|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| '''''This page is for discussions between editors. Visitors should use the [[WikiIslam:Discussions/Visitor Inquiries|visitors]] page. All new discussion topics should be created at the bottom of the page, below all previous discussions, and all messages should be [[WikiIslam:Signatures|signed]].''''' | | '''''This page is for discussions between editors. Visitors should use the [[WikiIslam:Discussions/Visitor Inquiries|visitors]] page. All new discussion topics should be created at the bottom of the page, below all previous discussions, and all messages should be [[WikiIslam:Signatures|signed]].''''' |
| <!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --> | | <!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --> |
| ==Logical Errors rename==
| |
|
| |
| Shall we make logical errors into "logical errors and absurdities" or put any word like "absurdities"? Then there will be a lot more to add.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:50, 27 February 2014 (PST)
| |
|
| |
| :No, I think absurdities is too wide in scope. For example, most of the scientific errors could be seen as absurdities. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 15:24, 27 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| ::How about something temporary and general like [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Issues in the Quran]] and gather all the relevant verses and make whatever kinds of internal headings we like. The first main step is to gather the verses and some rough sorting and then later refinement to make sure the claim is correct and refining the sorting/headings also. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (PST)
| |
|
| |
| :::I don't think the issue is a temporary one that can be sorted by refining sub-heading. If that was the case, then the present heading, "Logical Errors in the Qur'an", is fine for now. The issue is about the entire direction of the article i.e. the author hasn't decided on the topic of the article yet. Clearly that's an odd place to be when an article has already been started. The original topic (logical errors) does not seem to create enough content to warrant an article, so the new title, "logical errors and absurdities" was suggested to allow widening its scope. However, including "absurdities" widens the scope too far. To me, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no article here, or it should at least be put on hold until there are enough logical errors found, and efforts should be concentrated on the "Qur'anic Claim of Having Details" article which has more potential, but that's probably not what everyone wants to hear, so we come back the same problem. What is this article about? If it's about "Issues in the Quran", then that completely obliterates the scope. There are hundreds of issues with the Qur'an and we have hundreds of articles dealing with them. I doubt Saggy or anyone will be willing to create an article that would encompass them all, but readers who land on a page named "Issues in the Quran" would expect nothing less. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| ::::If its in a Sandbox article space it doesnt matter what the article title is or if it doesnt have any structure and so on. Its not indexed and its under construction.
| |
| ::::The first step of these articles is to choose from the 6000 verses by scanning them. We dont want any restrictions at this stage which could slow that down. The next is some kind of sorting or making sense of it. When its time to move the article to the main space only then we have to worry about applying the rules you mentioned and I agree with those rules (correct titles whether its one title or many, scope, how it fits in with everything else, whether its a valid claim or not, etc). It has to be ok in every way. Saggy is doing the first core task, bringing out those verses so that can go on in a Sandbox article. In the end we can come back to your comments and see what to do next. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:41, 28 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| :::::Well, if you, Saggy or whoever want to do it that way then it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because it's up to each individual how they spend their time and it's being done in a sandbox. But scanning 6000 verses then deciding on what to do with them is not the optimal way good articles are written. That sounds quite absurd in itself. It's common sense that when you write an article that you have a general idea of what the article is about, and only then do you do the research for it. Take the "Qur'an detail" article. We know we want verses that lack detail, so we scan the Qur'an for verses that fit the description. We do not scan the Qur'an for an unidentified purpose, collect anything that looks interesting and then decide that "there are some verses here that lack detail. Let's make an article about it". [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| ::::::Actually I've always wanted to scan the Quran for all the interesting things but Skeptics Quran has done a lot of it (I remember your comment about SAQ). In any case yes, as long as its done in a Sandbox people can do what they like (good practice for articles under construction in any case). In the end we can see if it makes sense or not, or how to fix it. If you had to scan the Quran for an identified purpose, you would to scan it again every time you had a new purpse. If scanning is done one time but we have a "filter" on it (like an email filter), it saves time. Anyway. Yea its up to Saggy on what he wants to write in the Sandbox. I need to take a closer look at these articles some time to see how its going. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 05:21, 28 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| :::::::Scanning the Qur'an as a general project is a completely different task to the one we are discussing here i.e. Saggy's "logical errors" page. And yeah, when you know what you're looking for, you would scan it again. That's how it's done. Or do you think if you scan the Qur'an now you will never have to scan the Qur'an ever again? We've all "scanned" the Qur'an multiple times (i.e. when we've read through it), but that doesn't do away with the need of re-scanning the Qur'an for a specific purpose. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| ::::::::I dont know, I guess its however he scans it. If it was me who had to do it, I would keep a checklist of stuff I want to check against. Anyway, yea he can work on the sandbox page as he likes. I know he was talking about the Logical errors page. I was just giving the general advice that he can work on a sandbox page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| :::::::::I asked because I saw some things that may not be logical as I think but they are not scientific either. Just erros.--[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:40, 1 March 2014 (PST)
| |
| ::::::::::I just renamed it to [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Logical Errors and Other Issues in the Qur'an]] for a general kind of title. You can think about renaming it to something more specific in the end when you're done with it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (PST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Article on Ali==
| |
| How about an article on Ali? He's (one of) the most important men in Islamic history, so why not? [[User:LawrenceGilmore|LawrenceGilmore]] ([[User talk:LawrenceGilmore|talk]]) 14:01, 5 March 2014 (PST)
| |
|
| |
| :I made your inquiry into a new section by making a heading. Sure thats fine only if it would be a good article related to criticism of Islam. Otherwise not too much time should be spent on it in my opinion but thats up to you. Do you have any thoughts about the text extracts [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Islamophobia_-_temp] for the iphobia article? Sorry I have been putting off working on that article but I was waiting to see what you thought of the extracts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (PST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Create the Details article?== | | ==Create the Details article?== |
|
| |
|
| Line 370: |
Line 348: |
| ::Btw. if you hate the title "Conclusions", because it sounds subjective, you can replace it with "Summary". [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 20:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | | ::Btw. if you hate the title "Conclusions", because it sounds subjective, you can replace it with "Summary". [[User:Prekladator|Prekladator]] ([[User talk:Prekladator|talk]]) 20:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
| :::Hello, Can anyone find out that there are any Muslim editors on this site? [[User:Guillotino|Guillotino]] ([[User talk:Guillotino|talk]]) 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC) <br /> | | :::Hello, Can anyone find out that there are any Muslim editors on this site? [[User:Guillotino|Guillotino]] ([[User talk:Guillotino|talk]]) 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC) <br /> |
| | |
| <br />I was convinced by the site owner that this was the new site policy and so I removed the ban. I totally agree with you guys. Unfortunately, the site policy includes deleting and rewriting articles. The site is no longer aimed at criticizing Islam as it was intended. Not to mention that I don't think the editor is competent to re-write the articles and is familiar with Islam in depth. I am not angry with the owner and the editor, because I believe they do it with a pure heart, but unfortunately I do not agree with them at all on the politics, views of Islam and with the facts they claim. I hadn't even entered a year of disappointment. Unfortunately, the only place without masks and makeup will be make-up and masked. Sad, very sad because I love a site that was full of facts from the Islamic scriptures themselves, where they could not be found anywhere - so far. Excuse my English<br /> | | <br />I was convinced by the site owner that this was the new site policy and so I removed the ban. I totally agree with you guys. Unfortunately, the site policy includes deleting and rewriting articles. The site is no longer aimed at criticizing Islam as it was intended. Not to mention that I don't think the editor is competent to re-write the articles and is familiar with Islam in depth. I am not angry with the owner and the editor, because I believe they do it with a pure heart, but unfortunately I do not agree with them at all on the politics, views of Islam and with the facts they claim. I hadn't even entered a year of disappointment. Unfortunately, the only place without masks and makeup will be make-up and masked. Sad, very sad because I love a site that was full of facts from the Islamic scriptures themselves, where they could not be found anywhere - so far. Excuse my English<br /> |
| Damaskin <br /> | | Damaskin <br /> |
| | |
| ::::Hello. Thanks your English is looking good. I do not believe you did something wrong to work on the articles that are deleted. I am feeling this site makes it easy for me to win debates with Muslims. [[User:Guillotino|Guillotino]] ([[User talk:Guillotino|talk]]) 17:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) | | ::::Hello. Thanks your English is looking good. I do not believe you did something wrong to work on the articles that are deleted. I am feeling this site makes it easy for me to win debates with Muslims. [[User:Guillotino|Guillotino]] ([[User talk:Guillotino|talk]]) 17:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |