This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Taqiyya 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and note the following guideline: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article."
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This material [1] had been added and removed five times. The last two additions dropped the external YouTube link [2] but there are definitely still problems with the material. "For those in the West, taqiyya is used to..." is sourced to various Quran verses. It does not explain what "For those in the West" means, and I'm sure the Quran verses don't make any such distinction. This is confusing and poorly sourced. Quran verses themselves do not support any statement about contemporary interpretation of taqiyya, in the West or elsewhere.
The rest of the paragraph is completely unsourced and appears to be OR/opinion. Deception is also permitted when it is a white lie.
According to whom? Considering all of this, it may be that technically Islamic scholars are correct to try to say that the use of taqiyya is an inaccurate and inflationary use of the word, but Raymond Ibrahim is correct in his consideration of taqiyya by his definition.
is full of weasel wording ("may be", "technically", "try to", "by his definition") and ends with the editor's opinion stated as fact. It's not clear who is responsible for It is a complicated subject that is counter intuitive to those with Western values.
Is this an unsourced claim about what Raymond Ibrahim says, or is this editorializing by the Wikipedia editor?
Meters (
talk) 19:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The content below appears in the article twice:
Maybe we should remove one occurrence of it? Ahyangyi ( talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng ( talk) 03:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Taqiyya 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and note the following guideline: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article."
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This material [1] had been added and removed five times. The last two additions dropped the external YouTube link [2] but there are definitely still problems with the material. "For those in the West, taqiyya is used to..." is sourced to various Quran verses. It does not explain what "For those in the West" means, and I'm sure the Quran verses don't make any such distinction. This is confusing and poorly sourced. Quran verses themselves do not support any statement about contemporary interpretation of taqiyya, in the West or elsewhere.
The rest of the paragraph is completely unsourced and appears to be OR/opinion. Deception is also permitted when it is a white lie.
According to whom? Considering all of this, it may be that technically Islamic scholars are correct to try to say that the use of taqiyya is an inaccurate and inflationary use of the word, but Raymond Ibrahim is correct in his consideration of taqiyya by his definition.
is full of weasel wording ("may be", "technically", "try to", "by his definition") and ends with the editor's opinion stated as fact. It's not clear who is responsible for It is a complicated subject that is counter intuitive to those with Western values.
Is this an unsourced claim about what Raymond Ibrahim says, or is this editorializing by the Wikipedia editor?
Meters (
talk) 19:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The content below appears in the article twice:
Maybe we should remove one occurrence of it? Ahyangyi ( talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng ( talk) 03:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)