Talk:Ramadan/Archive 1

To discuss the proposed split of this article, see the New Approach section.

Grammar issue...

"Muslims believe that the Qur'an started sent down to the earth during this month." is clearly not correct English and is confusing. Is this sentence saying that during this month, the Qur'an was sent to the earth (presumably by God, Allah)? Then why the word "started"? Someone knowledgable, please fix this.

Unclear: "...it is the ninth month of the Islamic (Hijri) calendar, established in the year 638." Does this mean that the Ramadan fast itself was estabished in this year or if that is when the Muslim calendar was established? Someone needs to revise the wording here for better clarity. (Did the fast exist prior to the founding of Islam?)

• edited to remove profanity

Front Page?

I think this article should be featured on the front page, since tomorrow is the first day of ramadan (SeanMcG 02:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

Kaffarra

I'm removing the section on kaffarra if no one will cite a source. A google search for (Kaffara Ramadan) which found some hits that had different penalties listed.--24.15.9.228 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Partial Response

Having sexual relations between sunset and sunrise are permissible. With regards to making the ghusl (compulsory bath after such relations), I'm not sure if it is necessary to have it done before fasting begins. However, one should do it before the time for Fajr is over, as prayer is not accepted until one performs the Ghusl.

I think you are mistaken. most Muslim sects (shi'a and sunni) do not allow any sexual contact between men and women during the day until magrib, regardless if you do ghusl or not. (SeanMcG 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

I believe you're both right (well, almost). The first poster is referring to between sunset and sunrise, during the nighttime. Sexual intercourse is permissible during the nighttime, but not up until sunrise. Fasting begins at dawn, the start of the fajr prayer time, not sunrise, the end of the fajr prayer time. It is not necessary to have ghusl before the start of fasting; one can even engage in sexual intercourse up until the start of the fajr prayer (and fasting) time, if desired. joturner 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ghusl is required prior to the start of fasting every day of Ramadan. Muslims may engage in sex during the night, but must perform ghusl before they start fasting the next morning. - Dunner99 24 September 2006

Oh it's desired. Believe me, it's desired! - Kumar

For Shi'a Muslims, ghusl is obligatory for fasting (in addition to prayer).Lestat 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Far North?

What do Muslims living north of the Arctic Circle do? Surely in places where the sun doesn't set for three or four months straight, they don't all travel south for Ramadan if it falls in the summertime? grendel|khan 03:30, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

They can follow time schedule of the nearest Muslim authority, e.g in Sweden, Canada, etc. DiN 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are the dates correct for the 2005 Ramadan?

The dates do not look right for 2005. However, I am not a Muslim so I do not know for sure. Could a Muslim (or someone who knows for sure) check on that and correct it if necessary?

---

Dates for Ramadan - starts around Oct. 4, 2005 AbdurRahman -- http://www.Hilalplaza.com

WTF is backbiting?

roughly the same as backstabbing, if I remember right. --TomaydoDemato 17:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Backbiting might refer to Marv Albert.

Haha, but no to whoever made the last comment. The comment before that isn't quite right either. Backbiting is basically talking bad things about someone behind their back. That's not what backstabbing means. joturner 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to angry/sarcastic retorts.

WikiProject Holidays

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Error in "Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan" ?

How come there are two days of "22nd" in Ramadan ? I assume it's an error. I don't know how to fix it as I don't understand the codes for the wikitable. Can someone fix it, please ? We need to get this fixed before Ramadan starts in 2 days. People may be searching for this page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 14:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramadan is about getting close to Allah, it is the 9th Islamic month. Muslims fast because to feel how poor people live. Muslims just eat before sunrise and after sunset. It is no harm for muslims to fast if they belive in Allah and his messenger.

fasting & water

I am curious about whether drinking water is permissible during the fasting period. If so, is there a restriction on the amount of water that can be drunk during this time? Thank you.

Drinking even a single drop of water (or any other thing) is not permissible during fasting.--Khalid! 17:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you really need it. The Sick, elderly and infirm etc can go ahead, likewise children and ladies during that time. Aside from that it's a pure fast - No eating; No Drinking. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Unless you really need it" is not entirely correct. If the sick, elderly, or infirm do eat or drink even a drop of water, it still breaks their fast. It's just not a sin, since there's a valid reason. As now stated in the main article, they are required to make up for each day missed or feed a needy person for each day missed. joturner 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

the sick and elderly are not required to fast anyway, therefore, water consuption is ok. Same for travellers. Jackpot Den 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Timing and Moon Sighting controversy

This page has been getting a some reverts concerning whether a moon sighting is required for Muslims to consider the month to have begun. I understand that some Muslims feel it is necessary, but I would like to cite (pun intended) a couple of sources which show that not all Muslims are in accord. Consider: communities in Daytona [1], El Paso [2] and even in Qatar [3] celebrated on the 4th, although the new moon was not sighted until the 5th. On the other hand, some communities in South Asia [4] waited as long as until the 6th for a moon sighting (although politics was partly involved in this case).

It certainly is true that some places didn't rely on a physical sighting, but that doesn't make it right. However, starting a day early is not as bad as starting a day late. But, Ramadan officially starts for a locality when it sees the new moon, regardless of whether it really did occur the day before. If we were to rely on calculations to determine when a month started, the whole purpose of having a simple, universalized lunar calendar would be defeated. The hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) states "Fast when you see [the new moon] and break your fast when you see it." In addition, when Muhammad's son Ibrahim died under a solar eclipse (27-Jan-632 CE), it was noted that two days later (29-Jan-632 CE) would be the first of the following month. Given solar eclipses can only occur on the day of a new moon, that would provide evidence that new months only begin when the new, waxing crescent is physically sighted. joturner 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Some1 keeps deleting "disputed, see below". The reason i wrote in the 1st place was that it is disputed, almost half of the muslims dont even accept 4th Oct as the 1st day of ramadan. Im adding it again.--Khalid! 14:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the North American mosques that started on 4-October either, but the point is that the previous sentence says that those days are "estimated" and therefore it is implied that the dates are not exact. As for whether to put 4-October or 5-October, 4-October is more appropriate because there was indeed a new moon the night of 3-October. Although the calculated time of the new moon is irrelevant in deciding the first day of Ramadan, because some places, including Saudi Arabia, started Ramadan on 4-October and because a new moon did occur the night before, we should leave the disputed comment next to 4-October out and let the word 'estimated' speak for itself. I removed the word 'disputed', but comprimised with a general statement about disputes involving the start date of Ramadan. Instead of singling out 2005, it would probably be better to mention why disputes about the start of the month occur. joturner 16:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

: Regardless of the religious debate, Ramadan was celebrated as if it began on the 4th for many people who could not have seen the new moon. As an encyclopedia, I think it is important that we recognize the fact that both interpretations are actual definitions of the start of Ramadan for many people. I think that there should maybe be a sub-sub-section to the timing section which explains this, mentioning both the relevent hadith(s) and how things are done in different communities. I think, saying disputed, however, is unnecessary, as this is likely to re-occur often somewhere, and saying that the dates given are astronomical estimates should be sufficient. Smmurphy 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Calendar Table

I just deleted the "calendar" on the Ramadan page. Since I know some people are going to wonder why, I'll explain. The table looked like this:

Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan
01.	02.	03.	04.	05.	06.	07.
08.	09.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.
15.	16.	17.	18.	19.	20.	21.
22.	23.	24.	25.	26.	27.	28.
29.	30.	Last Month		Next Month

In case you don't realize, this table provides very little information. It simply shows the integers from one to thirty in a table with seven columns; there is no correspondence between column and day of the week. "Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan" is an unnecessary descriptor. A title similar to "The Month of Ramadan" would have sufficed. And even then, that would have been redundant considering the article is entitled Ramadan. So "Calendar" would have been even better.

There are four links in the table. One is for 21 Ramadan, which actually has no significance in Islam. The second link is for Laylat al-Qadr, which is linked to in the first paragraph and several other places. In addition, by created a link from '27' to Laylat al-Qadr, it is implied that that is the definite date of that event. As explained in the first paragraph of the article (and in the Laylat al-Qadr article), that date is not fixed or certain. The remaining two links go to the next and previous month of the calendar. Those too are unnecessary considering there is a separate, more informative table later in the document that shows all twelve months of the Islamic calendar.

So, if anyone has a reason to put back the "Islamic Calendar" table, please post here. If someone could concur with me that would also be great. The table that used to be on the Ramadan page certainly had some potential, but as it was, it had no information to bring to the table. joturner 20:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the Muslim templates are pretty mediocre in general, and either do not give much information or are unsightly (or both). OTOH, it may be nice to include links to holidays and months together in one template (ie merge muslimholidays and muslim months templates) so that you quickly can see which days of the month are special enough to merit an article when you are in that month's page, and similar information when you are at a holiday. Smmurphy 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Ramadan or Ramadhan"

Ramadhan ... "dh" is ordinarily transliteration for the letter ذ, not ض, no?

