User talk:Eperoton/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Talk:Islam

Hi Eperoton, you know we have an unfinished discussion at Talk:Islam. I don't know why you left it, but it shocked me. I was waiting for your and Sodicadl's replies. We had gone a long way, and we should have some outcome. I will be glad if you participate it and help finish it. Waiting.. -AsceticRosé 16:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, AsceticRose. I haven't left the discussion. I'm giving Sodicadl a chance to respond to your arguments before commenting further. Eperoton (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Help me Can you please vote me on my Wali page Shah Aqeeq Baba if you are not interested please don't complain against me 😥😥 User:Hammadsaeed1

Turkey headscarf ban

Hello.

In Turkey, the headscarf ban began to be lifted in 2008 (and not misleadingly and erroneously only from 2014), when on February 7, 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities. In October 2013, Turkey lifted the ban on the Islamic headscarf for women who work in civil service or government. The ban on wearing the headscarf in high schools was lifted in 2014. You must correct the date in accordance with the sentence in the beginning of the article Hijab ban and add further details, because the information about Turkey as it stands is incomplete and and partial.

Thank you.

Sarvathi (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Can you Help me

Can you please vote me on my Wali page Shah Aqeeq Baba if you are not interested please don't complain against me 😥😥 User:Hammadsaeed Talk Hammadsaeed1 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 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) 09:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wedleasing

Considering that nikah mut'ah exists and that mut'ah and wedlease both refer to temporary marriages, do you agree that the word "proposed" should be removed from the first sentence of the page wedlease? 79.67.80.56 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't. That article is about the neologism "wedlease", which was a short-lived buzzword used in the press. It's not about the concept of temporary marriage in general, and it wasn't coined in reference to nikah mut'ah. Eperoton (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dhikr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunna. 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) 09:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Cause of Death of Muhammed provided by you

Hello, I'm ERDINC. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Muhammad, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ERDINC (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

I enabled e-mail, please send me the encyclopedias you used, thanks! Seraphimsystem (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: NM Found EIMW on archive.org! Seraphimsystem (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you being deliberately obtuse/misleading about Linda Sarsour?

Why are you defending Linda Sarsour in her highly offensive tweet about Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ie saying she doesn't 'deserve to have a vagina'? Pretending that the NYT isn't a reputable source & not even bothering to read the other listed sources? You seem more like a proponent of propaganda (or someone hired by Linda Sarsour) rather than a supposedly neutral editor in this exchange.

Not sure what this is about. If you have an issue with that article, please discuss on the article talk page. Eperoton (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamic jurisprudence and economics

what would you think of making a spin off article on Islamic economic jurisprudence? -- which used to be a distinct article but now redirects to Islamic economics. It would have things like Islamic contract law, riba, gharar, qimar, zakat, but not things like Islamic socialism. (Full disclosure: I have tried to create a separate Islamic economic jurisprudence article before.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I think that makes sense in principle, but I would first suggest creating and expanding this section in the main article, until it reaches a tipping point for spinning off. It would presumably be about traditional jurisprudence on this subject, as opposed to historical practice and modern legislation. I should caution, however, that I'm not as well versed in this specific area of Islamic law as you are. I'm assuming that there's a coherent body of traditional jurisprudence which is discussed in books with "Islamic economics" in the title. Traditional law books treat these terms under different headings, so we wouldn't want to construct such a subject ourselves, and some of the current Islamic jurisprudence sub-articles seem to involve OR in terms of subject construction. Eperoton (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Sounds sensible. Agreed "Traditional law books treat these terms under different headings" but thought it would be nice to have a link for this section leading to an article on Islamic contract law, riba, gharar, qimar, zakat, etc. As for the article title, if you find Islamic economic jurisprudence problematic (because as you say "Traditional law books treat these terms under different headings" and did not recognize a field known as economics), how about Islamic jurisprudence and economics? or Fiqh Muamalat? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I'm not saying that we should look for traditional legal categories to determine the article title. Rather, we should see under what rubric(s) modern secondary sources tend to group them. I took a quick look at books on Islamic economics and finance, and at the moment it doesn't seem to me that they treat related topics of traditional jurisprudence under any overarching category. Rather, they seem to organize the chapters according to the fields of economics and finance, and treat relevant topics of traditional jurisprudence under those different rubrics. On the other hand, Hallaq's general volume on Islamic law [1] has chapters for "Contracts and other obligations" and "Property and ownership". So, as I look at the sources, I'm increasingly hesitant about a separate article on this topic. Eperoton (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: surely there must be something under Fiqh Muamalat --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: There is a wikipedia article on ibadat and "Islamic law divides all legal acts into either ibadat or muamalat." Seems logical to have an article on muamalat defined by oxford islamic studies as "dealings ... commercial and civil acts or dealings under Islamic law." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Sorry, somehow I missed these messages at first. Mu'amalat is too broad for economics and finance because it covers all areas of Islamic law which are not acts of worship. In particular, it includes all family and criminal law (except hudud crimes, according to some). It also doesn't cover zakat, which is part of ibadat. For a typical list of topics, see pp.29-30 in Hallaq's Introduction [2] Eperoton (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: OK, but I'm still thinking I should write an article on Mu'amalat when I have time. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: That thought also occurred to me, but I'm not seeing that the subject is treated by RSs as a coherent topic. That is, plenty of RSs note the dichotomy of ibadat/mu'amalat, but I've yet to see an encyclopedic article or book chapter with mu'amalat as title -- unlike ibada(t). Nor do they tend to mention it much in the text, after making clear that everything which does not belong to ibadat belongs to mu'amalat. This makes it rather hard to go beyond a dictionary definition without synthesis. Eperoton (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age

