User talk:Sahab

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The criticism about "the certain number of days" is a valid criticism concerning a lack of detail in the Qur'an, so it's fine that "Fasting" is listed separately from the "Five Pillars" section which is dealing with another distinct problem within the Qur'an. I did suggest grouping the other type of error in a separate list on the same page (this would eliminate the problem of it looking weird).

Following the numerical order would not help other users in the slightest. This old revision is in numerical order. If an editor wanted to add a verse from surah 90, how would they know where to look? They wouldn't. They'd have to look through the entire list until they find it. Even if they could find it easily, some issues are covered in more than 1 surah, making a numerical order meaningless. At least with an alphabetical order, it looks a lot better and both editors and readers could find errors based on their subject matter a lot easier (obviously if they're looking for "Ablution", they'd know to look near the beginning etc.).

As a side note; there are some extremely obvious subjects missing, such as Jizyah and Muhammad himself. I will try to add these. --Sahab (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2014 (PDT)

[11] 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[12]. Then shall we add a section in this article?[13] --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[14] 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. [15] 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[16]. 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 [17] . --Sahab (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

Check the saved text now. hows it?Saggy (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2014 (PDT)

It's better. However, both of these two additional individuals are not making scientific arguments but claiming it either as a metaphor or a euphemism. So I think they would be better suited in a simplified form under a "Responses to Apologetics" section after the conclusion (e.g. see 72 Virgins). I will try to edit and show you what I mean. --Sahab (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2014 (PDT)

Actually scrap that thought. Yusuf Ali does try to throw around a lot of "scientific sounding" jargon, so that would probably be okay, but I think Muhammad Ali's claim can be merged into the third response to Amjad. --Sahab (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2014 (PDT)

Now go ahead?Saggy (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (PDT)

I'll take a proper look at when I can. --Sahab (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2014 (PDT)

I've had a look at it, and your response doesn't make sense, or at least it is not worded clearly enough for it to be apparent. You mention that Yusuf Ali "does not explain what he means by seed: Sperm, semen, ovum or zygote". But then fail to expand on that by explaining how or why it matters. Then you say "But he does not say what a rib is, metaphorically." However, Yusuf Ali is not claiming the rib is anything metaphorically. I don't think we even need to respond to Yusuf Ali's metaphor claim, but if we do it, then the response should be clear and decisive. I don't think this is either. You can ask Axius to comment here if you want a second opinion. --Sahab (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2014 (PDT)

Fixed.Saggy (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2014 (PDT)

I thought it would be nice to have some of questions still answered by MyMagic like (#1 in particular):

1. What are the news stories about in the image posted under Yuvraj Hans' Facebook post? Are they claiming Hans converted or not?
2. Are Navraj and Yuvraj, Hans Raj Hans' only children?
3. You wrote that Hans Raj Hans rejected the claims of a conversion on February 21, but there are news reports available (including one you yourself use as a reference) that are dated February 20. Am I missing something here or was that an error on your part?

Great to have this page. 200K results for "hands raj" Islam so it will help everyone involved. Nice work in finalizing it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (PDT)

Cool. I've left a message for him asking those questions and pointing out the differences between what he submitted and what we have now with the Hans Raj page. As I said to MyMagics, not a single word remains from the original. The differences between the two is actually quite shocking. Maybe being shown something like this is a good way to show editors what we expect? It was actually worse when the Sunita Williams page was created. If I remember correctly, there was no article there because his scant bit of analysis was faulty and almost all of the research behind that was done by myself. I don't get it. It seems when we get editors they almost never put any effort into it (this obviously does not include rare editors like Atheistig who are great). These editors are obviously drawn to us through our reputation and existing high-quality content, then start creating pages that are lower quality and more rushed than the average blog post (and I am not using hyperbole when I say that). How do they think we could ever maintain our quality with such submissions; by using a wiki fairy maybe? lol. I think the problem is expectations (contradictory ones at that). They expect others to do the legwork, additional research, cleaning up etc. while at the same time expect us to accept anything as a new article irrelevant of its quality. I suppose this is imparted on editors by Wikipedia's silly approach to certain things (but look at the terrible state of the majority of their content). Yeah, so this has made me think that we desperately need some way to inspire editors into putting more effort into their contributions and try to be more self reliant (as opposed to expecting there to always be someone there to bring things up to standard). --Sahab (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2014 (PDT)

