Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 2 January 2020

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Islam and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Islam Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-10-08 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Prosperos Assess : rate the Unassessed Islam-related articles and Unknown-importance Islam-related articles, tag the talk pages of Islam-related articles with the {{WikiProject Islam}} banner. Cleanup : A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Copyedit : listed at Islam articles needing attention Deletion sorting : listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam Infobox : listed at Islam articles needing infoboxes Maintain : visit WikiProject Islam/Article alerts Notability : listed at WikiProject Notability (WikiProject Islam listing) Portal : maintain Portal:Islam, fill in Anniversaries, update Did you know?, suggest Selected articles and Selected biographies, add {{Portal|Islam}} to the See also section of Islam-related articles. Stubs : Islam by country stubs, Islamic biography stubs, Islamic organization stubs, Islamic studies book stubs, Mosque stubs, Quran stubs, more... The project : Join WikiProject Islam and list yourself as a Participant in the project.

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 22 22 A 1 1 2 GA 7 13 38 79 13 150 B 82 119 243 474 107 1,025 C 113 156 428 1,612 369 2,678 Start 40 87 454 3,780 1 989 5,351 Stub 4 11 197 3,028 803 4,043 List 1 13 116 194 3 50 377 Category 5,778 5,778 Disambig 126 126 File 44 44 Portal 331 331 Project 110 110 Redirect 6 15 49 154 750 974 Template 516 516 NA 15 15 Other 107 107 Assessed 254 423 1,535 9,338 7,803 2,331 21,684 Unassessed 10 469 479 Total 254 423 1,535 9,348 7,803 2,800 22,163 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 65,102 Ω = 4.90

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Scope of an article

Please join me at Talk:Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques#Scope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine–Ottoman wars

Byzantine–Ottoman wars, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Do people watch the "requested articles" subpage?

I know that Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion#Islam exists, but (1) is that the best place to request new articles from WikiProject members? and (2) could someone place a link to the requested-articles page somewhere on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam?

I have just added Shufa (Islam) and Tajsim to the requested articles list. --Quuxplusone (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Some issues with the current Misplaced Pages Quran articles

Subtitle: Quran presentation in a 2020 electronic NPOV encyclopedia

See also MOS:ISLAM

1. Many current Misplaced Pages Quran Surah articles contain excessive amounts of primary source text, with limited secondary source citations. Some have no citations. Some content has been blatantly cut-and-pasted. Some article-content seems to be editor-WP:OR or editor-interpretation / opinions of the Quran. At times, the detailed theological explanations provided are almost incomprehensible.

2. Many Quran articles seem to imply the message the Quran is timeless, uncorruptable and self-explanatory. Many Wiki editors seem to use variations of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to justify their edits. Many of those editor-responses seem to believe that WP:BOLD means being brutal with unexplained deletions, rather than the more constructive and collaborative form of Wiki editing.

Bit like: Surah Al-Hijr:

"Verily, We, it is We Who revealed the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely We will guard it (from corruption)".

I challenge Wiki editors and readers to easily find this Quranic ayat. (Hint > this ayat is Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).

Examining the related Al-Hijr Wiki article. > It does not have any citations. It does not have URLs for any of the 'References'. The 'External link' is non-functioning.

The only link to a Quran in this Surah Al-Hijr page is from the Infobox. This links to a 'SAHIH INTERNESENAL (САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ)' Quran produced by the Тоҷик (a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group). This obscure version of the Quran https://en.quranacademy.org/quran/15 - provides a strange (Arabic-English-backwards-reading) translation. (further - every one of the 114 Misplaced Pages Surah Infoboxes has this same problematic issue) This САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ version of the Quran has wording unlike other Quran translation - refer: https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/15/9/ I prefer for Misplaced Pages an easy-to-access, internet-compatible, version - complete with Tafsir, such as. http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsir%20Ibn%20Kathir/015%20Hijr.htm

From the 114 Quran Infoboxes (under the Tab 'Arabic text') are links to 'English text'. For those, there are no 'Quran-translation sources' provided. The Quran wordings provided do not seem to correspond with any recognized translation.

2a. Question: Which English translation of the Quran is 'correct'? Pick any Chapter and any Verse and compare. https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/114/6/ (currently this URL links to the last Quranic Surah and last Verse - otherwise you might investigate any Surah and any Verse)

If you believe the Quran is "only revealed fully" in اَلْعَرَبِيَّةُ (Arabic), then, pick any سورة and any آية. Even then, there is 'confusion' > https://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html

2b. For controversial verses such as https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/65/4/ (re "divorce" and "those who have not yet menstruated") what information should Misplaced Pages provide for its readers, in 2020? Which citations are to be used in Misplaced Pages to underpin the article content?

