Wikipedia

Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 5

< Talk:Islamic calendar
Latest comment: 1 year ago by John Maynard Friedman in topic Prohibition of the Nasī': Nasī' can also mean postponement w/o intercalation
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Request for comment: Should the caption of the picture of the inside of a mosque mention a sermon which was delivered outdoors?

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
(non-admin closure) Short consensus is Yes. As it is beleived the nom is a long time disruptor, an established editor has called for a close, and this RfC has 3 days without editing, I am closing this. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the caption of the picture of the inside of a mosque mention a sermon which was delivered outdoors? 151.227.21.236 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No. The attribution is obviously wrong. 151.227.21.236 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes The image caption is based on verifiable sources. This issue has been brought up numerous times in the past by the same person hiding behind various London-area IP's. See also Archive 2, Archive 3 & Archive 4. AstroLynx (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Why ask us??? This is not a matter of interpretation of WP policies; it is a matter of verifiable fact. I for one cannot even read Arabic. I don't anyway see why it should be unreasonable to mention an outdoor sermon; outside Islam there is nothing against an interior notice mentioning a scheduled outdoor event, is there? Why should it be a problem within Islam? If there really is a problem and it is a big deal, then surely it should be possible to present the image to a few Islamic scholars for comment? And to request them to clarify the significance and context? It should be possible online in several countries or universities at once, both in the USA and a selection of Islamic countries. Storm in teacup, I bet. JonRichfield (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The verified (not verifiable) fact is that what is effectively a fatwa on adding months to the Islamic calendar was not delivered in a mosque but a long way from the nearest building. The issue is whether it is permissible to caption a picture with a statement which is not true. Whenever this has come up in the past the decision has been that these descriptions must be supported by reliable sources and verified by them. Pictures which don't pass this twin test are removed. A good example is the ongoing RfC at Talk:Mount Athos. A picture of a flag was described as "the Mount Athos flag" when it is actually the flag of the Greek Orthodox Church. It wasn't considered adequate to provide a single reference saying this is the flag of Mount Athos when other sources say it isn't. Similarly, if one source (which has yet to be discovered) says the fatwa was delivered inside a mosque it's not permissible to exclude reference to other sources which say it wasn't. This is AstroLynx's argument and it's cherrypicking of sources to advance his POV (he has an affinity for this picture, which is displayed on his website). 151.227.21.236 (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. The caption should mention that the image is misleading, the sermon was in fact delivered outdoors. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Summoned by bot. CLOSE THIS RFC AS DISRUPTIVE. No action needed. I spend a stupid amount of time investigating this in detail. The article is permanently semiprotected[1] because this IP editor has been waging a years-long crusade trying to get the image of Muhammad removed. It spans talk archives 2,3,4, multiple user pages, two ANI sections,[2][3] and was even posted at ARBCOM.[4] Ttalk page history is clogged with countless reverts, administrators removing the previous disruptive posts by the IP.
The primary thing to see is the RFC taking up the entire Talk:Islamic_calendar/Archive_3. The key point of the close is The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion. The discussion cited multiple reliable sources, scholars and historians, describing this as a depiction of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation (which is the subject of the section). I'll add a few new sources here. Ritus infidelium: Interfaith Perspectives on religious practices in the Middle Ages[5] (in Spanish) page 18 has the image in black&white explicitly captioned as as Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane[6] plate 13 labels the image "Muhammad preaching", and explicitly uses it an illustration for this topic. The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353 does not appear to contain the image, however page 245 has a section dedicated to the original manuscript that contained the image. It explicitly says it's an image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Biblissima.fr is a site funded by the French government, in collaboration with universities and cultural institutions to host documents of historical significance. Biblissima has the entire original manuscript online.[7] The image in in panel 5v. If you click the (i) in the top right corner, you get information on the document. It says Le prophète Muḥammad interdit l'intercalation d'un mois supplémentaire dans l'année lunaire. - (f. 5v). The translation is The Prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of an additional month in the lunar year. - (5v).
This is nothing but a disruptive IP editor (almost certainly evading a block), desperately grasping at straws trying to eliminate the image itself. If this keeps up, we may have to put a long term semi-protect on the talk page as well. Alsee (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Important summary for the future

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is permanently semi-protected. There have been coordinated off-wiki attacks on the article, as well as long term abuse by one or more block-evading individuals editing via IP edits and/or sockpuppet accounts. Such edits should be dealt with as WP:Revert, block, ignore, including edits to this talk page.

