User talk:VenusFeuerFalle

when searched Qur'an,at the first passage in wikipedia for arabic word sura , the engilsh was given suwar which represents pig in hindi. i would like to request get it reviewed and corrected please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.205.105 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VenusFeuerFalle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:49, Saturday, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hello!

Thanks for paying attention and pointing out that the reference I used said Essay. This was a mistake on my end. I used a citation machine to generate the citation and I picked Essay by mistake. The book is instead an acedemic book that is written by a specialized scholar about the names of God.

The mistake is now fixed.

Thanks for the help!

Yousof YousofSulaiman (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Thank you very much for being civil about it. Many Users see reverts as a personal attack. In most cases, as annoying as reverts might be, are just to protect a neutral viewpoint. If we were to allow essay, master-thesis, self-published sources etc., even if their claims are correct, we run danger into waddling into WP:OR. Therefore, we prioritize the quality of publishing over the actual claims of the sources. Not paying attention to the creditablity is a common mistake even done by experienced editors, especially when the editor is familiar with a topic, they might mistake "correct" sources with authentic ones. Recently I had my edits on demon reverted, because I accidently used an unreliable source for a huge part on Zorastrian demons. It is frustrating, but it needs to be done. I want to let you know that your efforts and ambitions are very much appreciate. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your helpful comments throughout the GA review of Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Harut and Marut and Talk:Harut and Marut/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Harut and Marut for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted some minor changes I made in the introduction of the Sharia article. The purpose of these changes was; Emphasizing the abstract meaning of sharia and thus making the reader understand why fiqh and Ahkam are discussed in the following sentences and not sharia, logical flow, second The expression "qualified jurists" used for muftis, of course I know what this means, but for an encyclopedia, this definition is not a statement that can be taken absolute neutrally. and so on... Thank you for your interestNGC 628 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not respond to my previous discussion and reverted my later, more far-reaching changes for one simple reason. First of all, I thought you were an arrogant person. But I see that this behavior is related to you being extremely busy. If you want progress regarding the article, discuss it, go into detail, avoid personal and relative evaluations and follow wikipedia policies or, more clearly, go by giving a reason through Wikipedia policies. If you don't have time to do these, you can stop taking ownership of the articles and wait for others to make progress.NGC 628 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the late reply, I am indeed oftne busy, and mostly on Wikipedia in my free-time. I do enjoy editing articles. One can learn new thigns and share knowledge with others, idealistically making the world a bit better, and I am happy to see like-minded people.

Regarding the reverts, first I am sorry if you feel overlooked. It was not my intention to ignore any request. Regarding the edits, there was soemthing I thought as a disimporvement of quality.

On the contrary, fiqh, which includes source criticism especially on hadiths and decree methods such as meaning and logical inference of the text, refers to the interpretations of Islamic scholars;^[1][2][3] ahkam, practical application side of sharia, in a sense,^[4] refers to the results reached by scholars with these sources and intellectual methods they use. Fatwas, on the other hand, consist of religious decisions made by muftis on specific issues

is not better than

Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and this referencing is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its interpretations by Islamic scholars.^[1][2][3] Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning,^[5][6] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges,^[1][3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.^[7]

Other parts of your edits were actually helpful such as

As can be seen in many examples, classification is relative. For example, believing in the existence and miracles of Awliya is presented as a "condition" for orthodox Islam by many prominent Sunni creed writers such as Al-Tahawi and Nasafi^[8][9] and is accepted in traditional Sunnis and Shi'ism. However, this understanding, along with expressions of respect and visits to the graves of saints, are seen as unacceptable heresy by puritanical and revivalist Islamic movements such as Salafism, Wahhabism and Islamic Modernism.^[10]

Although they might need a bit of rephrasing. It is not "relative", but "subjective". However, I could have done this without revert. Nonetheless, I do not see an improvement in your edits of the lead-section. Furthermore, if there is further dispute, I would like to discuss this on the talkpage, since it is more likely that other editors might see it overwhere and can interfere their opinions on that matter.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Once any of my contributions are published, they are no longer mine. If you don't find it useful, you can take it back. However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary.NGC 628 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary."

fair point. THe one quote I posted, nonetheless, was not a matter of geographic disagreements. This is why I am confident, this is not an improvement. Sharia was never a uniform or codified scripture-like set of rules, and never limited to the Quran and Sunnah alone. It is the favored approach in contemporary times (some also add the founder fathers of the Sunni madhabs), but we cannot make anachronistic claims in an article, especially not in the lead-section. Please note, that we do not want to claim which interpretation should be favored, nor do we want to list all interpretations possible (they would be too many), but limit ourselves to what reliable sources have to say on that matter. When historicans agree that Sharia was not a codified law until the 18th or 19th Century (do not remember the exact date), we cannot give it equal weight than to the opinion of Muslim jurists arguing that "sharia was always Quran and Sunnah alone and the rest is a deviation". Such claims are "intra-religious" and rest more on beliefs than historical data. This does not even mean that the intra-religious opinions are correct, they ultimately rely on the findings not only about written sources, but also societies. As you brought up, the consensus might even shift depending on geographical region. Nonetheless, on Wikipedia, we regard academic consensus as the guideline, and if you are aware of both the possibilities and the limitations, it can be a very helpful tool. Yet, it is, of course not infallable. For example, Wikipedia is, as a tertiary source, the last source updated. New results will first be pulbished in secondary sources, while the primary sources might ahve existed long ago, and only afterthat, then we as Wikipedians discover the secondary sources, it finds its way to Wikipedia. I want to take your advise too heart and have a better eye on reverts especially when I am in a hurry. Wikipedia is done best, when one is relaxed.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I believe that those who make contributions to Wikipedia by writing and those who retract these contributions with good and correct reasons provide equal service. In this respect, I see every action as a positive contribution. Another point is that with Wikipedia, we, and perhaps the whole society that benefits from it, can benefit from what is written mentally and improve understanding. In my opinion, the most important condition for this is that, in addition to impartiality, "different opinions" are presented without disrupting harmony, taking into account their weights, and especially in an understandable manner.