The month is more commonly known as "Ramadan" in English, and that is why it is so named. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Err, I think the question is about whether the alternate spelling offered meets transliteration norms, i.e., "dh" is usually used to represent a letter which sounds like "th" in the word "the," also sometimes transliterated as a "z," hence the spelling "Ramadhan" -- with a "dh" transliteration rather than a "d" -- being the root of the frequency of use of the spelling/pronunciation "Ramazan." Or, "are we shooting for accuracy or just common usage." Unless, of course, I have that all backwards.  ;) --M. Landers 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). The strict transliteration should be used here. A local, colloquial pronunciation should never be used as a standard, particularly for sandard (fuṣ'ḥá) Arabic expressions. The translieration used here is even incorrect for its pronunciation in this dialect of Arabic (a more appropriate transliteration being Ramaẓān). The strict transliteration, which should be used in this case is Ramaḍān . Madeinsane 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Prohibitions

Masturbation is not permitted between dawn and dusk. I thought it was haraam period, and is never actually permitted. Yes? Marskell 13:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the masturbation reference upon consideration. It seemed to equate it with eating, drinking and sexual intercourse in general--i.e., acceptable when not fasting, only not acceptable when fasting. Marskell 00:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to have sexuality in Islam reflect that. --Striver 12:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The sexuality page says disliked but not haraam. I've seen other sources with the opposite: [5]. I think the trouble is the Qur'an never explicitly mentions it, and the idea that it is haraam is inferred from general comments on keeping oneself chaste. Now (while admitting no special expertise whatsoever) I understand that inferences of this sort are discouraged and thus some scholars could be led to conclude masturbation is neither lawful nor unlawful. The following line I thought interesting: the lesser evil is to be suffered in order to fend off the major one, i.e., if it's a choice between masturbation and adultery the former is allowed [6]. I'll think over it some more and perhaps others have comments. Marskell 12:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Two in one

This article is in essence two articles in one, the month of Ramadan and its practices, and a article about Islamic fasting. This is not correct. In the same way as Laylat al-Qadr has its own article, so needs Islamic fasting/Sawm have its own article. A muslim is prescribed to fast during several other events such as breaking an oath or certain dates. Im going to fix that. --Striver 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So, done. I have not deleted any material, only re-organized and moved. Hope nobody objects. --Striver 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... The fasting section takes a unproportional big space in a article about a Islamic Month. I will set upp a separate article for it Islamic Fasting on the Islamic month of Ramadan, in the same way that we have Night of Destiny, Eid ul-Fitr and tarawih, all three only related to the month of Ramadan. --Striver 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I object, strongly, and have reverted the page to the pre-Striver version. Striver, you can't just post on the talk page, say "Any objections?", wait five minutes, and then proceed to a major reorganization. Zora 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the objection, the strong one? I hope you didnt revert just out of spite. --Striver 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No answer? So, you reverted for fun? Good job!--Striver 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fourth atempt of geting a argument from your side... im talkin, but not you... --Striver 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Gorramit, Striver, not everyone can spend ten hours a day on Wikipedia. You have to wait several DAYS before assuming that someone is not going to reply to you. You have a tendency to post something and if you don't get an answer immediately, assume that no one cares and you can go ahead. NO YOU CAN'T. SLOW DOWN.

The article on Ramadan seems to be somewhat compressed and confused, but your edits did not help. Ask someone who can write to work on the article, don't just blow it to smithereens. Zora 05:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you said that the previous version was no good? Ok, we agree on that.

But you have still not given any motivation for opposing my version. If you have a problem, then raise it so we can understand eachother, dont give sweeping condemnations.

Wikipedia is not a byrocracy, and you are not a wiki byrocrat, if you have a genuine complaint, i invite you to air it. --Striver 14:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an undue imposition on readers to expect them to go to your "Islamic fasting" article to find out about Ramadan. When Muslims refer to Ramadan, they aren't refering to the month per se, they are referring to the whole cycle of fasting and festivities. So you get websites that say things like, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." That is, they conflate the month and the event. Yes, there's a logical difference, but the two things should be treated together. So you start with a section saying that "Ramadan is one of the months of the Islamic lunar calendar" and then you say, "All during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day and feast at night ... etc. This special month-long fast is also called Ramadan". THEN you have a note saying that Ramadan is not the only occasion on which Muslims fast, just the main one ... and then you have the link to the Sawm article. That article can then have a more minute treatment of fasting, and a list of the special days and occasions upon which fasts are observed.

To get shapely articles, you are going to have to WRITE something. You can't just cut the Ramadan article up into chunks and spread it around. If you can't write -- which you can't, and you know it, Striver -- then you should leave the article alone and just put up your observations on the talk page, or ask another editor to help. Zora 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a long answer! I appreciate it, since now i can respond to your objections.

It is an undue imposition on readers to expect them to go to your "Islamic fasting" article to find out about Ramadan.

No its not. Its one click away. And they will get educated when learning the distinction between the two things.

When Muslims refer to Ramadan, they aren't refering to the month per se, they are referring to the whole cycle of fasting and festivities.

Yes, as you said: "whole cycle of fasting and festivities". They refer to the month and what it contains. You are repeating a missunderstanding that i try to enlight.

So you get websites that say things like, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." That is, they conflate the month and the event.

No Zora, first of all, web sites are not "scholarly", to use your favorite word when i bring forth web sites.

Secondly, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." does say nothing more than one should "be very careful" when "observing (the month of) Ramadan" that includs "the whole cycle of fasting and festivities" and activities. There is nothing in your quote that implies that it referes to only the fasting bit of the month and not to other things like the Night of Destiniy.

Thrid, they do not conflate the month and the event. As you said yourself, there is no single event, there are multiple events.

Fourth: Now that we are quoting websites, lets see. I made a google search on "Ramadan" and got this page as #1: [7]. It starts by saying:

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan.

You see it? The article clearly distincts between "Ramadan" and "the Fast of Ramadan" That is exaclty what i have done, i have created Islamic fasting during Ramadan, which is going to explain what the site i quoted referes to as "the Fast of Ramadan". That article is from a Muslim pov, so i added "Islamic fasting during Ramadan" to disambiguite between random fasting and Islamic fasting.

Yes, there's a logical difference, but the two things should be treated together.

Christmass is alway in december, but you dont explain it on the december article. They should not be treated together. See december to understand how a month is supposed to be treated.

So you start with a section saying that "Ramadan is one of the months of the Islamic lunar calendar" and then you say, "All during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day and feast at night ... etc. This special month-long fast is also called Ramadan".

Give me a source for that. That is false, as far as i know.

THEN you have a note saying that Ramadan is not the only occasion on which Muslims fast, just the main one ... and then you have the link to the Sawm article. That article can then have a more minute treatment of fasting, and a list of the special days and occasions upon which fasts are observed.

That would be like having the december article go "December is used to prepare for the "Christman holiday", This special preparation is aslo called December. Christians have other holidays, but this one is the main holiday".

To get shapely articles, you are going to have to WRITE something. You can't just cut the Ramadan article up into chunks and spread it around. If you can't write -- which you can't, and you know it, Striver -- then you should leave the article alone and just put up your observations on the talk page, or ask another editor to help. Zora 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, see December. "spread it around" is exaclty what you do. --Striver 23:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article did need to be split up, but you clearly have overdone it Striver. If I knew nothing about Ramadan (this is hypothetical of course), I would think Ramadan was just an ordinary month in the Islamic calendar. Clearly, it is far from ordinary. Although, as you have, Ramadan and fasting are not one and the same, they are very closely related. Would you suggest Striver simplifying the Mardi Gras article into one that simply states it's a celebratory day that happens the day before Ash Wednesday? Would you suggest cutting down the United States of America article in one that simply states its location, but links to pages about it's history, politics, etc? Clearly, both those propositions would be absurd. The reader should not have to go to a seperate page to learn about Islamic fasting. Despite not being synonymous, most people come to the Ramadan page not to learn where it occurs in the year but to learn about the Islamic practices during the month.

The article right now is inconsistent on provided that information. You have an section that explains the "chaining of the devils" concept. I'm sorry, but as important as that info may be (and it is), as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be providing information the readers are looking for. Again I'll reiterate; that's information about Islamic fasting during Ramadan. Christmas and December are not nearly as closely related as Ramadan and fasting. Mentioning Christmas on December 25 would be appropriate (as it is already). However, it is not explained extensively on that page because it is highly unlikely someone looking to learn about Christmas will look at the December 25 article; they will instead search for Christmas, a name known to nearly every person on the planet regardless of whether he or she celebrates it. Sawm is not as familiar a name. And so, if a good number agree, the Islamic fasting article should be merged with the Ramadan article. The statement about the distinction between Ramadan and sawm should be left, but it would be a crime to talk about Ramadan without mentioning it's most prevalent feature - the fasting. joturner 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer

You might be right in me cutting to much, but im glad you agree that there was to much there to begin with.

Lets examine your december 25 article. It, among lots of things, says:

The Christmas holiday is celebrated on this day. It is a national holiday in many countries including the United States, Canada, most European Nations, New Zealand and Australia. It celebrates the nativity of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, as well as secular aspects which include the decoration of Christmas trees, and the exchanging of gifts. It is celebrated by many non-Christians (including atheists) that celebrate the holiday focusing only on secular aspects.

That is all it says about "The Christmas holiday". compare it to the actual article, it contains the following sections.

   * 1 The origins of Christmas
   * 2 The Christian story of Christmas
   * 3 Dates of celebration
   * 4 Customs and celebrations
         o 4.1 Secular customs
               + 4.1.1 Santa Claus and other bringers of gifts
               + 4.1.2 Timing of gifts
               + 4.1.3 Christmas cards
               + 4.1.4 Decorations
               + 4.1.5 Social aspects and entertainment
         o 4.2 Religious customs and celebrations
         o 4.3 Regional customs and celebrations
   * 5 Christmas in the arts and media
   * 6 Economics of Christmas
   * 7 Social impact of Christmas
   * 8 Theories regarding the origin of the date of Christmas
   * 9 See also
   * 10 Notes
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links

There is no way of merging that into "december 25", and in the same way, Islamic Fasting of Ramdan is not supposed to be merged into "Ramadan". But giving a little more information, like saying that the entire month is coloured by its practises and the like is justified. Ill give it a shot, feel free to copyedit me. --Striver 23:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: You said that the article is supposed to give the reader the information they are searching for. That is true, and it does that right now, by informing a link to the inforamation. A encyclopedia is also supposed to be accurate and educating. Having all information about the "Islamic Fasting of Ramadan" in the "Ramadan" article is nether accurate nor educating, in the contrary, it adds to the missconception about them being the same thing. No information is witheld, all its provided in its appropriate article.