  • There is no credible dispute that multiple Reliable Sources have described image File:Maome.jpg as Muhammad prohibiting Nasī’ / prohibiting intercalation. Several such sources are listed in the Archive 3 RFC, and additional sources were listed in the more recent RFC.
  • There is no credible dispute that multiple Reliable Sources have used this image for the purpose of illustrating this topic.
  • At one point the image caption described this as happening at the Farewell Sermon. The sources using this image generally do not make that claim. While it is believed Muhammad prohibited intercalation at the Farewell Sermon, we do not know whether he did so at multiple times and places. The image caption should not make claims about the time or place.
  • Accuracy of the image contents: Photographs did not exist fourteen hundred years ago. This image is obviously an artist's attempt to depict or recreate events of the era. Was Muhammad wearing a blue robe when he said these words? Maybe, maybe not. Was he standing at the top of stairs when he said these words? Maybe, maybe not. It is undisputed that Reliable Sources consider this image suitable for illustrating this topic. Anyone viewing the image will immediately know it's an artist's impression of the event. Readers know that details of image do not have photographic-accuracy.
  • Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging long term block-evading individuals simply demanding that Images of Muhammad be removed.
  • Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging attempts to attack the expert-judgement of multiple Reliable Sources.
  • Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging attempts to attack incidental details an artist's depiction.
  • Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging any other desperate excuses, when those excuses are clearly just another ploy for removing images of Muhammad in general. Alsee (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The current Islamic year is

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This paragraph will constantly need to be updated and may not be indicated (see MOS:EPHEMERAL, MOS:REALTIME). WP:ASOF has a template that could remind that the paragraph needs to be updated through categories, but I doubt that this is necessary here... The external links section also already has links to calendar calculators, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that there also is a way to use one of the age templates to automatically update both values... —PaleoNeonate – 18:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Islamic calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

change: "Since 1 October 2016, as a cost-cutting measure, Saudi Arabia no longer uses the Islamic calendar for paying the monthly salaries of government employees but the Gregorian calendar."

to: "Since 1 October 2016, as a cost-cutting measure, Saudi Arabia no longer uses the Lunar Hijri calendar for paying the monthly salaries of government employees but the Solar Hijri calendar."

References: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2016/10/18/Pay-day-moves-Saudi-govt-staff-to-get-salaries-as-per-Solar-Hijri-calendar.html http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/165551/Govt-staff-to-get-salaries-as-per-Solar-Hijri-calendar Flies away (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is not clear from the sources linked that the terms used in the proposed edit are preferable to the current text. The English Wikipedia generally prefers to use the most common name in reliable English sources to identify objects and if Solar Hijiri and Gregorian are actually equivalent, then Gregorian would be preferred. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I request to remove the embedded picture showing Muhammed (peace be upon him). As it is not acceptable by muslims and there is no authentic picture available of our Prophet(peace be upon him) 106.203.162.47 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.
Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Background to this request Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Changing the caption of a picture in a Wikipedia article.

In the section "Prohibiting Nasī’", to give effect to the RfC close of 23:35, 31 July 2017, please amend the opening text to read <!----Please see [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ]] and discuss on the talk page before removing the following image:---->[[File:Maome.jpg|thumb|Muhammad prohibiting Nasī’. Found in an illustrated copy of [[Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī|Al-Bīrūnī]]'s ''[[The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries]]'' (17th-century copy of an early 14th-century [[Ilkhanate|Ilkhanid]] manuscript). The image is misleading, the sermon was in fact delivered outdoors.<ref>From an illustrated manuscript of Al-Biruni's 11th-century ''[[Vestiges of the Past]]'' (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v. (Bibliothèque Nationale on-line catalog). See also: Robert Hillenbrand, "Images of Muhammad in al-Bīrūnī's Chronology of Ancient Nations", in: R. Hillenbrand (ed.), ''Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson'' (London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000), pp. 129–46.</ref>]]