The issues you mentioned in response will be more understandable to me if you go through concrete examples. For example, it would be useful if you exemplify an anachronism or other problems you detect in my contributions.

Regards from me too.NGC 628 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply and I wholeheartedly agree. I want to check the exat edits to provide an example as soon as I have time, to give an appropriate reply. Currently, I am having a strict schedule again. (strictly speaking, I writing this while working)

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I finally found time (and energy for a reply).

I think my issue was that this part was undone

Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning,^[11][12] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges,^[1][3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.^[7]

I think the part with customary law is important, since there was no codified sharia, and Quran and Hadiths rather aided than defined "Sharia Law" in pre-Modern times. I apologize if it was just moved, but I could not find it in the alternative version. Maybe it was also removed by accident (this happens often during larger edits).

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase that bothered me in terms of impartiality in this section was the phrase "qualified jurists". I took it away and you brought it back.(with last change) NGC 628 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you object about "qualified jurists"? To derive rulings for the Sharia, one had to be qadi or faqih. A non-qualified scholary opinion has no value in Islamic jurisprudence. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualified" may be the right word to indicate a degree, but it is also an honorific adjective, which may not be appropriate for Wikipedia's neutrality policies.NGC 628 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "qualified" is used as a honorific, it is pretty much a technical term, just like "authorized exegesis" in reference to "tafsir". In contrast, everyone is doing "exegesis" by reading the Quran, since interpretation is unavoidable, but it has no authority. However, neither "qualified" nor "authority" are honorifics, and I cannot recall anyone using the term to honor anyone. What terminology would fit better in your opinion? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, only mufti or "Islamic legal theorist" would be an appropriate phrase.NGC 628 (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is a mufti not exactly that? A "qualified" jurist? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct but mufti is not only a scholar but also kind of a preacher. We should avoid using "qualified" for muftis, priests etc. it closes all doors of criticism. as bias do exist, whether you like it or not. for eg: we don't say qualified priests said this about their religious scriptures so others research is irrelevant or non qualified. third person/source who has neutrally studied the scriptures is generally more reliable and qualified in this scenario 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you are NGC but not logged in? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who wrote it, but it caught another person's attention.NGC 628 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was just confused. Then I will just ignore them, until they add something to the discussion.

What do you think about the distiction between a qualified jurist and a mufti? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether a qualified jurist and a mufti are the same thing, or the quality of the muftis. The use of a word with an honorific meaning for a person or group poses a problem in terms of Wikipedia neutrality. I don't want to discuss this issue any further. If you have no objection, I can correct the article. Even if there are, it may be more beneficial to discuss it with other people who are interested in the subject.NGC 628 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar) But surely "jurist", esp. "qualified jurist", and also words like "professor", are also in some sense "honorifics". Neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view", meaning we can't use any word of import for anyone. Remsense诉 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted accurately "in some sense"NGC 628 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with "some senses"? I do not want to transgress, but do you understand the language we are communicating? Some of your replies would make sense if you use aid from a translator or AI, as a lot of your replies are completely out of context. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have been helpful if you were using the talkpage of the article instead of my personal talkpage. As I said before, "qualified jurist" is no honorific in the English language, but an adjective describing a subject. Therefore, I do not follow your arguement as it rests on wrong assumptions. Comparably, "authorized exegetes of the Quran" is a preferred translation for "mufassirun". Following your arguement, "authorized" would be a "honorific" as well, but it is not. It is simply a translation or a description Further, I do not see how this violates a neutral viewpoint, since it is an objective statement that they are "qualified" to make such statements within the system they are operating in. If you want to close the discussion, it is fine by mean, but this means status quo remains and you edits are not accepted, since you failed to reach a consensus. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested for a third opinion regarding the dispute in WikiProject Islam here ☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any dispute listed. Has the dispute been resolved already? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you broke several citations with that last (but very needed) edit. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out, I do my best to repair what I ahve broken, needs some time since I also want to update the Islam section. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. Figured you weren't done. Didn't want to make edit conflicts... Skyerise (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for saying something without knowledge about the word sura and suwar 2400:C600:337D:6F7E:1:0:17B6:FA01 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @VenusFeuerFalle! I saw that you recently reverted my edit here. The change I made basically rephrased the narrative according to the Hadith provided in the source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2880. The Sunan al-Tirmidhi is one of the authentic sources of hadith; the hadith which narrates the story mentioned in the article does not say that the Ghul promised Abu Ayyub al-Ansari to teach the Ayat Al-Kursi, rather it says that the Ghul told him the benefit of reciting the Ayat Al-Kursi. This would be the most authentic source we can get for this story, if you want me to have a look at some other source, like which you mentioned in your edit summary, then please do so. If not, I would request you to please undo your edit. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own. YOu can take from my main-page: "Original Research: Wikipedia gathers researched information together, but does not do research itself. Doing research yourself (Original Research) is a great thing in science, but not in writing an encyclopedia. Remember what the project is about creating an encyclopedia, not a promoting your research findings."

You edit further had a lot of typos. If the current source is a primary source as well, you are free to remove this part entirely. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @VenusFeuerFalle. With all due respect, I am aware about Wikipedia's policies on original research. I find your opening statement, Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own, confusing. I do not consider the current source as a primary source since it is a Hadith that was preserved more than a thousand years ago. Furthermore, you are not addressing my concern. The source/hadith does not imply anywhere that the Ghul promised to teach Ayat Al-Kursi to anyone; if you read the source, you can easily interpret that the Ghul talked about the benefits of reciting Ayat Al-Kursi, rather than promising to teach it. You also mentioned that my edit had a "lot of" typos, from what i can see is that in my edit I misspelled 'information' as 'inofrmation'. Your reply here also has a "lot of" grammatical errors which I can point to. Anyways, I am editing the article as I see fit. If you can sufficiently address my concerns, I will revert myself. Until then, please don't revert my edit without proper explanation. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that there are no concerns about the statement being backed up by a primary source, I have replaced it with a better one. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it is indeed much better and helps to keep WP:NPOV. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a third opinion on Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam has been made at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog

I came here from WP:3O to confirm whether VFF is communicated about WP:3O listing. I respect both of you as good WP editors.

