User talk:Sahab

To all new editors; if you need some assistance or guidance, please feel free to leave a message here and I will be more than happy to help.

New section

Core articles and translations

Sad that some of that editor's work had to be removed. I made this change in the 'welcome creation' page[1]. Hopefully now they'll talk to us first before starting any translation work. Tweak as you like. --Axius (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Cool, Will do. Yeah, it's too bad. But I don't understand why new translators go straight to the core articles. It's common sense that small paragraph summaries are useless without the full articles. It's also a shame that some of them feel the need to alter the original articles without keeping us informed. That comment he added about the "90%" completely undermines the entire article. --Sahabah (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Yea those changes/additions aren't good. Thanks for watching out for that.

What do you think about task 2 [2] (the one about new Overview articles which are all sourced). The last line of that task is about core articles. Some initial thoughts: This could mean that the current Core articles would have the "Articles/Article summaries" sections re-written so they are all referenced/sourced, and then we can still use the {{main|}} template to link those articles. They can then translate these Core articles and the {{main templates can just be removed from the text. What do you think. I'll think more about this. What we want is an sourced overview that is a stand alone article, and thats what people see when they click those links. The next issue is, what do we do with the article summaries. Article summaries could be moved further down on that page. Or they could be merged and we could only have them linked with the "main" template and they wont lose their visibility. This should help prevent more direct translations of these articles. We can leave notes like that for people who edit. We should still think about these overview articles though. They will also be great as first translations. I'll post here if I get any good ideas. --Axius (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2014 (PST)

The core articles were always meant to be an easy-to-read starting point for each topic, guiding readers to more information (basically hub pages with a lot more information). That was always the point, and they work brilliantly for that. They were not meant as stand-alone articles. So the problem is the summaries on the core articles are very brief and many aren't even summaries; they're introductions explaining what the full articles are about. To make them stand-alone articles, most of it would have to be rewritten and expanded. So they would no longer be short or easy-to-read. They would be long, complicated sections that are basically repeating already existing information and making our real articles a little pointless (since the info on those pages will already be on the core pages). --Sahabah (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (PST)

"What we want is an sourced overview that is a stand alone article, and thats what people see when they click those links."

When has this ever been what we wanted? Every other article on the site is a stand-alone article, so why would we want the same for the core articles linked on the side? The whole reason we started those core articles was to provide a single page that would branch out to all the other important articles. Why would we want to put normal stand-alone articles on the side-bar? --Sahabah (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Ok well, you're not seeing it the way I'm seeing it. I would explain further but since I dont see myself working on this any time soon I'll just let it pass. If I work on such a sample sourced page I'll talk about this again. --Axius (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2014 (PST)

I don't see any harm in discussing it now. Besides, more core articles are on our tasks page. This means I'll possibly be creating more and it would be nice to know if that would be a waste of my time or not. So, to start, just tell me specifically what benefits do you think we will gain by whatever it is you're suggesting?

Also, answering your original question about task 2, I think we should stick to making it similar to the Wikipedia equivalent (i.e. a long but single page). Splitting topics and spreading it over multiple pages would involve too much work. I doubt any editor would finish a project like that, and even if they did, it would probably turn out less than satisfactory. It would also be repeating a lot of information for no apparent reason. Maybe you're thinking translators would benefit (which is what you seem to be saying). But I don't think that's the case. Translator would probably never finish translating it. Rather than translating a few normal articles, they'll start doing that for a few days then stop; leaving us with a lot of unfinished and useless pages. --Sahabah (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2014 (PST)

It would be too much work for me to try to make my point more clear without showing you an actual example of it. If you dont agree with that task, you can move it to my user page. Its ok with me. I can move it back if I get to it again. You can also save these comments in that task's description (hidden comment). --Axius (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2014 (PST)

News

We could get rid of the news section (Main_Page) or get the old RSS stuff back in but I dont know if it will be good since we dont control the auto generation. I tried to find the code we had before but I cant find it. --Axius (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (PST)

Al-Q has some issues that he's dealing with at the mo, but will be back soon to regularly update the news. He should also be creating news pages for the few months he missed.--Sahabah (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2014 (PST)

Oh ok, cool. Good to know. --Axius (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2014 (PST)

Translating in italian

Hi Sahabah, I've finished to translate an article in italian: "the timeline of Muhammad".

I've also noted that you have translated "Women are deficient in intelligence and religion". With some little (very little) errors =) =). Can I help?