I'll be requesting an emendment to the preceding sub-section later. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It is alleged that the above user is yet another sock of the banned user Vote X for change, and if so, then the request should be denied, and probably the talk page should be semi'd for a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  Note: Baseball Bugs actually I'm gonna be WP:BOLD here and close this request anyway. Sock or not this seems to be an edit that would require a consensus anyway especially where IP has mentioned an RfC from July 31 2017 and didn't even link to it for evaluation. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This "debate" is the largest item of all the archives of this talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Three month semi-protect, ninth protection in three years

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is permanently semi-protected and the talk page has been semi-protected nine times in three years. All apparently due to the same IP-hopping long term abuse individual with multi-year persistence and a fetish for calendars and the Muhammad image. I suspect the three month protection may be inadequate deterrence. If they return I suggest swiftly going to Requests For Page Protection and explicitly requesting escalated duration on the next protection.

See Archive 5#Important summary for the future and other archives if you need more info. Alsee (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed calendar?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Is it just me but I still don't understand the term "fixed calendar" (in Pre-Islamic calendar). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anon editor has added explanation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic calendar - overlength for this article, better elsewhere

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:81.139.213.29 has added a lot of valuable material to the "Pre-Islamic calendar" section of this. The problem is that it is now more comprehensive than the main article Pre-Islamic calendar that it is supposed to summarise. So may I suggest that 81.139.213.29 copy the section over (= replace) the main article, write a wp:lead for it that summarises its essential points, That lead can then be used to provide a new short summary section for this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove illustration of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) under the section "Prohibiting Nasī’"

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Under the Prohibiting Nasī’ section, there is an illustration of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that must be removed. As a Muslim, I am very offended by it, and I am sure all Muslims of the world are too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashadon007 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not likely to happen — see the long earlier discussions in the archives linked to this talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
As this issue is of great importance to some sects of Islam, there is a full explanation of Wikipedia's policy at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Long term troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re this comment on another talk page:

Future Perfect's stance is in line with an essay he has written on the subject but contrasts strongly with his insistence that a picture in Islamic calendar is one of Muhammad forbidding intercalation in the course of his Farewell Pilgrimage. The only reason he does that is because he knows Muslims find pictures of the Prophet offensive. Nobody involved with the commissioning of this picture suggests that, which is intrinsically unlikely because it depicts the Shia members of the Prophet's extended family in addition to the preacher, who is not Muhammad (who had a long beard) but most likely Ali. We know that when the Prophet delivered the Farewell Sermon he was in the open (he was actually sitting on a camel while he did it). The picture is a mosque setting. There are also no speech bubbles emanating from the Imam's mouth which might justify us in concluding that he was discussing intercalation rather than one of the other matters which the Prophet touched on in his sermon. Five people are listening to the sermon in the mosque, as opposed to the thousands who participated in the Farewell Pilgrimage.

- 78.145.17.176 11:17, 18 April 2019
The picture is an artist's impression, not a photograph. It is not surprising that the artist used a style of representation that people of his time expected, as is equally the case in western art of the same period. In any case is it highly unlikely that the artist had access to the kind of research evidence that the author of this remark finds compelling. In any event, it is not for Wikipedia to debate its accuracy or otherwise, but only that a reliable source says that this is what it is. So the only basis for challenge is that other reliable sources disagree, or that the source does not actually say this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You can remove or recaption the picture since it fails both WP:RS and WP:V and also Jimbo's "principle of least astonishment" which was devised for exactly this situation and is policy. The "source" is two verses from the Qu'ran, written a millennium before the picture was painted (a writing cannot verify a document which was created subsequently, for obvious reasons). 82.14.255.206 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can show that the citation From an illustrated manuscript of Al-Biruni's 11th-century Vestiges of the Past (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v. (Bibliothèque Nationale on-line catalog) described in Robert Hillenbrand, "Images of Muhammad in al-Bīrūnī's Chronology of Ancient Nations", R. Hillenbrand (ed.), "Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson" (London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers and the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, 2000), pp. 129–46. does not actually support the caption (per template:failed verification), then certainly it must be removed. But unless and until you do, the policy set out in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ will continue. Meanwhile, the same FAQ has instructions on how to set your wikipedia preferences so that it is not shown to you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't waste your time on Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Vote_(X)_for_Change — this is just another rehash of a discussion that this London-based IP has opened numerous times in the past on these talk pages. AstroLynx (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Islamic Sacred months same like pagan meccas??

