Talk:Presidency of Religious Affairs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presidency of Religious Affairs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 10 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Directorate of Religious Affairs to Presidency of Religious Affairs. The result of the discussion was moved.

It is not a "ministry"

The "Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı" is not a ministry! A ministry is "Bakanlık" and not "Başkanlık" (these are two different words) The Başkan (word used in Turkish for a president or a chairman) is a muslim cleric and is not somebody elected, and is not part of the Parliament and surely not as part of the government. He is NOT A MINISTER! And this is not a ministry! The turkish state doesn't have a such ministry. This is an organisation attached directly to the prime minister. So, This translation is totally wrong. It is more likely to call this organisation as a "Directorate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geyikpiri (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common mistake, also in Turkey. The original name, Diyanet İşleri Reisliği, was better in this respect. The institution was a successor to the Şer'iye ve Evkaf Vekâleti (also transliterated as Shar’iyya wa Awqaf), which actually was a ministry of the Ottoman government. Curiously enough, the English word "ministry" has several other meanings than "governmental department", some of which fit the non-governmental institution reasonably well. --Lambiam 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind attention, and for the information you gave. -geyikpiri

liberal interpretation?

How is it "liberal" to appoint women as preachers? Prophet Muhammed's wife Aisha was a preacher, so what the Diyanet is doing isn't anything new. I don't see how such a move is liberal. Rather, this liberal label is being attached to it because people lack sufficient knowledge on Islamic history and are likely to call anything liberal that they for whatever reason think is not generally acceptable in Islam -- whether justified or not. I suggest the "liberal" label be removed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.109.185 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not traditional in Sunni Islam. The tradition may contradict some early reports, but that doesn't mean it is not the tradition. One of the routes of reform, of course, is to indicate a contradiction between the current tradition and an arguably older one. 2601:140:8900:61D0:D4DE:1AB4:5245:DC31 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over edits and copyright

Dispute over Diannaa's reverts of my edits (edit summary: "paraphrase and remove copyright content copied from http://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/463-the-rise-of-diyanet-the-politicization-of-turkey%E2%80%99s-directorate-of-religious-affairs.html")
(Part of the dispute was that Diannaa had blocked off links to the old edits so they were inaccessible from the article history. That has been undone, they are now accessible.)

Pasted from Diannaa's talk page:

Presidency of Religious Affairs:

Much of the alleged copyright violation was in quotes. And much of the edits you have annihilated were not even alleged violations. Now I can't even go back and look at what I've written to redo the edits! Isn't this a bit heavy handed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of what I removed was in quotes. I left off doing the revision deletion and offered you a link to the copyvio report at 01:48 so you could check my work. Your response was to re-add the copy vio, so I went ahead with the revision deletion at 01:59. — Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was wrong about the quotes (or at least much of them), none the less a great deal of what you have not just reverted but destroyed was rewriting for clarity, form, grammar etc. and had nothing to do with text from the turkeyanalyst story. Now impossible to go back retrieve it. BoogaLouie (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might add I was unaware you were an admin at first. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert; I selectively and carefully removed only the copyright material. The revision deletion is a separate transaction which hides the intervening diffs. Not all the content in those diffs was reverted. — Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much rewriting having nothing to do with copyright has been removed. If you will allow me access to it I make improvments to the writing of the article that will have nothing to do with copyrighted material. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is possibly the material in your edits of 01:36 and 01:40 were lost in the process as there was an edit conflict. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can check my work and re-do the two lost edits. The copyvios report will be visible again, where you will be able to see the comparison between the source web page and revision 731855691. Here is a link to the copyvio report. Please do not re-add any of the copyright material. All content you add to this wiki has to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to repair the material that was lost in the edit conflict. Sorry about that, it initially looked to me like just a small edit but I see it was actually quite a bit of stuff. Sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted by me, BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

The Fatawa section mentions a good overview but I think we should have a subsection for the ones which encountered controversy like the dad-daughter issue.

Also there is no mention against the prohibition against hand-holding for engaged couples. From what I read that came out around the same time but got less focus due to its proximity to the more controversial issue. Ranze (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

Page 59 of "The Emancipation of Europe's Muslims: The State's Role in Minority Integration" uses DIB to refer to this group. I am thinking of sourcing that to support a parenthesized initialism. Any objections? Ranze (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit war

I have reverted back to a stable version and fully protected for one week. Editors are encouraged to discuss here rather than in edit summaries. Tezkiretul, please read WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Directorate of Religious Affairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Directorate of Religious Affairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting

Good night from Bangladesh Rohingya refugee camp of Cox's bazaar Bangladesh.Myself Anayat Ullah I'm from Myanmar but currently living in Bangladesh in refugee camp actually I am looking for a scholarship 103.242.20.230 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Well, revert the sock I guess. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Directorate of Religious Affairs → Presidency of Religious Affairs – The current title seems its administrative division/unit. Suggested title it the current and original name of this organization[1]. Turkish Wikipedia also uses the suggested title here. The English Wikipedia also indicate Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı means Presidency of Religious Affairs. The official website also uses the suggested title. The original title was moved by a sock without discussion. Please see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

The organisation history says, "By the Law 5634, published on 29.04.1950, “Diyanet İşleri Reisliği” (Directorate of Religious Affairs) was changed as “Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı” (Presidency of Religious Affairs)"[9] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.