Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for a template for Hijri Date

There should be a template for Hijri date. If we would write 1/9/1445 in the template it will give the resulted text as: 'Hijri: 1 Ramadan 1445' or '1 Ramadan 1445 AH' and if the date or month is not known only the year would be shown and would also convert the Hijri date to Gregorian date.

Inu06 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Digital Quran?

I'm quite confused as to what the article digital Quran is meant to be about. Is it about…

1. …antique dedicated devices for displaying the Holy Quran, similar to electronic pocket dictionaries? [1]
2. …twenty year old desktop devices which display the Quran? [2]
3. …Quran devices for the blind with braille TTY output? [3]
4. …digital audio players specifically meant for Quran playback, with buttons for each surah or some other means of surah/āyah selection? [4]
5. …websites meant for the display on a user's pre-existing device of the text of the Quran, such as the Omani Digital Muṣḥaf? [5]
6. …downloadable ebooks of the Quran, which may or may not come as full applications for mobile phones?
7. …possibly even Quran pen devices, which are physical maṣāḥif made of digital paper? [6]
8. …some combination of these topics, or all of them?

Some guidance would be appreciated; it seems out article on the subject is quite old and has just been expanded and expanded as technology has changed with little regard to how different these types of digital Quran are from one another. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: An article for Thomas Milo was deleted. He was the creator of Arabic unicode (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Milo) - (Original text here). If you would consider helping reinstate that article that would probable motivate me to improve this article? Tiny Particle (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tiny Particle: AfD decisions are ideally based on source availability not article quality. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto, digital Quran, simply should mean the electronic versions of the book, pdf/epub/ebook, and else. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Jewish Chronicle

There's an RFC on the suitability of the Jewish Chronicle as a source here. I thought folks here might be interested, since I see Islamophobia is a top priority. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Template for muslimsinbritain.org

I updated several external links from mosque articles to muslimsinbritain.org, including five in this list. However, to simplify future maintenance, it would be worth making an external link template to use in these citations. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Issue regarding summary of the Satanic Verses to An-Najm

Referring to editors here regarding this issue I have with another editor adding an entire paragraph about the Satanic Verses to An-Najm. Here is what I've said on another admin's discussion page, and what Dogcatmousebird has said in their defence:

"I've been in a dispute concerning the page An-Najm, where the user mentioned (new account, about 4 days old) seems to be stern on mentioning Satanic Verses in the page, despite having little to no relation to the chapter itself. I reverted the user the first time, to which he removed my revert with no explanation. Then I reverted him a second time, to which he decided to add an entire section about it, justifying the addition as "a key factual and historical narrative directly tied to the revelation and interpretation of Surah An-Najm", which is simply untrue. Muslims who have memorized and recited this chapter have no idea concerning this incident since this has nothing to do with the chapter, and is a separate incident that does not need to be mentioned on the page due to its irrelevancy. I'm leaving it to your judgement since you're an administrator here, since I disagree with the addition and it even seems to be POV pushing, considering the lack of defense of such an addition, blatant false statements, and the 'summary' appearing to be a blatant copy+paste from the main article. Thank you." - Atcovi

"I want to add two things: The first time I reverted your change without an explanation was an accident, I'm new Second thing is I want to clarify the use of the term "factual". In my edit message, I mean everything I added to the post is factual. The account and dispute exists. Any non-biased observer, informed on the subject, can see the obvious relevance this topic has to the Surah, and the obvious bias in attempting to suppress it." - Dogcatmousebird

Leaving this for this community so they can deal with it however way they want to. Thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputes related to specific articles are usually handled on the corresponding talkpage (WP:EDITWAR). Also, make sure you familarized yourself with the guidlines for proper conduct before engaging in a dispute (WP:TALK).

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks VenusFeuerFalle for your response. I attempted to open the way for a discussion by reverting the user's changes and notifying the user politely to explain their motives behind the addition (and that I was going to start the discussion the following morning to explain why the user's additions are irrelevant), but the user is adamant on keeping their changes and reverted my edit, saying that "it doesn't matter how many people revert it, this is factual and relevant information" and attempting to guess my intentions behind my reverts of their edits. Evidently from this edit summary and their reversion of your non-controversial edit, it seems that the user is not interested in consensus but their own interpretation of what iss "relevant" or "helpful".

I quite frankly do not have time to engage in such "Wikipedia battles", and would rather focus my attention to completing the Quranic recitations of all 114 chapters (which I am over half-way done). If someone else would like to deal with this user's additions, then they can do so. It would be exhausting to try and get this to the point where I can report this user for violating the 3RR rule anyhow. Thanks! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, after reviewing the history page of An-Najm, it is evident that the consensus is to not mention the incident directly on the page due to low merit (see here). After reviewing this, I've left my perspective on the matter on the talk page. For the time being, I've removed the user's additions and will have to go to the noticeboard if the user persists on adding changes without the needed consensus. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)