A searcher might type "hitler" when searching information about the "Nazi party", that does not mean that the articles should be merged, only that the "Nazi party" article should be prominently linkt to in the "Hitler" article. --Striver 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested merging the December 25 and Christmas article. Like I said before, it is highly unlikely someone will go to the December 25 article when looking for Christmas. But is very likely someone looking for info about the fasting during Ramadan will look in the Ramadan article. There is a great amount of information on the Nazi party in the Hitler article and a great amount of information about Hitler in the Nazi Party article. Again, I agree that Ramadan and sawm are different, but a comment denoting the difference should be sufficient.

As a perfect example, take a look at the Big Ben article. Big Ben is not the name of the tower, but the name of the bell that resides in the tower. However, the Big Ben article discusses in great detail the clock tower (which it is not), but points out the difference between the bell and the tower, named St. Stephen's Tower. In fact, if you search for St. Stephen's Tower, you won't find a separate article. Instead, you will be redirected to the Big Ben article. This does not fuel misconceptions as it is stated several times at the beginning that Big Ben is the bell. It still continues to discuss the tower as that is what most "Big Ben" searchers are interested in learning about.

I'll see how your edits affect things and what everyone else thinks. I won't make the change on my own although it seems necessary to me. joturner 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You do have a good point with the Big Ben article.

I would also like to remind you that there are three different articles we are talking about, not two: Islamic fasting, Islamic fasting of Ramadan, and Ramadan.

I belive that merging the two latter is incorrect by it self but also that it dominates the article, giving to little atention to other aspects of the month. The Ramdan article should clerly give the impresion of representing a month, a regular one for Non-Muslims, and not include a Muslim practice in a regular month.

You will not find any article about a date or period in the Christian Julian Calendar being dominated by a religious practice, and in the same way i argue that a period in the Islamic Hijri calendar should not be dominated by a religious practice. --Striver 15:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted section

I was encouraged to stress the relious nature of the Month for Muslims, so i did so. But someone else removed that as a "unnecessary generalization". [8]. I did my best of representing the Muslim view of the month in a prominent way, but it got deleted. I sugest someone else to represent that in a un-unnecessary un-generalizating way... --Striver 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed your unnecessary generalization. I was most referring to the statement that all Muslims fast during Ramadan. Even if I were to presume you meant that all Muslims in good shape fast during Ramadan, we all know this to be false. Some Muslims do not fast. Some don't pray or pay their zakat or believe performing hajj is a priority. That is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Whether you consider those who violate one of the pillars of Islam Muslims is another story. But a more appropriate way of stating that that without generalizing is saying "observant Muslims." About the "religious nature" of the month, in good faith, I will replace that statement. joturner 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Striver 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Laylat al-Qadr or Night of Destiny?

I believe Laylat al-Qadr should be the primary reference to the date as opposed to the Night of Destiny. Although this is an English version of Wikipedia, it would probably be more appropriate to refer to the holiday by its original Arabic name, much in the same way the Eid ul-Fitr, Cinco de Mayo, and Rosh Hashanah articles maintain their Arabic, Spanish, and Hebrew names, respectively. joturner 04:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. It's the usual academic practice to use the most common name, even if it's in a foreign language, and then add an English gloss. Zora 05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says that of the odd-nights of Ramadan, the 23rd is the most likely to be Laylat al-Qadr. I was always taught that the 27th night was the most probable. At my local mosque, the 27th night always attracts the most people for prayer and this is ussually when the Hafiz seeks to finish reciting the entire Qur'an. I'd like someone to confirm this before I change it.

Merge Completed

I know, Striver, you're not going to be very happy. However, you were the only objector (although there apparently have only been three votes). I take back the statement that the original Ramadan article (from 6-Dec) was too long after seeing how much long the merged article is. The only section that could possibly be cut down is the one that titled "Prohibitions during the fast". However, since the info that would be cut out would not be very substantial, I just left it in. joturner 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

joturner, there is not a single date article in the entire wikipedia that uses over half of its space to explain a religous practice. It is not correct to do so in this date article. --Striver 03:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I have tried to explain the rationale for making the change, but you just don't seem to understand. So let me be a little more assertive. When you changed the page from the 6-December version, here is what you said:

This article is in essence two articles in one, the month of Ramadan and its practices, and a article about Islamic fasting. This is not correct. In the same way as Laylat al-Qadr has its own article, so needs Islamic fasting/Sawm have its own article. A muslim is prescribed to fast during several other events such as breaking an oath or certain dates. Im going to fix that. --Striver 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So, done. I have not deleted any material, only re-organized and moved. Hope nobody objects. --Striver 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said what you were going to do and then 59 minutes later completed it. As Zora explained, you can't just suddenly make a major change like that without consulting other editors. You have gotten only two replies to that and both have been objections. On the other hand, I put up the merge proposal several days ago. Although I never got anyone in support of the merge, I never got anyone against it. And so, as a result, I went on the basis that there has only been one person in the history of this article that has complained about the layout of this article, you. You alone cannot decide that major change. As a result, I am going to revert the page back to my version, which is essentially the version it has been for a very long time and then post a message referencing the proposed split. joturner 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As an attachment to my last reply and in reply to your statement, you are wrong. There are articles where over half its space it devoted to explaining a practice. See Cinco de Mayo. See Fourth of July. For both of those, the entire article is devoted to the holiday, not to the calendar date. That is because they are the holidays. It's understandable that January 1 doesn't spend half the article talking about New Year's Day; no one says "Happy January 1". However people say "Happy Cinco de Mayo" and "Happy Fourth of July" as those are the nicknames for those holidays. Likewise, people say "Ramadan Mubarak" because Ramadan is the holiday, a month-long holiday (also know as a holy month). joturner 18:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You just proved me right. See:

• May 5 - Cinco de Mayo
• July 4 - Independence Day (United States) - Fourth of July
• Ramadan - Islamic fasting during Ramadan

--Striver 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just confused as to how you can't possibly see the difference between Ramadan and just any other month or date. Ramadan is a holiday. Like I tried to explain with Cinco de Mayo and the Fourth of July, it is possible for a holiday to share a name with a calendar month or calendar date. Either way, I am happy you have not changed the article. We shall see who everyone agrees with. I just wish someone else would provide some input on the matter. joturner 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I do understand that "it is possible for a holiday to share a name with a calendar month", you need to understand that that does not justifie merging the holiday into the calendar date!

Look:

1. DATE: May 5
2. Holiday:Cinco de Mayo

See? They are not merged, even while "Cinco de Mayo" means literaly "May 5", they are given different articles. You understand me now? Same name, different articles fot the "date" and "holiday".

Again:

1. DATE: July 4
2. Holiday:Fourth of July

Exactly the same name AND date, but still different articles. See the patern?

Now, just follow the patern:

1. DATE: Ramadan
2. Holiday: Islamic fasting during Ramadan

Or is that not logical? Peace! --Striver 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramdan is not first and foremost a holiday, it existed long before it became "holy", further, Arabic Jews and Christians see nothing holy about it. The holy part of it deserves its own article. --Striver 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Islamic fasting during Ramadan" is not the name of a holiday; Ramadan is. However, I see your point. Instead, what I think needs to be done here is that Ramadan be split into Ramadan (month) and Ramadan (holiday). It seems unnecessary to me, but doable. joturner 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Brother, Muslims do not call the holiday for "Ramadan". See, make a google search, you ´will find this:

Ramadan (A) is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe (B) the Fast of Ramadan. Lasting for the entire month

http://www.holidays.net/ramadan/

Ramadan is (A) the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. Islam uses a lunar calendar—that is...

For more than a billion Muslims around the world—including some 8 million in North America—Ramadan is a (B) "month of blessing" marked by prayer, fasting, and charity. This...

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/ramadan1.html

You see? Ther is a clear distinction between the month and the activity. Ill repeat the first link:

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan.

See? Fast of Ramadan, with capital "F". Now, compare "Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan" and "Islamic fasting during Ramadan". --Striver 02:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Islamic fasting of Ramadan? --Striver 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I may have to concede defeat on this one. But the Big Ben precedent contradicts any reason to split this article. If we were to make a change, how about Fast of Ramadan as is mentioned in one of the articles you cited? joturner 02:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Big Ben and the tower is not about a holiday and a date. I could live with Fast of Ramadan, but i do like to disambig to "Islamic fasting", since "Fasting" can mean anything from christian to jewish to "loosing fat" fasting. But i guess that the "of Ramadan" part of "Fasting of Ramadan" is a disambig of some sort.

Its up to you, i claim that "Islamic Fasting" is more accurate than "Fasting", "Islamic Fasting" includes no water and no sex, while "Fasting" does not. But i can live with that.--Striver 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add, however, that "Fast of Ramadan" is similar to "The Fireworks of Independence Day" and "The Dinner of Thanksgiving" (i.e. the practice followed by the holiday). Not good enough yet to split the article. I'd also like to add that two of those sources are the exact same and the third does not distinguish a holiday from the month itself; it simply describes it as a month of blessing. Compare that to Thanksgiving being a day of thanks and Patriot Day being a day of remembrance. So, I completely take back that last statement about me conceding defeat. I don't; those aren't compelling pieces of evidence saying that Ramadan is not a holiday. I'm still up for doing the Ramadan (month) and Ramadan (holiday) split as a comprimise. joturner 02:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

New approach

Forget what i wrote, i have thought some more... Thing is, you are accurate in saying that the name of the holiday month is "ramdan". If we keep that in mind, we get:

1. DATE: July 4
2. Holiday:Fourth of July

1. DATE: Ramadan (month)
2. Holiday:Ramadan (holiday)

Then in Ramadan (holiday), we need to describe the practices of Ramadan (holiday). As we know, there are several. If im not correct, only one of them is included in the Five Pillars of Islam, that being the practice of the Islamic fasting during Ramadan, that is not the same thing as Islamic Fasting, since it is has some additional rules, like being obligatory and all the issues concerned with that.

