User talk:Eperoton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Automatic romanization of Arabic tools?

Hello Eperoton! Hope you're enjoying your time! Just wanted to ask you something, do you know of any automatic romanization of Arabic tools? I've been searching for one for quiet some time now, but I couldn't find any. Thanks in advance. Regards, 21:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Hi, CounterTime. You can find some tools by searching for "Arabic transliteration", but I'm not aware of anything that works well. The best one I've seen is what Google Translate shows you at the bottom when you translate from Arabic, but it's nothing to write home about. It should actually be pretty straightforward to build a better tool for this (collect a corpus of vowelized Arabic texts, use it to build a statistical algorithm that adds short vowels to text without them, and then transliterate the result), but I guess there hasn't been enough interest in Arabic romanization out there to inspire the time investment. Eperoton (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Just as a minor comment, I wasn't actually looking for 'transliteration' (which Google translate does not too bad) but rather for romanization, which in practice would change for e.g. "لمن" would romanize as: "liman", I don't think creating a program that simply changes arabic letters (eg ل -> l) would work especially in regards to the harakat. 11:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: The word "transliteration" is commonly used in this broader sense, at least among engineers. Eperoton (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Shaykh al-Islām

Do you know anything about this title? It doesn't seem to have any official standing - can it just be given to people willy-nilly so to speak? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: According to EI2, it has been used in different ways. In some places and periods it was honorific, in some it was an official position, in some it was somewhere between the two, and in some its exact nature is disputed. None of the standard encyclopedias discuss current usage. This article needs work. Eperoton (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I concluded after a brief GBooks/Scholar search. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Ethnic slurs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Ethnic slurs. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Eperoton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Misdemenor (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

It is sourced. For instance by this: Muslims, multiculturalism and the question of the silent majority S Akbarzadeh, JM Roose - Journal of muslim minority affairs, 2011 - Taylor & Francis. Xinheart (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Re Hizmet

I'm sorry. You are mistaken. Hizmet is a corruption of Khidmat. I dispute your authority to judge this matter, simply because I know you are wrong. Check with older, more experienced speakers of Turkish and Arabic.SBader (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@SBader: Neither you nor I, nor anyone we may know have any "authority" that matters on the Wikipedia. WP articles are based on the authority of reliable sources (see WP:RS). Hizmet (and not khidmat) is given as a standard term meaning "service" in modern dictionaries of Turkish (including a 1945 dictionary I have). Do you have RSs that characterize it as "dialectal" or "corruption"? Eperoton (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muslim world, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Druse and Zaidi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Verifying mistakes - if any - in my recent edit

Hello

I see that you are a very prominent Wikipedia Project: Islam contributor

I'm here relatively new and I would like guidance concerning verifying mistakes - if any - in my recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hudud&diff=732678869&oldid=725654441

Thanks in advance

Mauricio Gulyano, writing from Ecuador. --MauricioGulyano (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MauricioGulyano: Thanks for your message. I'm concerned about compliance of this edit with WP policies. Per WP:RS (particularly WP:PRIMARY), direct use of primary sources on WP is restricted. Using non-primary reliable sources is always preferred to using primary sources directly. Also, the policy doesn't allow any interpretation of primary sources on our part. One may think that simply quoting a primary source involves no interpretation, but that's not quite the case. Per WP:NPOV, articles should reflect all prominent views proportionally to their prominence. This very long quote from one Islamic jurist gives more prominence to his view than to the views of the thousands of other famous jurists combined. What we should do instead is take RSs (preferably academic publications) that make generalizations about the history of juridical opinion on this subject and base the text on their generalizations rather than on primary sources directly. I'm familiar RSs that discuss this topic, and I'll try to work on this section soon. Eperoton (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Hello. First I want to thank you for introducing me to the (confusing) wikipedia policies, i want to say at the outset that i didn't quote only one "primary source", but also an article written by historian Jonathan Brown http://almadinainstitute.org/blog/the-shariah-homosexuality-safeguarding-each-others-rights-in-a-pluralist-so/#Appendix

The fatwa by al-Subki is not mutually exclusive when put with all other ones, rather al-Subki is actually narrating the consensus (quote: "It has been agreed upon")

I also don't agree that the fatwa by al-SUbki (in which he just narrates the consensus) is a primary source, in an article of hudud the primary sources would be the quran and hadiths, fatwas narrating consensus would be secondary sources

