Jump to content

Talk:As-Sajdah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected edit request on 21 December 2020

[edit]

If you look in references section you will note nonsense that has been reintroduced "Ghvvbbhb" . JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-controversial fix  Done —valereee (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 December 2020

[edit]

Sale's comment has a [full citation needed] tag. The full citation is <ref>Wherry, Elwood Morris (1896). A Complete Index to Sale's Text, Preliminary Discourse, and Notes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co. </ref> JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

noncontroversial edit  Done —valereee (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

Reading the Study Quran entry on this Quranic chapter, it is clear that author has used Wherry's summary for his own entry rather than summarising from the Quranic text itself or other sources; so much so that it is possible to add Wherry's summary to the Article & reference it using the Study Quran. Unfortunately SQ's summary of a summary is not so detailed. Wherry is simply more informative. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what makes you think the Study Quran just used Wherry's summaries? You need references and not just your hunch for making such a specific claim. Seeing similarities between them is not a sufficient reason, because they are based on the same original text (the Quranic verses), so it is normal that there are some similarities when summarizing. "Simply more informative" is also just your opinion. Also, this is pretty much the same argument you posted in Talk:Al-Mumtahanah, could you please use the centralized thread so that we don't argue the same thing over and over? HaEr48 (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I dont see the similarity in this surah. I will try to keep discussions to one page dependent on goodwill of editors. Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public. I make Caner Dagli, then affilated to College of the Holy Cross, as author of SQ sūrahs 2–3, 8–9, and 21–28, & primary translator for sūrahs 2–3, 8–9, and 22–28.[5] Maria Massi Dakake wrote the commentary for sūrahs 4–7 and 16–19, was the primary translator for sūrahs 4–7, 10–12, and 14–21. Joseph E. B. Lumbard wrote the commentary for sūrahs 1 and 29–114, was the primary translator for sūrahs 1, 13, and 29–114.[6] I have thanked the earliest extant authors of those pages

Do we have a point of agreement? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to a reference to verify your statement above, and explain what it has to do with the addition of the Sale list content? HaEr48 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference above. There is no Sale list. Sale was a translator & essayist. In a later edition reprint of Sale's interpretation Wherry added a summary - presumably to help the reader. As-Sajda#References only acknowledges Joseph Lumbard's authorship indirectly. Also there are two wikisource templates in the article. I'll do a protected edit request to get one removed if you can get Lumbard put into the right places. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in your reverts, or in your comment above that addresses the problems pointed out in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras. For example, they is still written in list rather than prose, they are still written in religious POV rather than in Wikipedia's neutral voice, they are still cited to one undue source. Can you fix the problems first, and stop trying to restore without consensus? HaEr48 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is written as a summary of quantified sections of a Quranic chapter. The religious POV expressed is that of the Quran. I have amended the references to include Lumbard where he concurs with Wherry, I have not identified any areas where they differ (yet).JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the point of WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia should have neutral tone and POV, imitating the POV of a religious text is clearly not appropriate. As for using list as summary, MOS:PROSE calls for using prose instead of list. HaEr48 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV requires representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, the significant views expressed in the Quran. I would remind you Wherry's, motivation in his own words was to enable the average student of Islām to speedily acquaint himself with the main points presented. That is pretty much Wikipedia's purpose too. The Study Quran has its place but it is authors Joseph Lumbard & Seyyed Hossein Nasr are Muslims writing for Muslims and references to modern academics are noticeably absent. Saying that, we have not discussed a single instance where Lumbard & Wherry disagree. I am not pushing Wherry. He has just done the work for us already. The summary is practical - it is copyright free and prepacked for Wikipedia. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ islamawakened.com 32/1Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985)]
  2. ^ Sale, George (1891). The Koran: Commonly Called the Alkoran of Mohammed ... New York: John B. Alden.
  3. ^ a b Lumbard, Joseph (April 2015). 32, Prostration, al-Sajdah, The Study Quran. San Francisco: HarperOne.
  4. ^ a b Wherry, Elwood Morris (1896). A Complete Index to Sale's Text, Preliminary Discourse, and Notes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  5. ^ Dagli, Caner (April 2015). 2, The Cow, al-Baqarah Study Quran. San Francisco: HarperOne.
  6. ^ Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (April 2015). Editors’ Contributions The Study Quran. San Francisco: HarperOne.