So, if we are supposed to be strict, we shuold create:

1. DATE: Ramadan (month)
2. Holiday:Ramadan (holiday)

and then creat articles for the practices in it like:

• Islamic fasting during Ramadan
• Chaining of the devils
• Laylat al-Qadr
• Tarawih
• Eid ul-Fitr

Note that only the first one of them is included in the Five pillars, the rest are not mandatory. So, the holiday in it self is not mandatory, but a practice in the holiday is mandatory.

So, in Ramadan (month) we only say that it is a Muslim holiday, and link to Ramadan (holiday). There we can link to all the other practices, and mention that of all the practises, its only "Islamic fasting during Ramadan" that is mandatory. We can mention that in both Ramadan (holiday) and Islamic fasting during Ramadan. How does that sound? --Striver 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. The Islamic fasting during Ramadan article would be unnecessary since it would be in Ramadan (month). Chaining of the devils during Ramadan does not need to be in a separate article since there isn't a whole lot that needs to be said about the subject. Laylat al-Qadr, Tarawih, and Eid ul-Fitr are already separate articles as they should be. If we were to make this change, I believe the article Ramadan should redirect to Ramadan (holiday) instead of Ramadan (month) since readers will most likely be looking for information about the holiday and because the holiday article will contain more information. Each of the two articles should contain a message at the top saying something along the lines of This article contains information about the holiday called Ramadan. For information about the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, see Ramadan (month). Or, as alternative, it could just go to a disambiguation page. Redirecting Ramadan to Ramadan (month) does not sound like a good idea because most articles on Wikipedia that link to Ramadan are linked to the Ramadan article because they are referencing the holiday.

Another thing I'd like to mention is the potential problem with the word holiday. Holiday equals holy day. As Ramadan is not a day, but a month, it really should be "holy month". Of course using the terms holy month and just month or even holy month and calendar month would be unnecessarily confusion. Therefore, I'm just bringing this up; hopefully readers won't adopt that classic meaning of holiday and understand the distinction that is trying to be made.

If that last paragraph didn't make much sense, just stick to the first paragraph. Some input from other editors would be desired as well as this is a very large decision to make. I hope everything works out in the end. Peace be upon you. joturner 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And peace be with you, brother in Islam and humanity!

I think i agree with most. Let Ramadan be a disambig, that directs to Ramadan (holiday) and Ramadan (month). The date relevant text will then be moved to the month article, while the events will in the holiday article. We can put in the first lines that we dont mean holy day, rather "holy period".

I would like to remind that the fasting holds a special distinction, being a part of the five pillars and the branches of religion, making it obligatory. ie, one could ignore the whole holiday issue and live in a cave, not bringing the mobile phone, but still do the Islamic fasting during Ramadan, while totaly ignoring the other events in Ramadan (holiday).

Then we also have the problem like the Islam template and the Five Pillars article. If we link them to Ramadan (holiday), it gives the impresion that whole holiday with everying in it is a part of the pillars, while its not. They should link to Islamic fasting during Ramadan and not Ramadan (holiday).

Since it does not take any extra effort from WP and i am a Inclusionist Eventualist, i support a Chaining of the devils during Ramadan, for consistancy, but i have no problem with not having that. --Striver 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Islam and Five Pillars templates link to the sawm article. That won't be affected by all this. The information from the Islamic fasting during Ramadan article could probably be split among the Ramadan (holiday) and sawm articles, with more emphasis towards putting that information in the sawm article. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the chaining of the devils page; it just seems like there isn't enough information on the current Ramadan page to constitute a new article. Maybe there will be in the future. joturner 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The disambig page actually does seem to like a workable idea. I'm at least willing to try it. Instead of Ramadan (holiday) how about Ramadan (religious observances)? I strongly protest against Islamic fasting during Ramadan. That would go under religious observances. If there's a separate article on Islamic fasting, I think it should redirect to Sawm, since I believe the Islamic conception of a "fast" is somewhat different from the usual English meaning of fast. I'm against using a non-English term when there's no necessity for it, but in this case I think it expresses a necessary distinction. There should probably also be some duplication of information between Ramadan and sawm, since sawm is the major part of Ramadan. It should have its separate article ONLY because some Muslims fast at times other than Ramadan. I also think we should wait a bit before making major moves, since not everyone is a wikiholic who spends six hours a day online. Give other editors a chance to weigh in. In fact, INVITE them to weigh in.

As a general observation, we shouldn't bud out new articles until there's a clear need, like a section that's growing so much that it unbalances the article. Setting up a new article that's just a stub, and my never be more than a stub, is pointless. Zora 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramadan (religious observances) may work better than Ramadan (holiday). I too agree that other editors should have some say before the change is made; that's why the split template, which begs for editor input, is on the article. I'm normally not on Wikipedia for hours and hours at time either, especially on weekdays. And so, I added a post to the Muslim Guild forum. If we don't get any additional posts by a certain time (maybe a few days or the end of the week), we should probably go ahead and make the change. To be honest, if we have three people that never agree on anything agreeing to make this move, it's improbable that this proposal will get tons of backlash. joturner 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

section break

I also agree that Ramadan (religious observances) is better. The only thing i do not agree on is to only have Ramadan (religious observances) and Sawm. I argue that there is a specific need for Islamic fasting during Ramadan.

Zora does not like "Islamic Fasting" and rather wants "Sawm". I dont, but that is not the issue. Ill agree on "Sawm" for the time being so we can focus on the issue. Ill rename Islamic fasting during Ramadan to Sawm of Ramadan. Now, to the Issue:

Ramadan (religious observances) - This article should contain a list of events that happen during the month of Ramadan, and talk about how it makes Muslims feel and other general social and religious implications of the entire religous observance. It should not try to elaborate on the details of each of the multiple obsercances.

Sawm - This article shuold be about the Islamic consept of Fasting, its rules and regulations by the Sharia. This is not one of the five pillars of Islam, it only explains how Islamic Fasting is distinct from fasting in all other religions and the history and phylospy of it. Then it can talk about all the different times Sawm can be used, one of with is the obligatory Sawm of Ramadan.

Sawm of Ramadan - This article should be about one of the five Pillars of Islam, explaing that it is Sawm during the Ramadan (month) and is a part of the Ramadan (religious observances). Then it can continue about the Qur'anic verses that say that Sawm is to be observed during Ramadan, Hadith that do the same, explain that it is obligatory to do Sawm during ramadan, for whom it is obligatory to do so, what hapens if one break tehh sawm of Ramadan and explain that it has consequeses, in contrary to voluntarly Sawm during any other time, reiterate whom are prohibited to do Sawm, tell who are not obligated to do Sawm, but may do so if they want and so on....

There are four distinct topics:

1. Ramadan (month) about a month
2. Ramadan (religious observances) about multiple religous observamces during a month
3. Sawm bout how Muslims fast and the different occations where they can do it
4. Sawm of Ramadan about one of the pillars of Islam, and its distict rules and regulations and history

--Striver 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The templates have always referred to the current sawm article; there's no need to add a sub-article of sawm and link to that. It is okay to combine two very closely related articles; the sawm article is not very long as it is. joturner 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is my very objection, to link a very important issue, so important that Sunnis belive it to be 1/5 of the pillars of Islam to a article that discusses Sawm in general. That is wrong in my view - Like linking the pillar about Hajj to the Kaaba article. It wount be done now, since both articles are evolved, but you get my point. I advocate consistancy, that the topic is relevant in it self and should not be put in a article about the general practice of fasting. Do we really need the article to be evolved to do the right thing?

what do you think about this:

1. Ramadan about a month
2. Islamic observances of Ramadan about multiple religous observamces during a month
3. Sawm bout how Muslims fast and the different occations where they can do it
4. Sawm of Ramadan about one of the pillars of Islam, and its distict rules and regulations and history

It is that way it will end being, since it is the correct way, but its hard to see it now since each article does not contain the information it should. I belive it is wrong to merge those distinct separate articles giving lack of information as argument. In my view, it would be like having a article about both "general december events" (Ramadan (religious observances)) and christmas (Sawm of Ramadan), only since there is not enough information to fill a article about each. Or like merging "politicians" (sawm) and "presidents" (Sawm of Ramadan) only since there is not enough information to fill a article about each.

peace! --Striver 07:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary to create multiple articles and levels. That's complication for the sake of complication. Make it as simple as we can and branch out only when necessary. Striver, you keep trying to organize Wikipedia as if it were a computer program, and it's NOT -- it's text, and readability trumps logic. Zora 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes Made

The changes mentioned on this talk page have been made. Feel free to edit the divided Ramadan articles; deciding what information should go in each article was very difficult. joturner 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Title

Is there a reason this article is titled "Ramadan (religious observances)" instead of "Ramadan". "Ramadan" redirects here. I am loathe to such titles in the absence of disambiguization. If this is because of the dividing of content, why isnt "Ramadan" a disambiguization page? Savidan 01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As this talk page chronicles, it was decided that the Ramadan page be split into two articles, one about the calendar month and one about the "holiday". Since most references to Ramadan refer to the "holiday", the Ramadan page was redirected to that page. joturner 01:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest making the page title Fast of Ramadan. It also needs to have Sawm of Ramadan merged in. Cuñado - Talk 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Badr

Karen Armstrong says that Muhammad received his verses on fasting shortly after the Battle of Badr, and that fasting was initially begun as a way of commemorating it. Can someone please confirm or refute? In either case, there should probably be a bit of expansion on the origins of Ramadan, i.e. what year did it start, under what circumstances were the Verses received, etc. Palm_Dogg 10:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Holidays

The word "holiday" came from "holy day" and a religious event and its associated festivities, e.g. feasts of saints, easter, christmas. I think Ramadan is not fundamentally different from such dates: it is a deeply religious event, but has celebratory festivities associated with it. --Sumple (Talk) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that English-speaking people understand "holidays" in that way any longer. For me, "holiday" just means no work, relaxation, fun, good food. There are many completely secular holidays.

I'm a Buddhist -- I'd regard Buddhist celebrations as "holidays" only if there's some aspect of no work, etc., associated with them.

I did put in some material re the common observances of Ramadan (feasts, shopping, movies ... perhaps should have added TV specials) and said that devout Muslims disapproved of turning a month of self-mortification into a month of jollity. Perhaps that should be moved up? Zora 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK in ordinary holidays, people don't work at all. In fasting month, except during Eid Ul-Fitr celebration (2 days), most moslem continue to work from 0900 AM to 0500 PM.Therefore I propose to change fasting month into "religious month", and not a month long holidays. The only holidays are 2 days of Eid Ul-Fitr celebration.

Some deletions

I have deleted some of the text from this article. It doesn't explain what Ramadan is before it goes comparing it to other religions. Reading some of the external links I don't think this article mentions that much of the Muslim viewpoint. In regard of its notablity: we can discuse it when the article gets up to standard. eeemess 14:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think that is an understatement. There appears excellent evidence that Ramadan was a pagan observance, taken over into Islam just as Easter and Christmas were adaptations by Christians. This whole article is very PC, but not very interesting scholarship. --djenner 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

rename

Lets rename this to Islamic observances of Ramadan, but keep Ramadan as a redirect to here. --Striver 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Roaming Article ...

I'm not sure why this article has moved, but I'd like to remind there are guidelines for naming articles. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?".. I bet it's not "Rash hasana". Equendil Talk 16:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's provided that "Rash hasana" even means something or is not trolling. Equendil Talk 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem "Rash Hashana" is a jewish holiday, haha, how very drôle. Requested move on Wikipedia:Requested moves since it needs an admin to be done properly. Equendil Talk 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. Whoever did this move did not give any rationale for doing so. Five months ago (s)he moved Salve Regina to Salve amicus for no reason either. I say watch out for new vandalism around late February. :) --SigPig 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• • This is definitely vandalism. 65.43.150.232 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Someone please move this page back from Rash hasana to Ramadan, and deal with the vandal who did it. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has been moved back by an admin, so all is settled. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article was renamed again--can we get it fixed? 66.16.75.24 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

Article wasn't renamed again. No idea what makes you think so. Equendil Talk 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Was definitely when I checked earlier--Rash hasana was what it said, and this was after all of the updates. However, it was fixed within a few minutes, so by the time you saw this I think it was reverted.66.16.75.24 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

Use of 'Allah'

Query as to whether this is the unecessary use of a non-English word?

• Argument 1: If 'Allah' translates directly to 'God' then the latter should be used for an English-language article; or
• Argument 2: That 'Allah' actually translates as 'the one and only God' or similar in which case the translation in parentheses at the top should be made clearer; or
• Argument 3: That 'Allah' is now so oft-used so as to be accepted as an English word, in which case there should be no translation at all.
  

Just a logical conundrum. Danlibbo 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction of Ridwan Ruslan

Really doesn't belong in this article does it? at least not where it is Danlibbo 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This does have relevance, but if you think that it shouldnt be included in "Ramadan" then we should create a new article. Do you agree?

yep - it was in 'practices of ramadan' but it's more about disagreements or controversies - anywho - new art sounds good

Ramadan Presentation...

I have added an external link to a powerpoint on Ramadan (Ramadan For Body and Soul) which I have found very useful. Please review it and see if you agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: the user refers to this link, which has not yet been added: Ramadan For Body and Soul -Patstuart 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No history?

Why do Muslims practice Ramadan? There's no history here anymore Danlibbo 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, there's nothing here about its (pagan) origins. Tuncrypt 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing of the beginning... and end of Ramadan

It seems there is some debate about when Ramadan begins and ends, as discussed in this article. It is easy to predict from astronomic data the cycle of the moon. The dating should be sourced better. Also, from astronomic data, it should be possible to predict the dates for Ramadan in future years-- it would be useful to present that data. 204.187.34.100 17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

six days of shawwal

I think someone mention something about the six days of shawwal, that happens after ramadan Bazel 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

3 parts

thre are 3 parts in ramadhan:http://www.netpakistani.com/articles/?9946068

So when is it??

Apart from a note saying when Ramadan was last year - this article doesn't say when it actually falls in the western calendar. If it's from roughly the last week to September till roughly the last week of October, then can someone confirm and add it in? raining girl 10:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I added it in, its on the ramadan month page. might not be entirely correct though, needs verification. Jackpot Den 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article does not say when Ramadan is in 2007. That's not very helpful. 69.85.176.69 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See the sub-article on Ramadan (calendar month). → AA ^(talk) — 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

the link to the external webpage giving a printable calendar includes some "sexy" links. perhaps another site might replace this Sciencegeekb6b3 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it since these are non-encyclopedic. → AA ^(talk) — 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Observing Ramadan in Space

What may sound an abstract issue has become reality: The muslim Muszaphar Shukor is on board the international space station ISS and Malaysian religious authorities have prepared guidelines for him. --80.171.9.125 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a hadith(saying by the prophet) that there was once a man who asked the prophet how they should know salat times in a place with shorter days and longer nights. The prophet replied "Go by normal days." So I belive that Muszaphar Shukor should use Malaysian times for his fasting. Starting a little before Fajir and ending on Magrib. --66.182.204.202 12:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Every Health benefit and Health concern needs to be from primary source such as medical journal based on true medical studies, trial and experiments or claims must be deleted

In medicine, we have to use primary source such as medical journal based on true medical studies, trials or experiments to make a health claim. If it is not backed by true medical studies, it should be deleted. Most of the medical benefit claims are from this Yahpp article: https://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/7-surprising-health-benefits-ramadan-151014439.html. This is not a reliable source. I could not find some of the studies this article talked about. Tarikur (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Signalling a link to an unreliable external website

The currently uppermost external link Ramadan Dates Till 2022 claims to give dates for the begin of Ramadan from 2013 up to 2022. However, from 2016 onwards the same dates Wednesday 10 June or Thursday 11 July are given which is obviously wrong. Both dates should be a day apart, not a whole month, and they should also fall 10 or 11 days earlier in each successive year. The dates for 2013 are also clearly wrong.

I flagged this error yesterday but this note was removed by someone who obviously did not bother to check the facts. As this link will confuse readers who are not familiar with the Islamic lunar calendar I would strongly recommend its deletion or least flag it as unreliable. AstroLynx (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

{{Backwardscopy |author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. |year = 2009

{{Backwardscopy |author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. |year = 2009

The currently uppermost external link Ramadan Dates Till 2022 claims to give dates for the begin of Ramadan from 2013 up to 2022. However, from 2016 onwards the same dates Wednesday 10 June or Thursday 11 July are given which is obviously wrong. Both dates should be a day apart, not a whole month, and they should also fall 10 or 11 days earlier in each successive year. The dates for 2013 are also clearly wrong.

I flagged this error yesterday but this note was removed by someone who obviously did not bother to check the facts. As this link will confuse readers who are not familiar with the Islamic lunar calendar I would strongly recommend its deletion or least flag it as unreliable. AstroLynx (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Origins

Debresser, you reverted an IP. However the information is not in the source cited. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it as an unexplained removal. I never said it was in that source. That source is for the sentence after that. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do see at least the first half of the sentence in this source: Rodney Stark. One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism.

I propose that the Origins section be removed. The section has had multiple issues including failed verification of sources, inappropriate sources for content, and

New pre-Islamic section lacks consensus

I strongly disagree with the changes made at [9]. The problems with the Origins section are under active discussion. Several editors have commented. Before we accept a change that an editor hopes correctly represents the suggestions and consensus on the talkpage, the change should be proposed on the talkpage, and other editors should be allowed time to accept or reject the proposal. The globaltimes.cn reference that now supports the added lead statement, "and is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief" is dead and it is not an authoritative citation. One authoritative reference (Chapter 2, Revelation 185, of the Quran) to establish the connection between fasting during Ramadan is in the Ramadan#In the Quran section. If this statement is to be retained, it belongs with its authoritative reference, not with a dead link to a fluff news story that observes Muslims worldwide start to observe Ramadan. Renaming the Origins section is premature because it disconnects the Origins discussion on the talkpage from the article before the problems with the Origins section are resolved. This revision should be removed. Mtd2006 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the editor who made these changes, I'd like to say the following.

1. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the sentence "and is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief" is incorrect. If the only objection is the source, please add a better one.
2. The "Origins" section was renamed "Pre-Islamic origins" because that is what the section is indeed about, since the Islamic origins are already specified in the lead. Moreover, the "problems with the Origins section" are not related to the section title, rather to the question whether we should have this section at all. That is another issue. If you have any objections to the present changed section title, please let me hear them. I think it was a good edit, and are surprised to hear you disagree. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The revision you made attempts to have it your way before the Origins discussion is complete. The revision distributes the problem in one section under discussion to the lead and to a renamed section. Moving the disputed statements around doesn't solve the problem, it only makes a bigger mess!

• I do object to the sentence you've moved to the lead and I've said so.
• Two editors want to remove the Origins section entirely. Renaming the section only shuffles the deck chairs, but does not address the issue, and you are right, problems with the Origins section are not related to the section title, rather to the question whether we should have this section at all, but equally importantly whether the contents of the Origins section should be removed in their entirety. Let's follow policy. As you've told another editor, this is not the way to do it. Quoting,

If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

Would prefer that I do a good faith revert, or will you allow that there's more work to be done. I strongly suggest that if you have specific suggestions, propose them on the talkpage, allow others to comment and when we have something that's agreeable, then revise the article. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am on the talkpage, and the issues were discussed extensively before my edit, and I still think my edit reflects consensus, even though after the fact you deny such. In any case, please do not try to make it look as though I suddenly made a disputable edit out of the blue.

Well, it is a good think you suddenly remember about WP:STATUSQUO. When I invoked WP:BRD, which is essentially the same idea, you started to edit war...

As to the claim that I disturbed the status quo: I think my edit did not change any status quo, since all it does is merge a sentence from one section into another, and an obvious rename of a section which you do not oppose at all apart from procedural objections.

You can't remove a section with a sourced statement just because you and another editor doubt it or don't like it. The source is reliable, and the statement is not contradicted by anything else in this article. Obviously, Islam will not bring pre-Islamic customs as such, from which you infer that the statement in case "contradicts" the rest of the article, as you put it. However, this "contradiction" is 1. only implied 2. to be expected and has therefore no value as proof for anything.

I'd like to ask you to stop hammering on my good-faith attempt to improve this article according to what I perceive as the consensus on this page, as though I am trying to own this article or to push through my opinion, because I can say the same about you, but that will not get us anywhere. Likewise please stop using peacock terms like claims that my edit made a "bigger mess". As a matter of fact, by removing a sentence from the Origins section, I brought us a step closer to emptying that section, which is after all your stated goal, so you should thank me for helping you. It would also be helpful if you'd write to the point, instead of discussing Wikipedia guidelines in general. It seems you are trying to fisguise the fact that you have no arguments, or no new arguments in any case. In short, please stop wasting ink on wikilawering. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Origins

Debresser, you reverted an IP. However the information is not in the source cited. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it as an unexplained removal. I never said it was in that source. That source is for the sentence after that. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do see at least the first half of the sentence in this source: Rodney Stark. One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism.

I propose that the Origins section be removed. The section has had multiple issues including failed verification of sources, inappropriate sources for content, and neutrality problems. At this point, the section has but two brief paragraphs.

• The first sentence says, "Ramadan is observed by Muslims to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief, and the fast rules were set to sunrise to sundown." The sentence is redundant with statements in previous section that are accurate, referenced and better worded. Ramadan is a month not a religious festival. What is observed during the month of Ramadan is the revelation of the Quran, that's adequately stated in In the Quran section.
• The next sentence is an observation about the evolution of the Islamic calendar. However, this "article is about religious observances during the month of Ramadan," not the calendar month. "In the pre-Islamic calendar, the name of the month was Nātiq, and prior to Islam's prohibition of nasi', it always occurred in the warm season," is off-topic and contributes nothing to explain the origin of the religious observances during the month of Ramadan. NB: This off-topic statement was not removed from the article, rather discussion was called for by any editors who may wish to retain it. If the tag for discussion is to be removed, discussion is called for and some level of consensus must be established before removing the tag or the disputed sentence.
• The statement relating Lent and Syrian churches," is imprecise and untrue on its surface. Ramadan, the month, does not come "from the strict Lenten discipline of the Syrian churches." Ramadan "comes" from the evolution of the Islamic calendar. Regardless of the reference, this statement as it stands has a fatal factual problem.

If the article is to have an Origins section, it must be on-topic, i.e., the evolution of and the rational behind the religious observances during the month of Ramadan, and from a neutral point-of-view. Mtd2006 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1. The statement that according to Islam the Quran was given in the month of Ramadan is indeed in the previous section, but the connection between that event and the fast is not.
2. The extra information about the calendar month gives some background, and I would not consider that off-topic.
3. The statement about lent is well sourced and can not be removed, however dubious you may think it is. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

re 1: True, the previous section does not mention fasting, but the entire article is about religious practices, including fasting, during the month of Ramadan. Fasting does not explain or help to understand the "origin" of the month Ramadan, nor does simply stating the fact, here in a section that's supposed to explain the origin of the topic of the article, help to understand why Ramadan is observed by fasting. The sentence merely restates what the article is about which is covered extensively. Yes, there is a source, from the Quran, that supports the statement. However, the article lead alone mentions fasting no less than six times. This single statement in an Origins section adds nothing that a reader would not have clearly understood from the very beginning of the article.

re 2: But why do you feel a remark about the Islamic calendar is relevant? It's not. Here's an example. In an article about Christmas, one could state that the month of December was the tenth month of the old Roman calendar, and let's assume there's a reliable source that says so. An irrelevant statement about the Roman calendar adds nothing to the understating of Christmas unless there's context to make it relevant. The reference is an annotated verse from the Quran. The reason that there's a statement about the Islamic calendar in the annotation is to clarify and improve the reader's understanding of the Quran. The calendar footnote is not about fasting, nor does it explain the reason for fasting. There's nothing in the Origins section paragraph, that relates to the Islamic calendar. The calendar remark adds no context other than what it is — a footnote to a annotated verse of the Quran. This article is not about a verse from the Quran, so there's no relevance to explaining the verse by repeating a footnote from the reference.

re 3: I did not tag the third statement as dubious; another editor did. I stated that the third statement is factually incorrect, despite the reference. We have here one sentence, supported by a single source, that asserts a cause-and-effect relationship between religious practices during Lent (a winter event) by Syrian churches, and the practice of fasting during Ramadan, during a summer month by Muslims. Therefore, yes, I agree with the other editor. The connection is dubious in the extreme. This is a another example of the problem of context. The reference may be accurately quoted when it says "from the strict Lenten discipline of the Syrian churches." But an editor wrote, "Ramadan comes 'from the strict Lenten discipline of the Syrian churches.'" Ramadan does not. Ramadan is a month. The statement makes no logical sense. Something about what the editor wrote (in a single sentence) is out of context. Mtd2006 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1. The article is about fasting, but the connection between the month and the fasting needs to be made explicit. By the way, for this same reason I think this sentence and its source should be moved to the lead.
2. You have convinced me. Not that I think it is not good to have it, but at least in so far as to not oppose its removal.
3. The source is good, and even though already 2 editors think it is dubious, that is precisely why there are policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, ruling that good sources can not be removed.

One of the reasons I am a bit more alert on this article, is because this article is constantly prone to attempts by Islamic people to add statements with a religious POV or, remove anything that goes against such religious POV. One of the aspects of this article that is under regular attack are alleged non-Islamic origins of the Ramadan, which, according to such POV editors would diminuate Islam. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the sentence about fasting during Ramadan: The Al Islam citation is an annotated verse from the Quran. The verse and its various translations were discussed about three years ago. The translation from the Al Islam web site reads:

The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed as a guidance for mankind with clear proofs of guidance and discrimination. Therefore, whosoever of you is at home in this month let him fast therein. But whoso is temporarily sick or on a journey, shall fast the same number of days.

In the Ramadan#In the Quran section, there is this quote from the Quran from the University of Southern California (USC), Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement web site:

The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days.

The sentence from the Origins section says, "Ramadan is observed by Muslims to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief, and the fast rules were set to sunrise to sundown." The sentence is supported either citation up to word "belief." Neither citation supports the statement "the fast rules were set to sunrise to sundown." I don't have a problem including the "fast rules" remark because it's commonly accepted as fact, but it's not in either citation.

Which is the better reference, Al Islam or USC? The Al Islam citation and the USC citation would seem to be alternative translations of the same verse of the Quran. Al Islam is academic in that it includes annotations that clarify the verse; however, it is non-secular, and moreover, especially considering note 207B, the Al Islam version is not balanced. It favors a strong, non-neutral point of view specific to Islam. The USC citation is academic, sectarian, and neutral about the religious significance of the verse. I suggest the USC citation is preferable.

What should be done with the sentence? To me, the translated verse says everything that's needed to establish that fasting during Ramadan is a Islamic religious practice. The sentence expands the reference, but adds a comment that neither reference supports. If the article is to retain the sentence, it belongs with the verse in the "In the Quran" section.

The citation in the "In the Quran" section should be converted from an in-line link to a proper citation to the University of Southern California, Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement web site. This adds credibility to the article by highlighting information from a secular academic source. I've looked briefly at the USC site. It's mission is "... to promote dialogue, understanding and grassroots, congregational and academic partnerships among the oldest and the newest of the Abrahamic faiths while generating a contemporary understanding in this understudied area and creating new tools for interfaith communities locally, nationally and beyond." It's supported by the Center for Religion and Civic Culture at the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. Mtd2006 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This [10] revision that moves a sentence to the lead and renames the Origins section does not resolve the problems we're discussing. See New pre-Islamic section lacks consensus below. Two editors agree to remove the section in its entirety. The revision should be removed until the Origins sections problems are fully discussed, which I will do unless someone objects. Mtd2006 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the Origins section and its contents

My remarks here apply to this discussion but also to the intertwined Ramadans Alleged Pagan Origins section which has wandered off-topic into wider problems that belong here.

I joined this discussion for one reason. I reviewed the Origins section and found serious problems with every statement relating to neutrality, fringe theory (undue weight and insufficient context), and relevance. Each simple statement supported by a single reference should ring alarm bells — especially when they contradict broadly supported scholarship in an article. I found Fauzan's remark, "I think that section should be removed," and I agreed. Fauzan convinced me that the Origins section has serious problems (not just the name, everything in it), and that it should be removed.

As I interpret Frazan's comments, he is focused on the overall disconnects between the topic of the article and the statements that have accumulated in the section. When he said a single sentence can convey undue weight, I tried to support him by citing fringe theory and the lack of proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints. The same rationale is the essence of the troublesome statements that have already been edited out of the section, sentence-by-sentence, reference-by-reference. The discussion has been spirited, but may have been less involved if we'd discussed Frazan's initial suggestion.