I do have following suggestions to facilitate better discussion, and inputs by other users.

• Separate edit disagreements issue by issue - and preferably number them to understand how many content disagreement exists.
• Provide issue wise synopsis mentioning edit dif, Which sentence one user wants and the alternate competing suggestion by other user; why does it matter to either side; What are the policies and guidelines useful to provide inputs.
• I suppose WP:Edit summary is usually brief statement to indicate what the edit is about and many times may not suffice as sufficient synopsis to understand the issue for other Wikipedia users.

I hope and wish issues get amicably sorted out in near future. Wish you happy editing to both of you. Bookku (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted an edit removing the claim that said that in the modern day, Yazidis face persecution from the PKK and ISIS. You said that the article makes it clear that the PKK is not helping Yazidis in their homeland despite saving them from ISIS, but not only is subjectively “not helping” them in the opinion of this article not even close to the same as claiming they’re being actively persecuted by them, the source itself is unreliable, as per Wikipedia’s own page, Milliyet is a right wing, Turkish nationalist newspaper, making it an unreliable source. Whether or not you think the YBŞ and thus PKK’s presence in Shengal is “helping them” is irrelevant to the claim that they face active persecution from them, especially on the same level as ISIS. Not to mention the fact that them “turning it into a warzone” still doesn’t change the fact that it’s Turkey who are conducting drone strikes there. Please remove the claim that Yazidis are persecuted by the PKK from the article, regardless of whether or not you like them, the sources are terrible by Wikipedia standards and the argument doesn’t even make sense Serok Ayris (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right-Wing does not mean "inaccurate". There are a lot of right-wing news, recently, sources from Israel regarding the Middle Eastern conflict.

The PKK is charged with taking young Kurdish people in the Eastern regions of Turkey to grom them into a terrorist organization. This is pretty much persecution.

I know there can be different viewpoints and I am usually willing to discuss disputes out, but I have my limits when we actively support or defend terrorists organization. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the PKK disputes claims of kidnapping, as do its supporters, secondly, how does that mean they persecute Yazidis? Are we now gonna say Palestinians as an ethnicity are persecuted by Hamas because according to Israel they “turned Gaza into their base”? No, because thinking something is bad for a people is not equal to active persecution. Regardless of your views on them, claiming the PKK “persecutes” Yazidis on anywhere near the same level of ISIS using a biased source with terrible arguments that don’t make any sense is essentially genocide denial, as you are equating a group that saved Yazidis and gave them the means to fight back against ISIS with the group that committed genocide against them. Perhaps you can put something in the article saying “some people argue the PKK’s presence in Sinjar negatively affects Yazidis” but you’d also have to mention the fact that TURKEY does these airstrikes in the first place. Putting the blame solely on the PKK’s presence and then using this as an excuse to compare them to ISIS is absolutely ridiculous. This isn’t even about if you like them or not, this is just obviously ridiculous and biased language towards a Turkish perspective, and if we were to keep this ridiculous comparison, we might as well add Turkey to the list of things persecuting them considering the drone strikes Serok Ayris (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis on anywhere near the same level of ISIS using a biased source with terrible arguments that don’t make any sense is essentially genocide denial, as you are equating a group that saved Yazidis and gave them the means to fight back against ISIS with the group that committed genocide against them. Perhaps you can put something in the article saying “

you are putting words into my mouth. If you think the source belongs to unreliable sources bring this issue fourth there it belongs, although I already suspect you have your own personal view on this. And as I said, I have my boundaries, and then we even consider the opinion of terrorists as potential "minor opinion", they are crossed. It is like claiming that the Islamic flag is identical with the black flag of ISIS. All this is just advertising or promoting deviant groups to push their own agenda. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your terrorist recruitment.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d argue putting the PKK on any level close to ISIS in terms of harm done to Yazidis is the only “advertising” done here. I’m not even asking to add anything, I’m just saying not to list the PKK along with ISIS as the main groups Yazidis are persecuted by Serok Ayris (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKK also persecutes Kurdish people who do not join their group. By mentioning them next to each other, no one states that they are equal in their audacities, but PKK does persecute Kurdish people , ISIS does persecute Kurdish people as well (well, ISIS persecutes everyone but this is irrelevant here). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your removal of the use of a Masters thesis on Jinn; FYI, we've also got a problem editor trying to use them on Zoroastrianism. Skyerise (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I added Zorastrianism to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the discussion by now. The source added seems to be published by the Journal Homo Oeconomicus by Springer Nature. Springer Nature is a peer review publisher which meets the criteria for a reliable source. I do not want to heat up the discussion, so before I confuse things, I sought to consult you that it this point, I think the other user might be right. Is it possible that something has been overlooked here?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were two sources involved. The one removed was a Master's thesis. The one restored is the one you mentioned. The editor has the habit of citing with bare links, which did lead to a bit of confusion for a minute. Skyerise (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, bad formatting can be a problem. I am glad you help out with that on many articles. Also, thanks for clarification. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion kinda escalted, I am not sure if I can keep track with what exactly is going on now. I want to keep an eye on it and unreasonable changes on the main article though. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding deletion of edits in Jinn article by you. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard".The discussion is about the topic Jinn.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal academic projects often involve how sets (in the formal sense of the word) can be used to destabilize categories - insert constant references to Deleuze, Quentin Meillassoux and Borges here - so looking at a religion where there does appear to be a healthy debate regarding clear categorization is just like... it's like candy to me being perfectly honest. It's why I've been interested in the political-economic assessment of the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Researcher1988 found. It's, frankly, directly up my alley. But I want to assure you I'm not going to let these personal preoccupations impact article copy beyond precisely what I've been arguing for - that we don't put in Wiki voice statements that are disputed within the academy and, instead, describe the terms of the dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to disregard classifications of religions altogether, since it is a disputed matter. However, then it needs to be done equally. A similar issue has arisen recently on a Christian and Islamic talkpage about the term "Abrahamic religion". However, if we go with the general consensus, Zorastrianism is the prime example of Dualism just next to Manichaeism. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle, May be you missed on my advice to LPB on their talk page, I suppose you would find that was fair enough.