Quranic commentary

[edit]

Other noted Quranic commentators on Q32 include Ahmad ibn Ajiba (d.1809); Mulla Sadra (d.1640); Burhān al-Dīn Abu’l-Ḥasan Ibrāhīm al-Biqāʿī (d.1480); Al-Mahalli (d.1459); Fakhruddin Razi (d.1210); Ibn al-Jawzi (d.1201); Al-Tabarsi (d.1153-54); Al-Zamakhshari (d.1144); and Al-Qushayri (d.1072).[1]

While this is referenced, the thing is the work cited in the Study Quran are tafsir (commentaries/exegesis) on the whole Quran (see the bibliography in the commentary key section), and there is nothing special about their commentaries on this chapter compared to the others. So, adding a passage like above is just pointing out something that is true for the Quran in general, that's why I'd rather leave it out. HaEr48 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the above per your reasoning. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lumbard, Joseph (April 2015). 60 She Who Is Examined, al-Mumtaḥanah, The Study Quran. San Francisco: HarperOne.

Protected edit request on 24 December 2020

[edit]
== External links ==
{{wikisource|The Holy Qur'an (Maulana Muhammad Ali)/32. The Adoration}}

Above is a duplication to be deleted JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GirthSummit (blether) 08:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

[edit]

@Vice regent:, Noting your comments You will see Here that it is possible to reference Wherry's summary's to "Traditional Islam"ic sources. I am hoping to convince you that I am genuinely trying to improve the article and that including the information above is the best way. I should be grateful for your comments. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Valereee: You appear to be repeatedly reverting other editors to add thirty external links to the Summary section at As-Sajdah. Please explain.

I have reverted one editor. The links are a corollary of a conversation I was having with @Vice regent: (sorry...last time). JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JorgeLaArdilla it is true we were having a conversation. Can you please discuss and get consensus before making the changes?VR talk 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But can you not see in the section above where my discussion remained undiscussed here? I have requested that we use this page.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the links. But I dont think external links should be smattered throughout the body of Quranic articles. If anywhere, they should be here. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include external links within article text except in very rare circumstances. Here is the policy. When I see someone with nearly 15K edits, I expect them to understand this kind of policy. How do you not know this? —valereee (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the problem with the edits are not just the external linking. They still have problems with religious POV wording as well as using list instead of prose, as I raised multiple times before. But above all, the way Wikipedia works is if other editors dispute your edits, you do not force restoring it over and over without fixing the problems or reaching consensus. HaEr48 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JorgeLaArdilla Those were not internal links. What the heck are you talking about? Please be much more clear. I am losing patience. —valereee (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dont lose patience. My concern here is simply this article. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then @JorgeLaArdilla please explain why you keep adding external links into the article? —valereee (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed them. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JorgeLaArdilla yes, I know. But I want to know that you now understand that adding external links is not okay, and that you will not do it in any article. —valereee (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JorgeLaArdilla: Can you also fix the other issues about these edits? HaEr48 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What have I broken? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the objections in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras? HaEr48 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely nothing. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You did not address the issues raised there and kept restoring your disputed edits. HaEr48 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the issues about this article. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have? The content you added is still in a list that is separate from the existing prose with the same purpose, and reads quite POV (e.g. " Unbelievers shall be brought before God", "They shall repent too late to avail for pardon", etc.). HaEr48 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a summary representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, the significant views expressed in the Quran. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a NPOV summary if it contains direct statements like what I quoted above? HaEr48 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it fairly summarises the views of the author. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not how NPOV in Wikipedia works. You don't use the views of the subject and write it in directly Wikipedia's voice, rather you write it from third-party point of view with a neutral tone. Here's what WP:NPOV says: "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." HaEr48 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JorgeLaArdilla why don't you take a look at this summary? It seems like a good example of a summary.VR talk 03:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly follow your advice. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok. A point that I have raised before is that I dont like that the author is not named in references. Also dont like the title. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they have looked at it because they have made some edits in the same article. At risk of self-promotion because I happened to wrote the example linked by VR above, I agree with that it would be nice if such example can be followed - e.g. using prose rather than list (per MOS:PROSE, using third-party point of view (per WP:NPOV), as well as using more "tertiary" kind of source for better due weighting. HaEr48 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:As-Sajdah&oldid=1205385379"