Other than my knowledge the Islamic calendar, and calendars in general, I know almost nothing about this topic. I must do significant outside research in order to contribute meaningfully (I suspect the same applies to others as well). It takes a while to understand the issues involved, so please allow time for contributors to come up to speed.

I will add this additional point as something I've noticed. The topics that have appeared in the Origins section seem be related in that they introduce issues normally connected to comparative religion. Comparative religion involves intricate theological, ethical, religious and philosophical scholarship that cannot be fully justified with a simple statement and a reference. There's a unreferenced sentence in the In the Quran section that summarizes the disconnect between various fasting traditions such as the origins mentioned in the Origins section.

According to the Quran, fasting was also obligatory for prior nations of Islamic prophets and it should be noted that even the pagans of Arabia used to observe fasting prior to Islamic tradition.

NB: I have a problem with that sentence as well, (I suspect that the pagans of Arabian continued to observe fasting even after Islamic tradition; they didn't suddenly stop), but one problem at a time. I'd like to settle the Origins issue before moving on to lead clutter (which is the basis of my objection to extending the lead), etc. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that sentence can not stay without a source. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ramadans Alleged Pagan Origins.

No source I've ever seen as a Religious Scholar say Ramadan was originally Pagan. This article had two citations that said it was, and one of them I own, and it doesn't say this at all. It doesn't even discuss Ramadan on its page. I doubt the veracity of the second link. This information needs not be removed unless it can be proven. Why is Wikipedia saying Ramadan was originally Pagan when there's no real evidence for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.206.208 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that section should be removed. The first and fourth paragraph fails to present a NPOV. A search for "pagan origins of Ramadan" returns blogs, forums and hate sites. The second paragraph is out of context. The third doesn't talk about the origins of the month. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The "originally a pagan festival" text and its references was added by NicklasBaran in Revision 615605426 on 4 July 2014 after the Origins section was added on 3 June 2014. I suggest NicklasBaran may help to resolve the confusion about the references he cited.
For a different perspective, there's a discussion of the problem with the claim about pagan origins at Quora: Origins of Ramadan. The discussion asserts that Ramadan is a month, not a festival, and that fasting during a sacred month is an ancient practice, not necessarily pagan in origin. It seems illogical to describe a calendar month as pagan.
I suggest that saying the custom of fasting is pagan in origin is debatable, and therefore stating that the month of Ramadan was "originally a pagan festival" requires powerful evidence. At best one might say that "the practice of fasting during Ramadan was of pagan origin," but that's much different than saying "Ramadan was originally a pagan festival...."
Without a clear reference that ties fasting during Ramadan to a pagan tradition somehow related to Islam, reverting to the 3 June 2014 Origins section or removing it entirely are the most defensible alternatives. Mtd2006 (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked the 2nd source and didn't find any positive claims about the origins of Ramadan. There is a brief discussion about the fasts of the Harranians (pp. 166-8), including a month-long fast. But during this fast "only meat is forbidden" (p.168, note 405). The source briefly notes that Ibn Hazm linked this fast with Ramadan, but it describes this claim as "completely wrong." (p.168, note 403) It is worth noting that Ibn Hazm connected the Sabians to Prophet Ibrahim, and spoke of them as praying 5 times a day and facing the Ka'aba, etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi55, could you please be more specific about what it said and not said in the source? I am referring to these edits of your.[11][12] Also, which source did you mean of the 3 mentioned in that edit (Aby Zaand, Ibn Qutaybah, Sinasi Gunduz)? Debresser (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant Sinasi Gunduz (1994), The Knowledge of Life. A preview of this book can be found on Amazon. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Search results are avaiable only for logged in users who have made a previous purchase. I did see that the claim is there, referenced to both Ibn Hazm and the other 2 that you removed. Even though the source disagrees, that does not mean those 3 don't have that point of view, and it is therefore sourced reliably now. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Hazm considered the Sabians as Hanifs (followers of Prophet Ibrahim), therefore his claim isn't about the pagan or secular origins of Ramadan. The other two names did not mention Ramadan at all. We can't cite random practices of ancient people unless the connection to Ramadan is more explicit in the source (see wp:synth). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the origin of Ramadan being linked to the lent, most online source only compare but not state the link of Ramadan with the lent. Also, the Day of Ashura is unrelated to Ramadan, so I guess both of the things should be removed. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 11:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

After considering this again, I agree with you regarding the Ashura and will restore your removal of that paragraph. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding lent. If you can show that other sources disagree with the present source, then you can remove it. If you want to add a {{Dubious}} tag to it, with some |reason= parameter, then that is also fine. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary to find other sources that disagree with the present source. The Lent assertion is a single sentence, which references a single source, that contradicts the rest of the entire article, the citations of the Quran, and other scholarly material cited in the article that states that Muslims are commanded to fast during Ramadan in remembrance of the revelation of the Quran. If a reader is to accept the Lent origin of fasting during Ramadan, there must be a significant number of reliable references to overcome the rest of the article. The lead of the Origins section cites one such Quran verse that states the reason for fasting during Ramadan. If there are sources that disagree, a single sentence and a single source are insufficient to justify an alternative origin. The cause-and-effect assertion that the origin of Muslim fasting during Ramadan is based on Syrian churches' observance of Lent is an extraordinary claim that requires copious explanation and multiple reliable sources. I agree with Fauzan, the sentence should be removed. -Mtd2006 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with the statement is that it provides undue weight to the theory. Unless we find more sources to back up the claim, it does not belong in the article. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Mtd2006, there is nothing in the rest of the article that says "Ramadan is not connected to Lent". Nobody denies the Quranic command, but also nobody denies that that command may have been based on earlier traditions.

Fauzan, a short sentence is hardly undue weight.

May I also remind everybody here that Wikipedia is not censored. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian churches' Lent observances versus Muslim religious practices during Ramadan is not about censoring offensive or objectionable material; that is a non-issue. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A statement which is presented as a significant view is undue weight. That complete section (as of now) has two paragraphs. The first one is a bit vague, whether the Mandaean community practiced the Islamic month or was it a pagan month. The date of 747 CE IMO implies it practiced the Islamic month. So no reason to present it as some kind of "origin". That leaves Philip Jenkins, on which the section relevance hangs on. Now this is serious undue weight. It is better to do away with the origin section completely, unless we can find more mainstream sources discussing the topic. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fauzan. The single-sentence assertion about Lent does give undue weight to the idea it advances. The statement about the Mandaean community is in the same category. The undue weight problem is explained in fringe theories which says:

Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. ...

Single sentences supported by a single reference should ring alarm bells when the sentence contradicts broadly supported scholarship in an article. Let's assume a reference is valid in that it supports the sentence. The single, brief sentence, however, does not adequately represent the viewpoint. The sentence by itself leaves too many unanswered questions about the validity of the viewpoint and does not present a neutral point of view. When a minority viewpoint is presented, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. Including the single vague sentence conveys undue weight because it is not supported by scholarship and does not provide the necessary context.

The Options section is a collection of fringe theories that do not provide the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints. Recently, the "pagan festivals" claim, the "Ashura-Ramadan" connection, and the sentence about the old pre-Islamic name of Ramadan have failed verification or relevance. In each case, minority viewpoints were asserted, but the viewpoints were without proper context, insufficiently developed, or the statement was contradicted by a supposedly good reference. A good reference is one that supports a statement. A perfectly valid reference that does not support a statement is a bad reference, not because it is not a valid reference, but because is improperly cited. I reassert my suggestion that the Origins section be removed. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See the section below for my opinion about all this, in as far as it is not general observations and theories, but specific to this article. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Pre-Islamic does not necessarily equate to "pagan". Egyptian religion is commonly called Egyptian religion. Mesopotamian religion is commonly called Mesopotamian religion. The use of "pagan", unless a group has a preference for the use of this term, I suspect either directly or indirectly involves its own, POV. If there is reasonable evidence of a topic such as Ramadan having a pre-Islamic origin then very certainly this is of note. We cannot allow any genuine history to be destroyed or undermined. GregKaye 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Name in the lede sentence

A single foreign language name is enough. The name comes from Arabic: رمضان‎ Ramaḍān. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Foreign_language: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. In our case Arabic name is enough. The Urdu, Persian, Turkish and Indonesian names use merely close phonetic variation of the same name anyway so I am removing them. Khestwol (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, stop restoring your edit until such time as you establish consensus.

I for one think that we should have all alternatives. The fact that they look more or less alike doesn't mean a thing, because they are still different. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is it with this article that every editor who is reverted thinks he needs to undo those reverts and start an edit war? Is this the new fashion or something? No respect for consensus any more in this time and age? Debresser (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason behind keeping all the names and cluttering up. All are more or less the same, and anyone interested in finding about it in other languages can do so by navigating to the respective language article. If it found necessary to include the names, then per WP:Alternative title, include it under a dedicated section. Still I find it trivial to include it in the lead. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it is only like Ramaḍān or Ramadan I agree, because those are at least the same letters in English (which is the language of this Wikipedia). But Ramazan and even more so Ramzān are already spelled with different letters, so should really be mentioned. Only two alternative forms is not considered "cluttering up" yet. If keeping those two forms would be acceptable to all, then that could be a reasonable compromise. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the simple English Wikipedia lists (only) Ramadhan as an alternative spelling, but for some reason that alternative is absent here. Anybody knows why? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The arabic letter "ض" has a particular correct pronunciation, best transliterated as "ḍ". It is heavy "du" sound made by touching the tongue to the molars. (See Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table.) However different cultures pronounce ض as "d", "z", sometimes "dh" and most commonly "ḍ". And then languages like Turkish and Indonesian use the Roman script, which does not have a substitute for "ض". That is the reason behind the different transliterations. My suggestion:

Ramadan (/ˌræməˈdɑːn/; Arabic: رمضان‎ Ramaḍān, IPA: [rɑmɑˈdˤɑːn]; also tanslteraed as Ramadhan, Ramzan and Ramzan) is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar

--Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 22:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make the edit, I'm perfectly happy with your proposal. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for pre-Islamic Ramadan

I did a search in scholar on "pre-Islamic" Ramadan (other search phrasings may be used).