Although I can see why you would revert my edits concerning the calculation of Earth's radius, the article to which you reverted it is incorrect. "Al-Biruni (973-1048) estimated the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.[59]" The fact that several Greek scholars obtained such values or better values beginning a thousand years earlier makes that statement misleading at best. Islam did not produce the first estimates of Earth's size. Pooua (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pooua: I've replied on the article talk page. WP policy does not allow us to change sourced content based on our belief that the cited source is incorrect. We can only evaluate whether the source meets the reliability criteria defined in WP:V and WP:RS. The cited source does meet those criteria. Eperoton (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Harem

After our discussion on talk, I moved everything back into historical background, and I created a new section for the Ideal of Seclusion, where I can add in the more detailed information from secondary sources about the economic status of secluded women. I've also left a note on talk because the citations need to be cleaned up, I think sfn would be best since I will be referencing multiple pages out of Ahmed's book. I'm not sure why it has been so difficult to resolve these problems. I don't think reverting a good faith edit is a good approach. The article was bad, the language was inappropriate, it was full of unsourced content - I am the only editor seriously working on it. I don't own it. You are free to do work on it as well, but I should not have to clean up after you.

I also want to say I appreciate your contributions, I think it is better with both of us working on it. But I don't think reverting good faith edits is a good way to raise your concerns. A start-class article is going to go through some reorganization, and since you are not really involved with compressing the details and complexity of the secondary sources, I would appreciate it if you could make an effort to keep your comments constructive. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not make any unconstructive edits, everything I said was purely factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That moment when you are a hamster (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Eperoton. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia Library - OUP.
Message added 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Natana J. DeLong-Bas

Hey - I'm not sure why you performed this edit. It seemed properly sourced. Could you explain? MontyKind (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MontyKind: Because the split/abridgment disproportionately removed the positive assessments and emphasized the negative ones. Do you find this compliant with NPOV? Eperoton (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have responded to your point in the article talk page. MontyKind (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Harem

I think that we should spend some time working on different articles because our working together has not been as productive as I would have liked. I think if you were more involved in this page, then your contributions would have been more constructive. As it is, development of this article is frozen. I find it very difficult working with an editor who only pops in to order me around and threatens to drag me into ANI for making edits without his approval. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ulama

Hi, as you may have seen, I've followed your advice, and modified some sections which drew too much on other authors' works or were unnecessary detailed. Admittedly, my love of details might at times have lead to the impression that original research from primary sources might have been conducted (which was, actually, not done). However, by now, at least the new general outlines of the article should gradually become more apparent. With regard to using high-quality sources, I'd particularly appreciate your support with identifying additional, relevant ones. In the sections which I hadn't the opportunity to modify, as yet, there is too much of the "newspaper article"-kind of reference. From my point of view, unfortunately, the article is still incomplete and largely under-referenced, but I'll continue working on this. Perhaps you'd like to help me? Cheers,--HajjiBaba (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, HajjiBaba. Let me round up some sources that should be useful to you, and I will also take a look at your work with an outsider's eye. Eperoton (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reason for reversion

I would like to know the reason behind the reversion of the edit on Jahiliyyah page.

