User talk:Eperoton/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Avedis Zildjian Company. I was thinking it as a bit of a mess, and wondering how to get it to a good state. I had some dinner, came back, and you had fixed the mess, which allowed me to add many references.96.127.244.201 (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize someone else was working on it. Glad I could help. Eperoton (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab:

Dear Epteroton, this is the second time my edits are reverted, so please help me to improve my edits. I explain my edits already on the talk page. My problem is there no sources for the following points: -"strict prohibition" esp. including mosques --> no reference -"the Saudi government renovated the tomb of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab" --> references does not say that -"important place of visitation" --> insult Thanks a lot --Yortas (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your comment. Eperoton (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Honor Killing

Hello, I wish you are good. You have reverted my edits on the article of Honor Killing, which is exactly the deletion of stoning as a manner of killing which has no reference to anyone was killed by this method. And I want you to make a distinction between what is traditional and what is religious; because stoning is the punishment for anyone married whom has made adultery even the the one is male or female If the ifs of adultery is complete (adultery has to be shown by 4 good not lier men and they and the show has to be about the penis of the man into the pessy of the woman not any thing else), and the government is the responsible of that not anyone else. And If anyone kills her sister for example for adultery he will be punished. People always mix between traditions and what is religious, even If these traditions are false and evil according to the religion. Yes there are woman killed by guns, knives etc, but stoning there is no reference on that, and If anyone try to do it he will do it outside the home what means everyone around will see him and he will be punished by the government by killing in the most of time. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @هارون الرشيد العربي: It is in the source cited which is [1]. —PaleoNeonate – 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @PaleoNeonate: First of all, I am not talking just about the sources, which you and I know who have written them and under which targets. Second thank you for responding 😊هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, هارون الرشيد العربي. I don't see anything about traditional or religious in the sentence you changed, so you would need to clarify the connection of these considerations to your edit. The cited source appears to meet WP's criteria for reliability and PaleoNeonate has verified the citation. If it's verifiable in a reliable source, I don't see a rationale for deletion. Eperoton (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Muhakkima

Dear Eperoton, thank you for your message. John Mylonelis (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)John Mylonelis

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eperoton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert Owaisi on Sufism Article

I have no idea what you were thinking when you wiped the Owaisi order from the history of orders. But it was not well-explained nor well-thought. RS? You can refer to scholars of Islam and Sufism such as Godlas, wikipedia's article on the subject (which I suppose you should also delete for consistency) or the many books on the subject (eg Sufi Orders in Islam pgs 13, 87. Please undo this.

The underlying issue is that there have been dozens if not hundreds of Sufi orders, and a very high-level article like Sufism doesn't have space to discuss more than a handful of them, and it doesn't have space for any detailed coverage of a particular order. It's been too long since I did this to remember my review of the sources, but my based on my edit summary I see that this order didn't seem to be among the handful most prominent orders we can cover in this article. If you're concerned about coverage of this order, I encourage you to develop this content in Uwaisi, where coverage of the order itself barely goes beyond a more mention. I also think that we should have coverage of individual orders in Tariqa, which is the general article on the subject of orders, where they can be covered in more detail than in Sufism. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Bkerensa removed Ja'fari jurisprudence. With this edit summary, "Removing Jafari and the argument for this is that Oxford while a generally credible academic source is not authoritative on Islam. Much of the academics at Oxford are either Ex-Muslim, Non-Muslim or members of a minority non-mainstream sect like Sufism or Shia Islam both being very small minorities of Islam. Jafari which is referenced here is not considered by any credible mainstream theologians to be a maddhab."

Yet according to;

• The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito, page 148, "Beginning in the eighth century, the major Sunni schools of legal thought(madhhab)-- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii, and Hanbali, and the Twelver Shii Jafari madhhab emerged." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Thanks for the heads up. Bad edit, duly reverted. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slavery and religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested

I'm working on this now (User:Calthinus/Islamo-Christian Civilization) and then bring into the main space maybe next year or so. I thought perhaps you'd have access to other writings relevant to the topic and might be interested? I'm busy right now anyways so no pressure, but thought I'd let you know. --Calthinus (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Thanks for sharing. I've come across this term and I thought it had wider currency, but I can't find other authors who have adopted it. I see possible WP:PRIMARY objections if the article is based mainly on Bulliet's work, as it would be similar to a "book report" article. I can get and share several scholarly reviews of the book, which you can use as secondary sources. I can also share Bulliet's chapter on the topic in The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions, which could be useful as a compressed version of the material. Eperoton (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah there are reasons why it won't be in the mainspace for awhile. --Calthinus (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam articles and balance

Hi, Basically, I am a bit new, but I saw that articles about Quran lack a lot of information. Feel free to correct me, as I cite sources to correct these articles properly. Thanks --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@SleeplessNight12: yes, this and many other articles could use a lot of work, and all constructive contributions are welcome, particularly if they're based on strong academic sources. Since you are a new editor, the experience will be more productive for everyone if you take a bit of time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's main policies. At the moment, I would generally suggest slowing down a bit and working through the issued brought up on the talk page before continuing to edit these pages. There's more on that in WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Thanks! Eperoton (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

About editing.

Dear Editor, I request you not to edit Religious contents if you don't have enough knowledge about It. Garib Jilan (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Garib Jilan: Your comment is wholly inappropriate and displays signs of undesirable owndership behaviour. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, regardless of their own level of skill or knowledge of the subject. If someone is editing in good faith - which you are required to assume - and using information from reliable sources, then their contributions are welcome. You should not be telling someone not to edit an article unless their actions are clearly against Wikipedia policies. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Seems like every time I look at an Islam-related article, I see you in the edit history. Thanks for all the hard work, especially on sharia and fatwa. Cerebellum (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cerebellum! Hope you don't mind that I "borrowed" your fl-7 userbox. :) Eperoton (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Not at all lol, I stole it from someone else in the first place. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Application of Islamic law by country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diya

Political aspects of Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qanun

Siyasa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qanun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Scheherazade

Do you think I'm out of line in the language-coding debate? The IP is very insistent that I "prove" that the name Scheherazade is Arabic and not Persian. I ask because you were previously involved and seem to know a bit more about the context than I do.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've started a sock investigation into our "friends" at Scheherazade as I don't for a second believe that they're multiple people. If I'm wrong they're just a group of insulting disruptive users but if I'm right the problem will be solved soon.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatwa

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fatwa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fatwa

The article Fatwa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fatwa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fatwa

Hello! Your submission of Fatwa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GMG^talk 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Current Usage for Shaykh Al Islam or Shaikh Ul Islam

In current era , Shaykh Al Islam or Shaikh Ul Islam term is used for Sayyed Madni Miya Ashrafi Jilani, Plz also help me in making a article for this personality

check it here https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/seminar-on-hazrat-sayyad-muhammed-madani-miya-ashrafi-al-jilani-inaugurated/article6785213.ece

http://jaamemadni.weebly.com/

http://madnicollege.com/ http://maml.org.uk/about-us/ https://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/11580-biography-of-huzur-shaikhulislam-hazrat-madnimiya/ https://archive.org/details/T.VAurMovieKaSharaiIstemalURDUShaykhAlIslamSyedMadniAshrafiAshrafiJilaniKichhauchhaSharif

https://www.scribd.com/doc/229021940/Video-Aur-T-v-Ka-Sharai-Istemal-URDU-Shaykh-Al-Islam-Sayyed-Madani-Miya

sharia

Hi. this should be kept. It just mentions that he established throughout the indian peninsula, in fact he was one of the few south asian emperors to have done so, nothing more. Also the jizya was stopped during the 3rd mughal emperor's time, but Aurangzeb, the 6th, re introduced, so i see nothing wrong with that part too. Thank you.--81.151.103.144 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I replied in Talk:Sharia. Eperoton (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just having a look across other articles, and here I can see more sources and it says be the law of the land for all non-Muslims (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs) in India, after Sharia was already accepted as the law for Muslims in colonial India.[12][13][14]..... I don't know if those sources really mention about sharia, if so, they can be quite helpful. Thanks--81.151.133.233 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstart for you

		The Islamic Barnstar
		For your immense contributions in Islam and its jurisprudence related articles. Keep ti up! 81.151.133.233 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether you are a Muslim or not, want to avoid WP:PERSONAL, you deserve this award--81.151.133.233 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the award and the constructive discussion. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Zakat

