 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
File:006 abdulbaset an'aam.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion edit
|
An image used in this article, File:006 abdulbaset an'aam.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Content removal edit
- How is George Sale's translation of Quran, which is about 300 years old and one of the earliest translations of the text, a reliable source for encyclopedia? The (so-called) critical edition was by a missionary translator and is about 130 years old.
- There exists a ton of scholarship that discusses and critiques this (obsolete and biased) orientalist translation. See Ziad Elmarsafy among others. This also applies for Picthall (see Geoffrey Nash, 2005 & 2017) but from the other side of the fence.
- Who have cited Quran4u.com's translation of Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm? I am not even seeing why a primary source — without any critical commentary — shall be used at all.
- How is The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English a reliable source? Tughra Books is not even an academic publisher. I don't see any reviews over reliable journals (or by reputed scholars) either.
- One reliable source by Brill, put to irrelevant use. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am happy to take Sale to WP:reliable source JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, obtain a consensus in favor at WP:RSN. And stop reinstating poorly sourced content. In the meanwhile, allow me to rewrite the article using decent sources published by academic presses within last 30 years. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you can improve, good and well. I am readding the Summary until you do. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- JorgeLaArdilla, which part of WP:BURDEN eludes you? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- What is the summary? You are adding all the content back! TrangaBellam (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the part of WP:BURDEN that eludes you is it is satisfied by providing an inline citation. I am adding back all the content because you are removing all the content . JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I meant WP:ONUS. You have been here for long enough to know that
verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) - And, how is Islam Awakened a reliable source? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I meant WP:ONUS. You have been here for long enough to know that
- I think the part of WP:BURDEN that eludes you is it is satisfied by providing an inline citation. I am adding back all the content because you are removing all the content . JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you can improve, good and well. I am readding the Summary until you do. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, obtain a consensus in favor at WP:RSN. And stop reinstating poorly sourced content. In the meanwhile, allow me to rewrite the article using decent sources published by academic presses within last 30 years. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am happy to take Sale to WP:reliable source JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)