Hi Hood4. Of course. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Feel free to correct any errors you see. And thank you for the new translation. I will add it now to the front page. --Sahabah (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2014 (PST)

what happened this time

thats a strange legend- lightning and resurection . what was wrong in adding it? Saggy (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2014 (PST)

It's already a stretch having a section on miracles in an errors page. I think that new addition was weak and the page is better without it. --Sahabah (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2014 (PST)

How about dis- Pharoh doing crucifixion(anachronism)? or the sun or earth being the cause of shadows (i have details on this one because this eror depend on translations but error is there). which of the two do u like?Saggy (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (PST)

Both of those sound great. Please make sure that they're not already on there somewhere (it's a long page so it is easy to accidentally add duplicates). --Sahabah (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2014 (PST)

I wanto start a logical errors article (diferent from contradictions and sc errors). How to put put sections in it?chapterwise?Saggy (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (PST)

You can work on articles in a sandbox (e.g. User:Saggy/Sandbox, User:Saggy/Sandbox 2, User:Saggy/Sandbox 3). For chapters and other formatting, you can press the edit button at the top of any page and see it. For the main chapter headings it would be: ==chapter heading here== For a sub-heading it would be ===sub-heading here=== And so on. You should also take a look through the help pages. --Sahabah (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2014 (PST)

Theres a very common error ; rain brings trees of a dead land to life therefore people will be also brought back to life. Is it scintific or logical? Looking for more errors whcih are only logical. U have any? I listed some in my sandbox.--Saggy (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2014 (PST)

What verse is that? If I think of any I'll let you know. --Sahabah (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2014 (PST)

Here 7:57, 35:9,43:11,50:11,30:19 30:50.--Saggy (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (PST)

okey its non-sequitur logical fallacy.--Saggy (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2014 (PST)

I have good numbers of verses. Shall I still make the article in sandbox or I make it as an article and use undercontruction template?--Saggy (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2014 (PST)

Hi. It's probably best to keep working on it in your sandbox. --Sahabah (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2014 (PST)

On second thoughts, a better idea would probably be to move your article to the main Sandbox URL like: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Name of your article here (e.g. WikiIslam:Sandbox/All about Islam. --Sahabah (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (PST)

What after that?--Saggy (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2014 (PST)

Obviously it will stay there until it is completed. If it meets our quality standards and we think it is suitable for this site, then it will be moved to the mainspace. If it doesn't meet quality standards and/or is not suitable for this site, then it will stay there until it does or be deleted (depending on whether it shows potential). --Sahabah (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2014 (PST)

whats your opinion on this thing?[3] Cleanup and lead still left.--Saggy (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Good work in starting that article but I think it needs many more errors than just 5 or 6, before we can call it "logical errors in the Quran". The Skeptics Quran may be of help. They have categories like Absurdities, Contradictions (these should be checked against our list of contradictions, by the way). --Axius (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yeah, I would say it's not very substantial ATM. I also think not all of them are very solid logical errors. The first error doesn't conclusively show Allah had to be "reminded by Jesus". To me that's clearly the author trying to make a point (i.e. Allah knows everything), and Allah's questioning is just theatrics. It doesn't necessarily indicate that Allah has bad memory.

Concerning the SAQ, I'd say it's a decent place to get a few ideas, but even critics have commented on how crappy that site is, taking things out of context etc. I'm not saying I agree with them, but our Science Errors page is in such a mess because an editor simply lifted everything from another site (i.e. AnsweringIslam). The last thing we want is to have history repeat itself and open us up to more criticism. --Sahabah (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yes everything from other sites would have to be verified/evaluated carefully instead of being copy pasted straight away. We cant trust other sites and they're only additional sources of information to check.

Saggy, please make sure the claims are strong and cannot be questioned or interpreted in any other way (see Sahab's response). This isnt easy but it will be very worth it in the end if you work hard on every claim and get it right. So take your time, there's no hurry. These error pages are often linked from outside so its important to get them as strong as possible. Sahab is giving you advice here but if you need my help also in any way let me know. --Axius (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yes d site is crappy. The translations thingo, most errors i got are mistranslated to try and hide them. For my article, can u both think of a better name so that we will not sit around wondering whether they are logical?--Saggy (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Oh, I forgot another q. Where to explain why a claim is strong? In my single article itself?--Saggy (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yeah, a quick few lines or a paragraph should be fine in the page itself. About mistranslations; only those 3 main translations are to be used in our Errors pages. If the errors are not apparent in any of them, then that's too bad. Do not include those verses as errors. --Sahab (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2014 (PST)

1 more I started. Theres lots u can put here Im busy.--Saggy (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2014 (PST)