Mauricio Gulyano, writing from Ecuador. --MauricioGulyano (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MauricioGulyano: Your classification into primary and secondary sources makes sense in a way, but it's not the way these terms are normally used on WP. The essential WP term is reliable source, and from descriptions of RSs in the policies WP:V (WP:SOURCES) and WP:OR (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources), you can see that they are considered reliable based on modern institutions of peer review and fact checking. These are the sources on which we can base statements of fact and interpretations. Pre-modern sources are not considered part of this category. All of them are usually called primary, though this comes more from community convention that the phrasing in the policies, which is rather vague about the primary/secondary classification.

The article by Brown is a RS based on his academic credentials, and we should reflect it in the article primarily based on his own statements. We can use his appendix to support a descriptive statement such as giving the number of clauses it contains. Listing it in full would give it undue weight in the discussion, since neither Brown nor other RSs I've seen attach special importance to this document. The notion of WP:WEIGHT is formally defined for RSs, but it applies to other sources as well.

Anyway, that's my take on the matter. Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thank you for all the clarifications

I think the point of his appendix was to show the standard procedural requirements of that Hadd (see the paragraphs in which he talks about Hudud) and not just to give an example. So we should reflect all of it, since also that section is about the requirements for these hudud, merely giving 'the number of clauses' does not convey what Brown wanted to show in his article, which is that "for the Hudud crimes, those ‘Limits of God’ whose punishments had been laid out clearly by the Quran and the Prophet’s precedent (adultery/fornication, sexual slander, certain kinds of theft, intoxication, apostasy from Islam and banditry/violent robbery). Though some of these crimes were grave threats to public order (e.g. banditry, theft), and others included violations of the rights of other members of society (e.g. slander), what unified the Hudud crimes was that they were also seen as transgressing the ‘rights of God.’ They were particularly offensive to Him. But because God is most merciful, the Quran and the Prophet’s teachings made it almost impossible to actually punish someone for one of the Hudud crimes. The Quran ordains that the punishment for fornication is 100 lashes, but it also requires four witnesses who saw penetration occur to prove it (the Quran adds that, if someone makes this accusation without four witnesses, s/he is punished with 80 lashes for slander) (Quran 24:2-4). Furthermore, in a commandment that has been central to the application of justice in Islamic history, the Prophet ordered judges to “Ward off the Hudud from the Muslims as much as you can, and if there is a way out for [the accused] then let him go. For it is better for the authority to err in mercy than to err in punishment.” Muslim jurists encapsulated this rule in their maxim ‘Ward off the Hudud by ambiguities (shubuhat),’ compiling vast lists of all the procedural technicalities by which Hudud punishments could be set aside. For example, if a thief stole an item below a certain value, or from an unsecured location, or if the thief simply denied he’d stolen it, he could not be punished with the Hudud punishment of having his hand chopped off (see the appendix for a list of the ones for theft). That does not mean that the thief would escape punishment. His crime would simply drop from the Hudud-level theft (sariqa) to a lower level of theft, which was punishable by a duty of restitution and perhaps a punishment like a year in prison. Since the majority of Sunni schools of law considered Liwat to be an extension of the Hudud crime of Zina, the same procedural safeguards applied. If there was any ambiguity, the Hudud punishment would not be applied. As with the Hanafi school’s ruling on Liwat, dropping the Hudud punishment didn't mean that the guilty party was not punished. But the punishment would be much less severe."

Mauricio Gulyano, writing from Ecuador. --MauricioGulyano (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hindupur

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hindupur. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

move Zakāt Livestock article?

Canvasing you and CounterTime and Eltoum about changing Zakāt Livestock to something broader, i.e. an article on determining zakatable wealth and income.
Another question, what should be the name of the article? Amount of zakat (with a fork at Zakat#Amount? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I think this article should be merged into Zakat, keeping in mind the distinctions between traditional doctrine and recommendations given for voluntary zakat on the one hand (discussed in Doctrine->Amount) and contemporary legislation in countries where it's a tax on the other hand (discussed under Contemporary practice->Collection). It looks like the only parts worth merging are the ones you've recently added. The tables are overly detailed and unencyclopedic. Eperoton (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: There are a lot of issues involved in what is zakatable and why, and what the zakat owed is and why. I think it merits an article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I agree in principle, though if there's enough material to spin off another article, it should build on the material we already have in Zakat. I've summarized a description of modern tax codes there from a more detailed source, which could be reflected more fully in a detailed article. We also want to distinguish between the different types of zakat rules: tax codes of specific modern states, rulings of specific traditional jurists, and recommendations on specific websites should all be attributes to their sources to avoid confusion, since there's a number of variations involved. I would also suggest naming the article Calculation of zakat, since the issue at stake is not just the amount, but also -- as you point out yourself -- what is and isn't zakatable. Eperoton (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: More or less agree. Will wait a while for any reply, comments, suggestions from CounterTime and Eltoum. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Harem

Concerning your recent sourcing in one of your recent edits, I realize a small difference of wording: You write about "quarters" whereas the source writes about space in the house. Probably a misunderstanding? --IbnTufail (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@IbnTufail: I don't see a difference in meaning. Could you clarify your concern? Eperoton (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Isn't a quarter a quarter of a city? And not a space within a flat or house? --IbnTufail (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@IbnTufail: It can mean both, though your comment made me realize that I should have chosen a slightly different wording. You can verify that "women's quarters" is a common expression via a search in Google Books. P.S. More precisely, one normally says "quarter" in singular to refer to a part of a town, and "quarters" in plural to refer to a part of a house. Eperoton (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Historical-Critical Method

Your edit made me laughing. Hey, it works even for non-religious texts such as Herodotus ... or Plato, and even for non-mediterranean texts such as Confucian manuscripts. Get real. Islam can only profit from it, if applied reasonably. --IbnTufail (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@IbnTufail: please consult WP:NPOV. Our role as WP editors is to summarize RSs, accurately and with due weight, not express our own opinions on the subject. Eperoton (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:It is not easy to find sources which bind together all the wanted words, in this case: Not only Crone but also Wansbrough at least, and not any kind of criticism but historical criticism etc. etc. Maybe this here will do it, and this. --IbnTufail (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@IbnTufail: One source uses the expression "radical historical criticism". Please quote the passage you have in mind from the other, since I don't have time to read the whole essay. I would respectfully suggest that you don't seem to be approaching the task in a policy-compliant way. We should not come up with an assertion and then search for sources that support it. We should start with RSs that we think represent a fair reflection of significant viewpoints and then accurately summarize what they say. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Surely, this is the purpose of the Revisionism-article, everywhere else we have to show only a summary. --IbnTufail (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@IbnTufail: Only the lead of an article can sometimes dispense with sourcing, if it summarizes content that is sourced in the main body. Lists are another possible exception. All other content needs to be properly sourced in situ, regardless of what appears in other articles. Eperoton (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq as edited by Muhammad Hamidullah

Just to expound on your understanding and knowledge see this talk by Yasir Qadhi youtu.be/4F5qzMI2IKs?t=33m47s — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jane Austen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jane Austen. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your “Nice work” message

It is also rare to receive a message like yours. Regarding my error in Albert Malet (historian) about the meaning of revanchard, would you be so kind as to correct it? Vejlefjord (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David (Michelangelo)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David (Michelangelo). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Social class among Muslims

I opened a move proposal on the article talk page here [1]. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I self-closed the Afd. I think this is creative because this is the first time I self-closed for a "page move". It's pretty cool! Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Re Hizmet

A large percentage of words used in modern Turkish are from Persian and Arabic. Absorbed into their language from over 1000 years ago, not in 1945. Too many for anyone to have compiled an "RS" as you demand. As I suggested consult with literate Turks and Arabs, and compile an RS, or start it by ascertaining that Hizmet is as much a corruption of Khidmat as "Mehmet" is a corruption of "Mohammad."SBader (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@SBader: I suggest you read WP:RS. We don't "compile" them here; we cite them. In this case, you're referring to an etymological dictionary, which certainly exist for Turkish. However, this isn't the issue. I'm well aware that hizmet is a loan-word from Arabic (where it is spelled خدمة and transliterated as khidma, without the ta marbuta). The issue is your characterization of it as "corruption" and "Turkish dialect", which is not how RSs characterize modern Turkish. Eperoton (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir, So Hizmat is a loan word from Arabic and it has been altered in two ways. The Arabic "Kh" has been softened to "H" and the final vowel has suffered the fate of many words with a final vowel "a" as in English "Bat" and turned into an "e" as in English "Bet".