Hey Epeeroton,

I wanted to added this "The Encyclopeadia of islam states that according to Modern scholars the term was borrowed from the Judeo-Aramaic word "zakhutha" or righteousness, as evidenced by its orthography in the Quran, and it has been suggested that zakat was formed to rhyme with salat, another borrowing from Aramaic. While the use of the noun zakhutha, contrary to the related verb Zaka for alms, is not attested in Rabbinic literature, it functioned in targumic literature as the Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew s'daka, which had from its original sense of righteousness come to serve as the ordinary term for alms and was borrowed with this sense into Arabic as sadaka." to the etymology section of the Zakat article. But, I wanted to know your opinion beforehand. I know that you're interested in islamic topics. So I didn't want to add the paragraph boldly without consulting a more experienced editor. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TheseusHeLl. I think this would make a great addition in principle, but your proposed wording should be reworked some more to avoid close paraphrasing of the source. Eperoton (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. It's best not to use Edit summaries to send messages directly to other editors. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: What are you referring to? I use edit summaries to explain my edits. Eperoton (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Triple talaq

@Eperoton: Please respond to what I have asked here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divorce_in_Islam#Reversion_of_edits

Fatwa

There's no section on the very common misconception. A bit of digging needs to be done within one particular section of the article, which is why I figure at the very least a hatnote could help. Wolfdog (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Wolfdog. On this point, I would agree with you if the misconception was featured prominently in RSs on the subject, but the standard references treat it in the same way as we currently do. They describe what a fatwa actually is, and if the source is more detailed, it eventually gets to that particular type of fatwa and in some cases alludes to the misconception. Eperoton (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Fatwa

On 19 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fatwa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Osama bin Laden issued his 1998 fatwa proclaiming jihad against the U.S. and its allies, many Islamic jurists stressed that he was not qualified either to proclaim jihad or to issue a fatwa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fatwa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fatwa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with Arab Slave Trade

Hello, I'd like your opinion on this disagreement in the Arab Slave Trade article. I've removed mentions of Barbary Pirate slavery and Ottoman slavery since the sources backing them don't mention they're part of an Arab Slave trade. There have been reverts and another user who seems to be policing content without being an administrator claims that because the lead of the article mentions disagreement on what Arab slave trade is, editors can refer to it however they want. CaliphoShah (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Shia Islam

hey I noticed one you undid one of my revisions on the shia islam wikipedia page I wanted to let you know that I removed it because whatever written wasn't true I know that because I am a shia muslim myself and we also believed in the same Quran as the other muslims there do tend to be a specific group of muslims that do believe in what is mentioned, but its a very small minority which is considered by the majority to be extremists. It is, therefore, not a collective belief of all the shia muslims and might actually be offensive to a lot of people. I am removing the edit once again hoping you won't undo my revision again And I'd also very much like to see the link that supports this information as well Hoping for a reply from you soon! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcomoc (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Narcomoc. Wikipedia policy (No original research) doesn't now permit us to make edits based on our personal experience or knowledge. We can only reflect information from reliable sources. We also can't remove reliably sourced content just because we believe it's wrong. I don't have access to the cited source. If you think that the text may not an accurate reflection of the cited source, you can use an inline template to request a quotation or source verification. I see that another editor has restored the content. I'll add a tag to request verification. Alternatively, if you find another reliable source which identifies a specific group that holds this belief, we can reflect that source. Eperoton (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a source that can identify the specific group but I do have proof that the aforementioned text that I've attempted to remove twice is not a collective belief held by the majority Shia view of the Quran It's mentioned in the first paragraph of the text that shia scholars do not believe that the Quran has been altered. Im going to remove the text again for the third time attaching the link as proof above in hopes that it's not added again. ~Narcomoc

"European colonialism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect European colonialism. Since you had some involvement with the European colonialism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Slavery in Islam

Greetings Eperoton. I seem to have some concerns regarding a newly created article Sexual slavery in Islam and have gotten into a dispute. On the face of it the article seems reliably cited with citations given in academic form. However, on closer inspection it does seem to have POV issues as well as some others, which I have highlighted on the talkpage. I refer this to you because you seem to be a frequent overseer on Islam related pages. My question is simple (although you can offer more input if you have the time). Do you think that the article strikes a certain POV (particularly the latter part) or am I just seeing things? The question is relevant to whether I should pointlessly escalate a dispute. Thank you for your time39.37.184.243 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing it out. At a glance, it seems to be a high quality article, using a variety of strong sources. I don't see an obvious POV in the selection of sources. It may have POV issues in how the sources are used, but that would require a close reading of the sources and making sure that they're reflected in a balanced manner. I'm familiar with some of these books, but not to the degree that I can evaluate how well the article reflects them just by skimming the article. The topic is a difficult one to cover in a NPOV manner. I will take a closer look at it when I have more time. Eperoton (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)