Awaiting your reply.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.180.33 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure. If someone reverts you, you should check the edit summary, the talk page of the article and your own talk page (which will change if your IP address changes) to see if they commented there. I explained the revert here User talk:112.196.180.163 and then in greater detail here: Talk:Jahiliyyah#Addition_with_primary_source_citation. If you'd like to continue this discussion, please reply on the article talk page. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Spencer not a RS

In the latest edit on the Ashtiname of Muhammad page you write: "Agree with Neutrality - not a RS"

On what basis do you agree that Spencer is not a RS?

Is it possible to bring Neutrality into this talk page? I don't know how to. Thanks.

Hamilcar4532 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Spencer is not a reliable source for Islam. He has no academic specialization in the area of Islam, Arab studies, or medieval central/western Asia. His MA degree is in Catholic studies.

Also, seeing how you have edit warred this exact issue over a year ago and could not seem find the article talk page, your editing is now falling into the area of disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hamilcar4532: I'm pinging Neutrality per request (see the source code for how that was done). Per WP:SOURCE, reliability is based on "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In the area of history, this usually means scholarly reputation, which would include specialization, as Kansas Bear has noted, as can be established by a track of peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, etc. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", so a MA in anything is not basis for reliability in itself. WP:SOURCE notes more generally "Books published by respected publishing houses", and this opens the door for cautious use of pop-history books written by non-specialists (though many editors, like myself, avoid using them). However, Spencer's books on Islam are carried by boutique publishers which specialize in works of non-scholarly polemics on Islamic history and other topics. That said, I believe that some historians have expressed doubts about the authenticity of Ashtiname of Muhammad‎, so if you're interested in this subject, it shouldn't be hard to find and summarize a scholarly source on this topic. Eperoton (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thank you for your response. The issue of Spencer’s reliability has already been debated:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Consensus). I grant you that the consensus reached was that ‘he is not a reliable source’. Please note, however, that it is was also agreed that ‘he should be mentioned as a critic’ the only proviso being that he ‘should not be given undue space’. It doesn't follow from the consensus reached that the short paragraph quoting his critique should be deleted. Neutrality

@Hamilcar4532: This is a very old discussion, which we can't really use here, because the relevant policies, guidelines and consensus may have changed since then -- some of them don't seem to be referenced there at all. Also, it looks like you're misreading the last comment (it was a pointer to another talk page, not a closer's comment). The question of how to treat Spencer's views in a "Criticism of" article is a different issue. History isn't a matter of criticism and praise; it's a matter of facts established by historians. There's a broad current consensus against using Spencer in general articles on Islamic topics, and the passage under discussion is about authenticity of a document, which is a question that involves expertise in the relevant field. If you think the perspective of 4 editors you got in that article and here go against a broader community consensus, you can take this to WP:RSN. In fact, that may be useful for future reference. Eperoton (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I have taken it to WP:RSN. Thanks.

Expeditions of Muhammad

Your input would be appreciated here. David A (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are facts being removed?

Hello

Every time an edit is made that is clear, and precisely defines the nature of some aspect in islam, it is obscured, made vague, watered down, and circumlocuted, so as to sugar-coat islam's image and gloss over the harsh truth.

Why?

The last edit on jahilliyah that you undid yet again, was quoting not syed qutb, but Abu al-Ala Mawdudi as was clearly mentioned. In addition, that jahilliyah is against secular modernity, is very clearly mentioned in the oxford article. Also, islam seeking to destroy jahilliyah was also not from qutb, but from the harvard author.

Yet, you are repeatedly removing it, giving the impression that islam is only against secularism in the muslim world, when this is patently false, as islam is against secularism in the entire non-islamic world. And this is what jahilliyah is about. Un-islamic nature of things.

Kindly do not remove the facts and inject obfuscation so as to give the topic an imprecise understanding.

Thanks.

Please discuss article changes on the article talk page. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Need sources?

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to The Cambridge Library at the Wikipedia Library. The Cambridge Library currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Isma'ilism-Alavi Bohra

Hello Sir,

As you think that the matter added in the above mentioned section has no source or it is added without base or good faith. Brother, we are the team assigned this task by the Spiritual Head or Da'i office itself. For years together we are editing the website www.alavibohra.org. The information provided is unbiased and first hand matter which could not be found in any of the published books. Yes, its fragments are there.

Brother, we want this medium of Wikipedia to impart to the public at large to know the factual data of Alavi Bohra community.

--TeamAlavi (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@TeamAlavi: Sorry, WP has a clear policy on this: WP:OR. We can only include information that is presented in reliable, published sources. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria for reliability found in WP:V and WP:RS and cite RSs for your additions. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir,

I wanted to ask you one thing that if a scholar/author writes something on some other websites and the same thing he inserts or copies on Wikipedia page, is it permissible to do it...if the author is same then there should be any question of copyright....

--TeamAlavi (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@TeamAlavi: If something appears on a website, it usually falls under the category of self-published sources, which is discussed in WP:SPS. It is usable "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". However, reusing one's own work may qualify as self-promotion, which is not allowed (WP:NOTPROMO). WP contributors who have expertise in the relevant field normally write text based on citations to third-party reliable sources rather than their own work. Eperoton (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanking you for your explanation, sir. --TeamAlavi (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of prominent Ash'aris

The article List of prominent Ash'aris has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Without sources, each of these may be removed individually anyway.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Niqab

I couldn't see anything about men wearing niqab in the article or the section where you added the photo, if there are any sources could you please add them to the article and make sure the photo is near the relevant text? Otherwise it should probably be reverted. Men can wear veils, but they might be called something else. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System Good point. The legend on the image says the man is wearing "nicab", but all the other sources I see call the male Tuareg veil "litham" and not "niqab". I was led astray by finding this image in the Persian WP article, which is titled rubande, a generic term for face veil (incidentally, I realized just earlier today that niqab means "mask" in Persian). Eperoton (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad URL

Thank you for fixing it, what raised my suspicion was that this blog URL was previously spammed elsewhere, this seemed to be the last remnant. —PaleoNeonate - 16:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: No problem. I do have other concerns about this section, aside from the formal status of this citation. I've done some source verification and cleanup on this article (including this source), but I haven't had a chance to go through this section yet. Eperoton (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Litham

On 20 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Litham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that among the Tuareg people, men traditionally wear a veil called a litham or tagulmust, while women go unveiled? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Litham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Litham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your participation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard lending your expertise regarding WP:SYNTHESIS.

Perhaps since you already commented on the page about the article, you could give your wisdom at one subsection up at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_it_original_research_to_cite_a_source_as_evidence_for_the_absence_of_something_.3F ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not getting it. (Examples: [3] [4] [5]). Your expertise would be probably better than my words to provide clarification to the situation about Wikipedia site policy like WP:SYNTHESIS. Sagecandor (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Now in main article text, at [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: yes, I'm also watching WP:RSN, so I'll comment there. Eperoton (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping

Thanks for your interest, but no need to ping me anymore for the discussions about Whataboutism. Good luck to you all. Sagecandor (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

do not sting new users

How can you say I have multiple accounts. Bring evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paprah (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Paprah: That was just a warning for new users about the relevant policy, based on a pattern of editing which is suspicious enough to occasion an investigation. I'm not going to open one at this time. If you don't have any connection to Smatrah, you have nothing to worry about and I wish you happy editing. Eperoton (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Psychonot

I noticed you reverted him here.[7] I made a further dig. Turns out he constantly engages in cross-article disruption (the typical stuff, i.e. adding unsourced info, removing info he doesnt like, never using edit summaries). And it's not just limited to that. Though he has racked up many warnings, he simply always removes every single one of them in a deliberate fashion.[8] Also, it appears he has "extensive" knowledge of Wiki policies, no new user would ever possess.[9] Here he even reverted a supposedly banned sockpuppet.[10]

This all makes me suspect that he's not a new editor, apart from the fact that his editorial pattern is pretty much WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Hmm also suspect is the trivial sandbox editing to edit semi-protected articles immediately... Note that you can place {{ow}} at the top of blanked talk pages. —PaleoNeonate – 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: spot on, another textbook giveaway. Btw, I did not know about {{ow}}, thanks for that. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon and PaleoNeonate: I agree, their editing history is concerning and the level of familiarity with WP policies is surprising for a new editor, but it doesn't look like there's sufficient grounds for a SPI. I personally don't recognize a strong resemblance to any other users I've seen. Eperoton (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Issue of Orthopraxy

Okay, let's talk this through so that we aren't just waging an edit war.