Wish you happy editing and wish your dreams to take articles to GA materialize.

Bookku (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope they take your concerns to heart. I appreciate the User's ambition, but if they constantly ignore any advise and as soon as they are faced with a revert takes it somehow personal (I see no alternative to explain their behaviour), I see no future. Maybe they need to hear this advise by another editor. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iblis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you've commented out your reasons for reassessment? Currently the situation here is kinda confusing as to what you want to do here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the manual steps for reassessment as per WP:GAR. Step 3 states that my "rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria." I thought I was exactly doing that. Please let me know, if there are any misunderstandings and where they lie at. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to [1]. I don't think so. Not sure if he's avoided copyvio again, but the edit looks pretty poor, including his clumsy English (IMHO) which he justified in an edit summary. He's messing up a lot of articles, doesn't understand yet he needs to source, etc. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really, just haven't been online again yet. Yes, the user is making a lot of mistakes. However, since I had a frustrating discussion recently on Zorastrianism with a user being straightfowardly offensive and using Wikipedia for religious propaganda (which they even implicitly confirmed), and a few other users on the jinn and shaitan article because they confuse these two articles and do not even get their ow sources straight, I do not have the resources to explain the mistakes to them again. If you feel like they should be helped, I want be glad if you can take this over. For my part, I created an FAQ on my main page to give new editors a quick introduction. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t think they could be helped. User talk:Philipbrochard#This is the last straw Doug Weller talk 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel like there are a lot of Users showing up recently who are not here to built an encyclopedia but just want their opinions to be seen in public. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also think I’ve seen an increase. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle

As user LPB and TheEagle107 requested I did guide them about WP:RfC-Before steps at my talk page. And I also requested them (and also request you) to have a look at WT:RFC#RfC etiquette. I look forward to healthy discussion and amicable resolution. Best wishes to every one. Bookku (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it works looking at @TheEagle107'S comments and accusations behind my back, but I will ignore this. I really have beter things to do than in engaging in trivial discussions about one's opinions about other people. Worst case, I have to go throught he buercracy to report them to the admin board and show the evidence of misconduct over the last two years in Islam related articles. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I positively hopeful for the reason is I posted following message on their talk page like I post on other user's talk page and also WT:RFC#RfC etiquette and I received 3 thanks clicks from TheEagle107 besides I have received thanks for my discussion facilitation efforts from LPB and you too.

Wish you happy editing Bookku (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a few questions for you. How can you use a "wiki" source? Or, for example, a source from another language only if it is possible to relate to the topic under discussion? And users who are closed with the name of saboteur, will all their edits be deleted or only saboteur edits? And the other question is how to go to higher levels in Wikipedia? thank you. Me. Asian Irani (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC) And by the way, those edits that you deleted from me were not from another Wikipedia, but from Wiki Fiqh and Wiki Vahdat. Those wikis are somewhat different from Wikipedia. Am I allowed to restore my edits? What should I do so that those words remain? I realized my mistake and on a page where I had cited wikis, I changed the sources as well as the text (: If there is anything else, please tell me.[reply]

Greetings

I recommand to use the sources used on the other Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot cite Wikipedia to improve its reliablity. It is possible that editors make mistakes. If we cite Wikipedia frequently, such possible mistakes might add up. Instead, it is recommanded to use the citations. For an example of a translation, you can find examples on the article jinn, which uses a few sources in German.

You can use the view history function to go back to your version and then mark the relevant parts and copy them with right click -> copy and then insert it into the newest version. The text will be stored on your storage on your Computer. Once stored, you can edit the current version and then add your edits from before. Then you can make the required modifications and improve on the objections written in the edit summary.

I hope this helps

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you would have noticed that two of your concerns raised at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC have been referred more inputs at WP:RSN#Hachette Livre (by me as discussion facilitator) and the OR issue at No original research/Noticeboard by LPB

Though your mention has been made in both discussion, but in case you miss then this is just to keep you informed. Wish you happy editing. Bookku (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notifications. I have yet to check on them as I was not able to login on Wikipedia for a while due to scheduling concerns.

I will reply as soon as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry making you a request again when may be you would be little upset. I request neutral synopsis / summary (non-personlised), preferably from any of users engaged in discussion. Though I am observing as discussion facilitator, still may not be aware of some nuances, you are the most worked editor and best placed to provide summary before proceed for RfC. Bookku (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.

To be honest, I do not even get what the user is about. I cannot make a (serious) synopsis about something I do not even get the point of myself. I was still waiting for a response to my objection weeks ago. I want to elaborate on the details in the synopsis, though I need to clear my mind first to take the discussion any serious, since it went into absurd directions in my opinion.Thank you again for your calmness. I had a week off and will be busy again soon, but I want to make synopsis as soon as possible.

best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Jinn. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jinn. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did at Jinn, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence.TheEagle107 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware you can be permanently banned for doing this right? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Since you have previously created topics at the talk pages of WikiProject Occult and is currently an active contributor, you might be interested in participating in the ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Eastern esotericism, which focuses on proposals of splitting, balancing the proportion of information regarding the main subject and whether the article is adequately written in English. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag, I appreciate that. However, currently despite this being a week ago, I rarely have time for editing and when I do, I am currently involved in a few tedious discussions. FOr that reason I cannot afford to read myself into the topic as it would be required to make a qualified judgement on this matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VenusFeuerFalle. You may need to take some action in Talk:Yazidis. An editor there is accusing you of using pro-Turkish government sources in content about the PKK, and introducing inaccuracies to the article. Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I will have a look at this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on Wiki-break.

• Idk you noticed or missed first ongoing RfC Talk:Jinn#RfC: Is the Comparative mythology section relevant? (as initiated by TheEagle107) .
• A note is left at Talk:Jinn#Next step about upcoming RfC related to article expansion under discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Pl. suggest format for RfC.

Try to keep some time available for these two RfCs so as to share your content points at least once.

It might sound repetitive, but I hope you would not mind good intention behind requesting discussion summary to every one, due to multiple benefits one benefit can be it indirectly gives indication of your points in brief, even in one's absence. Looking forward to you joining back with joyful editing. Bookku (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been on a Wiki-Break, not least thanks to ongoing frustrating discussions, not only on the Jinn talkpage but overall, accumilated by other offensive editors just before this aweful discussion. I want to have a look at what is going on. To be honest, I hope it settled in my absense, but it seems there is still something going on and I do not even know what exactly we are talking about. I need to recollect first, while elsewhere someone pushes Propaganda by Terrorist Organziations VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting you to consider following points pertaining to your this recent edit at Talk:Jinn

1) See @ village pump proposal is to have formal mechanism to have neutral RfC facilitator, which I am already trying to help out to best of my abilities with at Talk:Jinn. That can work if every one follows RfC etiquette I already communicated. I have also communicated

See my view has been that shifting focus from content to personal concerns benefits the accuser to take content dispute off the track. Solution is from your side give primacy to content dispute and take the discussion back to the track again at earliest.

2) The summary I requested at Talk:Jinn is of content dispute. You are an experienced user you are aware that article talk pages are for content dispute and user talk pages and WP:ANI is for personal disputes. I feel bringing personal aspects within content discussion can be distracting and of limited help. I suggest and request to take your behavioural dispute to relevant user's talk page and if not resolved then to WP:ANI.

3) I urge to focus on content dispute only @ Talk:Jinn at the most include a link about your behavioural concerns.

4.1) While discussing your allegation of to 'gaming the system', You have included link which includes huge history of my User:talk page, which will be confusing to other readers and more over unnecessarily puts me in bad picture in spite of my all good faith efforts. I urge to give difs of specific individual edits only (emphasis added).

4.2) where other users made personal complaints, like you, even to others, I told them also to focus on content only and keep personal issues aside while content dispute being sorted out. Even about Eagel communicated selectively I indicated that's not ideal and the other user while expressed their own opinion on my user talk page they have not joined at the article talk page. After that instance I have not seen any selective canvassing on part of Eagle.

4.3) I have tried to keep you informed at every important step including about discussion on my talk page, so you would agree that I am transparent enough from my side. So I wish you would take care that inadvertently you do not end up putting me also in bad light.

5) Last but not least is use Template:dif {{dif||}} to link and not the complete URL link. It's unnecessarily distracting and makes difficult to read and comprehend for readers.

Personalization of dispute after so much effort to avoid is disappointing for me . I urge to shift that comment in your sandbox rework properly and then discuss with concerned users on their talk page then if still not satisfied to ANI. You are an experienced rational user, I request you to compose yourself, I hope and request you would do the needful taking above points into consideration. Bookku (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for considering dragging you into this. Just then I found time to apply for the request to sumamrize the keypoints, most of them I was not even aware off, I found out that you have been involved in writing behind my back with two users who constantly making accusations towards me without any evidence. I felt betrayed at the moment. Although I do not think it is neutral that one side is accusing someone else of all sorts of things, to the one who is accused of that, but it is not correct either to put someone who got dragged into a form of hounding on the same level. Although I wished that a neutral person would set clear boundaries then someone starts hounding or attempts to do canvassing. I cannot with the dif template, never worked, thats why I use the webpage templates. edit: But I also cannot see you as a neutral actor in this dispute, no matter the efforts. There should have been a clear line drawn then Louie and Eagle approached you on your talkpage and talked behind me. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ VenusFeuerFalle, I find, indulgence in and sorting out of personal altercations to be too complex process, I find such indulgence too exasperating and most times waste of time; that's neither my skill nor my focus.

I have had only single minded focus to help users to focus and prioritize on content instead of personal altercations (Please read again). I was/am facilitating discussions with simple principles like 1) We are here for content development and not for wasting time in personal acrimony 2) 'if you loose track of content discussion then go back to the content discussion".

Prima facie I find some of your contentions problematic in being hasty and untimely, not properly formed, lost in focus, some non-pragmatic and some even baseless; still like a gentle human I shall try to restudy and reflect how I can improve myself further to avoid getting engrossed in personal altercations and come back to you after my study and also would exercise to suggest area of improvements of involved users to best of my understanding which may help you also reflect and improve in due course. Bookku (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, it was shining through in your attempt to mediate. I do agree that I might have been too hasty in my latest comment, although I had the best intentios to express my good will to set into dialogue while I could (and should) have reported much earlier. In Germany we say "if you reach out the finger, people will bite off your entire hand". However, I find it greatly insufferable to be dragged into this awful discussion because one User cannot discern a good source from a bad one and another User holding a personal grudge against me. edit: To make clear, I have no quarrels with you, and if the report against Eagle goes through, I will make clear that the report does not apply to you, since I am connvinved that Eagle told so much none-sense about me, that your jdugement is blurred. I hope I won't regret my indulgence again.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle I hope and wish, your real life engagements and Wiki-breaks would have been helpful to you and your loved ones. Wikipedia is such a place, without any personal benefit everyone of us returns to contribute on topics dear to our hearts.

Since your last emotional outburst at talk:Jinn I have been thinking how I could have done better. I am contemplating to improve few WP essays topics incl. advance level evaluation of sources, summary writing etc. Though I had shared expected etiquette with you all, as matter of brevity, I shared some friendly advice with TheEagle107 for improvements. Updated my talk page talk to say WP:AGF and avoid WP:NPA and WP:CAN.