I echo Axius' reply to the same message when I say that I too am busy. We all have our own things to do already. --Sahab (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2014 (PST)

Edit toolbar

The new 'emoticons' dropdown next to Help is just a test (also, the new Info tab). I'm checking it out to see whats possible. The examples worked so thats good. I'll be back here after I find out more - lots of possibilities. I'd like to try to move all the stuff at the bottom to the top (so its in one place) and see if thats better than what we have right now. Although there's so much that can fit in this new toolbar, the bad side in my opinion is the extra clicks it takes to get to the item we want, but I guess there's no alternative. We just have to make sure the most often accessed stuff is reachable in the easiest/shortest way (the buttons for example, we can change those). I'll think about it. We can also make new icons for existing text stuff at the bottom. I'll have to look into this more and see.

Also noticed that around 1 out of 10 or 15 times, the new buttons wont show up in the toolbar. Good thing it doesnt happen often and we just need to click the 'edit' links again to reload the toolbar and then the new buttons usually show up. --Axius (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (PST)

Nice. Looks good. The new edit toolbar you made yesterday is also cool. Much neater than the last one. --Sahab (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Boko Haram

this is militia groups, which kills student and infidel. can i build an article (english) for this group?--Mudul (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Yes, you can work on articles in a user sandbox (e.g. User:Mudul/Sandbox, User:Mudul/Sandbox 2, User:Mudul/Sandbox 3), or in a WikiIslam sandbox like: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Name of your article here (e.g. WikiIslam:Sandbox/Boko Haram). --Sahab (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Quran details

This is a related article: Qur'an Only Islam: Why it is Not Possible there. I think it should be linked. Dont we link related articles in See Also? See also doesnt only have to contain the "main" top-level topics. --Axius (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2014 (PST)

Oh wait. Is the [4] mainly about the 5 pillars? It doesnt look like it is. Its about the general difficult of being Quran-only so yes I think it should be linked. --Axius (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2014 (PST)

I wrongly thought it was mostly about the 5 pillar. I still have reservations about linking that article because it's in a terrible state, but I'll put it back if that's what you want. The five pillars section shouldn't be there though. It's at odds with the approach Saggy is taking (quoting the verse then explaining why it is insufficient), and they should each be separate. I think Saggy's actually started putting them in individually (the first section on that page is "Charity"). I also don't think the conclusion is needed. This page is like the Errors/Contradictions pages. The conclusions are a little pointless. --Sahab (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2014 (PST)

Ok. If you think its in bad shape and shouldnt be linked that fine, yea we can leave it not linked. I'll take the conclusion out. --Axius (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2014 (PST)

Cool. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2014 (PST)

Forum pages

We really dont have a lot of discussions to have a need for making separate forum pages for Help and Inquiries, Ideas and Suggestions and then a 3rd General discussion page (WikiIslam:Forum, which had not being used in a long time). So we should keep the Translation page, and move all the contents of other two (Help/inquiries and Ideas/suggestions) into General discussions and a third for Announcements (this 3rd is up to you).

The "Discussions" link in MediaWiki:Sidebar was going to WikiIslam:Forum/Ideas and Suggestions which isnt the best because if someone doesnt have an idea or suggestion they'll feel they've landed on the wrong page, so I changed that to the main forum page (WikiIslam:Forum). The General category is where people usually want to post stuff anyway (people dont want to think too hard about where they should post).

Another thing, we can probably delete or move old discussions into 'WikiIslam:Forum/Archives', so nothing too stale is there or it wont look good and encouraging. Thats all I have for now on this. --Axius (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Having the Help and Inquiries page makes it easy for new users to find answers to questions that have already been asked. That's why I created it. And I don't agree with the idea that users will feel like they've landed on the wrong page. That discussion page is linked under "Help Needed". It made sense when it linked to the Help and Inquiries page, but not now. --Sahab (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2014 (PST)

H/I isnt being used often [5] (last edit 6 months ago) enough to make it the primary link for Discussions. But ok, valid point that Discussions now doesnt make sense for Help needed. Lets move it below Editing Help. Saggy made a number of sections recently on your talk page that should instead be on some kind of "current discussions' page so everyone can respond and they're not really messages specific to only you. Lawrence made that recent topic [6] on another page (getting to it requires an extra click and eye-scanning). Again we want to make it easy for people to use the Discussion pages and we dont have too many ongoing discussions to need separate pages for these things.

