IbnTufail
Welcome to my talk page!
Welcome!
|
Traditionalism
editProbably creating the article at a WP:Draft. I highly recommend you to find reliable sources other than dictionary entries. Once the article is ready, it can be moved (not copied) into that title. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Islamic studies (theology)
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Islamic studies (theology). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Islamic studies. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Islamic studies – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Islamic studies (theology)
editHello IbnTufail,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Islamic studies (theology) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Islamic studies.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. --IbnTufail (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
August 2016
edit
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Islamic studies a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will list it at Requests for history merge. A single move won't do since it is a split-up in two. I did not know all this, anyway. --IbnTufail (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- And regarding your splitting of Islamic studies, I have a feeling it may be a controversial or contested action, e.g. do scholars really make this distinction, and if so is the distinction significant enough that the two cannot or should not be discussed in one article? There is also the potential for confusion between Islamic studies (theology) and Islamic theology (the more articles with overlapping content, the harder it is to keep each one current and in accord with other articles). Major changes to article content or structure and should be discussed with other editors first to reach consensus: you might want to solicit opinions on the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article Islamic theology re-directs to Schools of Islamic theology which is clearly a sub-topic. It is absolutely clear that religious Islamic studies and academic Islamic studies are not the same. They overlap to a certain degree in topics but the approach is totally different. What you learn at Al-Azhar in Cairo is not the same as what you learn at a London or New York university. Academic Islamic studies even make up theories that Muhammad never existed: This is not possible for religious Islamic studies. I put a "not-to-be-confused-with" at the beginning of each of the two new articles.
- Of course you are right: Now I know that a split should first be announced etc. etc.
- --IbnTufail (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 28
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Revisionist School of Islamic Studies
- added links pointing to Revisionism, Anti-Islam, Robert Spencer and Michael Cook
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Islamic studies
editIf you are going to try again to split Islamic studies, could you please be aware of the consequences? Your temporary split created 1401 links to disambiguation pages and vaused a lot of hassle. Please, when you split the article, can you take care of the links to disambiguations too?
The following templates were hit:
- Template:Islam (407 links)
- Template:Islam topics (218 links)
- Template:Islam-book-stub (170 links)
- Template:Education in Pakistan (109 links)
- Template:Fiqh (92 links)
- Template:Islamic studies (35 links)
- Template:Government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (13 links)
Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 18:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- My excitement with splitting articles quickly faded away .... my approach is to leave the article unsplit, now. The un-split is already done. I apologize for all inconvenience.--IbnTufail (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Traditionalism
editI've reverted your changes to Traditionalism (religion) because they violated WP policies, in particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You've changed text that reflected the cited sources without citing a source to support your changes. You also added unsourced text that appeared to be your personal reflections on the subject rather than a summary of RSs. Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. In the header I had a new source, yet the rest was unsourced, this is true. I will go looking for sources. In the German version I already have some. --IbnTufail (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. I was just making a correction to my note, since it didn't accurately characterize your changes. You removed one citation and added another. Per WP:NPOV we should reflect all significant viewpoints found in RSs proportionally, and we aren't allowed to remove citations without a valid reason. Eperoton (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- PS. In this case, even the German version doesn't seem to comply with NPOV, since the pejorative characterization of traditionalism is based on a single source, and runs contrary to about a dozen other definitions found in the citations. However, I will leave this concern to regular de-wiki contributors. Eperoton (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Citations
editBased on Revisionist School of Islamic Studies, you'll also want to consult WP:REF, so you won't have to deal with problematic citations later. The "cf e.g." style isn't used here. More importantly, per WP:PAGENUM, a citation should specify the location in the source as precisely as possible. This relates to WP:V (see WP:BURDEN), and citing an entire book for a specific statement will prompt a "page needed" tag. Then either someone will have to search the book in order to find the relevant page, or else the statement will be deleted as poorly sourced. Eperoton (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the theses proposed are partly so far-reaching that they often indeed need an entire book to be made. Shall I point to the conclusion page? --IbnTufail (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Probably. Conclusions are usually where one finds the most concise statements of a book's theses. Note that citations aren't "further reading" pointers, but rather a tool that enables other editors to verify that the statement is supported by the cited source. In other words, you only need to cite a passage in the source which corresponds to the statement you make in the article. While, we're discussing this article, there's another sourcing issue. If you make an assertion that a certain thesis is "new", you need to cite a passage which identifies it as new, not just a passage which expounds the thesis. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq
editNo he is a serious scholar. Only orthodox and fundamentalistic Muslims and islamophile Cultural Relativists take the line that he is not a serious scholar.--SBC Guy (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- See answer on your talk page. --IbnTufail (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Traditionalism (religion)
editA closer look at the article shows it to be a sustained exercise in editorial synthesis, which is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR (WP:SYNTH), in addition to other policy violations. Since I don't think this article should exist at all, I'm nominating it for deletion at AfD, and this will also give you a chance to hear from other editors. Eperoton (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Where will I find the opinions of other editors?
- By the way: It is clearly no editorial synthesis, but I am not willing to show this above the already given sourcings. Either you are willing to see it, or not. We reached the point where discussion ends. I am not here to quarrel or to be victorious in all cases. I am here to share knowledge with the world. The abstraction of the concept of traditionalism to all kinds of religion is a truism. Nevertheless, I could find sources for this.
- My engagement with this article stops, now, whatever happens to it.
- By the way: I found that as well as for Catholic traditionalism as well as for Islamic traditionalism there are two articles each, which clearly should be united. Example for the Catholic article: It starts saying that it is only about traditional forms like liturgy, but then goes on with traditional teachings which is the topic of the other article. I have the strong feeling that the topic of traditionalism is subject to evil observance by interested parties in Wikipedia, be it Catholicism or Islam or any other religion. They want to show traditionalism as something harmless, so they create articles which claim that traditionalism would be only about forms, but later in the same articles they come along with their real agenda. The real agenda is always the same in all religions: Rejection of reason in favour of traditon. Find these articles here: Traditionalism.
- --IbnTufail (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The votes and comments will appear on the AfD page linked to the banner. There is a procedure for proposing article merges (WP:MERGE). I wrote two of the articles you refer to, and contributed a large part of another, so I know something about what the sources say on the subject, and I'll argue against the proposal in both cases. The two Catholic movements are distinct, and Traditionalist Theology (Islam) is a spin-off of Traditionalism (Islam). Eperoton (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The idea that Catholic traditionalism of the 19th century and the opposition against Vatican II are distinct (in whatever respect) is rather weird. And the other article is a spin-off, perfectly confirming my idea that it is in the end all about the same principle. --IbnTufail (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 17
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orthodoxy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traditionalism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mouhanad Khorchide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, IbnTufail. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A page you started (Mouhanad Khorchide) has been reviewed!
editThanks for creating Mouhanad Khorchide, IbnTufail!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Could you please look at the improvement tags and see if you can help address them?
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.