Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Islamic calendar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Exchange copied over per editor's request
| Per WP:TPO, closing section created by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As you're so knowledgeable about this, can you explain why @NeilN: put a similar notice on my talk re Muhammad images when that was dealt with by individual arb sanctions with no general sanctions whatsoever? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Removal of sourced, factual information
| Per WP:TPO, closing section created by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
|
Factual information was included relevant to the artistic presentation of a picture in this article and was reverted. This is contrary to Wikipedia practice, which only permits facts to be suppressed in certain limited circumstances, which do not apply here. All edits must have a coherent edit summary explaining why a particular course of action was taken. Please provide a fully reasoned explanation of your revert. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". The onus is on you to say why you consider the material to be disruptive, and why the normal rules about neutrality and sourcing should be suspended in this instance. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the reasons why I opposed IP 87...'s recently proposed edits is that there is way too much text and detail for what should only be a footnote to a figure caption (other reasons are his misrepresenting of Hillenbrand's paper and adding his own research). There is already a WP entry on Biruni's book where such detail and discussion would be far more appropriate. Why not open a new section on the Muhammad illustrations in the illustrated mss of this work and editors who claim that important and unused scholarly references are missing can add them there. The figure caption footnote on this page can then be kept concise and could either refer to the other WP page or should only refer to one of the more detailed studies on these illustrations such as Soucek (1975) or Hillenbrand (2000). AstroLynx (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
...trying to smear editors (and me) for trying to make sure sexually - related articles meet our content guidelines. This is what you've sunk to? However, when other editors do the same they get abuse: It's obvious you didn't like the way the RFC was closed so you've decided to mess around with the caption which currently consists of a sourced, attributed interpretation of the image, relevant to the section. Indeed it does, because you nuked all the other sourced, attributed interpretations. And I thought your mantra was "Wikipedia is not censored". This post was drafted before Vgent's intervention, and I would just say this. Generally, quoting one source and referring the readers elsewhere for others would be giving undue weight to that one source. This is doubly unfair on the reader, since he comes here to learn about the Islamic calendar, not to be lectured on Islamic art. This just shows the unreasonableness of these people in insisting on the use of this particular image, despite the fact that an online petition secured 400,000 signatures against it (which may be a record for all I know). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Wikipedia by not including it. AstroLynx's suggestion to cite Hillenbrand and ditch the others is cherrypicking sources - see the admonition against this.[3]. If a wall of text is needed to justify the inclusion of something which is peripheral to the article let's just remove it and get back to building an encyclopaedia. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The current caption is well sourced and provides as neutral a reading of the information presented in the image as will likely be achievable in an image caption. More detail can go on the relevant page for the image. SPACKlick (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You're supposed to engage in intelligent discussion, not just keep repeating "I am right because I say so" without engaging the issues and analysing the opposing arguments. WP:NPOV is non - negotiable, so if you can't prove your case anyone can remove both the image and the caption. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the expert opinion is that this image has sectarian purposes. The close does not address these issues so cannot be used to support your argument. It does not address the point that
It makes no mention of the experts cited in the argument who say the picture is not Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. It makes no allowance for the fact that the picture will give the readers the mistaken idea that the pilgrims (thousands of them) gathered in a mosque to hear the Prophet speak. I've read right through the RfC and nowhere does the argument say that "the image relating to intercalation was in neutral ... sources". Even if it did say that, it happens all the time that biased images are presented in neutral sources - that's objective scholarship. "The RFC and the opinion of the RFC was that the image relating to intercalation was in ... reliable enough sources". The image is in al - Biruni and al - Biruni is a reliable source. So what? "No sources of bias in the original source have been presented". I don't think you've ever seen a copy of either al - Biruni's or Hillenbrand's book in your life. Hillenbrand argues that the pictures are biased, not the book they appear in, and all later commentators agree with him. An artist with a political agenda is not going to be worried about faithfully portraying what is described in the text, so the fact that al - Biruni mentions that Muhammad prohibited intercalation is no basis for latching on to that to say that the artist decided to portray him prohibiting intercalation. Why should he decide to paint a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation when the reader who sees him in a pulpit addressing his followers will read no more into it than him giving a sermon? His purpose was to portray the Shiites cosying up to the Prophet so why should he have given a tinker's c*ss about the subject of the sermon? "Is not an objection to using the image". - if an argument that an image misrepresents Islamic art and bears a caption misrepresenting scholarly opinion as to what it represents is not an objection to using the image what do you think it is? There's no intelligent discussion from you people. It's just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just spotted NeilN's post of 15:36. "Not interested" sums it up nicely - more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Replying to AstroLynx - as confirmed at the Village Pump, references must be to cites within the article and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Thanks for alerting me to the use of biased art on other Wikipedia pages - if I find anything there that isn't neutral and doesn't comply with sourcing rules I'll remove it. If you think Wikipedia's policy on citation and neutrality is wrong go to the Village Pump and make a fool of yourself. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is on you to show why sourced facts should be removed and why editors should be allowed to make an end - run round WP:NPOV. If you do nothing, then any editor is free to remove the disputed content. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Read what I wrote. I am not going to "whine" (as you put it) at ANI that the close was wrong.