Sorry, forgot to respond to "for new users to find answers to questions that have already been asked". If new users ask a question, we can give them a link to the H/I page. Right now we should see what we can do to make an easily accessible discussions page for current users. We can keep the H/I page if you want, but not link it to discussions. --Axius (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Okay. Yeah, I want to still keep that page. I've moved the discussion link up between the site map and recent changes. It's a more prominent position anyhow --Sahab (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Ok, even better location then. Wasnt that where it was earlier? lol. I cant remember. I think it was. Anyway. So I'll do that all: move Announcements to a new announcements page (otherwise its like a stick that gets in the way like on forums), move old comments to one single 'archive' page, Ideas/suggestions moved to General discussions (old entries moved to archive). I think that was it. And then I might move Saggy's "Logical errors' section on your page to the General discussions page. --Axius (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (PST)

I thought you just said we could keep the Ideas/suggestions page, so I have no idea what you are saying here. --Sahab (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Oh, sorry, I'm getting mixed up with what you're saying. Maybe you should just do it and I can see what it is? --Sahab (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Ok I'm done. So the big thing again is that we have one easily accessible Discussions link for active discussions for current editors. --Axius (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Still not satisfied but its a better situation than before. I'll check again later to see if anything else should be done. --Axius (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2014 (PST)

You should just go ahead and get rid of the Help & Inquiries page and go ahead with the General discussion/project & task related pages. As long as we still have our Translation Project page it doesn't bother me now. --Sahab (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Ok. --Axius (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Menu

In the same attempt for making things easier/simpler for editors, I'm investigating this new version of the menu (you can see the comparison in that link easily). All the links useful for editors are in one place.

Currently all of the Editor related links are scattered. 1 link for Discussions at the top | 4 links in Help needed | 2 links in About. These are all links primarily relevant for editors. For starters, the Editing guide should not be in the About section. Its more useful in an area which Editors access. The same goes for policies. Policies are applicable/relevant only if someone is an Editor. The About section then is only 'about us'. The audience type is Reader and Editor and we keep these separate. When a reader is interesting in checking more information about being an editor they look at the Editor section and see all the relevant links, including the Policies link.

We've tried the "Help needed, Join our team" and it didnt help in a huge way, so lets try this Editors/Readers audience separation. I could have moved 'Recent changes' to the editors section too but we've always wanted that link in that area. Although it wouldnt be too bad if we moved it down. In any case, for now the big thing is this new section 'Links for Editors'. Other section names: Editors, Editing, Contributing to WikiIslam, Contributing, Contribute, etc. 'Editing' is good. We are making it easy for Editors to find the links that would be of interest to them and I think it brings editors together closer. Do you have any points that support the current version being superior over all as compared to the one I'm suggesting? --Axius (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2014 (PST)

Nope. Sounds good to me. I would also go with "Editing" as the section heading. What about the Core Principles when the are completed? Maybe that can go in the About section? It's policies I know but I think pages like Wikipedia's Five Pillars are of interest to everyone. We could always move it to somewhere else if we think it looks wrong. --Sahab (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Ok. Yea that could go in the About but I'll have a better idea when the page is ready. --Axius (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (PST)

Core Principles

I hadnt even looked at that page WikiIslam:Core Principles (I was waiting for myself to finish that other community guidelines). Looks pretty good. I should try to create and finish that other page. --Axius (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (PST)

Thanks. Yeah, I'm very pleased with how it's shaping up. It was really good luck for us that the Core Principles ended up as ten shared equally between the two sides (5 for content and 5 for community). It would have looked odd if it was not. As it is, that page should make a very positive impression on people and will allow them to get a good feel of what type of site we are with the minimal amount of text. Because this is about the core, there is no need to be in-depth/off-putting like how some of the other pages may be. It doesn't deal with anything in detail, just the bare necessities. --Sahab (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (PST)

Yea that 5/5 looks good. Do you think the icon should be something else other than the atom because thats similar to the atheism symbol [7] (though I am one myself as you know but the site is neutral to other views). It could be a simple triangular bullet or anything else. --Axius (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

I never realized that. Yeah. I like that symbol a lot, but I have no objection to changing it. I'll try to come up with something different. --Sahab (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Other options, it could be a little hammer icon [8], scroll icon, hand, justice, book etc. or some kind of bullet or shape. --Axius (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Yea that looks good now. --Axius (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Common messages

How about making some templates for common messages e.g. content move [9]. The message would be left for the person who was working on the page. Inputs would be old and new page.

"I thought I would let you know that a page or section which you created or were involved in has been moved from [[---]] to [[---]]. Please note the new location of this page. Thank you."