The name of a group or party is significant in introducing the basic premises on which the group is formed. I believe that an inquirer newly seeking information on Gulen, especially an Arabic speaker or one with knowledge of the several major languages with Arabic loan words would find it helpful to recognize that "Hizmat" is not like "Ishshak" an original Turkic word, but one familiar to him/ her.

Perhaps instead of deleting my original comment you might have rephrased it. The difference between corruption, ethnicity, transmutation etc. is a highly professional subject and Reliable Sources are esteemable and of course WP will be organised in full compliance with those.SBader (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@SBader: Every word has an etymology, but it doesn't mean that every WP article should discuss it. WP is not a dictionary, and in particular not an etymological dictionary. Whether or not we should discuss etymology of a term depends on whether or not WP:RSs which discuss the subject of the article consider the etymology significant enough to be discussed. I see no evidence of that in this case. If you find RSs on the Gulen movement which discuss the word's etymology, you're welcome to add that discussion to the article (preferably in a separate "Name" section). Eperoton (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I finally had some time left over to write the section that we talked about several months ago. Help with structural improvements would be highly appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_and_analysis_about_Islamic_fundamentalism&type=revision&diff=742738230&oldid=727243424 David A (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: I have the same concern I believe I expressed earlier. WP policies don't allow us to call something "fundamentalism" based our own judgment. I don't believe that the Pew publication ever uses the term "fundamentalism", so it gives us no basis to refer to their results as "Opinion polling and analysis about Islamic fundamentalism". Even if we find sources which do refer to these views by that term, using them in conjunction with the Pew survey would constitute editorial synthesis, which is fine in essays published elsewhere, but is expressly forbidden by WP policy. So, as I think I recommended earlier, I think that the polls should be cited under appropriate articles that discuss the topic of each question. For example, moral objection to abortion can be described in an article about abortion, without injecting the "fundamentalist" label into the discussion. Eperoton (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could rename the page to something else, that you consider more appropriate. 03:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: The name of the article will determine what kind of material we can use without violating WP:SYN, so we should pick terms that have reasonably wide currency in publications discussing opinion polls. I would suggest "Opinion polling about Islamic fundamentalism and extremism". Some sources already cited use one of the terms and some use the other. The Pew publication you're citing mentions the term "extremism" a number of times. This term is also frequently used in the book Who Speaks for Islam? [2], which is largely based on extensive opinion polling by Gallup. The content would need to be reduced to views that the cited sources explicitly connect to one of these terms.

An alternative approach might be to turn it into an article about Muslim public opinion in general, which would bring the entire Pew study and Who Speaks for Islam? under the scope of the article, but it would be an extremely wide scope, potentially covering polls on all kinds of matters. Eperoton (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with "Opinion polling about Islamic fundamentalism and extremism". I also did start to write summaries of the entire PEW poll results for every individual country involved, but thought that it might turn too long and repetitive to include them all. David A (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: Ok, though we can't keep your addition under that title, since these opinions are not called fundamentalism or extremism in the source. Eperoton (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I agree that general Muslim opinion polling would probably be better then. David A (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do you think that I should expand the additions into listing the statistical prevalences from the PEW poll for all of the 39 individual countries, or would that be far too repetitive? David A (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: On closer inspection, we can't simply rename this article to something like "Muslim public opinion", because it also contains significant discussion of non-Muslim opinions. The Pew study and Who Speaks for Islam? seem to justify a separate general article about polling of Muslims, if you'd like to create one. Given the breadth of its scope and in accordance with these sources, it would need to be organized by topic and represent the results in a concise manner. When I need to summarize a complex multi-country poll like these, I generally try to find a generalization made in the cited source about the results, and paraphrase it. We already have a more detailed summary of some of these polls in other articles, and we can link to those details in the main hat notes. Eperoton (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, a split into one page listing Muslim opinions, and another that lists general opinions about Islamistic extremism might be best then.

However, I am also running a very popular entertainment wiki with 3.65 million page views a month, so I have extremely limited free time to perform a massive project such as assembling an entirely new page from scratch. I have organised about half of the statistics from the PEW poll into individual countries however, so perhaps I could continue with that when I get some time left over?

