Harut and Marut was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 11, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harut and Marut 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
those angels didn't teach the Kabbalah,and sorcery exist before,in fact in Babylon people were using black magics and many of them claim to be a prophet or a god ,god sent harut and marut to babylonien to inform the population that the black magic is something can be learned (these two taught no man until they had said, "Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever" )(quran 2-102 ) sorcery exist even at prophet Saleh's time (before the prophet Ibrahim's time "Abraham") , human learn the black magics from demons (bad Jinn) i don't know about kabbalah's origin ,maybe it's from anicien egypte sorcery or from babylon (when many Jews were enslaved there ) there also another theory ,those black magics books found buried under prophet Sulayman" chair (King Solomon),Sulayman is said to have been given control over various elements, such as the wind and transportation,he also control Jinn and can speak to animals. there many théory about those books 1-maybe he found that the devils were teaching sorcery to humans and he took those books and buried them where no human or djinn can approach them 2-or after his death someone buried them in that place under a demons order or a demon buried them. after his death the demons said to the jews that prophet sulayman was a magician and he was commanding them (djin) with those books. و الله اعلم Allah knows best — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSukigo~enwiki ( talk • contribs)
Where does the idea come from that angels can't sin or that they don't have "free-will" (the existence or degree of free-will is debated anyways in Islam). There are several sources both Academic as well as Muslim which clearly show that angelic infallability is simply a matter of debate, and mostly advocated by those influenced by Qadariyya ideas on free-will (Hasan, Razi, ibn Arabi etc.) and some Shiites, but no main-stream opinion. The articles Iblis and Angels in Islam might be helpful resources for starters. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: A. Parrot ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to fail this article immediately, given that the nominator has passed other GAs successfully, but it has a serious problem with Criterion 1a. Often the historical context is not clearly described, so a reader unfamiliar with it will be confused, and this problem is exacerbated by some strange choices of wording.
For example, the sections "History" and "Tale of Harut and Marut" have unclear scope and significant overlap. Both allude to the tradition of the Watchers, but they don't clearly explain what that tradition is, and the text seems to alternate between calling that tradition a Jewish and a Christian belief, rather than clearly stating its origins (a non-canonical tradition that originated in Judaism and was adopted by many early Christians).
The section on angelic impeccability is better, but it would benefit from some reorganization. Generally it's a good idea to go from the more general to the more specific—maybe say near the beginning which traditions consider angels to be fallible or infallible, and then refer to the opinions of specific scholars within those schools of thought.
Regarding wording problems, some examples are:
I haven't thoroughly examined the other criteria, but I do note a sourcing problem for the translation of Surah 2:102. The Perseus page that is linked in Citation 3 includes three English translations of the passage, but the translation given here does not match any of them. The translation Wikipedia gives should conform to a cited source. (I'm not sure I would use the versions at Perseus, because the Pickthall uses some archaic vocabulary and the other two don't feel sufficiently Anglicized. I have a copy of The Study Quran and can substitute its translation if need be.)
Let me know if I need to clarify anything. If it looks like my initial concerns are being addressed, I will check the article against the other criteria in a week. A. Parrot ( talk) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
as per WP:RGA. I will try my best to improve the quality of the adressed issues within the week. However, if this does not help for a better understanding, I can see why this article might not suffice to GA Status. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)"It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria."
Having seen no improvement here in the past week, I'm afraid I have to fail the article. To be clear, I don't get the impression that the sources don't exist to cover this topic adequately. Most of the essential points of the topic seem to already be present in the article, but they're presented in an unclear way. (My remark about saying which schools of thought interpret the story in particular ways was only a suggestion for how to organize that section, not an insistence that the article must do so.) I think the problems are fixable, and if they were in the process of being addressed, I would be willing to give it another week.