The reason I used the Washington Post article to justify the Orthopraxy angle is because of the way Dr. Asifa Quraishi-Landes describes Sharia's usage by Muslims. It is clear from this article that Islamic Law does not encapsulate the entire meaning of Sharia, and the way she described the practice of Sharia more closely resembles Orthopraxy.

"Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Koran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn’t come from the state, and it doesn’t even come in one book or a single collection of rules."

The sentence when Dr. Quraishi-Landes describes Sharia as "Koran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life," seems to conform with Wikipedia's definition of Orthopraxy, that being, "In the study of religion, orthopraxy is correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace etc." I realize that Dr. Quraishi-Landes does not use the exact wording of "orthopraxy," but in the matter of clear transmission that doesn't disrupt the flow of the article, I chose to paraphrase.

If you are merely concerned with the usage of the word, "orthopraxy," then I am sure we can describe it as "religious practice." It just seems to me that Orthopraxy describes the prescriptive nature of Sharia onto these religious practices.

I hope that we can work out a solution that agrees with both of our sense of criteria.

I'm leaving you the link to the article if you want to reference it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-sharia/2016/06/24/7e3efb7a-31ef-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html?utm_term=.68829a6692e7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UmarMayKnow (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@UmarMayKnow: Thanks. We need to keep in mind a couple of key WP policies. The policy against original research (in particular editorial synthesis) doesn't allow us to combine different statements from sources to arrive at an assertion not explicitly made there. We can only call something "orthopraxy" if RSs do so. Another key policy is WP:NPOV, which says, among other things, that our definition should not give undue weight to minority views. I'm aware of at least one RS which refers to sharia as orthopraxy, but I can also cite a dozen standard academic references on the subject which do not. I don't personally think it would be conceptually incorrect, but this characterization is simply not prominent enough in the body of RSs to put in the opening sentence.

Beyond the term itself, I appreciate your concern about clarifying the complex nature of sharia. The second paragraph in the lead addresses the relationship between sharia and the Western notion of law which Quraishi-Landes alludes to. The opening paragraph doesn't have room to go into these details, but what it says doesn't equate the two. Religious law is generally understood as being different from secular law. Defining sharia as law is supported by the bulk of RSs. Quraishi-Landes also characterizes it as "Islam’s legal framework" in the opening sentence. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thank you for the detailed explanation for reasoning behind the removal of "orthopraxy." I wanted to cut a balance between relaying more information that shows the nuanced character of Sharia while not breaking the flow of the article. I see now that you are right that this compromise didn't work.

I can see that neither one of us wants this topic to be misunderstood and that it was editorial differences that were at play here. While I am not certain that Religious Law is generally understood to be different from Secular Law, that difference will, by necessity, have to be explained by the Religious law page.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position on this subject, I hope that we can continue to have this amicable relationship. UmarMayKnow (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Can you please check what is happening on Armenian Genocide and tell me if I am doing something wrong? - I thought all edits have to be sourced (especially to pass GA) but multiple editors have reverted citation needed tags and the refimprove template - I really don't think it can pass this way and I have never really had citation needed tags reverted before so I admit I'm fairly confused at the moment. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I think it's one of the most difficult articles to edit out there. Frankly, I've been procrastinating myself on some changes that didn't have outstanding objections in talk, because I suspect there will suddenly be plenty of objections when I actually try to make them. It looks like your spike of activity set off alarm bells and defensive reflexes among the regulars there. You may want to discuss your edits incrementally, starting with the least contentious among them. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