Source for that claim? Try referring to Newyorkbrad before opening your mouth. We know that Wikipedia is not a court of law but he has said that he and his fellow experts set up the dispute resolution mechanism to be as close as possible. Every legal system has a provision under which fresh evidence can be adduced at any time. In Wikipedia, that's done by adding facts and referencing them. It's done a hundred thousand times a day. So don't be so presumptious as to claim that editors are not allowed to add content to articles. By linking the picture to the text you put the original intention of the artist in issue. The text refers to prohibition of intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage. The caption says the picture is of prohibition of intercalation. The reader will infer (not synthesise) that the Farewell Pilgrimage consisted of six shiites gathered in a mosque listening to Muhammad preach. The caption relies solely on Hillenbrand's passing statement that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Hillenbrand makes it clear that that interpretation is only valid if the artist was making some abstruse theological point. However, all experts are agreed that the artist's purpose was aggrandisement of the shiites at the expense of the sunnis. Doing some trawling of your edit history (thanks for giving me the idea) I see that you fancy yourself as an administrator (God help us) and Bishonen has told you to shut up. Frankly your language to her is disgusting.[6] 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Just for reference to the ANI thread, this consensus is not phantom. It's an RFC still on this page. Immediately above this section. Which you participated in and are therefore fully aware of. Which closed less than 50 days ago. And you started this thread 2 days after that close, in response to actions against the consensus formed at that RFC. Link. Drop this, accept that the user base has concluded the picture can be used for this purpose and stop stalking editors it's cheap. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC) This edit summary is nonsense. It is verifiable that François Hollande visited an orphanage yesterday. Doesn't mean it belongs in his biography. The IP, for as long as they've been editing here, should know that WP:V does not mean guaranteed inclusion. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You said it yourself. You and NeilN want to include this crap, everyone else doesn't. So out it will go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
To try and bring this back to the issue. The agreed points as far as I can see are;
are either of the above in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You agree that this is no more than a picture of Muhammad added to a manuscript at a point where his name is mentioned. Just to point to an inconsistency in the logic,
does not equal Muhammad prohibiting Nasi You are presumably familiar with Boolean operators in computing - if you coded a logical inconsistency like that your programme would not work. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The same way I explain the pine trees and the swords and the dragon in the George picture. Artists interpretation. As I said, an illustration will not confirm to everyone's interpretation of a story, it may differe wildly, that doesn't stop it being an illustration of that event and discussing the differences between the contents of the image and the narrative is not appropriate in the caption. SPACKlick (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The other pseudo - events are not mentioned at all. This is only to be expected - al - Biruni was presumably Sunni and would be turning in his grave when his masterpiece was trashed by the shiites. As for Priscilla, I'm fairly certain now that she blows your argument out of the water.