You know, I am too rational and also too prompt to demarcate personalization from real content issues, it's rather very difficult for me to get my judgements blurred by sundry personal criticism.

Reflecting on our own behavior can lead to personal growth and better outcomes in tough conversations. With this in mind, I hope you can look positively towards the upcoming conversation in next sub-section and cooperate to reach a constructive resolution. I believe in your ability to reflect and make any necessary adjustments, just as we're hoping the other persons will. Bookku (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ VenusFeuerFalle

A Knowledgeable person's knowledge looks nice with their humbleness and not arrogance. After all we all are humans and we all make mistakes. Henceforth I would not expect User:TheEagle107 to go beyond citing only WP:RS at talk page un til they practice patience. And I would not expect you to discredit peer Wikipedians at article talk pages. As such on one hand I am contemplating to distance myself since I am not comfortable in all personalization where no one comes out winner and Wikipedia suffers. But on the other hand LPB has displayed all the patience through out. As such DRN admin has already committed to help LPB in their RfCs so hopefully I can keep my role minimum at Jinn and Talk:Jinn hereafter.

As said above let me reiterate, reflecting on our own behavior can lead to personal growth and better outcomes in tough conversations. With this in mind, I hope you can look positively towards the above conversation and cooperate to reach a constructive resolution. I believe in your ability to reflect and make any necessary adjustments, just as we're hoping the other persons will. Bookku (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, all your advises to reflect, no matter how kindly they may be, just strenghen my opinion you did not even understand what I mean.

I definately learned from my mistake though, but the mistake was clearly that I let users who did mistakes do as they please. If I had taken the mistake out by the root, it wouldn't have grown until noone was able to see what is going on.

If people were still not able to the religious bias among zealots, when maybe the Wiki project had their best days in the best. I do not believe that (yet), if so, I would abandon this project anyways because I would see no benefit in it anymore. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here. Have a nice day. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's also a good idea to mention here as well, but I am not an administrator. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, my mistake. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person (Doug Weller) is one. here is the notice. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I am vastly intrigued by your dedication to contributing to such a grand variety of articles. I've learned many a thing through them and I came to have a question on my mind. I'd like to know if there are any other locations where you've made your knowledge accessible as well? Do you have a site of sorts? If it is private I understand, but I'd like a means of taking a look see if you are alright with that. Maybe we can discuss it elsewhere. If yes, let me know. Thank you. Freezersburnt (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I apologize for my long absence and thus delayed response. It is pleasant to read that you can appreciate my edits. Most of the time I simply add summaries of my current studies (though I may derail into details from time to time).

I stayed on Wikipedia because it easily accessable for many people, and I want the articles about religious matters to be equally free from biases as it is for sciences. The downside is that users with political or religious motivations may also edit without further background knowledge. On the other hand, we all make mistakes, and Wikipedia allows other Users to correct them. If I should ever decide that zealots overrun the project, I might open something like "encyclopedia of religion and philosophy" or something. Hopefully, I still can do so for free then, as my main-motivation is that systematized knowledge is accessable to as many people as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still around? Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have been absent for a longer time, because I barely managed to concile my private work with Wikipedia. Both happened to be very time-consuming and partly frustrating at the beginning of the year, so I had to drop one of the two for a while. I hope I will be able to make more edits again soon. Afterall, the demon article still needs an overhaul and the article Devil also deserves to be improved until it reaches a GA. ;) It is nice to read from you again though. Your contributations on religious articles are very much appreciated. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Iblis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Iblis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per user request at my talk page, as a discussion facilitator initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

You are encouraged to follow:

• WP:RFC#Responding to an RfC
• RfC etiquette

Bookku (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Div (mythology), would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

I appreciate your invite, but I am afraid, I am tight on schedule. Though I currently had some time to breath (or edit) I can still not commit to larger projects. And if I can, I would love to focus on some projects I had in mind for a while by now. with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iblis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A recent RfC in Jinn may be of interest to you. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am a new editor and i've been trying to work on updating the page Islam in Australia. It has historically been a page abused by Islamaphobes and used to collect negative sentiment against Muslims.

Currently, one editor (binksternet) is acting as a road block and filler-bustering progress on the page Islam in Australia and would like your opinion on the talk page.

Currently, I am trying to achieve a consensus on a roll-back that he has imposed, and I need help. Bro The Man (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I want to have a look at it. Although I cannot guarantee to engage in depth with talkpage discussions, as I am currently not frequetnly online. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glaze, your edits seem reasonable to me. I put the page on my watchlist to have an eye on potential biases from both parties. Some claims seem to follow a certain narrative which mgiht misrepresent Islam. Islam beyond the Arabian peninsula is often neglected by Western studies and media, thus not accurately described. However, keep in mind that other people may simply not know it better. Some changes may need thus an extensive discussion on talkpages. Especially when you edit sourced content or a lead section, discussion with other editors might be necessary. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, and I appreciate the attention you're providing.

I'm taking all your insights on board and keeping them in mind.

My philosophy is to add and rearranging while maintaining contributed content as much as possible. Bro The Man (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jinn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you deleted my large edit on the wiki article “Adam in Islam”. I understand that is something you do often, so I was wondering if you could give some feedback on what I did wrong?? As far as I know I cited sources, removed inauthentic/weak citations, and didn’t write anything from a strictly religious perspective. Everything I wrote came directly from the Quran or Hadiths, so I’m a little confused. I also added very important information and removed inaccuracies, such as saying Iblis was an angel (which is also directly found in the Quran). If you gave me advice on what to remove, that’d be great, and I’d rewrite my edits to fix those parts!! Thank you Kayennepepper (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Thank you very much for reaching out on the talkpage before engaging in edit wars, as these are prone to misunderstanding. There have been good and bad changes in your edits, but the bad ones were too serious to be ignored and outweight the good ones. Since it was a pretty large edit, I am not sure if I manage to address all points properly, but I want to try my best and at least address the ones you mentioned here specifically.

