more references are likely to be available if searched deep enough.

Inputs and references regarding historical usage and present usage ,if any, socio-political construct around Aurats (word) are requested.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I was struggling to articulate what worried me about this draft. Should [[Aurats (word)]] not simply be a redirect to "woman"? I guess you need to go to redirects for discussion or wicktionary. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on name of the article "Concubinage in Islam"

There is debate on whether the article currently named "Concubinage in Islam" should continued to be called that, or should it be moved to "Sexual slavery in Islam". There has been debate and even a move war. Discussion is scatters at Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam, and I recently put my arguments in a single section (Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam#Name_of_the_article_should_remain_"Concubinage_in_Islam"). Please give your comments on the article's talk page.VR _talk 13:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RfD notification: 21st-century Quran

Hi all, 21st-century Quran redirects to History of the Quran#1924 Cairo edition and has been nominated at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 22#21st-century Quran would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I created the redirect but I'm not particularly bothered about keeping it. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?

Since I am working on Wikipedia, I do not find much editorial presence of women of Muslim background, while Muslim women seem to be active on other social media platforms?

1) Is this perception factual or not ?

2) If it is true why it is so ?

5) When I searched this projects talk page archive, I found very few searches for word 'women', Why would be that so?

3) Even if they are less does it matter?

4) If matters then what could be solutions to improve situation?

Since this project page has very few previous discussions, if discussion continues longer time period will be better. IMHO.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I have not looked at any statistics concerning notable "women of Muslim background". I can only offer an opinion. Wikipedia coverage of women, in general, has been regarded as a gender bias. The Women in Red project addresses improvement in this area. Identification may be an issue. There was a drive to remove religious affiliation from infoboxes so if the article doesn't delve into this then a web search would need to be performed.

I see there is Category:Muslim Brotherhood women and Category:Muslim female comedians and articles such as Muslim women political leaders but apparently not Category Muslim women. I would think one should be able to search Category:Muslim women writers and other such categories but have not looked at it.

Women in Islam#Notable women in Islam does not have a lot. Some consideration should be given to the availability of sourcing. Some countries have their own bias, which is likely less in Indonesian than in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but nonetheless probably creates a sourcing issue. I would say some collaboration could result in categories more specific to the area might be a benefit.

I was surprised I couldn't find an article on Amatul Rahman Omar or even Laury Silvers. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

They are talking about editors, not content. It is a mistake to conflate the two. The gender of most WP editors is unclear, but various attempts to estimate an overall gender ratio for editors have produced figures in the range of 85-92% male. Generally people agree this does matter, and should be improved, but the many efforts to do something about it have had variable success. In many Muslim countries, issues of access to the internet, and technological knowledge may be more relevant than elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Does Wikipedia have a gender bias issue? Yes. Is WikiProject Islam the right place fix this? No. The underlying causes are too complex for us to solve: priority (people in developing countries have more pressing matters than Wikipedia), technology (internet access) and language (command of English in the global Islamic community) barriers are only a few of such aspects. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bookku Just to clarify, do you mean the participation of women as editors, or the coverage of Muslim women biographies and topics in articles?

Comment: Yes, I do mean 'the participation of women as editors'.

1) When one reaches out to present other women editors for support on Muslim women related topics it's not that they are not willing rather they do co-operate but usually I find them bit apprehensive how much they can cope up and support Muslim and Islamic topic's nuances not well known to them. (On one hand it confirms absence of Muslim women on Wikipedia platform -includes Wikipedia other language projects too-

2) Consequentially Muslim women perspective, support and participation to related topics seem too less than potential.

3) If language is issue Muslim Women seem missing from other related language Wikis too - Consequentially status of women related articles on other language wikis is generally too poor -Even translation help for women related articles comes too slow.

4) If question of access to technology is concerned women of Muslim background seem to be around on other social media platforms.

5) Whether Rfc on women's project helped more ? Either of project Rfc had to be started and informed on the other project. Since I searched word 'women' in talk page archives of this project is discussed too less then I decided to begin from this project. Situation improves or not but at least Wikipedia community becomes aware about the issue.