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I invite NZFC here to come and and tell me why they insist on putting such bullshit information onto the wiki. That one source added was a unreliable website and the 3 website sources added HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ISLAMIC SACRED MONTHS BEING THE SAME AS PAGAN MECCAS CALENDER. READ IT YOURSELF. I wonder if NZFC would mind if I add information about new zealand≤ using this site as a source https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/New_Zealand because this how the edit looks like to be honest. But not surprised that Islamic articles are being terrorized right now. Proof? Check Asma Binti Marwan Wikipedia. No muslim believes in that bullshit yet the some editors assume this is a real event and purposely spreading islamophobia. There is also several proofs that that event is made up. If you want to say "Lets be npov" fine, then i wont delete, but allow me to refute how the sentence is wrong with another sentence after it with such and such proof and sources. I wil give 2 days for NZFC to respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.99.175 (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Kia ora IP, you seem to be angry, I suggest taking a breath and not taking things so personally. I also won't care if you wanted to edit NZ articles. Trying to make it personal isn't going to worry or upset me. If you can provide reliable sources to what you add/change, then that would be even better. Now as for this article, the paragraph isn't saying it is the same, though it is saying that they both were considered forbidden. From the old and the new references it appears that is the case. Before we delete it, I suggest it be discussed here, so thank you for bring it to the talk page finally.Now, as for what is happening in other articles I can't say as I haven't seen it. I'm not against the religion myself (or any religion for that matter), I am just monitoring pending pages because they have a habit of being either vandalised or censored. Ok now, can you show me and other editors how that paragraph and sources are wrong? NZFC(talk)(cont) 10:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hijri calendar, not Islamic

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Calendar has nothing to do with Islam, it is before Islam. As Muslims do not actually use it, it is a common mistake to regard anything Arab as Islamic. Therefore, he suggested changing the name of the article "Islamic Calendar" to "Arabic Calendar". Sarazxs123 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain further please? The epoch (starting date) of this calendar is the Hejira, it is founded in Islam. It is used widely outside Arabia. The Arabic calendars that preceded this one may have many similarities but they are not the same. If you had said that "Arabic calendar" is not correct, you would have a case but unfortunately it is a name in widespread use so we have to give it as an alias: Wikipedia records what is, not what should be. Much the same applies to "Islamic calendar" though far less convincingly. "Hijri calendar" is probably the most correct but that term is not widely used in the English-speaking world. Have I misunderstood your point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean that the calendar is called the Hijri calendar and it is not Islamic. There is no such thing as an Islamic calendar or an Islamic year, just as the Roman calendar is not a Christian calendar. Thats what i mean Sarazxs123 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. There are similar arguments regarding Common Era and Anno Domini (whose Lord is this?). The problem you face is wp:Common name: the Hijri calendar is often called the "Islamic calendar", even though you are certainly justified in saying that it is a misnomer. Your options from here are these:
[a] open a formal discussion (start a new heading below) where you make a case for the article to be moved to "Hijri calendar". ("Islamic calendar" would then become a redirect to it). I for one would support you, for the reason you have already given but your case will be stronger if you can show that Wikipedia is out of line with other encyclopedias and reference books.
[b] (if [a] fails) Find a reliable source that says that "Hijri calendar" is the correct name and change the opening sentence to say something like "The calendar commonly known as the Islamic calendar but whose formal name is the Hijri calendar is .... etc". This is a messy outcome so it would be better if [a] secures consensus.
How does that sound? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete whole section "Converting Hijri to Gregorian date or vice versa"

Latest comment: 2 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

It is very difficult to see why this section exists on Wikipedia. WP: Wikipedia is not a manual or a guide book. It reads to me the work of individuals playing with the arithmetic. It is not encyclopedic in tone and is largely WP: original research. Are there any convincing reasons why it should be kept? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that no-one has supported continued inclusion of the 'how to' material, I have deleted it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Exchanges with IP sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You should have advertised the change as you are attempting to alter long-standing policy. For example, Date of Easter includes numerous complex algorithms for ascertaining the date. I don't follow the "original research" argument either - the section contains a list of the Muslim months and their Jewish equivalents. You could just as well argue that noting that Id al-Fitr in 2021 fell on such and such a date was "original research".
Restore section as there is no evidence of any consensus to exclude it. 81.139.219.232 (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
My proposal to delete material was advertised here at the affected article for three months before I took any action. Which "long standing policy" have I attempted to alter? On the contrary, wp:NOTMANUAL is one of the longest standing policies we have. Further, given that it has taken a total of six months for any concern to arise, so I suggest de facto consensus for the change.
Nevertheless, I have left a note at talk:Date of Easter to invite second opinions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. As stated it’s contrary to WP:NOTMANUAL. It’s also unsourced and terribly written for an Encyclopedia. It wouldn’t surprise me if it turned out to be a WP:COPYVIO from some internet page. Btw, there’s no obligation to “advertise” this. Removal has WP:EDITCONSENSUS since it was removed over two months ago. It would now require a new consensus to restore it. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The reason why the section was there is this:

It would be great if someone who understands computing could design a converter for this page, so the reader can put in a date and get the date in the other calendar. It wouldn't be hard to do for someone who understands these things. Other Wiki pages have special mini-programs attached for various useful subject-specific effects. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The page now has several date converters. — Glenn L (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where you allege content is unsourced correct procedure is to add a [citation needed] tag and allow time for a response. You should not delete a section on foot of a claim that it is "terribly written" without securing consensus on the Talk page. There is no suggestion that you cannot understand the section, which is the crucial point. Claims of internet plagiarism are a serious matter. These should never be made unless a search has been conducted using the plagiarism search engine which universities use to vet students' theses and a positive result has been returned. The fact that there are so many algorithms on the Date of Easter page and elsewhere in Wikipedia shows that your interpretation of policy is seriously flawed. @Doric Loon: @Glenn L: 81.139.219.232 (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you’re wrong. The “correct procedure” is not to add a citation needed tag. That’s an option but not the “correct procedure”. In this case, because it’s dreadfully written and fails WP:NOTMANUAL the appropriate course of action is to delete it. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But can you understand the procedure? Yes or no. 81.139.219.232 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
What procedure are you referring to? DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence reads "Conversions may be made by using the Tabular Islamic calendar, or, for greatest accuracy (one day in 15,186 years), via the Jewish calendar." Do you understand that? 81.139.219.232 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Do I understand that sentence? Yes. I don’t understand what point you are making though. DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that if content is intelligible it is not "terribly written". It is only "terribly written" if, through the fault of the author, parts of it cannot be understood. So let's move on to the second sentence, "Theoretically, the days of the months correspond in both calendars if the displacements which are a feature of the Jewish system are ignored." Do you understand that? 81.139.219.232 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You’re wrong again. Being “understandable” isn’t the only test. It needs to be written in an encyclopaedic tone and style. The deleted section isn’t. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added links to two external pages that provide excellent conversion tools: the source for the algorithms is open. This meets the request for conversion tools. Furthermore, today's date is given at the top of the article. This article is about the Hijri calendar, not about converting its dates to the calendars of other religions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You're missing two vital points. First, many Muslims live in developing countries and do not have access to computers. Secondly, the section has the Gregorian/Islamic conversion conveniently laid out for nineteen years. With the key information "Which Muslim month corresponds to the first Jewish month?" the reader can call up the corresponding section of the table in Hebrew calendar and have the Gregorian date in less time than it takes to type out the URL of one of John's conversion tables, let alone the time spent typing numbers into the numerous fields of the converter. When there are numerous dates to convert the time saving is considerable. Neither of you has given any inkling of why you say the "tone and style" is not encyclopaedic. The following text was removed from Date of Easter a month ago and reinstated within the hour. The tone and style are similar:

This is the table of paschal full moon dates for all Julian years since 931:

Golden
number 		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Paschal
full moon
date 		5
April		 25
March		 13
April		 2
April		 22
March		 10
April		 30
March		 18
April		 7
April		 27
March		 15
April		 4
April		 24
March		 12
April		 1
April		 21
March		 9
April		 29
March		 17
April

Example calculation using this table:

The golden number for 1573 is 16 (1573 + 1 = 1574; 1574 ÷ 19 = 82 remainder 16). From the table, the paschal full moon for golden number 16 is 21 March. From the week table 21 March is Saturday. Easter Sunday is the following Sunday, 22 March.

So for a given date of the ecclesiastical full moon, there are seven possible Easter dates. The cycle of Sunday letters, however, does not repeat in seven years: because of the interruptions of the leap day every four years, the full cycle in which weekdays recur in the calendar in the same way, is 4 × 7 = 28 years, the so-called solar cycle. So the Easter dates repeated in the same order after 4 × 7 × 19 = 532 years. This paschal cycle is also called the Victorian cycle, after Victorius of Aquitaine, who introduced it in Rome in 457. It is first known to have been used by Annianus of Alexandria at the beginning of the 5th century. It has also sometimes erroneously been called the Dionysian cycle, after Dionysius Exiguus, who prepared Easter tables that started in 532; but he apparently did not realize that the Alexandrian computus he described had a 532-year cycle, although he did realize that his 95-year table was not a true cycle. Venerable Bede (7th century) seems to have been the first to identify the solar cycle and explain the paschal cycle from the Metonic cycle and the solar cycle.

First, at least a mobile phone is needed for access to Wikipedia, so your point about people without access to computers is not obviously relevant (but the articles List of Islamic years and Islamic New Year have conversion tables, linked from the See Also of this article. I guess we could replicate here the table from Islamic New Year?).
Second, there are many apps for mobiles to support Islamic practice; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and one of its main values is to direct readers to reliable sources, it can't and shouldn't try to do everything. And when "everything" in this case includes publication of original research, then it belongs elsewhere.
Third, the Date of Easter article is about the calculation of its date – there is another article about the Christian feast – so there is at least a prima facie case for it to go into deep detail about the nature of the calculation (whether the extent to which it does so is justified is a good question but not here. See wp:other stuff exists.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not following your argument. I'm sorry to inform you that Muslims in developing countries often don't have mobile phones and even if they did unless a philanthropist has provided a satellite they can't use them because there is no signal. The point of the conversion table is that it is hard copy which doesn't need electronic gadgetry. Your "original research" allegations relate to the subsection "Arithmetical coincidences" which is probably redundant as most of the ground is covered elsewhere. Direct conversion from one calendar to another falls squarely within the WP:CALC exemption. 81.139.219.232 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You're still arguing that the conversion table is "disputed text". So far as I can see, this is based on a claim that information about what a Muslim date is in Gregorian is inappropriate for an article about the Muslim calendar. You previously abandoned this claim, pointing out that this article gives the Gregorian/Muslim conversion updated every 24 hours, while suggesting that conversion information for long periods should also be included. The "Islamic New Year" article is a specialist article about the relationship between the Gregorian and Islamic calendars. 81.139.219.232 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Then find another platform for your original research. There is a clear consensus that it does not belong on Wikipedia.
It is not acceptable that you should try to evade consensus by adding the same material to Islamic New Year and I have reverted per WP:BRD. See talk:Islamic New Year#Reverted addition of original research relating to Gregorian calendar: bold, revert, discuss. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No. I have said (and other editors agree) that it is unencyclopedic original research. I have also said that Hijri calendar (and the Hijri New Year) stand on their own merits without any need to justify them by reference to the calendars of other religions. This article gives today's date in multiple calendars; some important dates are given in the Common Era calendar too, for reader convenience. The external links provide the means to convert other dates. This is not a "claim" and I have not abandoned it. I have never mentioned 24 hours (though you may be confusing the moment when a month starts between the direct observation method and the tabular method). The Islamic New Year article is emphatically not about the relationship between the Hijri and the Christian calendars: that is exclusively your obsession. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a case of block evasion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be unable to distinguish between an article which is "about" X and an article which is exclusively about X. You admitted both articles are about converting between Gregorian and Islamic dates when you advocated transcluding a long list of conversions from Islamic New Year to Islamic calendar. You say (12:09):

The Islamic New Year article is emphatically about the relationship between the Hijri and the Christian calendars;

Then come the personal attacks:

that is exclusively your obsession. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a case of block evasion.

On the subject of blocks, you were indefinitely blocked in 2020 for "personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy". I note that you disturbed the chronological sequence of the comments in this discussion, apparently to deflect focus from your claim that I have said (and other editors agree) that it is unencyclopedic original research. The point was first raised by you at 12:09 this afternoon. You continue: articles stand on their own merits without any need to justify them by reference to the calendars of other religions. That means no comparison of calendars or Gregorian equivalents anywhere on Wikipedia and it's the antithesis of what you recommended yesterday. Writing for Wikipedia is not about "justification" - it's about providing information useful to the readers. 81.139.219.232 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not a response to the anonymous editor who clearly has extensive editing experience but chooses to hide behind an IP address. But for anyone who has any interest my overnight block, please feel free to read User talk:John Maynard Friedman/Archives/2020/July#Query. As for the rest of his rant, I can see that further debate is pointless and won't waste any more time on it. The consensus is already clear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You don't seem to have learned from your block - you describe reasoned argument as a "rant". Maybe ask DeCausa (a London lawyer) to mentor you? The consensus is indeed clear. The subsection was tagged "original research" - I take no position on that but it's irrelevant as the content added to Islamic new year contained none of that. The "original research" claim in relation to the remaining content was first made by you 192 days (more than half a year) after the discussion started. It is supported by nobody - not even you, apparently, as you now advocate importing similar material from Islamic new year. The other objection - that the content is "unencyclopaedic" - was withdrawn by mutual agreement following consideration of similar material in other articles. Your discussion with AstroLynx shows that you are both intent on creating calendrical confusion by replacing the section which accurately converts pre-Hijra dates with the wildly inaccurate "Tabular Islamic calendar" via links which don't work - not in my browser, anyway, and I'm using Google Chrome. My impression is reinforced by this comment I noticed while browsing the archive:

Well, it was clear enough that you misrepresented Hillenbrand...

- Wiqi55 to AstroLynx 13:55, 3 February 2015

OK, I got the converters to work and my worst suspicions were confirmed. I typed in data for 1 Muharram AH 20874, which astronomers have confirmed will begin in early January AD 20874 and which is the worked example in the section. The first link claims it equates to 29 March 20874 and the Jewish date 17 Tevet 24634. That's a discrepancy of sixteen days in the date of the new moon. The second link is worse - the Jewish equivalent is claimed to be 21 Tishri 24634. 81.139.219.232 (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Both date converters give exactly the same dates: 3 January 20874 in the Gregorian calendar and 21 Tishri 24634 in the Hebrew calendar which is to be expected as they are based on the same algorithms. Obviously you must have made a mistake somewhere.
That the lunar ages in the Muslim and Hebrew calendar differ is also to be expected as the algorithms for the tabular Islamic calendar and the Hebrew calendar are based on slightly different values of the mean synodic period of the moon. AstroLynx (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Confirm I support removal of section on basis of WP:NOTMANUAL and unsourced. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked 81.139.219.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as an IP sock of community-banned Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. This article is one of their "favorites", and it is protected because of their recurring efforts. Favonian (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Image of Muhammad

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Salman khan 01:, per WP:NOTCENSORED we do not remove images of Muhammad on the grounds that it is contrary to the view of some Muslims. Please discuss here and do not edit war. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Prohibition of the Nasī': Nasī' can also mean postponement w/o intercalation

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It makes no sense to discuss the Islamic prohibition of the Nasī' w/o first defining the Nasi' (I have just fixed that).

Second, the translation used here is explicitly adopting but one of the 2 interpretations, intercalation, ignoring the 2nd, postponement. Either one can prove that only this interpretation has gained mainstream traction lately, or the whole section becomes misleading & untenable. Arminden (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough but you need to provide a citation that supports that dual interpretation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Both interpretations are described at Nasi'. Maybe you can find a suitable single citation there? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_calendar/Archive_5&oldid=1219717492"