Some of the changes are simply a re-arrangement of the order of texts. For example, "In the story of the Garden, God tells Adam and Ḥawwāʾ that they are not allowed to consume the fruit of the "tree of immortality" (which Islamic tradition identifies with wheat)" is the same as " After Adam sinned by eating from the forbidden tree (Tree of Immortality) after God forbade him from doing so". I prefer your writing though, and the source "Moreen, Vera B. "The Legend of Adam in the Judeo-Persian Epic" also seems to be better. This is one if the good changes. Although I am not entire sure if Quran and the exegesis (such as the claim that Adam is symbol for creation itself) sections should intersect so much. So this can be discussed, and editors may have variable preferences, maybe on the talkpage?

Another part I really appreciate was the following: "In the story of the Garden, God tells Adam and Ḥawwāʾ that they are not allowed to consume the fruit of the "forbidden tree". Iblis, also called the Devil (Arabic: شَيْطَان, romanized: šayṭān), who was now bitter and seeking revenge, deceived Adam and Ḥawwāʾ by lying, claiming that the tree promised immortality and "a kingdom that never decays" However, you cannot just add a quote and then add a tag that this quote lacks verification: "^{[This quote needs a citation]}". You offered a source for the following claim: "With these words, he successfully misguided them.[Baeq, Daniel Shinjong. "Intertextuality of Adamic Narratives in the Qur’ān and the Bible." Prophets in the Qur'ān and the Bible (2022): 39.]" Is your previous quote not cited in this source? If it is, copy the text and you have your quote verified. I would recommend to keep this in the Quran section, after the issue has been fixed.

Sources such as Sunnah.com are great, for personal research. Using the texts of a belief-system doesn't work on a tertiary source such as Wikipedia, because they can easily be abused. A reason why someone might prefer the pimary source (the text examined) is quite obvious: When the Quran, the hadith, the Bible, etc. says something, it is hard to argue that it is wrong. If a secondary source is at odds with the primary source, when the scholar publishing their work probably made a mistake. In that sense, a secondary source can indeed be "countered" by a primary source on the talkpage. You can read about such cases here WP:WSAW. However, the secondary source does more than just "stating facts". The secondary material establishes notablity and ensures the material has been interpreted correctly. Secondary sources are (usually) published by experts in a field who first studied that subject over years or even decades and furthermore dedicated large portions of their life to research afterthat. Furthermore, these sources are (mostly) peer-reviewed (WP:SOURCETYPES) which means that at least one other independent expert on that field checked the paper for accuracy. Next, these papers are published under the name of the researcher, and if they don't want their research to be all for nothing, they do good at keeping up quality. So, it is in their self-itnerest to be as accurate as possible. Maybe, I can illustrate the reason why we want a professional evaluation of sources more than the laymen:

Imagine, let's take a classic social media example, there is a hardcore evangeical Christian who also happens to be an Islamophobe. He quotes the Quran saying "kill the infidels where-ever you find them!" and then adds "infedels are the ones who say God has a son!" and then concludes "Muslims want to kill all Christians!". It is out of context, lacking any nuances, and clearly not how Muslims read their holy scriptures. However, technically speaking, the bigot is right! On the other hand, an apologetic might underestimate the violance these verses may have caused in the past. Thats why it is important to have an unbiased authority on the meaning of the text. Both laymen, as well as theologicans, do not qualify as such, because they have a bias to their own idea what the holy sources mean. An academic researcher is much better. They still do mistakes, they are human afterall, but they are the best we can possibly get.

Next, the notability needs to be established. Imagine, someone who constantly adds the least important parts of a religious belief system, just because they mean soemthing to them. This is a reoccuring revert-reason on trivia (MOS:TRIVIA).

There are also some more minor mistakes done in the edit, for example, removing that Hawwa is unnamed in the Quran. It is the exegesis that adds the name, and hardly any Muslim disputes that her name is Hawwa. However, it is still notable that the name does not appear as such in the Quran (according to the source). May it be for historical and sociological reasons. It is probably not a theological one, as in the religious writings, she is almost ever named.

Another part is regarding Iblis. I see that "from among the angels", might be a better phrasing, as it is more inclusive for the various interpretations. However, it is one interpretation. In others, the term "kana" from "kana min'al-jinni" is understood as "became". These Muslim scholars who believed that say that the term "kana" means somewhere else "becomes" as well (I do not remember the exact verse, I had to check it. If you want me to check it, I would do it upon request, though.) Others again say that it is a nisbah (referring to heaven) and yet others again say that "angels are also jinn" (not my claim, I just report what many notable Muslim scholars, including Tabari, have said). Here, we might observe how differently religious texts may be interpreted, even then the sacred scripture seems to be clear at first. If you are interested in the various explanations of Iblis, I dedicated years at optimizing the article, and did my best to include the different opinions. It was a long and complicated journey since Muslim scholars have so many different, and sometimes, contradictional opinions among each other. I still ahven't brought it to Good Article Status. Maybe in the future if God wills.

Sorry for the long wall of text, I wanted to address as many possible uncertainties as possible and I hope I could be an assistant. Do not feel don for the revert, they are actually less dramatic as they appear to be witht he red message and the yellow alarming text. Your edit isn't lost either. Up to 50 edits can easily be restored, and older versions viewed. The good parts can be viewed in the history section (for whatever reason, my browser cannot properly link differences) and even be viewed in your browser. You can copy&paste the good parts and work for the others on your private sandbox until the addressed issues are fixed. :)

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Firstly, thank you for your response! No problem, I always try to resolve things in a courteous manner, as I don't see the use of reverting the edit without knowing why it was deleted in the first place. You also seem to be experienced so I'm sure there was a good reason for your doing so.

Thank you for the positive feedback! I'm glad you liked some of my changes, I believe they were important to add :)

Reading your response, I believe there may be a few misunderstandings!

