Umm Qirfa was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 November 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Banu Fazara. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This removal of content and sources with the
wp:edit summary (ES): I had previously written a response to the topic discussing that novel, but it seems that one of the editors called Kaalakaa deleted the entire response that I took pains to translate. Therefore, I ask that you return what that person deleted, or delete the entire story because it is controversial and not proven.
also
The same removal on 23 Nov 2023 with the ES of the information that was available is all false
.
Thank you Adakiko ( talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
IP 2a00:801:700:df90::/64. Please read our WP:SOURCE policy that we should:
"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
What does independent source mean here? According to WP:IIS:
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).
So, it's obvious that religious websites and research books written by followers of Aum Shinrikyo cannot be cited as secondary sources for Wikipedia articles about Aum Shinrikyo and its related figures, since they clearly have a vested interest in the topics, especially if the information is promotional or apologetic. The same applies to other religions, including Islam. That's why we can't and shouldn't use religiously motivated sources, moreover websites, such IslamQA, EbnMaryam, IslamWeb, etc., here. — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction.
Many Muslims completely deny this incident- nothing in the islamqa.info source mentions a poll. Find wp:RS source(s) and avoid wp:OR. Adakiko ( talk) 01:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
the Islam.info website completely denies that storyThe question is if IslamQA.info is wp:RS.
IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control.See the archived discussions on Reliable sources noticeboard: IslamQA and Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?. If IslamQA.info now meets RS, please open a discussion on wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Make sure your request follows the guidelines. Adakiko ( talk) 10:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you find this phrase acceptable?
I discussed with @ Adakiko about adding a point of view denying this incident. Discussion above here Talk:Banu_Fazara#Religious_sources.
Please read the discussion between us so that you have an idea about the topic.
I believe that the article cannot be left as it is so that the reader thinks that the incident is a historical fact. Especially since it is considered unreliable according to the rules of Islamic hadith studies. But the criticisms written by Muslims about it are mostly found in forums, blogs, or Facebook. Which cannot be considered as sources on the wiki. And according to wiki policy, original research cannot be published.
But I found Islamqa.info (a website that specializes in Islamic religious sciences and answers questions that come to it from Muslims and others) publishing a criticism in which it denies that incident and clarifies that it is not proven according to the rules of Islamic hadith science. But there is no consensus among wiki editors that the site is considered a reliable source. I suggest that the phrase ((the Islamqa.info website, which is supervised by Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, denies the incident)) be written as a consensus phrase.
Adakiko suggested that I start wp:RfC.
Waiting for your comments. 2A00:801:707:AFAE:FC02:57DA:9BB7:8E6E ( talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Umm Qirfa was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 November 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Banu Fazara. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This removal of content and sources with the
wp:edit summary (ES): I had previously written a response to the topic discussing that novel, but it seems that one of the editors called Kaalakaa deleted the entire response that I took pains to translate. Therefore, I ask that you return what that person deleted, or delete the entire story because it is controversial and not proven.
also
The same removal on 23 Nov 2023 with the ES of the information that was available is all false
.
Thank you Adakiko ( talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
IP 2a00:801:700:df90::/64. Please read our WP:SOURCE policy that we should:
"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
What does independent source mean here? According to WP:IIS:
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).
So, it's obvious that religious websites and research books written by followers of Aum Shinrikyo cannot be cited as secondary sources for Wikipedia articles about Aum Shinrikyo and its related figures, since they clearly have a vested interest in the topics, especially if the information is promotional or apologetic. The same applies to other religions, including Islam. That's why we can't and shouldn't use religiously motivated sources, moreover websites, such IslamQA, EbnMaryam, IslamWeb, etc., here. — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction.
Many Muslims completely deny this incident- nothing in the islamqa.info source mentions a poll. Find wp:RS source(s) and avoid wp:OR. Adakiko ( talk) 01:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
the Islam.info website completely denies that storyThe question is if IslamQA.info is wp:RS.
IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control.See the archived discussions on Reliable sources noticeboard: IslamQA and Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?. If IslamQA.info now meets RS, please open a discussion on wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Make sure your request follows the guidelines. Adakiko ( talk) 10:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you find this phrase acceptable?
I discussed with @ Adakiko about adding a point of view denying this incident. Discussion above here Talk:Banu_Fazara#Religious_sources.
Please read the discussion between us so that you have an idea about the topic.
I believe that the article cannot be left as it is so that the reader thinks that the incident is a historical fact. Especially since it is considered unreliable according to the rules of Islamic hadith studies. But the criticisms written by Muslims about it are mostly found in forums, blogs, or Facebook. Which cannot be considered as sources on the wiki. And according to wiki policy, original research cannot be published.
But I found Islamqa.info (a website that specializes in Islamic religious sciences and answers questions that come to it from Muslims and others) publishing a criticism in which it denies that incident and clarifies that it is not proven according to the rules of Islamic hadith science. But there is no consensus among wiki editors that the site is considered a reliable source. I suggest that the phrase ((the Islamqa.info website, which is supervised by Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, denies the incident)) be written as a consensus phrase.
Adakiko suggested that I start wp:RfC.
Waiting for your comments. 2A00:801:707:AFAE:FC02:57DA:9BB7:8E6E ( talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)