According to you to get the book would involve ordering it from the library and then waiting several days for it to arrive. But you had no difficulty quoting from it instantly today when you thought it would bolster your case. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Agreed, but only a tiny fraction of the pictures are linked to the text. I see SPACKlick is now up before ANI for a topic ban. His/her editing is tendentious. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Your claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Journalists are aware that if their reporting is not fully objective they will soon find themselves on the wrong end of a libel action. If Barack Obama is due to fly to Afghanistan at 10 pm the early editions (which you will read next morning) will say "Obama was due to fly out at ten o'clock last night". The later editions will say "Obama flew to Afghanistan at ten o'clock last night. A general picture of a president - elect at her swearing - in ceremony will be captioned "President at her swearing - in ceremony". If the picture shows her, Bible in hand, repeating the oath it will be captioned "X being sworn in as President of the United States". I've examined numerous newspaper articles with pictures and there is no evidence of the abuse which you advocate. For instance, the London Metro of 4 June 2014 has on page 4 a picture of a lorry carrying an octopus alongside a bus. The caption is Squidlock: A lorry carrying an octopus used in a Betfair ad campaign breaks down in Oxford Circus bringing traffic to a standstill. It is beyond the realms of possibility that a news photographer happens to be on the scene at the exact moment the engine conks out. No, the traffic got snarled up and the photographer came along later. It would therefore be very wrong to caption the picture "Squidlock: A lorry carrying an octopus used in a Betfair ad campaign breaking down in Oxford Circus bringing traffic to a standstill". As for (Personal attack removed) AstroLynx-cum-Vgent, I am dying to know how Priscilla describes the first picture in the book. Are you going to reveal your little secret? Is a Sunni writer really going to write about the investiture of Ali? The list of pictures is further up the page. Please fill in the blanks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1) A photo taken of PersonA in the market between stalls before they bought item x 2) A drawing of PersonA in the market between stalls created across the time where they bought x but showing what was seen before they bought x 3) A drawing created without visual reference to the market at all at a later date showing PersonA in the market between stalls.
PersonA (who I note you choose to assume is a woman) is standing between stalls in a market. The Difference is that 3) is not trying to depict a realistic moment seen by the artist but trying to illustrate a later description of that event. 3) is an illustration of PersonA in the market. 3) is an Illustration of PersonA in the market buying x. 3) is not an illustration of the transaction where PersonA bought x I'd agree. SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So to coin a phrase, who is wasting whose time? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
SPACKlick has taken this to ANI, invoking your name, and editors are laughing at him/her. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Introduction
This point "The Islamic calendar is now used primarily for religious purposes, and for official dating of public events and documents in Muslim countries.[61] Because of its nature as a purely lunar calendar, it cannot be used for agricultural purposes and historically Islamic communities have used other calendars for this purpose" should be in the introduction, and not just in the USES section way down at the end of the article. This seems to me to be an essential point that a western reader would want to know about the Islamic Calander. Could someone editing this article please add something like that to the introduction of the article. Thanks. 24.94.25.67 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Sandy
Recent change to Islamic calendar#Pre-Islamic calendar section
| Per WP:TPO, closing section regarding edits by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am reverting [7] a recent edit [8] to the Islamic calendar#Pre-Islamic calendar section. The edit summary states "Better wording". However, the change is not a mere wording change:
Unfortunately, I recall seeing these changes made previously by another London area unregistered user. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Converting a date to Julian is not original research
AstroLynx is complaining that where a source gives a date for Muhammad's birth, Monday 12 Rabi'I in the year of the Elephant, (which it equates to 8 June AD 570 without specifying which calendar), converting that date to Julian is original research. In fact it is easily done with the Fourmilab date converter, whose accuracy is not in question.
The sources are:
- Razwy - birth date 12 Rabi al - Awal in the year of the Elephant, AD 570.
- Haykal - states the consensus is Muhammad was born AD 570, the month being Rabi'I and the date the twelfth.
- Salabi - confirms the year of the Elephant was AD 570 and on p. 82 states the consensus is Muhammad was born AD 570, the month being Rabi'I, the date the twelfth and the day Monday.
Feeding 2 July AD 570 (Julian) into Fourmilab gives Monday 11 Rabi II BH 54. This is the reformed date. The unreformed date is 12 Rabi'I BH 52, a difference of 23 months. Intercalation was abolished in 632, so if there are 23 intercalations in 62 years we are done. There are seven intercalations in nineteen years (21 in 57 years) and two in five years, so the date is confirmed. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There is another source: Muhammad and the People of the Book, Sahaja Carimokam [9], which says the year of the Elephant is traditionally ascribed to 570 CE, although there is an argument here that that is wrong. This does not concern us, since the year of birth, AD 570, is confirmed, even though that might not have been the year of the Elephant. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Reason for prohibition of intercalation of months
Does anyone have a good explanation as to why this was forbidden by Mohammed? Was it to reduce the importance of the Kalammas?
What is the present year number in the Islamic calendar? 1379? A sentence in the text like the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was 1378 (or what?) in the Islamic might be good.
Of course, when does the Islamic calendar change years? Certainly this changes in respect to the Gregorian calendar as the Islamic months process in relation to the Gregorian. So maybe a page that said 2000 in the Gregorian was 1378 in the Islamic until Sept. (or whenever) and was 5709 (or whatever) in Hebrew until .... etc. with other calendars. Anyone know what these years are?