The template name can be "talkmessage-moved". Any other messages that are commonly left for users should be templated (subst'd, actually, like the 'unsigned' template ) so we dont have to write them every time and its easy to leave the message. It might be that he choose the user page because it was an easy click on the top left. This software should have an easy click link for Sandboxes too.--Axius (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

[10] Long list of similiar messages at wikipedia to look at as examples. --Axius (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, definitely. That would make life so much easier for us on the wiki. If they are not too technical for me, I will try to create some. --Sahab (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

They look easy so far. Use the format of un- (user-notice) as names of the templates instead of uw- (which is user warning; notice is more inclusive). They have these view pages also which allow us to see the templates: multi level, single level. Doesnt look like we should have a lot so thats good and we can make more as we see the need. We can link these in the Edit toolbar/sections for easy access. --Axius (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Easiest to first make a list of the kind of messages that would be used: content or page moved (same template?). Your article has been finalized and linked. Article was moved to the Sandbox namespace. Article deleted. Edit reverted (used only for existing users), uses 3 parameters: target article, username and reason for revert. Obvious vandalism (no messages needed for that). User renamed (may not be useful since they wont know what the new username is, but ok).

Thats all I can think of for now that could be useful for us. Most of what they have wouldnt be used here. --Axius (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Oh. Those messages look very serious. I was thinking more in the line of the example you gave and integrating similar messages into our own.

For example, say a new user make a decent edit, but doesn't format it properly. We could leave a message like (I have no idea how the real template would be formatted so I've taken liberties):

{{talkpage-welcome|username}}((talkpage-issues|article|formatting|~~~~))

Which would produce something like:

Hi Ahmad and welcome to WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam. Our policies and guidelines can be viewed here. If you need any further clarification on an issue, let me or one of the administrators know. I noticed your additions to Islam were not formatted correctly. Please read WikiIslam:Formatting for help with how to format wiki pages. Thanks --Sahab (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

This way, it would ensure that everyone is greeted with a short but polite and to the point message. We could mix and match these templates for common messages to new users. What do you think? --Sahab (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Yea thats fine, for new users and also for existing (a page was moved, etc) . --Axius (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Cool. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (PDT)

Created a template as a test, Template:Utalk-content-moved entered by: {{subst:Utalk-content-moved|old page|new page}}. Tested at: User:Axius/Sandbox48. It also addressed the username successfully. --Axius (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2014 (PDT)

Okay. Thanks for that. It should help me understand how these thing work. --Sahab (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2014 (PDT)

Create the Details article?

I think its time to create the details article, What do you say?--Saggy (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I think it needs a language cleanup. I'll try to look at it and see what I can improve.

One of the strongest cases on that page is the 5 pillars. Can you think of any other cases like these where the detail is seriously needed, is an important part of Islamic belief but is there in the Quran? Those would be very good additions to the page and are not as important as the other verses (stories with missing details e.g.) --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I think there's probably a lot more that can be added (possibly after the article's creation, but preferably before) and I agree with Axius concerning the need of a language cleanup. I too will try to help with that in the next day or two. I would also say that the 5 pillars section needs to be redone to be consistent with the rest. So, IMO, it is not quite ready but it is getting close. Other than that; well done. --Sahab (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

I added some more verses for the claims of being detailed and made some headings. I found those additional verses here after searching for what Quran says about salat so I could add those verses. For now I just did this and will try to add salat verses related verses so match the other sections. A good compilation of Salat related verses has been done for us here: http://www.progressive-muslim.org/salat-prayer-quran.htm . A page like this can probably go in a Ref tag, and we can have some specific verses and for the rest we can give the reader the link in the Ref tag.

Saggy, my opinion is that new verses for missing details should not be added anymore unless they're really good. Instead the effort should be focused on finalizing this page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, additions of new verses is fine but it may keep extending the time it may take for the article to be reviewed/finalized (just letting you know). You can keep adding the verses though I think thats fine. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:01, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

I planned the order to be numerical so we start with chapter 2 and go to 113  :/ --Saggy (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Oh ok. I reverted myself then. I think it should be revised so its categorized in the other sense. I think its more powerful to present "practices of Islam" in one section and laws in another etc. Do you disagree? OR, you can reorder them in the end when you're done. Another related point is that there are enough "stories" (fables) for now. It would be nice to have more incomplete details for other categories like "laws" or practices in Islam (charity, fasting, salat) etc. Or any new categories. But yes I do believe that presenting related categories is more powerful. We dont follow the chapter series anywhere on other pages because the verses are pretty random. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:04, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Law? theres hardly any law to search for i think. some practices eg. pilgrimage are more detailed than the 1-line-stories so there may not be more practices to insert. Some are not story or anything categoryable eg. "We revealed the book and with it the balance". Where do they go in the event of separation?--Saggy (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Thief's repentance is one example of a law/sharia issue, currently the only one though. The others can go in a "Miscellaneous/Other verses" section. I guess keep collecting and we can think about it in the end. --Axius (talk | contribs) 11:38, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

I readied the prose, now create it or u want more verses?--Saggy (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I will read through it later and clean it up before creating it. There's enough content there for an initial article. But I also want to separate the 5 Pillars before that. --Sahab (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

2 pillars and ablution; and 1 or two more laws. Should they all go into one bunch? The Rest of the pillars have a decent amount of details so they may not go in.--Saggy (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

It's okay. I worked around it now. For Axius: concerning that progressive-muslim link; the translation they use is not accurate and distorts verses a lot. They're also Qur'anist apologists; their whole point is that the Qur'an is detailed, so I don't think it will benefit us from citing Qur'anist apologists as a reference. --Sahab (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

Only 1 translator called 85;4 as fire.[11] it many not necessarily be the usual future hell. I gave the source from wikipedia. Saggy (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

If the lack of detail was based on a historical event, then this should have been mentioned. And if only one translator used the word fire in 85:4 then you should have called the section heading "Makers of the Pit", not "Makers of the Pit of Fire" (I will change this now). Because if the fire translation is accepted then it could be easily argued that this is a poetic way of saying sinners are making their own place in hell, so it's not the Qur'an's lack of detail that is the problem, but the interpretations. --Sahab (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

Saggy, why are you rushing everything and only making a half-hearted attempt at creating a decent article? Axius may disagree with me, and I'm not trying to discourage you, but my philosophy has always been, "if you're not going to do something properly, then don't do it at all". It is this that has led to us weeding out most of the weak articles and deleting them, resulting in a very high-quality wiki with a reputation for its accurate and articulate content. But when it comes to you, even your talk page messages are so rushed that it makes them hard to understand.

See this section called "Blowing on Knots" that you wrote. You say about Qur'an 113:1-4 that, "One cannot understand who are those who blow on knots and why." This could be easily refuted by apologists. All they have to do is click on our verse reference that goes to the USC-MSA site an see that both of the other translators render it as "those who practise secret arts" and "the evil of malignant witchcraft". Then they can claim that WikiIslam are dishonest and are simply choosing the 1 translation that is most ambiguous and suited to "their agenda". Looking at the multiple translations available at islamawakened, most translators render it as something to do with witchcraft.

I've now fixed that by removing the text you wrote and replacing it with, "Many translators identify those who blow on knots as "those who practice secret arts" or witchcraft, but this information is not found within the actual Qur'anic text. Others choose to translate it accurately as "those who blow on knots", which makes it impossible to identify who these people are and why they would do such a thing." But you were obviously aware of the situation (since you chose the 1 translation of the three that only mentions knots) so why did you not think to add this to the article? It was the same thing Qur'an 85:4 (discussed above this message). If you were aware of the uncertainty behind the meaning of this verse being discused by Muslim scholars so it confirms the fact that this verse lacks detail, why did you fail to mention it? You are rushing just to throw articles out there and this is resulting in your work being weak or incomprehensible. This is not how we do things. We do not choose quantity over quality. That may have been the case 5 years ago but not today.

So can you please try to adjust you editing style accordingly? --Sahab (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

ok. But I bet those claims against this site will never go away.--Saggy (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

Thanks, Saggy. Of course. We know these claims will never go away. We are not doing it for those apologists who make these claims. We are doing it for all those people (Muslim and non-Muslim) who use us to learn about Islam and trust us for our accuracy. We need to be thorough and clear enough so that they have the information available to see that we are correct. --Sahab (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

I agree with what Sahab said and in particular "We do not choose quantity over quality.". As we can see Sahab did a lot of work [12] on the Details article. Thanks for that Sahab. Saggy please note Sahab's recommendations.

Anyone can make any number of Sandbox articles, whether they're of poor or good quality. Picking those sandbox articles and finalizing them is entirely optional and is up to other users.

So Saggy if you can do a good job in the Sandbox article, it makes it more likely that others will work on it and finalize the article. If its too difficult others can just add it to the tasks page to work on it in the future. If its added there, you can see that the tasks page contains lots of tasks so it will likely be a long time before anyone works on it. I would advise you to keep working on Sandbox articles as you have done but if you ask people to finalize it and it needs a lot of work, you can expect a reply like "it needs a lot of work (for example, X, Y Z) and at the moment I'm unable to work on it". In that case you can keep working on the article to the best of your ability (and make it rebuttal proof as best as you can). It can be added to the Tasks page if it needs a lot of fixing up. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 March 2014 (PDT)

Issue with the Details article

Since I can't really see any relevant sub-sections to divide this list into, I've arranged them all in alphabetical order. This way there is at least some method behind its order. however, I've noticed another issue.

This article deals with the lack of detail and clarity in the Qur'an. So for example, Abu Lahab and Blowing on Knots is fine. The Qur'an mentions these things and fails to clarify issues directly related to them (i.e. mentioning "those who blow on knots" but leaving readers without a clue concerning their identity). But there are other subjects that cannot be blamed directly on the Qur'an. For instance, the Five Pillars (in general) and (in part) Ablution. The Qur'an never mentions the Five Pillars, so the lack of detail concerning them in the Qur'an is not a defect of the Qur'an but Islam. Similarly, ablution is described very well in the Qur'an. The fact that hadith add more to the Qur'an's instructions is not a defect/lack of detail in the Qur'an (although the second criticism i.e. "The purpose of this excessive (ritual) cleanliness is omitted" is perfectly valid). The same problem exists in the fasting section where some of the criticism is valid but others are not.

So these two things may be related, but they are distinct. How should we deal with this? --Sahab (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2014 (PDT)

Saggy any thoughts? --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (PDT)

What do you guys think of this addition? It explains the difference and also justifies the Five Pillars section not follow the usual "quote a verse" format. Five Pillar is an important thing so I think that section being included is fine, but can you imagine how many thousands of rules there are in Islam that are never mentioned in the Qur'an? It would be silly to allow minor things to creep into that article, because then there is no logical reason to not include thousands of others. Major issues that are not in the Qur'an seem reasonable. Maybe if we can come up with a few more we could give it its own sub-section in the article? Worth a thought. --Sahab (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2014 (PDT)

I was thinking we can also use the headline "Practices and Rituals in Islam" for that section or something like that and keep the "five pillars" in the text narrative. I agree, the major things in Islam should be mentioned in that article and the smaller stuff can be left out because that would be a lot. I dont know what to do with Ablution. How about Hajj or Zakat, I bet that too is not described in detail. I dont know though. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:04, 27 March 2014 (PDT)

Which is why all 5 pillars did not go in here. . But I still would have preferred if you keep those subsections in five pillars. fasting before 5 pillars? That looks wiyerd. Like that we could go on having lots of verseless sections to put more blames. Order? Not sure if alphabetical is the best. I followed numerical order so that there is no chance of duplication for users when they expand anywhere.Saggy (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2014 (PDT)

Qur'an 86:7 article (and rationale for certain Article Style and Content guidelines)

[13] contains a quote:“If one was to insist upon the literal meaning (the translation favoured by the critics), one would still find that the Quran is 100% correct literally, too. The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles. If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.The seminal vesicles from which the semen spurts out during coitus, lies between the ribs and the coccyx (backbone)!” Ther'es a diagram against the claim[14]. Then shall we add a section in this article?[15] --Saggy (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

When making edits to articles, your additions should not be made in a vacuum. The article as a whole needs to be considered. Most times, editors add material that do not go with what is already on the page and the article ends up like a patchwork, reading terribly. If a new section is added, I'd have to make some changes to the whole article. A "Miscellaneous" section or maybe a "Responses to Apologetics" section could be added at the end for dealing with these obscure sort of claims from non-notable people. But that diagram can't be put into the page (nobody wants to see a picture of a penis in the middle of the page. Plus, that diagram doesn't explain anything). It could be linked to in a ref tag. So go ahead if you want to write a response, but make sure the response is conveyed clearly through words. Explain in words why that claim is wrong. --Sahab (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

This case i non-notable. What title to give: "Responses to other claims", "Miscellaneous claims"? So far there is only 1 such claim to respond.--Saggy (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

There is a second non-notable apologetic[16] Now is it enough to add?--Saggy (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

I already said it's okay to add, only that the way it is added and what is added needs to be considered. They could be added under one section like this (just press the right edit but in that link). --Sahab (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Good job on that. Those were well written responses.--Sahab (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2014 (PDT)

Why do u remove the claim links? How would anybody even know that such claims have been made? We need the claimer's name atleast if not the link.--Saggy (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

I noticed that too but if you see, the other quotes dont have references (quotes which are being rebutted). The existing material should have had URL's but it was taken from the FFI forum and I guess it did not have those references there. I would be fine either way although I'm partial towards keeping the links since they might change their website and claim they hadnt written it.