Before I start that--I'd also like to acknowledge that I probably was a little harsh or opinionated on a few of the paragraphs. I try my best to fix these Wiki articles in a way that is Islamically accurate without being too subjective. However, I think I failed on that in a few of these aspects, and I put too much of my own opinion and was putting down others', which I apologize for! Islam is a huge religion and not everyone will have the same opinions or understandings of Hadiths or Quranic verses.

1) Unfortunately, since this huge edit was more of a spur-in-the-moment thing, I actually didn't add any of the scholarly sources (like the Judeo-Persian one) you mentioned. It was mostly things from my knowledge that I learned throughout the years since I myself am a pretty religious Muslim haha. Of course, I know that my account alone can't be a source, so I did my best with what I had which was really just the Qur'an and some Islamic websites.

2) The rearrangements were more of an organization thing, since I was trying to make everything in a chronological order. Also, since this was a big edit, I think the way I wrote things may have been confusing. I did copy certain things, delete them, then re-add them in a better place, so Wiki may have shown that I myself wrote those things. However, that's not accurate. About the part where I wrote a quotation, then added "^{[This quote needs a citation]}", that actually wasn't me. I added the "^{[This quote needs a citation]}" since that quotation wasn't something I could find anywhere online, but I didn't write that. I also didn't delete it because it wasn't something very contradictory or anything that goes directly against Islam/the Quran's narrative of Adam's story, but quotes need citations because we didn't know who's saying it (Not saying you disagree with that at all)!

3) Sorry, had no idea that Sunnah.com wasn't a good source! I was mainly just using it for the Hadith, because it's a very organized website that has many Hadith books from many different legendary Islamic scholars (like Bukhari, Abu Dawud, or Muslim) or commentaries of the Prophet's Companions. I just added it because I thought it would be a good addition, and I didn't delete anything by using it. The part that I cited, "Adam was created in God's image" isn't something that is in dire need of a source or citation, but do you have a recommendation for next time I need to cite a hadith in a different article?

4) I'm a little confused on the part about Hawwa. You mentioned that I was correct that she was never mentioned by name in the Qur'an, and she is only mentioned as "his [Adam's]/your (depending on the perspective) wife". This is because the Qur'an is very concise and minimal when it comes to naming people, locations, times, etc. Many notable people don't have names, even reoccurring figures, like Joseph's brothers in Surat Yusuf, or the People of the Cave in Surat Al-Kahf, just to name a few. However, like you said, many scholars have concluded her name is Hawwa because that was what the Jewish called her in their book, and Eve is also just the Romanized version of Hawwa. Am I wrong or right for deleting that she was never mentioned by name? Sorry for the confusion on my part.

5) This is the only part I am a little iffy(?) on. I understand the varying perspectives, and I am no scholar to try and definitively say what is right or wrong, and who should believe what. However, I do think it is a little misleading to just keep "among the angels", as it implies that Iblis was an angel. I mean, it clearly states in the Qur'an (which I had included in my edit) that Allah created Iblis from fire. Had he been an angel, he would have said "light". Additionally, this was before he was cast out of Heaven, meaning if someone argues that he was an angel and became a jinn, then that still wouldn't apply here--leading me to believe he was definitely not an angel at any point in time. I've seen the suggestions that there were a group of angels made from fire, but that is the opinion introduced by one scholar and not something agreed upon, even if he was highly respected.

Regarding your statement of 'kana': I have researched on those who say 'kana' means became, however there is one crucial detail missing with these arguments: In all of these verses they reference for this, yes, they do say 'kana', but there is a prefix of 'fa' right before it. 'Fa' is a slightly complex prefix that indicates that the word attached to it comes after the present tense. So, adding 'fa' with 'kana' turns into: "so/then he became", meaning he (whoever that may be) was not that thing in the past. For example, one debater used the verse in Surat Hud, talking about Noah's son saying 'kana' means became, but the 'fa' is right before it (just saying 'kana' would imply he is already that thing, but with the 'fa', it is saying he became that later on). This nullifies any argument of the singular word 'kana' meaning anything about the future. I'm trying my best to stay concise haha, but if you're interested in the full explanation, I'd love to tell you about it! :) I am an Arabic speaker and I find the language to be so beautiful and interesting. Also, if you don't mind looking for it, I'm curious about the verse you were mentioning!

Back on topic: Of course, there is no use debating linguistics in a Talk page, and I realize I can't change everyone's minds on that subject, and I'm certainly not an expert! But Arabic is (one of) my native language and I have studied it, so I would hope my input means at least something lol, even if it was just to discuss it with you.

However, like I said, I am aware of the many different views on this subject, so when I revise my edit I'll try to write it in a more objective/inclusive way (Although truthfully I am not sure how to do that, but I guess I'll get to it when I get to it, haha)!

Also, I checked out the article on Iblis. Great work! There are a lot of in-depth descriptions on the varying studies and analyses from different school of thought. There are some things I've never even heard of or seen before! I hope you're able to get it to a Good Article Status one day, Insha'Allah. I believe in you!

Whew!! This is a really extensive reply, I am equally sorry for the long wall of text--But I didn't mind it at all! I much preferred that than a one-or-two-sentence response from someone who obviously doesn't seem to care about the topic at all. I'm glad we could exchange meaningful words about this topic that is important to both of us :)!!

Just one last thing--I'm not going to rewrite my edit yet, (I'll probably do it when you respond to this, just so I can get a few more pieces of advice before I rework it) but when I do I'll probably revert the edit then delete/rewrite the issues, which might take a bit of time. Just wanted to let you know so you don't go onto the article and think I've changed my mind about asking for advice lol.

Once again, thanks for this! I'll admit I was a little disappointed when I saw my edits were reversed, but when I looked at your page I realized it's not something to be upset or take personal, it's just so Wikipedia can stay accurate and objective! I've only been on here for a year, so I'm still learning, and hopefully I can continue improving :) Kayennepepper (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]