Criticism ?: https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/065.004.html

Rebuttals ?: https://abuaminaelias.com/verse-65-4-child-marriage/ & https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/12/quran-654-the-child-marriage-claim/

2c. In 2020 this is a real issue. According to a UN report, "40 per cent of Afghan marriages involve girls between the ages of 10-13". https://www.refworld.org/docid/584ab1f44.html & https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/3/child-marriages-39000-every-day-more-than-140-million-girls-will-marry-between-2011-and-2020

3. Citations containing 'Criticism of Islam' are often rejected, because they come from 'critics of Islam'.

- with 'critics of Islam' dismissed variously as, "Islamophobic", "polemicists", "multi-million dollars-funded", "bigots", "non-academic", "Christian apologists", "spreaders of anti-Muslim propaganda", "Islamophobia propagandists" etc etc

4. With respect, for any Wiki Editor who self-describes as a "Muslim", as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much", who "is impressed by Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم" and edits as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799

- suggest he/she should consider WP:COI.

5. Various Wiki articles on the Quranic Surahs are presented in inconsistent formats.

6. There is a need to index and reference Surahs and Verses to provide an online 2020 English lexicographic structure.

More on the indexing of Wiki Quran articles on this Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hud_(surah)#Status_as_at_18_December_2019

7. The citations, located by using, {{Cite Quran}} are exceedingly 'awkward in form and appearance' (eg 'clunky'), for a 2020 digital encyclopedia. Hadith, Tafsir and other Islamic sources are referenced in complex varieties of inconsistent formats.

8. The WP:MOSISLAM Religious sources covers Quranic religious experts. Fine. These scholarly-citations are often presented without a URL - making 2020 citation research & confirmation very difficult. Ancient Islamic scholars, Hadiths, Tafsirs etc do not necessarily answer serious 2020 questions.

9. I understand the many tensions, sensitivities and consequences associated with the competing narratives - in trying to characterize Islam in 2020. Frank and fearless discussion is needed more than ever.

10. It is ironic that my last Wiki edit was of the Arabic word 'Kitman' (defined as "the concealment of one's convictions by silence or omission") - was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Taqiya&diff=932998210&oldid=932980493

11. All of this devalues Misplaced Pages as source of unbiased information.

12. You can track my wiki edits at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Koreangauteng

13. Recommend the need for improvement of Misplaced Pages in the above areas.

• Regarding the links to translations, I pointed out something similar at Template talk:Quote Quran translation#Qur'an verse, URL source; this was ~3 weeks ago without any response. I mentioned quran.com and islamawakened.com then, looking at the Infobox now, I would support quran.com for the "Arabic text" and islamawakened.com for "English translation". quran.com has nice word-by-word translations too, (The Quranic Arabic Corpus is another option - disjointed but more technical). An argument can be made for non-Muslim academic USC links, but they are broken, too unreliable and provide significantly less than islamawakened.com.
• I wouldn't recommend Tafsir links here, since there is too much controversy and difference of opinion involved. Whatever Tafsir gets primarily linked will inevitably cause some criticism.
• Regarding the different Arabic versions, termed as "alternative readings" by Muslims, as far as I've read there is one single version which is read by the vast majority of the Muslim populations. Generally, there are only minor differences; in the context of Qur'an article structure, these might require multiple variants to be included in certain exceptional cases, but overall this doesn't appear to be any significant issue.
• 2b - I would imagine both. NPOV requires both significant criticisms, and in turn, their rebuttals to be noted.
• 3 - Can't speak for other editors, but I usually don't remove the criticisms; however, I do find significant issue when such content is included without mentioning the obvious partiality of the sources as has been done multiple times. WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns should be remembered; controversial things shouldn't be represented in WP:WIKIVOICE as statements of accepted fact rather than of disagreed opinion. Personally, I would further argue that quoting every single minor criticism (like those which even Muslim apologists haven't bothered arguing against) might generally be misplaced, but I understand this is subjective and difficult to make hard policies for.
• Regarding Template:Cite Quran, the #Examples section provides several ways of including it so while it might be unnecessarily complicated but I don't believe it to be clunky; the links to external translation source still needs to be changed though.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerns raised by Koreangauteng, MOS:ISLAM is relevant and i have often reverted irrelevant edits on Islam-related topics (like honorifics, puffery, etc ...). Improving the encyclopedia in the above areas is a huge task and would require many editors' contribution in my humble opinion.---Wikaviani 16:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Project-Class Islam-related pages
• NA-importance Islam-related pages
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists