Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Islam-related articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Mid NA Other Total FA 7 4 11 FL 2 2 FM 4 4 GA 26 68 94 B 126 3 327 456 C 198 3 734 935 Start 413 26 2,643 3,082 Stub 182 44 2,527 2,753 List 93 10 148 251 Book 4 4 Category 3,055 2 3,057 Disambig 1 44 3 48 File 31 1 32 Portal 110 1 111 Project 26 26 Redirect 3 264 7 274 Template 235 7 242 NA 1 1 Other 14 14 Assessed 1,049 3,874 6,474 11,397 Unassessed 1,228 1,228 Total 1,049 3,874 7,702 12,625 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 35,805 Ω = 5.08

Contents

Discussing Muslim & Islam categories merger

Is there anyone interested in discussing on proposed merger of Category:Islamophobia, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment (top) - as far as current state of that debate is concerned, I'm inclined to believe some bias is palpable among participants who are against existence of all three categories, and would like to clump them together, most likely option: under Category:Anti-Islam sentiment or just Category:Anti-Islam. Likely reason is that it's harder to argue that as top category on the topic should be included under Category:Racism, so it would end under Category:Religious discrimination or similar. It is also suggested that only two people categorized under Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment be removed as that supposedly constitute "ATTACK" (all caps used) - those two are Milo Yiannopoulos and Tunku Varadarajan, both called Islamophobes in their respective articles (they omitted Bat Ye'or only because she is categorized somewhere deeper).

I guess, while reading through participants' stated reasoning, that, like everything else with Muslims and Islam, it's preferable to keep it as simple and monolithic as possible, and reduce it to one more familiarly named category, which isn't and probably won't be included under Category:Racism. I perceive these three still existing categories as quite different from one another, based on rational stated in my comments HERE. I urge anyone willing to join in to read through all the comments.

Not surprisingly, as an old trope goes: "Islam isn't a race", so is rational explained to me.

Also, there is no doubt that much is needed to be done to repair some issues, like category cycles, but all of which appeared exactly because constant interference (removal/merging/re-creation) with categories dealing with Islam and Muslim topics in the first place.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Stoning

I noticed this recent edit with obvious tone issues so have reverted it. It's possible that the section needs an update, so I'm posting this message for those interested. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 06:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Opinions regarding edits to Muhsin ibn Ali

Just wanted to get some thoughts regarding a dispute on Muhsin ibn Ali. The gist is that I had heavily edited the page because I was worried that much of the content was irrelevant, badly sourced/unsourced and lacked opposing views. Another editor reverted my changes, stating that I was being disruptive, censoring content and introducing bias (a more in-depth discussion of our respective reasons can be found in the article Talk Page). Anyway, here's my version[1] and here's the reverted version.[2] If anyone could give some quick thoughts on the Talk Page, I would really appreciate it. Alivardi (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Madhabs

Hi

In the article there are confusion between madhabs (schools) and branches. We know the madhabs of sunnismn but not shia madhabs. So each branch of shia have one madhab of the notion does not exist in shia? --Panam2014 (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting outside input on succession to Muhammad

Hello, I'm currently conducting a GA review of succession to Muhammad. The biggest thing I'm worried about is neutrality, since this is obviously a fundamental topic and the subject of so much controversy. I'd appreciate it if anyone with knowledge of the topic could take a look and leave their opinion (is the article neutral or not), either in the GA review or here. I'm not tagging this as an RfC since I don't have any specific concerns at this time, I just want some more input. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: I think you're right to be concerned. A quick look at the citations indicates that the sourcing merits a closer scrutiny. Much of the content presented as fact in the article body is either 1) sourced to modern religious sources with no apparent claim to reliability, aside from reflecting the beliefs of the author; or 2) sourced to pre-modern texts. Sunni and Shia traditions arrive at their conflicting interpretations of this topic in part by drawing on different bodies of texts and in part by interpreting a shared body of texts in different ways. While the History section is not limited to sources recognized by one denomination, direct use of pre-modern sources in a topic like this raises WP:OR concerns. We should let historians evaluate these texts and decide which passage should be drawn upon to construct a historical narrative, rather than engaging in this exercise ourselves. There are also a number of incomplete citations: some book citations are missing page numbers, and most citations of pre-modern texts have no information about the edition, which makes page numbers meaningless. Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thank you for the input! The nominator has withdrawn the nomination for the time being. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)