This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Sufis 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 |
Daily page views
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for the time, patience and energy you've taken to create this and other articles. Shah's works have been a huge influence in my life (hopefully for the better :)). EricT ( talk) 09:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
User:ScribbleStick seems to have a thing about the phrase "passed away": [1] and recently changed "passed away" to "died".
Although encyclopedically correct, I actually think "passed away" is more fitting for an article on The Sufis, who represent and follow a spiritual path, than "died", where repeated changes of this kind may be rightly or wrongly construed as pursuing and imposing an a-theist agenda.
Certainly if one were to religiously adhere to the letter of the law, then that would favour use of the word "died". But there is also the spirit of the law or equity to consider.
"Passed away" is the more inclusive, since it would satisfy atheists and agnostics reading it as a euphemism for the word "died", yet leave open other possibilities, such as life after death, for those so inclined. It does this without walking roughshod over those with spiritual or religious sensitivities or in close relationship to the subject, Idries Shah. If you can present evidence to the contrary, please do. ;) Esowteric ( talk) 09:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saying thanks. Spongefrog ( talk) 15:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
-- ScribbleStick ( talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
To coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of The Sufis (and the launch of a new paperback edition in 2014), there's an article in Al Jazeera by John Bell and John Zada that has some useful things to say about the book, the Sufis, and its present-day applicability in the face of rising extremism. Esowteric+ Talk 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Sufis 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 |
Daily page views
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for the time, patience and energy you've taken to create this and other articles. Shah's works have been a huge influence in my life (hopefully for the better :)). EricT ( talk) 09:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
User:ScribbleStick seems to have a thing about the phrase "passed away": [1] and recently changed "passed away" to "died".
Although encyclopedically correct, I actually think "passed away" is more fitting for an article on The Sufis, who represent and follow a spiritual path, than "died", where repeated changes of this kind may be rightly or wrongly construed as pursuing and imposing an a-theist agenda.
Certainly if one were to religiously adhere to the letter of the law, then that would favour use of the word "died". But there is also the spirit of the law or equity to consider.
"Passed away" is the more inclusive, since it would satisfy atheists and agnostics reading it as a euphemism for the word "died", yet leave open other possibilities, such as life after death, for those so inclined. It does this without walking roughshod over those with spiritual or religious sensitivities or in close relationship to the subject, Idries Shah. If you can present evidence to the contrary, please do. ;) Esowteric ( talk) 09:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saying thanks. Spongefrog ( talk) 15:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
-- ScribbleStick ( talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
To coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of The Sufis (and the launch of a new paperback edition in 2014), there's an article in Al Jazeera by John Bell and John Zada that has some useful things to say about the book, the Sufis, and its present-day applicability in the face of rising extremism. Esowteric+ Talk 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)