I've looked at this section and it looks fine to me although I dont have enough medical knowledge to evaluate the rebuttal. I feel it can be improved. Is it possible to add medical references for the rebuttal? For example wikipedia may have some information about the cause of ejaculation or anything else that supports the rebuttal.

Also this comment section should be moved to the talk page of the article. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:20, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Those websites are unlikely to change. this is the ref for the rebuttal. No need of medic- you can evaluate second one from an image i linked at start of this thread. It has no ribs but imagine ribs at a good height above the image; then imagine a line drawn from the bottom backbone.--Saggy (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Thats a big wikipedia article and cant be used for a ref. I know the other responses arent using many refs but if you used some it would make that section "rebuttal" proof. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:01, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

I vote for this response to be deferred to the tasks page until there can be more references and a stronger response. I dont know enough to evaluate it. One way to refine these kinds of responses is to debate them on forums and see the responses and then adjust the rebuttal as needed. Anyway its up to you and Sahab. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree with Axius' suggestion for this response to be deferred to the tasks page. If that route is taken we could always keep the material that is already there in a hidden comment. The problem I now see with the response is that it's pretty hard to understand.

Concerning the references for claims made by apologists; Axius is right that most of them were missing. But the reason why I removed those last two links from the "Miscellaneous" section was because (as I've advised other users) we're not an "interfaith" or "dialogue" site, so unless it's someone very notable, we do not respond to specific apologists. Instead we respond to the general arguments raised, if those arguments merit a response at all. The last thing we want is to get drawn into a slagging match with some insignificant guy on a blog. Ideally their claims wouldn't even be quoted; they would be presented in our own words. Take for example, "Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha". I refuted most of those claims after I encountered them from apologists, but I did not quote or reference a single apologist. Every claim is summarized in my own words, and this actually makes the page stronger because my words are a lot more concise and easier to understand than the words of illiterate apologists. Now what way is more universal and professional; refuting the arguments as a whole or refuting only individual, obscure internet apologists? So, no, I would say we do not need the claimer's name at all. In fact, aiming the response at a specific non-notable guy would unnecessarily weaken the page because it would then necessitate proof that (quoting Saggy's words) "such claims have been made". With my approach, it wouldn't make a difference if an individual removed a claim they made, because we are dealing with the argument, not the person who is making them. Besides, that particular claim would not be limited to that one particular person. Many others would be using it too on forums, blogs etc. Take argument number 23 as an example. That same Osama guy uses that argument. But why should we direct our response to one individual when thousands of people make the same claim? --Sahab (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Yea. I think its a good idea to have a response thats 'generic' and doesnt name or quote specific mini blog sites. That way it can be used against any site that makes such claims, not just one. It makes it tougher to deal with the rebuttal because we need to generalize the claims being made but its a better way in the long run and I agree, it makes the site look better. And yea thats the way we've tried to go in the past. So I guess ideally the other claims would also be generic first and then name certain people (unless notable).

How about putting these tips in the Style Content Guide, in a section called "Writing Responses to Apologetic Claims" (or 'for Apologists'). --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Cool. I'll add those tips to that page. --Sahab (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Thanks. I reverted the changes and added the task to the tasks list at #6 in this section. [17] so it can be re-evaluated in the future. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:17, 17 March 2014 (PDT)

I edited some of it, but can we expect a generic argument? Is this backbone-ribs a hot topic recently? Anyway, the claims looks slimmer now. Soures are not even needed. Its all obvious in an image search whether it is vesicles or anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggy (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 March 2014 (Remember to sign your comments)

Well, when we say "generic", we don't really mean the argument, but the wording of the argument, so that it could be made by a generic (i.e. any) apologist. You've edited those claims but in essence they're still the same arguments, so that's fine. About sources; do you know the origin of that diagram you linked to? Was it from a medical journal or site? If we knew that, we could just link to that in a ref tag. It would also be good to have a source for the % of semen. --Sahab (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

i got nother[18]. 4th pic from top. Saggy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

Thanks, I'll cite that now. --Sahab (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

I got one notable claim.--Saggy (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

Cool. Can you reword it so it is not asking questions? See #6 [19] . --Sahab (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

Womb sentence

Here see its second sentence. does it make enough of sense? some stray translator calls it "hiding pregnancy," but is it really something that can be hidden over time? especially in those old days? If it is unclear, it should go into some article.--Saggy (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I think it sounds pretty clear. --Sahab (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2014 (PDT)