This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sabians 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
@ Nebulousquasar: I have copied the following comment from this page, since this is a better place to discuss it.
Although I would personally strongly agree with Mcvti's argument that the Sabians can indeed by connected to the Mandaeans and that this can be backed up by WP:RS, I do realize that there are other more skeptical points of view that I may not necessarily agree with, per WP:NPOV and that Wikipedia needs to present different viewpoints. Is there a way for everyone to somehow incorporate and synthethize all of their different viewpoints into the relevant articles? Nebulousquasar (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
wild goose chase for the identity of the Qur'anic Sabians, which has taken all too much attention. Thus also van Bladel 2009 p. 68, who believes
that the real identity of the group intended in the Qur'ān cannot be known for certain given the present evidence.See also de Blois 1960–2012:
Their identity, which has been much debated both by the Muslim commentators and by modern orientalists, was evidently uncertain already shortly after the time of Muḥammad and remains uncertain now. They were clearly not Mandaeans (as Chwolsohn and many others believed), and hardly Elchasaites (as proposed below, s.v. ṣābiʾa); there is indeed little reason to believe that Muḥammad and his compatriots could have had any knowledge of either of these communities.Stroumsa 2004 has called the elaborations of scholars on the Sabians as being one specific religious group, especially but not exclusively with regard to the speculations on the Sabians of Harran, a "modern myth". She writes about this at length at pp. 335–341:
Right now we're citing in the lead paragraph the various religious groups with whom scholars have identified the Sabians of the Quran. However, this should of course also be covered in the article body. I don't have time to do this myself now, but I've found that a good source for this is Green 1992, p. 101–120. She treats all of the arguments advanced by different scholars before her in great detail, and given that she herself has no preference (cf pp. 119–120) she's also quite neutral about it. Obviously, she doesn't treat of the important arguments of scholars who came after her, like Gündüz 1994 and de Blois 1995, for which we should find another source. But if anyone is willing to write a section on this, Green 1992 is a great start.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sabians 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
@ Nebulousquasar: I have copied the following comment from this page, since this is a better place to discuss it.
Although I would personally strongly agree with Mcvti's argument that the Sabians can indeed by connected to the Mandaeans and that this can be backed up by WP:RS, I do realize that there are other more skeptical points of view that I may not necessarily agree with, per WP:NPOV and that Wikipedia needs to present different viewpoints. Is there a way for everyone to somehow incorporate and synthethize all of their different viewpoints into the relevant articles? Nebulousquasar (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
wild goose chase for the identity of the Qur'anic Sabians, which has taken all too much attention. Thus also van Bladel 2009 p. 68, who believes
that the real identity of the group intended in the Qur'ān cannot be known for certain given the present evidence.See also de Blois 1960–2012:
Their identity, which has been much debated both by the Muslim commentators and by modern orientalists, was evidently uncertain already shortly after the time of Muḥammad and remains uncertain now. They were clearly not Mandaeans (as Chwolsohn and many others believed), and hardly Elchasaites (as proposed below, s.v. ṣābiʾa); there is indeed little reason to believe that Muḥammad and his compatriots could have had any knowledge of either of these communities.Stroumsa 2004 has called the elaborations of scholars on the Sabians as being one specific religious group, especially but not exclusively with regard to the speculations on the Sabians of Harran, a "modern myth". She writes about this at length at pp. 335–341:
Right now we're citing in the lead paragraph the various religious groups with whom scholars have identified the Sabians of the Quran. However, this should of course also be covered in the article body. I don't have time to do this myself now, but I've found that a good source for this is Green 1992, p. 101–120. She treats all of the arguments advanced by different scholars before her in great detail, and given that she herself has no preference (cf pp. 119–120) she's also quite neutral about it. Obviously, she doesn't treat of the important arguments of scholars who came after her, like Gündüz 1994 and de Blois 1995, for which we should find another source. But if anyone is willing to write a section on this, Green 1992 is a great start.