LGBT in Islam

That Atlantic article "The Kingdom in the Closet" cite gets removed more than anything else. Need to find more references to the topic! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Nothing wrong with more sources of course, but this one looks like a persistent case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All the IPs who have tried to remove this passage over the past few months are geolocated in the same area, so I'm pretty sure it's the same user. This has been removal attempt no. 8, by my count. When I count 10, I'll request long-term semi-protection. Eperoton (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

More like WP:NOTINMYCOUNTRY. I thought it was being removed from other articles as well. Special:LinkSearch doesn't show it in any other articles. It was once in Culture of Saudi Arabia. Discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Nadya Labi article keeps getting removed from LGBT in the Middle East. Found it. LGBT in the Middle East Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks for the pointer. An OR-based motivation might have been my first guess too, except that these IPs are geolocated in the US. Eperoton (talk)

DRN notice: Jesus

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Eperoton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PaleoNeonate. Here's wishing you a Wikitastic 2018! :) Eperoton (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Burka Ban

Hi I just saw you got rid of the link to the map of burka bans in Europe. just wondering do you know anybody who knows how to make a map.QubecMan (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QubecMan. I'm afraid I don't, but you may be interested in the SVG help page: Help:SVG. Eperoton (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For being patient with new editors. Seraphim System (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Triple talaq

Yahyaa ibn Sa’eed said: “I heard al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad said: ‘ ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab had a wife from among the Ansaar who bore him ‘Aasim ibn ‘Umar, then ‘Umar divorced her. ‘Umar came to Quba’ and found his son ‘Aasim playing in the courtyard of the mosque. He took him by the arm and seated him in front of him on his riding-animal, but the child’s grandmother caught up with him and fought with him over the child until they went to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq. ‘Umar said, ‘(He is) my son!’ and the woman said, ‘(He is) my son!’ Abu Bakr said: ‘Leave them alone,’ and ‘Umar did not answer back.” (Narrated by Maalik in al-Muwatta’, 2/767; al-Bayhaqi, 8/5). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: this hadeeth is well known with a variety of isnaads, complete and incomplete, and is accepted by the scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Let's take this discussion to Talk:Triple talaq in India. Thanks. 01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Aladdin and Javiero Fernandez

Hi - I'm having a little bother with the above editor at the Aladdin article (this is the article for the original story)- I've been very patient (I think) but he's not letting up the tiniest bit. A bit of a log shot here, but I noticed you've edited One Thousand and One Nights and I would value your input on this one. No worries if you're not interested, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals: yes, I've done some work on etymology of the names in Alf layla and other historical issues. There's quite a bit of back and forth between the two you and it's hard to tell at a glance what the current situation is. Is there something specific I can help with? Eperoton (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi - thank you more than I can say for responding to something like this - and I can absolutely identify with your confusion. The "content dispute" of my clash with Javiero I will spare you - as after all the nonsense we have got to something we can both live with - although I would like us to just mention that serious contemporary scholars think Galland actually wrote Aladdin himself.

The remaining dispute is over sources. Javiero was obsessed for some time with the idea that a Wikipedia article should mirror the exact phrasing of a source (I think we got over that one!) but he currently wants to cut some readily accessible and in other ways excellent sources in favour of a couple of collections of university papers that he very obviously hasn't read. I found one paper in the collection (out of dozens - their only point of contact is that they all treat some aspect of the Arabian Nights) that actually mentions Aladdin - it treating a question we do not (rightly - although I'm afraid I got very sarcastic about it) the apparent fact that some Middle Eastern story tellers tell their own version of Aladdin (and no doubt scores of other popular western tales - it's a very small world nowadays!). Our recent 'edit warring" was all about sources. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Eperoton! Thank you for taking the time to look into this. I know it looks messy, but the issue currently really boils down to the sources. But first I'd like to make one thing very clear, I was not, at any time, "obsessed for some time with the idea that a Wikipedia article should mirror the exact phrasing of a source". I'm well aware of the policy regarding that, and my edits at the time were to choose a phrasing that reflects the facts in the source the best without echoing it (as explained here). As for our current "dispute", Soundofmusicals seems to want to mention the possibility of the tale being of Galland's own work. However, this is already mentioned at the end of the second paragraph of the "sources" section, as noted by Evenmadderjon. Also, since this viewpoint is not at all of the majority, it is mentioned in the proper way per WP:UNDUE. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)