As the nominator does have a good track record, I encourage continuing to work on the article over the long term. If it is nominated again somewhere down the road, I'd be willing to review it again—if you're worried about having to wait another three months for a reviewer, feel free to contact me. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
As discussed the in the GA review above, I'm replacing the translation of the Quranic verse, which isn't properly sourced, with the translation from The Study Quran, a well-respected version that does not suffer from the archaic language found in some older translations. I left out the first sentence of verse 2:102, which says "And they followed what the satans recited against the kingdom of Solomon," because I thought the meaning of the passage about Harut and Marut is actually clearer without it. The first sentence may leave people wondering who "they" refers to, which would encompass the context of the previous verses, which aren't relevant to Harut and Marut. But I don't insist on excluding the sentence or on using this translation. A. Parrot ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Harut and Marut was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 11, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harut and Marut 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
those angels didn't teach the Kabbalah,and sorcery exist before,in fact in Babylon people were using black magics and many of them claim to be a prophet or a god ,god sent harut and marut to babylonien to inform the population that the black magic is something can be learned (these two taught no man until they had said, "Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever" )(quran 2-102 ) sorcery exist even at prophet Saleh's time (before the prophet Ibrahim's time "Abraham") , human learn the black magics from demons (bad Jinn) i don't know about kabbalah's origin ,maybe it's from anicien egypte sorcery or from babylon (when many Jews were enslaved there ) there also another theory ,those black magics books found buried under prophet Sulayman" chair (King Solomon),Sulayman is said to have been given control over various elements, such as the wind and transportation,he also control Jinn and can speak to animals. there many théory about those books 1-maybe he found that the devils were teaching sorcery to humans and he took those books and buried them where no human or djinn can approach them 2-or after his death someone buried them in that place under a demons order or a demon buried them. after his death the demons said to the jews that prophet sulayman was a magician and he was commanding them (djin) with those books. و الله اعلم Allah knows best — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSukigo~enwiki ( talk • contribs)
Where does the idea come from that angels can't sin or that they don't have "free-will" (the existence or degree of free-will is debated anyways in Islam). There are several sources both Academic as well as Muslim which clearly show that angelic infallability is simply a matter of debate, and mostly advocated by those influenced by Qadariyya ideas on free-will (Hasan, Razi, ibn Arabi etc.) and some Shiites, but no main-stream opinion. The articles Iblis and Angels in Islam might be helpful resources for starters. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: A. Parrot ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to fail this article immediately, given that the nominator has passed other GAs successfully, but it has a serious problem with Criterion 1a. Often the historical context is not clearly described, so a reader unfamiliar with it will be confused, and this problem is exacerbated by some strange choices of wording.
For example, the sections "History" and "Tale of Harut and Marut" have unclear scope and significant overlap. Both allude to the tradition of the Watchers, but they don't clearly explain what that tradition is, and the text seems to alternate between calling that tradition a Jewish and a Christian belief, rather than clearly stating its origins (a non-canonical tradition that originated in Judaism and was adopted by many early Christians).
The section on angelic impeccability is better, but it would benefit from some reorganization. Generally it's a good idea to go from the more general to the more specific—maybe say near the beginning which traditions consider angels to be fallible or infallible, and then refer to the opinions of specific scholars within those schools of thought.
Regarding wording problems, some examples are:
I haven't thoroughly examined the other criteria, but I do note a sourcing problem for the translation of Surah 2:102. The Perseus page that is linked in Citation 3 includes three English translations of the passage, but the translation given here does not match any of them. The translation Wikipedia gives should conform to a cited source. (I'm not sure I would use the versions at Perseus, because the Pickthall uses some archaic vocabulary and the other two don't feel sufficiently Anglicized. I have a copy of The Study Quran and can substitute its translation if need be.)
Let me know if I need to clarify anything. If it looks like my initial concerns are being addressed, I will check the article against the other criteria in a week. A. Parrot ( talk) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
as per WP:RGA. I will try my best to improve the quality of the adressed issues within the week. However, if this does not help for a better understanding, I can see why this article might not suffice to GA Status. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)"It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria."
Having seen no improvement here in the past week, I'm afraid I have to fail the article. To be clear, I don't get the impression that the sources don't exist to cover this topic adequately. Most of the essential points of the topic seem to already be present in the article, but they're presented in an unclear way. (My remark about saying which schools of thought interpret the story in particular ways was only a suggestion for how to organize that section, not an insistence that the article must do so.) I think the problems are fixable, and if they were in the process of being addressed, I would be willing to give it another week.
As the nominator does have a good track record, I encourage continuing to work on the article over the long term. If it is nominated again somewhere down the road, I'd be willing to review it again—if you're worried about having to wait another three months for a reviewer, feel free to contact me. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
As discussed the in the GA review above, I'm replacing the translation of the Quranic verse, which isn't properly sourced, with the translation from The Study Quran, a well-respected version that does not suffer from the archaic language found in some older translations. I left out the first sentence of verse 2:102, which says "And they followed what the satans recited against the kingdom of Solomon," because I thought the meaning of the passage about Harut and Marut is actually clearer without it. The first sentence may leave people wondering who "they" refers to, which would encompass the context of the previous verses, which aren't relevant to Harut and Marut. But I don't insist on excluding the sentence or on using this translation. A. Parrot ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)