Your assistance would naturally be appreciated. David A (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: I also have a long to-do list on WP and elsewhere, so I'll just let you work on this material at your own pace. Eperoton (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. David A (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Muslim women in sport page

Hello! I just wanted to introduce myself and say thank you for your work on the Muslim women in sport page. I am a student at Rice University working on this page for a class I am taking. I appreciate your contributions to the page, and will definitely be in contact as I continue to develop it. My next priorities are condensing the current volleyball and soccer sections into a broader section about professional sports, as well as creating a section about barriers to participation. Do you have any advice or suggestions about how best to develop this page? Thanks! Rjpg12 (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rjpg12: Thanks for your great work on the article. It's rare to see editing based on an extensive review of RSs. We need much more of that on WP. I'll address the other points on the article talk page. Eperoton (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Because you're worth it too

		The Original Barnstar
		You're an editor of many tastes and talents, and you've displayed a surprising ingenuity while editing across a broad array of subjects. The encyclopedia benefits from your presence and I felt it was about time that you heard that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

That "Revisionist school" article is a mess. I started looking for mentions of Dan Gibson who should very rarely and then very carefully be used as a source, and kept running across problems. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, I had an exchange to that effect with its author on the article talk page. Someone should go through the citations and check to what degree they support the text. There's also need for a more general overview of sources on the subject to determine if "revisionist school" is the most appropriate denomination for what is in actuality a number of different methodological tendencies. The article has been on my to-do list, but not near the top. It's moving up as I'm seeing scholars being labeled as "revisionist" on its basis. This term is doubly problematic, because it has both a neutral and a derogatory meaning. It's rather like calling someone an "apologist" because someone else classifies their writings under the genre of apologetics. Eperoton (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but it would be on the bottom of mine really. I need to find time to use some books I bought on cave art! Doug Weller talk 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Understood. Hope you have a good cave. ;) Eperoton (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neoliberalism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neoliberalism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Eperoton. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ax

Sorry I presumed it was a miss-spelling with it a written about (now) Britain. I was unaware of the difference in the source. Red Jay (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:California

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:California. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hi Eperoton, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Best regards from Amsterdam, Amin (Talk) 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amin! Good fuel to give me energy to scrape my understanding of the world off the ground and get back to work. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-Muslim listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Non-Muslim. Since you had some involvement with the Non-Muslim redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Eperoton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cinchona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cinchona. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to the discussion

Hi ! You are invited to the discussion Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dare4#3RR_warning --Dare4 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Afro engineering

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Afro engineering. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Jihad

Hi,

I dont' understand what this has to do with WP:EGG you refer to.

Do you think that translated as "[[Holy war#Islam|Holy War]]" would be more appropriate than [[Religious_war#Islam|translated]] as "Holy War"?

Thanks.

Apokrif (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Apokrif. Yes, I think it would give the reader a better idea of what's on the other side of the link. In fact, I now see that the source cited in the _target section discusses the term "holy war", even if the section text doesn't use it properly. If the text is fixed (which I'm planning to do later), I would suggest linking the entire phrase "translated as Holy War". Eperoton (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Please comment on Talk:New York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ygm

• ygm.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposition for you

hello Eperoton, I added a ygm above, so pls check your email.

But then I was looking at your contribs. I have a collaboration proposition for you. It is not a small one.

I need really level-headed, reliable, NPOV help with a WP:TNT top-to-bottom rewrite of Bengal famine of 1943 that is located here. I've been working since February and have over 200 sources and over 3,000 edits. I am getting burned out (as you might imagine), plus am getting busy in real life. This issue is definitely not centrally focused on Islam/Muslims by any means, and I'm hoping for help in all areas (not just that one) but my topic and your editing do overlap to some degree. That issue could use a one-or-two paragraph section (some maps by O Grada are very illustrative, but they might be fair use etc etc more details....) I have... written a little Python (programming language) program that searches about 200 sources on any key word and outputs results in {{quote}} format. I can give you ALL of those (many, many text files... some of them large-ish), or more reasonably, just the ones you might need at any given moment. I can email you any of the sources I have. Etc etc etc.

As I said, I'm both busy and burned out. I could use a break, but don't want to let the project die. I'm also very skittish of getting too many hands involved, because the Bengal famine page is already a low-grade POV warrior magnet...what do you think? Tks for reading.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• PS another overlap:

most of its victims lived in the mainly Muslim area that would become East Pakistan between 1947 and 1971 and thereafter Bangladesh, an area that notoriously suffered severe famine again in 1974.