The present year (beginning in 2001 AD) is 1422. This is larger than 1378, because the year always has just 12 lunar months and so is about 11 days shorter than the Gregorian Calendar year.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) Revision as of 15:51, 25 February 2002 UTC
Is there an English word meaning "an interval of twelve lunar months"?
When a Mussulman states his age, does he use solar years, or dozens of lunar months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.249.146 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2002 ( UTC)
It's called a lunar year.
I'd say it depends on the location of the person, but most Muslims state their age in solar years. It really depends on whether the government and institutions of the country they live in require ages to be stated relative to an Islamic or Gregorian calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.226.56 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2002 (UTC)
- Lunar years in some calendars (lunisolar calendars) can be 13 or even 14 months long. --NealMcB 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
MOnday January 9, 2006 coincides with the 9th day of Dhul-HIja (the 12th month) of 1426 of the Islamic calendar. www.moonsighting.com is a good website for islamic calendars and you may also find softwares that does conversion to Julian years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.199.102 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say it depends on the location of the person, but most Muslims state their age in solar years. It really depends on whether the government and institutions of the country they live in require ages to be stated relative to an Islamic or Gregorian calendar.
- Which countries or institutions ask for Islamic ages? Under what circumstances do people celebrate their own Islamic birthdays? --NealMcB 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have never heard of anyone reporting their age in lunar years, but I may be wrong. The birthday of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), however, is usually noted by the Islamic calendar date. Although he was born (most likely) on 20 April 570 CE, but Muslims who decide to celebrate his birthday celebrate it as 12 Rabi' al-Awwal which does not actually correspond with 20 April 570 CE. joturner 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Islamic Calendar is used mainly for recording events, such as Imam Hussein's (as) martyrdom or the Prophet Muhammad's (as) Birthday. Only places like Saudi Arabia uses the Islamic Calendar as their main calendar. So Muslims living in America, or in Iran, or in Europe, etc. would use the Calendar that their resident country uses. Mainly. Armyrifle 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would intercalation be necessary? There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.75.198 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Intercalation is necessary to keep the months from circling around the year, as they do in the familiar Islamic calendar. With seven intercalated months evenly spaced over 19 years, the synodic lunar and tropical solar cycles line up with just a two-hour discrepancy. Intercalation keeps months and their holidays within particular seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faris Malik (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 January 2016
Languages for the days of the week
This section has gotten completely out of hand. The names of the days are listed in so many languages, many of which have very little relevance to the Islamic calendar. This section should be limited to the names in Arabic and English only, just like it is for the months. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The chart really belongs on the page Names of the days of the week.--Akhooha (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I too would support such a change. AstroLynx (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In view of the fact that virtually all the different language versions of this page include the days of the week in their languages, and even way back in 2009 the extraneousness of Urdu days of the week was brought up (Talk:Islamic_calendar#Days_of_the_week_in_Urdu.3F), I think we should just go ahead and do some major surgery, paring the section down to just English and Arabic, as Abjiklɐm has suggested. Leaving it as it is is just an invitation for even more languages to be added in the future. --Akhooha (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Abjiklɐm!! The page looks much better now without all those irrelevant multilingual entries.Akhooha (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- In view of the fact that virtually all the different language versions of this page include the days of the week in their languages, and even way back in 2009 the extraneousness of Urdu days of the week was brought up (Talk:Islamic_calendar#Days_of_the_week_in_Urdu.3F), I think we should just go ahead and do some major surgery, paring the section down to just English and Arabic, as Abjiklɐm has suggested. Leaving it as it is is just an invitation for even more languages to be added in the future. --Akhooha (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I too would support such a change. AstroLynx (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The chart really belongs on the page Names of the days of the week.--Akhooha (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216102054/http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/Calendrica.html to http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/Calendrica.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hebrew correspondence
starting from Tishri it gives you Safar-l-Awwal [now Muharram] and Al-Thani lay on fall/autumn. Safar derivative is Safra' that means yellow(ness) [of leaves]. then two Rabi's on rainy partition [Kislev/ Tevet]. then Jumada twins fall on winter. Jamada/ Injimad means Freeze also. then we have Rajab & Sha'aban and Ramadan that falls on hot Sivan [Ramadan meaning]. finally it ends on Elul (pilgrimage) Tabascofernandez (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528124328/http://www.kacst.edu.sa/en/services/ummalqura/Pages/about.aspx to http://www.kacst.edu.sa/en/services/ummalqura/Pages/about.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)