Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques

edit
Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Capitals00.

17 July 2013

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have found about 6 reliable sources regarding the information that "Kaaba" was the hindu temple before, and a ruler had made mosque in front of a temple that is from varanasi. Thus i added on the page "According to some sources, Ka'aba used to be a hindu temple." By adding the 3 references, and reverted the lost data of the page back, which was regarding varanasi, as it was removed by some random.

Now i see a editor who would first claim that "i don't think so about varanasi temple", and also refuting the information about Kabaa as well. I presented about 3 more sources, one of them highly recognized, still the editor doesn't seems to be agreeing. 6 sources:- [1](Regarding varanasi temple), .[2], [3], [4], [5], [6](about Kaaba).

References

  1. ^ http://www.hoteltravel.com/india/varanasi/great-mosque-of-aurangzeb-in-varanasi.htm
  2. ^ Gene D. Matlock, India Once Ruled the Americas!, p. 143
  3. ^ Asma Shah, Institute of Terrorism: Islam, p. 227
  4. ^ Götz Hoeppe, "Conversations on the Beach", p. 35.
  5. ^ Edward Moore, The Hindu Pantheon, p 589.
  6. ^ Winand M. Callewaert, "Banaras: Visions of a Living Ancient Tradition", p 84.
None of the books/sources comes from " iUniverse", and 6 of the sources, regarding kabaa can't be "self-published book from iUniverse" or WP:FRINGE, "(possibly his own?)" seems immature because i can't have multiple original identities either. Capitals00 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even needed to look, since i haven't took them from Trafford or "iUniverse", but i just checked, Zero of my sources share any connection with Trafford either. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed in both talk pages, for about 4 hours.

How do you think we can help?

Let me know, how such sourced information can be added, or not. Considering rest of the information in the whole article have share similar type of sources.


Opening comments by Roscelese
edit
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I've already explained this to the user, but there's obviously a language barrier and I'm not sure a) what he's trying to say or b) if what I'm saying is getting across. For the Varanasi thing, the issue is a disagreement over what the article's scope should be (does "conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques" mean "former temples and churches that became mosques," or also "mosques built on the same ground where other things used to be") - I have one position and I would be delighted if he would articulate another. The Kaaba issue is separate; it's a wildly WP:FRINGE claim and the sources he's adding for it are self-published books from iUniverse and Trafford (one possibly his own?) and an op-ed from noted pseudohistorian P.N. Oak. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques discussion
edit
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case or opening it for discussion at this time, but merely offering this recommendation: @Capitals00: It would very much encourage a volunteer to open and take this case if you were to list in your opening statement the 6 sources to which you refer, preferably in the form of inline references so that a volunteer doesn't have to go searching for them in the articles. If you use inline references, then put {{reflist-talk|close=1}} on a line by itself at the bottom of your opening comments so they'll show up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not opening this for general discussion, but I do want to comment and ask a couple of questions about the sources Capitals00 has listed. The numbers, below, correspond to his listing, above.
1. Is clearly not a reliable source and cannot be used in Wikipedia. It's a website without an established "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the verifiability policy. Since this is not a reliable source the Varanasi issue is moot until a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia can be produced and discussed on the talk page. That issue is closed for purposes of this discussion.
2&3. Are also not reliable for the same underlying reason, but specifically because they are self-published works from vanity publishers. They cannot be used to support information in the article.
5. Due to its age, I have grave suspicions about the reliability of this work. It cannot be regarded as reliable unless it can be shown to have been cited in a positive manner multiple times in modern works which are themselves clearly reliable. In any event, the page number given does not correspond to the open source editions of that work that I've been able to find. @Capitals00: Could you perhaps find the same passage in this Google Books edition of that work and provide the page number? Can you provide evidence, of the nature I just mentioned, that this work is reliable?
4&6. These appear to be reputable publishers and though the Google Books links to these works do not provide full page views of the passages in question, searching on "Kaaba" or "Mecca" bring up snippits which suggest that they might support the assertion that there is at least a Hindu tradition that the black stone in the Kaaba is a Hindu lingam. @Roscelese: Do you have access to those two works so you can see the references in context? Why do you not believe that they are not reliable?
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4 and 6 are ones that Capitals00 never attempted to cite in the article, so all this discussion seems very hypothetical to me. Now that I look at them for the first time, they support the idea that a belief exists that the Kaaba is a Hindu lingam, but Capitals00's "according to numerous sources, the Kaaba used to be a Hindu temple" is obviously inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques&oldid=1141925272"