This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Umm Qirfa 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Umm Qirfa be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2021. The result of the discussion was merge. |
The narration on this page is very problematic from a Hadith narration analysis point of view. It is well established among Islamic scholars that Al-Tabari's book contained narratives of varying degrees of reliability, ranging from authentic to fabricated. Citing Al-Tabari unconditionally is not scholarly practice. Furthermore, there are issues with Ibn Ishaq's narrations: /info/en/?search=Ibn_Ishaq#Reliability_of_his_hadith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.221.90 ( talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to revert the article to the following version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1037156903
User Ratnahastin keeps removing content that don't fit their agenda and actually replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones.
It would also be cool to prevent such vandalism from happening again. Exilvm ( talk) 13:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You are clearly the same editor as the one whose IP edits caused the article to be protected. Favonian ( talk) 13:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. You're not going to continue an edit war through edit requests.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Favonian and C.Fred:@ TolWol56: Why is this happening again? This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by doing this abd even after lengthly talks in the talk page with a admin fred and ratna not even ratna could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?
My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consenus before its done?
I am not exil but if your to keep playing this game I can accuse you to be ratna why are you so eager to use his version and same accusation?
Which of the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.
Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?
https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/
Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 ( talk) 06:09, 22 Sep 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?
My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?
Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?
His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.
Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?
https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/
So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page /info/en/?search=Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801 92.40.187.136 ( talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)There was a consensus as ratna stopped this is a new person who reverted the established version. 92.40.187.136 ( talk) 02:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The recent edit war on this article is different users using WP:PRIMARY sources (translations of texts first published centuries ago) to add certain material. Even if the translation is published by Oxford University Press, that only means the translation is a faithful rendering of the original - it does not mean the original is in any way reliable. It also doesn't mean the material is WP:DUE because we can only use secondary, reliable sources to establish that. Most of all, this topic might not even be notable. If secondary, reliable sources aren't provided, I'll nominate this for deletion. VR talk 17:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Umm Qirfa 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Umm Qirfa be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2021. The result of the discussion was merge. |
The narration on this page is very problematic from a Hadith narration analysis point of view. It is well established among Islamic scholars that Al-Tabari's book contained narratives of varying degrees of reliability, ranging from authentic to fabricated. Citing Al-Tabari unconditionally is not scholarly practice. Furthermore, there are issues with Ibn Ishaq's narrations: /info/en/?search=Ibn_Ishaq#Reliability_of_his_hadith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.221.90 ( talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to revert the article to the following version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1037156903
User Ratnahastin keeps removing content that don't fit their agenda and actually replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones.
It would also be cool to prevent such vandalism from happening again. Exilvm ( talk) 13:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You are clearly the same editor as the one whose IP edits caused the article to be protected. Favonian ( talk) 13:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. You're not going to continue an edit war through edit requests.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Favonian and C.Fred:@ TolWol56: Why is this happening again? This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by doing this abd even after lengthly talks in the talk page with a admin fred and ratna not even ratna could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?
My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consenus before its done?
I am not exil but if your to keep playing this game I can accuse you to be ratna why are you so eager to use his version and same accusation?
Which of the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.
Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?
https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/
Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 ( talk) 06:09, 22 Sep 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?
My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?
Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?
His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.
Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?
https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/
So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page /info/en/?search=Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801 92.40.187.136 ( talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)There was a consensus as ratna stopped this is a new person who reverted the established version. 92.40.187.136 ( talk) 02:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The recent edit war on this article is different users using WP:PRIMARY sources (translations of texts first published centuries ago) to add certain material. Even if the translation is published by Oxford University Press, that only means the translation is a faithful rendering of the original - it does not mean the original is in any way reliable. It also doesn't mean the material is WP:DUE because we can only use secondary, reliable sources to establish that. Most of all, this topic might not even be notable. If secondary, reliable sources aren't provided, I'll nominate this for deletion. VR talk 17:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)