This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Aïssawa from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. (This notice applies to version 149146580 and subsequent versions of this page.) |
I've copyedited through "professionalization." May come back to it in a bit. I've done my best not to change facts one way or another, as it's not a subject I'm farmiliar with. 76.118.23.40 ( talk) 15:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a short definition of the word and its origin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tripolitan ( talk • contribs). 06:15, 13 August 2006
Or should it be: Madjd al-Din al-Ghazali ? Both al-Ghazalis died long before 1550. S711 ( talk) 11:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I had just added {{ Citation style}} to this article and I'm about to add {{ Copyedit}}. I'm impressed with the amount of content in this article, but without footnotes, it is impossible to tell what text (if any) may be attributed to a reliable source. There is a very lengthy bibliography, but there is no indication whether any of these sources are actually used as references in this article. As for the text itself, I don't intend to offend anyone who has worked on this article, but some of this is impossible to understand. I have the impression that this was either fed through a translator program (e.g. Babelfish) or someone has randomly dleted or re-arranged some of the words. For example, I cannot make any sense out of "In Morocco, the brotherhood – the musicians, their ritual and their music - currently enjoy a vogue without similar." Meanwhile I have deleted ( [1]) a couple of sentences from the introduction: they were unattributed, appeared to be original research and were quite difficult (for me) to understand. Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have since found something rather curious on Google Books: link. It fairly much mirrors the text in this article (or perhaps vice-versa), warts and all. The book was published in 2009, while most of the extant Wikipedia text was added during one series of anonymous edits in August 2007 ( link). The first of these edits ( link) added a very large amount of text at once, including much of the awkward language that I described in my earlier comment (though as this large edit had wiki formatting etc. perhaps I should instead congratulate the anonymous editor for using the preview button). I suspect that one of these has copied its text from the other; chronologically, it would certainly appear that the book has copied from Wikipedia. However, it's also possible that both the book and this article are copies of some other source (hence my placement of the "cv-unsure" template), though so far I am unable to find one online. There is also another copy which claims a 2009 copyright. Note also that that the book's text about Inayat Khan is quite similar to the Wikipedia article on Inayat Khan. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, in the course of attempting to sort out the business with the Google Books source, I found another source - The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glassé -- which states: "The scholar of religions, Mircea Eliade, guided by Van Gennep, wrote the observation that the Aissawa are in fact a Maennerbund, that is, a lycanthropic secret society. In other words, werewolves." ( link) I am not sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, or a between-the-lines comment about Eliade and/or Van Gennep (I'm familiar with neither of them). Here is another account, from 1882. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Aïssawa from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. (This notice applies to version 149146580 and subsequent versions of this page.) |
I've copyedited through "professionalization." May come back to it in a bit. I've done my best not to change facts one way or another, as it's not a subject I'm farmiliar with. 76.118.23.40 ( talk) 15:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a short definition of the word and its origin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tripolitan ( talk • contribs). 06:15, 13 August 2006
Or should it be: Madjd al-Din al-Ghazali ? Both al-Ghazalis died long before 1550. S711 ( talk) 11:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I had just added {{ Citation style}} to this article and I'm about to add {{ Copyedit}}. I'm impressed with the amount of content in this article, but without footnotes, it is impossible to tell what text (if any) may be attributed to a reliable source. There is a very lengthy bibliography, but there is no indication whether any of these sources are actually used as references in this article. As for the text itself, I don't intend to offend anyone who has worked on this article, but some of this is impossible to understand. I have the impression that this was either fed through a translator program (e.g. Babelfish) or someone has randomly dleted or re-arranged some of the words. For example, I cannot make any sense out of "In Morocco, the brotherhood – the musicians, their ritual and their music - currently enjoy a vogue without similar." Meanwhile I have deleted ( [1]) a couple of sentences from the introduction: they were unattributed, appeared to be original research and were quite difficult (for me) to understand. Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have since found something rather curious on Google Books: link. It fairly much mirrors the text in this article (or perhaps vice-versa), warts and all. The book was published in 2009, while most of the extant Wikipedia text was added during one series of anonymous edits in August 2007 ( link). The first of these edits ( link) added a very large amount of text at once, including much of the awkward language that I described in my earlier comment (though as this large edit had wiki formatting etc. perhaps I should instead congratulate the anonymous editor for using the preview button). I suspect that one of these has copied its text from the other; chronologically, it would certainly appear that the book has copied from Wikipedia. However, it's also possible that both the book and this article are copies of some other source (hence my placement of the "cv-unsure" template), though so far I am unable to find one online. There is also another copy which claims a 2009 copyright. Note also that that the book's text about Inayat Khan is quite similar to the Wikipedia article on Inayat Khan. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, in the course of attempting to sort out the business with the Google Books source, I found another source - The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glassé -- which states: "The scholar of religions, Mircea Eliade, guided by Van Gennep, wrote the observation that the Aissawa are in fact a Maennerbund, that is, a lycanthropic secret society. In other words, werewolves." ( link) I am not sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, or a between-the-lines comment about Eliade and/or Van Gennep (I'm familiar with neither of them). Here is another account, from 1882. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)