— Ó Gráda 2015, p. 90

  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lingzhi. It works, thanks!

My primary interest here is doing justice to high-quality historical scholarship, and at a glance your draft certainly looks like one of the most impressive attempts I've seen on WP. Getting involved with the full breadth of this topic at this level of detail would take much more spare time than I have, but I'd be happy to help in whatever modest way I can. In fact, if you don't mind, I'd be curious to see your Python script and perhaps adapt it for my personal use. I happen to do that kind of thing for a living. Eperoton (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha the Python program is crap. Not merely crap, but crappy crap. But send me an email and I'll send it to you. Ask if you have questions... and if you can't fulfill my dream of finding an equal laborer on the sandbox rewrite, please do feel free to chip in in any way at any time. If you look for the word "Muslim" I think there is currently only a single mention, and of course that just won't do. It certainly needs (at the very least) one brief paragraph on how & why Muslims came to be residing in the east near Burma (Myanmar), and perhaps brief mention (maybe just a table) of Muslim vs. Hindu mortality rates; other topics might or might not seem relevant as well.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Ok, I'll start by trying to get a bird-eye's view of the subject. One comment I can make just after skimming recent talk page archives. This is obviously a complex and contentious subject, and I see disagreements among editors who seem to have considerable familiarity with the sources. This is immediately making me very uncomfortable about the approach of making large-scale block replacements. If at all possible without violating NPOV through omission of significant viewpoints, I would recommend integrating your changes into the article in smaller increments, so that disputes around them don't turn into unmanageable simultaneous debates on a hundred different points. Eperoton (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah, most of them are posers. And bit by bit sucks even more; first, it creates a hybrid crappy/good beast, and second, all-in-one-go will be so coherent etc. that at least most of the... valued editors... will look at it nd say "youknow, that works". There are two topics that draw POV warriors: 1) "Churchill spelled backwards is SATAN! CAN'T YOU SEE!", and 2) "IT'S FAD, NOT FEE! CAN'T YOU SEE!" The first group will be satisfied I hope with the long Janam Mukherjee quote near the end ("In the context of Britain's war..."). The second group.. I'm just gonna lay out FAD and FEE positions and refuse to evaluate them. The FAD/FEE warriors are all about Let me show you my analysis of why Bowbrick is right/Sen is stupid or Sem is right/Bowbrick is Stupid. Well, Wikipedia isn't the place for such anlyses. I will rply to your email in 3 minutes or so.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Well, if you're willing to take that risk... I would just hate to see the bulk of your hard work getting stuck in no-consensus-land over a subset of issues that could have been factored out into separate edits. I personally find it hard or impossible to judge a large block replace properly unless I'm well versed in the sources and the replaced content was uniformly bad. Eperoton (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I sent descriptions of 2 more programs. It's past my alleged bedtime. G'night.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

Thanks for removing the essay. Don't know how I missed that. Wikishovel (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum

Hi thank you for your welcome. Wikipedia requires people to add information with a neutral point of view however I find your your contributions are not entirely neutral although I do appreciate your efforts. A lot of your information is from books about Islam from people who aren't Muslims, aren't scholars of Islam and their understanding of information is coming from Western ethnocentrism. The topic of slavery in Islam is one not taken lightly and it requires a deep understanding of religious texts and the historical context. You also added information that is entirely false like female right hand possessions can be raped in Islam. Female right hand possessions are not forced or compelled to have sex with their master there is nothing in Islam that says a man is allowed to rape a woman under any circumstance. Imam Malik Muwatta who complied one of the most authentic books of Ahaadeeth, Malik's muwatta, said:  In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. End quote.  Al-Muwatta’, 2/734.  FRHP are mentioned in the Quran as only having the same status as a wife in case she and the master wish to have sexual relations. They can ask for freedom if they do not want this and enter in to a manumission contract with the master to work towards freedom. Even then Muslims were encouraged to free slaves regardless of the situation. You also interpret the verses in the Quran at face value instead of understanding the context which is very dangerous. People spend years and years studying the Qurans meaning and even then only a few scholars like ibn kathir were able to lay down its full meaning in accordance to the sunnah and time a verse was revealed. When you stated that 2:178 means Allah views slaves are not the same as free muslim men and women when in fact this statement was abrogated by the statement life for life (5:45) (Tafsir ibn Kathir). Plus you added 4:176 claiming that it states this too but it makes no mention of slaves here: "People ask you to pronounce a ruling concerning inheritance from those who have left behind no lineal heirs (kalalah). Say: 'Allah pronounces for you the ruling: should a man die childless but have a sister, she shall have one half of what he has left behind; and should the sister die childless, his brother shall inherit her. And if the heirs are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of what he has left behind. And if the heirs are sisters and brothers, then the male shall have the share of two females. Allah makes (His commandments) clear to you lest you go astray. Allah has full knowledge of everything (4:176). I was shocked to see you put that verse there claiming it explicitly states the different status between slaves, men and women when there is absolutely nothing there to state that! I think it's vandalism to be dishonest against a topic and I'm 100% sure wikipedia doesn't appreciate that. There are a lot of mistakes made on this page that needs urgent attention especially since the worlds view of Islam right now is so negative that it doesn't need more reliable sources of information to twist the truth of the religion. Like everyone else I have leanings towards certain issues but I also study psychology and i am taught to research and thoroughly examine things to come to a sound conclusion. I'm able to find primary sources to build a picture of issues in Islam like slavery in a neutral manner and without adding things to claim things that don't. So I kindly ask for you to not disrupt my contributions to this page for the sake of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avahoneybrown (talk • contribs)