Thanks for responses.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Bookku: I think it is very difficult to estimate the number of Muslim women who are active on Wikipedia. Most editors do no declare their religion but of those who do, we have Category:Muslim Wikipedians. If you have the time, you could go through about a hundred of these and see whether there is any indication that they are both female and active. I think you will find many of those listed as Category:Arab Wikipedians, Category:Indonesian Wikipedians or Category:Pakistani Wikipedians are Muslims. As in the case of women's participation in general, I would not expect Muslim women editors to represent more than 15 to 20% of Muslim editors. Finally, it is perhaps equally important to encourage male Muslim editors to concentrate more on covering Muslim women (or more generally women from Muslim countries).--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bookku it was already pointed out that the participation of women on wikipedia is low. Another factor is Islamophobia on wikipedia that makes it a hostile environment for Muslims in general. So those two factors can converge to especially suppress participation of Muslim women on wikipedia.VR _talk 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent:, First of all thanks for expressing yourself. Same time I am bit bemused specially for your second point.

On Wikipedia women might have been in lesser numbers, but some participation is certainly there, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red is doing great, and it seems Western language Wikipedias work on improving Women editor's participation, is same effort missing from Asian language origin Wikipedians?

Secondly I suppose lot of Muslim background women around (liberal and conservative both) on lot of other social media even interacting with non-Muslims on all sort of subjects, then why not on Wikipedia? In fact Wikipedia contains much lesser adhominem and much lesser targeting on basis of one's background compared to other social media.

Again neither do I see any Christen men or women complaining about Christen phobia nor Muslim men are missing for reason of any phobia; Wikipedia seem to contain equal amount of criticism for all other religions. Take most latest article example Imperial feminism no one complains it as western Phobia and western women will not be writing on Wikipedia.

Secular platforms do exist in secular world which would not subscribe to any single ideology, differences are fact of human life the same ones are reflected on Wikipedia. Compared to other social media platform Wikipedia expects references. Describing referenced facts is truth and if Islam stands for truth then describing any truth as Islamophobic would be un-Islamic. Any ways if Muslim background women can move around on other platforms then why denial of intellectual public space to Muslim background women with Tudong or Purdah or participatory exclusion in what so ever form on Wikipedia?

On side note,

besides English I found women editorial representation on Spanish, French, German, On Russian WIkipedia again seems it to be lesser but it is there, again on Portuguese Wikipedia I did not see it.

Like wise I did not come across much women editors in Asian languages for exception of few Indian languages- again in north Indian language Wikipedias women seem largely missing.

Thanks & regards Bookku (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bookku my comments were based on my conversations with Muslim women (writers and non-writers). Of course, Muslim women are a diverse crowd. Have you talked to Muslim women in your community about joining Wikipedia? What have they said? VR _talk 03:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What bemuses is why same reasons are not quoted by Muslim men but by women only. Does it mean, Wikipedian community members failing some where in it's approach addressing unnecessarily negative perceptions about Wikipedia? rgds Bookku (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on lead section of Takbir (allahu akbar)

There is a request for comment on the lead section of the Takbir (allahu akbar) article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Takbir § RfC: Terrorist war cry. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Dar al-Ifta a reliable source?

There is a discussion on the reliability of Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dar_al-Ifta_al_Misriyyah_/_www.dar-alifta.org. VR _talk 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Improving our article on Fatimah

A protected edit request was made at Talk:Fatimah#Protected edit request 6 August 2020 adding numerous references. Although peer-reviewed and agreed, the improvement has yet to be made. Maybe if Muslim women see some enthusiasm for improving articles on key women in Islam they might be encouraged to edit themselves. 2A00:23C7:C987:DF00:EC92:1B38:176A:55A (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Mujeer Du'a

Mujeer Du'a is in need of some love from an expert and/or Arabic speaker, in case anyone is interested. I came across it doing CAT:NN cleanup. Seems clearly notable to me, but I'm not in a position to clean it up/improve it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested page move

There is currently a requested page move at Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam#Requested_move_30_August_2020, where it is proposed that "Sexual slavery in Islam" be moved to "Concubinage in Islam".

I posted this once above, but that time was wasn't a formal page move request. This one will actually be closed by an admin. Your participation is appreciated.VR _talk 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Asian art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Created new page for Nasheed singer Ismail Hussain

Hello, I've created my first page for Nasheed singer Ismail Hussain Ismail_Hussain_Singer. Need your valueble suggestions and support to keep it alive on Wikipedia. Thanks