Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
|Dispute resolution (⇛)|
The Requests for mediation process is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.
To file a request for mediation, please skip to #File a request.
For a guide to filing a request for mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide.
File a request
|New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot. The bot runs hourly [search for "MedComClerk"].|
|Please don't list your case by hand; instead use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/File. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.)|
|→ There are currently no open requests for mediation. Please see above if you wish to file one.|
|Request for mediation concerning Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category)|
Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category)
Issues to be mediated
The user FreeatlastChitchat has deleted the "Authenticity" sub category [] and is continually reverting its inclusion in both pages. His main argument is that the source is not reliable and undue weight is being given to it. He also claims that the paper I cited isn't talking about Hadith in general. The talk page entry he created lists his concerns in detail. My main argument is
Update#1 User FreeatlastChitchat has claimed that "prophetic hadith" only applies to a specific subset of hadith. This is an unsourced claim. The author in the paper makes no mention of limiting his argument to only the set this user is claiming. In fact he's talking about mutawatir hadith in general, this is very clear from the content of the paper. Also the word "hadith" in Arabic means "report", and I'm sure the term "prophetic hadith", is being used by the scholar to refer to the reports by the prophet, which are compiled in hadith collections, not to that specific subset that user FreeatlastChitchat is claiming. cde1+6 LogicBomb! 04:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Update #2. The paper is available on a website too apparently online (URL: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html). Please note that the paper clearly does not limit its subject to the specific subset claimed by user FreeatlastChitchat. It's using the term "prophetic hadith" in the context I've listed above in Update#1. cde1+6 LogicBomb! 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Update #3: Fiqh (Islamic Law) includes Hadith as an important source, so any scholar of Fiqh would necessarily have expertise in Hadith by definition. Especially if he is a professor of Islamic Law at Columbia. The source is clearly an expert in the field. So user's counter-argument below on this issue is null and void. Also, this issue is about Hallaq, not Israr Khan, so the scope should not be expanded on other user's request. Lastly, Hallaq is not being given "a new section" as the user falsely claims. The category is labelled "authenticity" in general. Just because it currently has Hallaq as a main source does not mean its his category.
Update #4: I've suggested on the TP that categories be made based on the Subject Matter alone, and not the religious background of the scholars. This way, the authenticity category will contain all Muslim and Non Muslim scholars who have argued this. The same goes for the other categories. It will automatically fix the weight and also help the article considerably. cde1+6 LogicBomb! 08:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Update #4: Looks like the matter is settled. FreeatlastChitchat has apparently dropped most of his objections of reliability etc. and the weight issue doesn't even exist anymore, after the changes to the categories made, as per suggestions of multiple other editors and admins. Unless the other editor here objects to any of the relevant content in the main Criticism of Hadith article, I think we can close this content dispute. cde1+6 LogicBomb! 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation
Decision of the Mediation Committee
For a list of recently declined requests, go to /Rejected cases.
For a list of currently open cases, go to WP:RFM/T.
Previous requests for mediation are indexed on the box
on the right below. Note that where mediation takes place is generally/often on the talk page; the latter box allows those pages to be searched.