Hi, Avahoneybrown. It looks like you misunderstood what happened on that page. I didn't add the material you're referring to. I reverted your removal of sourced content because you didn't justify your edits with reference to WP policies. I agree that the content in that article is problematic, but we have to improve it in a policy-compliant way. Let's take a closer look at the relevant policies.

Per WP:NPOV, we have to reflect the range of views found RSs with due weight without letting our own opinions interfere in the presentation. That means, in particular, that we can't favor or disregard academic or otherwise reliable sources just because we think they're biased, inaccurate, or deficient in some other way. Special treatment by means of attribution can be made for sources with a specific and widely recognized ideological slant, per WP:BIASED, but this doesn't include categories like "Western".

Per WP:NOR, our contributions should not reflect original research. In particular, the WP:PRIMARY section says: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This means that our contributions should be based not on scriptural sources like the Qur'an and hadith, but rather on secondary sources which discuss them. Pre-modern literature should be treated with considerable caution. As you may know, the body of works on fiqh is extremely voluminous and complex. They can sometimes be quoted directly, as they are in that article, but we should ideally rely on modern scholarship to make generalizations about them.

If you'd like to improve the text, I would suggest starting with ensuring that the current text actually reflects the cited sources, as per WP:V. You can usually access the cited sources online, for example in Google Books previews. If that's the case, then you should find additional non-primary RSs which present an alternative viewpoint and reflect them in the article with due weight. Hope this helps. Eperoton (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You should also be aware of the merge discussion linked from the top of that article. The section you were editing is off-topic and will likely be merged into Islamic views on slavery. Eperoton (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you eperoton for your advice about editing I have a better understanding of what needs to be done and I'll get on to it as soon as I can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avahoneybrown (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Respond

No problems, Your point in the talk page was somewhat convincing, So I will add more information about Pew study in the article Muslim World, Hope will be no reservations, Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

MEMRI

Hello, Eperoton.

I was wondering if you saw my replies to your messages on the MEMRI Talk page? I understand if you're busy, I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss the notifications. I do hope that you will have a chance to take a look. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@R at MEMRI: Thanks for the note. I did see one of them, but I missed the other. Eperoton (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see that you've responded and made some changes to the Languages section. Let me know if you have any questions about the Projects section as you review. I'm excited to see progress on the article. R at MEMRI (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eperoton. I don't want to be a bother, but I haven't had a response to my message about the "Staff" section yet—would you be willing to look? I’m going to start reaching out to different editors for help as well. 69.179.187.93 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi-- I'd like to help in principle, but WP has a lot of competing claims on my time. I'll give it a couple of weeks to see if someone else would like to step in. Eperoton (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eperoton. I understand and appreciate all the time you've taken so far. Do you have any advice about where I might find other editors to help? I've posted on several WikiProjects, but they don't seem very active. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@R at MEMRI: It looks like you've taken all the right steps to find help without WP:CANVASSING. WP can be a slow-moving machine, especially when you don't have the luxury of making edits yourself. Eperoton (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Saint infobox

Ok, well here is the issue: Of course, there are caveats of referring to venerable Muslim persons as saints (e.g. Islam has no process of formal canonization but "saints" are recognized by popular acclaim, as they were in Christianity pre-congregation); but we must remember that Islam is not monolithic. Regarding the veneration of Ibn Hanbal, for example, there are traditions of Imam Shafi soaking his shirt in water and drinking the water for blessings; he is included in many of the classic Sufi hagiographies as a saint with miracle working abilities. Cf. Gibril Haddad's Four Imams and John Renard's Friends of God, both of which summarize Ibn Hanbal's role as a saint in these narratives.

