This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hanif article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please provide a source for the idea that Musaylimah was known as a "Hanif". This page is in the category of Islamic pages (see subtitle for page: Islamic belief) and will give the Islamic meaning as the primary one. The information added by Bulgarios ( talk) has been relegated to a second paragraph.
Apart from the current lead sentence, this article is heavily biased from the Islamic POV. A more neutral approach would be to construct the article around the Banu Hanifa movement mentioning prominent Hanifs and references to narrations about them while expressing the Islamic point of view by comparing and contrasting. Bulgarios ( talk) 09:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Please do not remove the POV tag until consensus has been achieved. Bulgarios ( talk) 13:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Heavy Islamist/Muhammedan Bias is a valid reason to raise an objection. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Censoring [1] all mention of Maslamah bib Habib (derogatorily referred to as Musaylimah) and the Banu Hanifa is a perfect example of POV Bias. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I did by highlighting the sources that you censored. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging Jingiby, I used the term "Pagan Monotheist" as a summary of the paragraph at the top of page 386 of the source you provided. Bulgarios ( talk) 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Jingiby, do you have any objection to the source [2] concerning Musaylimah which Sharabs removed from the article? Bulgarios ( talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Jingiby but we were to remove every non academic source from Wikipedia we would be in trouble. Let's keep looking. There is no smoke without fire. I like the new ref you found although i don't like the confusion in spelling since Hanafism is usually the spelling used for the Hanafi Madhab. Of course there is room for a little sloppiness here and there but it would be good to try and find out which is the majority spelling usage and which is the minority spelling usage. Bulgarios ( talk) 21:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, your recent edit here [3] demonstrates very well indeed that you are way to emotiinally involved with protecting the heavy Islamist/Muhammedan POV bias for me to feel it is worth my time to even try to respond efficiently. My fundamental position is that the Islamist POV bias is a problem. Yours is thag it isn't. We are never going to agree on that until you either abandon your religion or convert me to it. Take care. Bulgarios ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Our conflict isn't about sources, it is about the article's current Islamist POV Bias that you support. Jingiby brought some very good sources which also support the need to eliminate the article's current Islamist POV. As for insulting your religion, to do so is protected by freedom of speech laws. I do not insult you. I already apologized for the fact that my dislike of Islamism offends you. If you feel insulted because I insult your religion then that is your own affair. If it helps, there are a lot of good things in Islam that I respect, but Political Islam's bloodthirsty attempts to bury the truth about Islam's origins are unforgivable.
The task before us is to come to a concensus on how to report accurately on what the word Hanif refers to while eliminating the current Islamist POV Bias. That's all there is to it. Bulgarios ( talk) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hawting, G. R. (1999).
...restore POV tag removed by bad faith editorand also stop saying "I am offended" I am not offended. These are personal attacks and could get you blocked if I reported them to WP:ANI. I am trying to make Wikipedia neutral nothing more nothing less. I am not supporting anything as you said
"current Islamist POV Bias that you support."That's not true. The sources that are used in the source are not "Islamist" nor that the article is having a POV. Maybe it's missing some information but that doesn't mean we give undue weight to Taizini claim-- SharabSalam ( talk) 06:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not remove sources from the article again just to enforce your POV Bias. Bulgarios ( talk) 07:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
Is there a good reason why we should include that there's a solid chance that Abraham and Ishmael never existed? It seems like an odd detail that's not very relevant to the article itself.
Cahmad25 ( talk) 14:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't actually know Arabic, but I think it's weird that the article states the plural as "hunafa" and then continues to use the anglicised form "hanifs". I would change it, but I'm new to editing and I don't know if it's a good change. DogWithHerpes ( talk) 23:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hanif article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please provide a source for the idea that Musaylimah was known as a "Hanif". This page is in the category of Islamic pages (see subtitle for page: Islamic belief) and will give the Islamic meaning as the primary one. The information added by Bulgarios ( talk) has been relegated to a second paragraph.
Apart from the current lead sentence, this article is heavily biased from the Islamic POV. A more neutral approach would be to construct the article around the Banu Hanifa movement mentioning prominent Hanifs and references to narrations about them while expressing the Islamic point of view by comparing and contrasting. Bulgarios ( talk) 09:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Please do not remove the POV tag until consensus has been achieved. Bulgarios ( talk) 13:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Heavy Islamist/Muhammedan Bias is a valid reason to raise an objection. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Censoring [1] all mention of Maslamah bib Habib (derogatorily referred to as Musaylimah) and the Banu Hanifa is a perfect example of POV Bias. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I did by highlighting the sources that you censored. Bulgarios ( talk) 14:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging Jingiby, I used the term "Pagan Monotheist" as a summary of the paragraph at the top of page 386 of the source you provided. Bulgarios ( talk) 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Jingiby, do you have any objection to the source [2] concerning Musaylimah which Sharabs removed from the article? Bulgarios ( talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Jingiby but we were to remove every non academic source from Wikipedia we would be in trouble. Let's keep looking. There is no smoke without fire. I like the new ref you found although i don't like the confusion in spelling since Hanafism is usually the spelling used for the Hanafi Madhab. Of course there is room for a little sloppiness here and there but it would be good to try and find out which is the majority spelling usage and which is the minority spelling usage. Bulgarios ( talk) 21:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, your recent edit here [3] demonstrates very well indeed that you are way to emotiinally involved with protecting the heavy Islamist/Muhammedan POV bias for me to feel it is worth my time to even try to respond efficiently. My fundamental position is that the Islamist POV bias is a problem. Yours is thag it isn't. We are never going to agree on that until you either abandon your religion or convert me to it. Take care. Bulgarios ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Our conflict isn't about sources, it is about the article's current Islamist POV Bias that you support. Jingiby brought some very good sources which also support the need to eliminate the article's current Islamist POV. As for insulting your religion, to do so is protected by freedom of speech laws. I do not insult you. I already apologized for the fact that my dislike of Islamism offends you. If you feel insulted because I insult your religion then that is your own affair. If it helps, there are a lot of good things in Islam that I respect, but Political Islam's bloodthirsty attempts to bury the truth about Islam's origins are unforgivable.
The task before us is to come to a concensus on how to report accurately on what the word Hanif refers to while eliminating the current Islamist POV Bias. That's all there is to it. Bulgarios ( talk) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hawting, G. R. (1999).
...restore POV tag removed by bad faith editorand also stop saying "I am offended" I am not offended. These are personal attacks and could get you blocked if I reported them to WP:ANI. I am trying to make Wikipedia neutral nothing more nothing less. I am not supporting anything as you said
"current Islamist POV Bias that you support."That's not true. The sources that are used in the source are not "Islamist" nor that the article is having a POV. Maybe it's missing some information but that doesn't mean we give undue weight to Taizini claim-- SharabSalam ( talk) 06:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not remove sources from the article again just to enforce your POV Bias. Bulgarios ( talk) 07:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
Is there a good reason why we should include that there's a solid chance that Abraham and Ishmael never existed? It seems like an odd detail that's not very relevant to the article itself.
Cahmad25 ( talk) 14:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't actually know Arabic, but I think it's weird that the article states the plural as "hunafa" and then continues to use the anglicised form "hanifs". I would change it, but I'm new to editing and I don't know if it's a good change. DogWithHerpes ( talk) 23:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)