Oh yea I see now, that version was nothing when he submitted it and he didnt do anything significant after that. I dont know how to make others do it like we do. That would be tough and people sadly arent interested in putting in the effort. Most visitors dont bother at all and make no edits and most of the people who do make edits just do the basics (we are grateful for whatever we get). Its sad but its the way things are. Do you think two new pages could be made that are copies of these versions to show people what needs to be done? And maybe a list of checkpoints of things they need to learn (things that you had to do, researching stuff, formatting it correctly etc). They still might not be bothered but we can try. How to create a good Article. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:40, 30 March 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, most visitors don't make edits but that is perfectly normal. They are here making use of the information available, which is fantastic. Same with editors who do basic things, such as typos or small corrections. I think those small things are just as important in the long run and appreciate it a lot when I see IP editors making such edits. It's not really the amount editors contribute that is important, but the quality of what they contribute.

Keeping copies of those pages and making the article you suggested may be useful. We'll probably need more examples though. I suppose more of those will come in time. --Sahab (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2014 (PDT)

Agreed. Ok sounds good. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (PDT)

I had actually checked this [18]. 1844 is linked on that page (in 'see also' somewhere) but not quoted and mentions "snake". Thats why I had left it in. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (PDT)

Abu dawud 10:1844 mentions the snake, scorpion, rat, crow, dog and the kite so if we were going to keep it, it should not have been under a sub-section named "Snake". Only a few sections above it we have a sub-section called "Killing Crows, Kites, Mice, Scorpions and Dogs" where we quote a sahih hadith that says they all must be killed. Abu dawud 10:1844 says the crow must NOT be killed and contradicts the sahih hadith. You could move that hadith up to there if you want, but I fail to see what we'll gain by adding that there and confusing readers. --Sahab (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2014 (PDT)

Ok looks good with them expanded now. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:52, 1 April 2014 (PDT)

I feel there is a lot of good content in Template:Pictorial-Islam-options and it needs more exposure (a lot of work went into writing it up). How about also making a page called "WikiIslam:Featured Articles", putting all the stuff in (as is, no random function - just a long list, categorizing it if possible) and then linking it on the left (maybe below Site map). And then renaming the "Pictorial Islam" on the main page as "Featured Articles" (and then see more Featured articles). Like how Rational wiki has a "best of RW" link at the left. [19]. Or some other way to give those articles more exposure. --Axius (talk | contribs) 07:27, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

I don't know. The "Pictorial Islam" template also links to library content, and to other things which are high quality, but I don't think would be right in a "Featured Articles" list (e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I'm not saying I'm against the idea, only that we can't really use that template to decide what should be "featured". I think we discussed this a while ago and commented on how hard it would be to choose what articles would go there. I still feel the same. I could easily point out articles that are crap (luckily they are only a few), but picking articles that I think are good would result in me picking practically everything we have. --Sahab (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

The thing with RationalWiki and other similar wikis, I would assume, is that they're a lot more lenient towards what they allow on there (just imagine some of the material here that have been deleted or moved out of the mainspace). So they have a lot more scope when putting together such a page. With us, most of the content, especially the new stuff, can be regarded as "featured content" simply because it's hosted on the site. --Sahab (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Come to think of it, it would be slightly redundant when you consider our main page is basically a "Featured Articles" page in itself (although I would take a few off if it was a "Featured Articles" page ). --Sahab (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Oh, yea I remember now we had talked about this before. Alright then. If I have time I might put it in a sandbox page just to see what such a collection looks like if laid out on the page. Agreed that it would be hard to choose featured articles because they're all or (most of them) "featured" since they're approved to be in the main space. --Axius (talk | contribs) 08:26, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

I thought you finished the prose. What more is left to do? Saggy (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, it's ready. It can be created now if you really want, but now that those conversion pages are done, I was hoping to spend a good day or so on it to see what else I could find. --Sahab (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

Make it. Later we'll see if theres something to add. I don't think there is much left : could be 5 or 6 more.Saggy (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2014 (PDT)

""And among His Signs, He shows you the lightning, by way both of fear and of hope, and He sends down rain""(Q 30:24) Sc. error? Lightning is not explained, just atributed to him. And it is used as a fear.Saggy (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

I would disagree. Lightening does cause emotions (fear, or awe [20]). Lack of the explanation doesnt mean an error. It can be explained by the apologist. So probably not too strong. Again you can still move any verses to your own sandbox for later evaluation and any notes. --Axius (talk |

contribs) 06:04, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

You left?Saggy (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2014 (PDT)

Not sure what happened. Hopefully he's just taking a break. In my opinion minor disagreements should not cause anyone to become upset like he apparently did. One issue was the Quran/hadith topic which could be argued both ways as our discussion[21] showed. The other issue was me asking you to use forum page and not his talk pages for general issues. He himself had moved a discussion from his talk page to the forum page. Although I believe it was nothing to get upset about I did apologize to him and said I would mention it at another time.

I've been concerned with the community environment and how to preserve it. Me and him have worked hard on creating WikiIslam:Talk Pages and WikiIslam:Core Principles. These guidelines must to be followed at all times if teamwork on this site is to be preserved.

I'm trying to think of ways we can reach out to people and grow our community further. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:25, 15 April 2014 (PDT)

Yeah, I was taking a break and reevaluating things (see number 10 on the Core Principles). Can't an editor do that without having it made into an issue on his talk page? Saggy simply asked if I had left. Your first two sentences in the reply would have sufficed, rather than you spreading stuff onto here and taking a dig at a long-term user who may not return to provide a reply. FYI if you think there was nothing for me to get upset about, then there is not much I can say to that. It's hard to believe and I'm pretty sure most people would disagree with you. I also do not appreciate you putting strikethroughs over my text. If something is not acceptable, then it should be removed, not altered. The fact that you would do that shows a lot of disrespect. Our own talk page guidelines says this is not acceptable. So does Wikipedia's:

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." --Sahab (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok I removed the comments instead of the strike through. Yea I see now that strike through should be done by the editor themselves. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 April 2014 (PDT)

Now that we have talk page guidelines and the Core principles in place, we will need to start enforcing them strictly. I feel that this is crucial going forward if we are to expect our site to grow (just like there are rules that everyone in a work environment must follow to keep chaos at bay and if those rules aren't enforced, they aren't any good). If I say anything that goes against these rules, you or anyone else can remove my comments anytime. If there are problems with any policies, we can address those with discussion. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 April 2014 (PDT)

If you remember once it happened that 4 hours had passed between the time an anonymous user on the RU site made an edit and the time you blocked or deleted/removed that comment. I had talked to you about this at that time and mentioned that we should not be interfering in the administration of the RU site. I had then left a message on their talk page letting them know they can administer their site in any way they like.

So as per: [22]

Once launched, they are free to evolve separately to the English site in style and content as long as the core principles are followed i.e. no politics, no promotion or criticism of other religions/worldviews and no opinions, only referenced facts concerning Islam.

Please dont make edits/deletes/blocks/moves on the RU site unless its an emergency or unless its non-administrative like making an inter-wiki link or any edit or action you know which will not be contested. There are administrators and users there who prefer to handle the site in whatever way they think is appropriate.

Previously they have replied to comments on talk pages so nothing should be done to interrupt the way they administer the site.

Does the current policy need to be more clear? --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:03, 24 April 2014 (PDT)

Nope. I'll avoid visiting the RU site in the future. --Sahab (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (PDT)

I didn't say we have to completely avoid it. Just keep an eye out as to whats going on (if you want) and you can make non-administrative edits (interwiki links, anything else that cannot be contested). Just leave the administration stuff to them. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:19, 24 April 2014 (PDT)

My browser is playing up and making my edits behave strangely. I'll come back later when it's sorted. --Sahab (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2014 (PDT)

Most of the content is written by you or has been heavily edited by you in any case. Do you intend to stop at some point or tag most/all the articles on the site? --Axius (talk | contribs) 01:23, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

Hi. Yeah, of course I intend to stop, once my work is tagged. --Sahab (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (PDT)

Isnt that going to be all the articles on the site? So about 2000 article tags?

What is your intention of tagging the articles? Do you want some kind of recognition or author attribution or do you want to prevent others from editing the work? etc I'm trying to understand the intent. We have tagged other people's work to mostly encourage others to edit or to encourage them to contribute more. Maybe we should re-think that and perhaps only essays should be tagged since they are of a personal nature and main content that complies with site policies should not be tagged.

We need to look at other sites to see how they handle this. Its a wiki after all and when pages are edited by everyone we can see why most wikis dont attribute their authors like this. Wikipedia doesnt make people tag their any of their articles even if they're basically the sole contributors of that page and thats a pretty big point I want to bring up here. Neither does Rational Wiki tag their articles like this. I think if its going to be all/most pages on the site that is going to discourage people from editing (thinking the pages shouldn't be edited further in any major way) so I dont think its a good idea. --Axius (talk | contribs) 02:01, 31 July 2014 (PDT)