So, that is why the infobox is there: to showcase his titles in Islamic piety; to show who venerates him; and he is specifically not called "Saint Ibn Hanbal" but Imam Ahmad, as that is what most Muslims who venerate him would say. Lastly, yes the veneration of saints is a controversial issue; and this is something to work on. There are Sunnis, for example, who believe in saintly intercession; while others dont; some who visit shrines while others dont; use relics while others dont. So that needs to be distinguished somehow, and perhaps "venerating/honoring" is not the best way... He is revered by all of them, but not all of them will necessarily revere him in the same way. Same with other figures such as Hasan of Basra, who is venerated as a saint by many Sufi-oriented Sunnis but is also revered purely as a jurist etc.

Good points though, but I don't think they should be removed per se. As long as the name does not say "Saint so-and-so..." Megalodon34 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Abbasid Caliphate infobox

Hello Eperoton,

You changed the infobox of the article Abbasid Caliphate. You changed the religion from Sunni Islam to Islam. May I ask you why did you change this?

Best regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.132.242 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom. The religious history of the caliphate is too complex to label the denomination of its "rulers" as Sunni. The Abbasids came to power claiming to represent the cause of the Shia against the Umayyads. At the time the sectarian split did not yet have all its modern dimensions. Later, it was for a time under effective control of the Buyids, a Shia dynasty, and its executive authority was at other times delegated to regional Shia rulers. Eperoton (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Eperoton,

Thank you very much for your reply. I get your point.

There are many books about this topic and they all count the Abbasid Caliphate as a “Sunni Muslim dynasties” in general. I never read that there were disagreements whether the Abbasid Caliphate in general should be considered as a Sunni Muslim dynasty or as something else.

What is your opinion about that?

Best regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.242.63 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Allegiance to Sunni Islam played an important role during later periods of the Abbasid lineage, but calling them a Sunni dynasty is anachronistic, since Sunni Islam as such was articulated only when the dynasty was already centuries old. From The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World:

 The rise of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate was the first fissure in Islamic culture; it would eventually result in the Shīʿī and Sunnī sects that exist today. [...] In opposition to the Shīʿī Būyids and their supporters, al-Qādir (r. 991–1031) put himself at the head of the emerging Sunnī movement, publishing the Risālat al-Qādirīyah, which established the bases of Sunnī doctrine. 

Hope this helps. Eperoton (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Eperoton,

Thank you very much for your reply and the quotation.

Best regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.178.128 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A Star for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		After all your nice contributions and cordial efforts, I'm glad to present you with this Star! -AsceticRosé 16:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, AsceticRose! I think those same terms apply to you. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

2017: Bans against burqa/hijab in public in Germany, Luxembourg and Austria

In Germany, Austria and Luxembourg gouvernments plan bans against wearing burqa/hijab in public. The references, which i give, are good enough. 178.11.186.44 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Islamic dress in Europe
• Hijab by country
  • Germany:
    • Entwurf eines Gesetzes zu bereichsspezifischen Regelungen der Gesichtsverhüllung, Bundestag.de: Drucksache 18/11180
  • Austria:
    • RadioVatikan: Österreich will Burka und Niqab verbieten (German)
  • Luxembourg:
    • Luxemburger Wort: Nicolas Schmit bestätigt gesetzliche Regelung (German)

--178.11.186.44 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Patron saints

Check again! I am editing the table -- removed all the Christian names. Adding the Muslim ones... This is important info rarely considered and forms an important part of daily piety in these countries! Hartman456 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks mate!

@Hartman456: Ok, no problem. An unorthodox editing approach, but no harm done. Eperoton (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool!

Yup, same! ok yeah; i had forgotten password so using this now! Thanks for info -- hope that does not happenHartman456 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)