The second result (the first I looked at) was Biblical Mullahs: Discovering True Islam Behind The Myths with the text "During Ramadan, Pagan Arabs used to abstain from food, water, sexual contact etc. Muslims practice the same Pagan Ramadan rituals." Feel free to check for more references perhaps also in locations such as "books". GregKaye 16:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with having a "pre-Islamic Ramadan" section. Fasting is a practice that is as old as the human species and has been practiced religiously for just as long. non-Islamic fasting belongs in fasting and other articles besides this one. This article should only be able Islamic fasting, but can have see also links at the bottom to others, as appropriate.Scientus (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We are meant to be presenting an encyclopedia and both origins and contexts matter. There are clearly plenty of sources that cover this issue. Please understand that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. We have to present encyclopedic coverage of the topic. GregKaye 10:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GregKaye that pre-Islamic origins of the Ramadan are relevant to this article. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Syrian connection seems dubious to me.Scientus (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is in need of academic sources regarding pre-Islamic Arab fasting practices (though, not necessarily antimuslimist ones). Khestwol (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That source that Greg posted I can't seem to read, and what is the history of the Muslim calender?Scientus (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The description of the book GregKaye cites is "The theme of this book is that the Muslims are embroiled in insanity because they do not obey the literal Koran. The Muslims are far removed from their own Koran. This book will show that there is not one thing the Muslim does everyday in the name of his religion which can be traced back to the Koran. The Muslims have become raving mobs and gargantuan failures in life because they have abandoned the Koran. And in the process the Muslims have also become rejectors. In Arabic the word for ‘rejector’ is ‘kafir’ i.e. one who opposes." How is this scholarship? Ogress _smash! 03:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the section currently until we discuss here. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 01:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, that isnt anywhere close to a reliable source. What is Abu Hurairah Mythmaker Publications? Just being in google books doesnt make something a reliable source. nableezy - 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Giving a full section to the pre Islamic thing is not proper due weight. We can merge it with the section above it and rename "In the Quran" to something like "History" which makes more sense given the content of the section. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this (p. 127), which is quite useful. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And I think a small section is the perfect weight for pre-Islamic sources of the Ramadan. You have no argument other than that is the way I fell about it. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ramadan, the pagan holiday

@69.22.242.52: The section that you keep adding in cites two primary texts: ibn al-Nadim's Fihrist and ibn Qutaybah. I know it's the second one is also a primary source because it's ibn Qutaybah.

I cannot, however, locate any book using the cite "Abdel Allah ibn Zakwan Abi al-Zanad. See Ibn Qutaybah, op.cit.page 204, The Knowledge of Life, Oxford University, 1994, page 25".

1. I find a popular Christian missionary tract, The Knowledge of Life, by someone calling themself "Witness Lee", that is definitely not printed by Oxford University Press.
2. I also found Knowledge of Life, a book on French philosophy by Georges Canguilhem
3. I find nothing by anyone named "Abdel Allah ibn Zakwan Abi al-Zanad".

So yes, I could tell it was a primary source, but no, I could not locate the specific cite.

That is not reliable sourcing. Ogress _smash! 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, you make want to protect the page again, as you see fit. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 20:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Fauzan. I have semi-protected the page, and issued 3RR warnings to the IP and to Ogress. As the warning says: it is still edit warring even if you are convinced you are right. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for getting to three reverts. It is uncharacteristic of me. Ogress _smash! 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP copy & pasted(ie. plagiarized) said information from here, including the citation. Dr Rafat Amari, the author of the site, appears to be a physician. The book in question, "The Knowledge of Life: The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and Their Relation to the Sabians of of the Qur'ān and to the Harranians,[13] is by the historian of religion, Şinasi Gündüz. I can not, however, access the book online and thus can not verify what it states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm it's a Christian evangelical ministry doing that Allah as Moon-god stuff. It does not say what Gündüz says on the topic, it just quotes ibn an-Nadim as it appears in Gündüz. That's primary source stuff, as I understand it. I cannot locate access to Gündüz either. Ogress _smash! 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is non-verifiable information plagiarized from a website written by a physician, giving his opinion on religions. Sounds like the definition of an unreliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Without a doubt. We don't even know what Gündüz said about ibn al-Nadim because they omit it. Ogress _smash! 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Health section

The health section was removed by 185.62.242.50 with the edit summary, "(Removed extremely dubiously sourced claims of health benefits and accompanying lifestyle blog that made vague reference to, "a study conducted by scientists in America".)" However, at least one of those sources was the National Health Service. I agree that most information out there claiming health benefits is dubious, but we can't remove a reliable source like that. Ogress _smash! 08:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Hello! These are scientific claims abut serious conditions, and the sourcing for them should be much higher than some lifestyle blogs. Unless there is a scientifically accepted and high quality sources for them, we are at risk of misleading readers and cause serious damage. It is better we err on the side of caution and remove them. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape Um... "lifestyle blogs"? It's the National Health Service. That's not a "lifestyle blog". Ogress _smash! 04:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is that source, but I don't think National health service source quotes any scientific study to prove any of the claims, it's more like a general opinion piece. I examined the claims where NHS cited as a source below:

• "improved brain function and alertness due to greater brain cell" production": Can't see anything about this in that article.

• "Weight loss due to the use of fat for energy while preserving muscle;": Okay, it is obvious that if you don't eat you would loose weight, but that's qualified in the article by noting: "With a prolonged fast of many days or weeks, the body starts using protein for energy."

• better control of diabetes: This claim listed as a result of losing weight,(which by the way I don't think there is any proof of losing weight by fasting, especially Ramadan fasting is so counterproductive about that:) ) if you have diabetes and already thin you don't gain better control, in fact you may die while fasting...
• reduced blood pressure; Again result of weight loss not fasting.

These claims are about health issues and unless we can find reliable scientific sources that confirms them, we must avoid adding them to the article. I know it's idiotic to get health advice from Wikipedia, but there are people who would think these as substantiated claims and we might do harm. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darwinian Ape Without taking a stand on the issue itself, do not remove a section without prior and clear consensus. This article is vandalism and edit-warring prone as it is, and prior and clear are necessary requisites to consensus. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser:, hi! Excuse my eagerness on the issue, I was following another WP policy, WP:BOLD. And I did explain my reasons for removing that subsection. Similarly, It would be nice not to restore it and discuss it here. Especially since the mentioned change is, as I mentioned, not substantiated with scientific studies. I am not trying to start an edit war, I have no intention of starting an edit war, but since you did not specify why you are against my edit other than telling me to discuss here first(which I kinda did.) you should revert it yourself or explain why do you think this needs to stay in the article. From what I can see those claims are opinions at best and WP:FRINGE at worst.Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: for health section:benefits to be removed | RFC closed

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RFC was withdrawn by the prosper. Simply archiving it. AlbinoFerret 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Since no one has replied to this for a while I assume this article is not on many people's watch list, or they have nothing to say/have no time to say. So I request an RFC to resolve this issue. Do you think unsubstantiated Medical claims should be repeated in Wikipedia with poor sourcing? Furthermore, I checked those claims and so far did not find any scientific source to back them up. Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are u the IP that was disruptively blanking the content a while ago? why do you want it removed? Khestwol (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not. I explained my reasons for removing the claims in the discussion above. I assume that discussion was opened because of the IP user you mentioned? Darwinian Ape^talk 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am not saying I completely agree with his conclusion, but I do think Darwinian Ape has a point. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, the info has relevance with fasting practices. Though we can add reliable secondary sources and write it as per cited sources. Khestwol (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment, Forgive me, but I couldn't make that connection, would you like to explain how that information has any relevance with fasting practices, and even if it is, how is it helpful for an encyclopedia to repeat scientifically dubious claims about health issues? This is not a question of belief, our article claims there are health benefits of fasting, if those claims are not scientifically proven, we can't say they are true. I would be willing to leave them if the wording suggested it was just a belief of Muslims and didn't claim them as scientifically accurate. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Users are always welcome to find more sources to add to the content and expand the section, and write it more neutrally and encyclopedically, but section blanking just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT will not likely work as a solution. Khestwol (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I definitely am not saying "I don't like it" as per my comments, you did not really address them by the way. I would be completely OK with the sourcing if these were not medical claims. I did make a research and couldn't find any study to support any of the claims made here. So the burden of proof is on the users who would like to keep them in the article. This section, as it is right now is bordering on WP:FRINGE Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Khestwol: I came here when DA seemed to blank (see above), then I looked at it and it's all hearsay/nanny suggestions. Literally the only concern I have was NHS as a RS. Then I read the source... it's an anaesthetist talking about things. He's not "blanking", he's removing OR, bad citations. I'm not saying we should ban health sections on Ramadan, but there's not anything there now that is reliably sourced as far as I noticed. It's just the usual things Wide-Eye Auntie sends around in a chain email that makes you facepalm, only this time of year, it's about Ramadan. Ogress _smash! 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would like to apologize If my edit came off as "blanking" I thought I explained my reasons for removing that content, and frankly did not expect this to be a controversial edit. I never remove content without looking at the sources, even if I know the sources are not reliable, unless there is a BLP issue. So again, sorry if I didn't quite clarify my edit. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Effects of Ramadan on health is a well discussed topic. Sources can be definitely improved, and WP:TNT is not a viable alternative. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't argue a complete rewrite, benefits section is poorly sourced and that should be removed or reworded, other parts of the health section I'm not that concerned and sourcing is much better. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - with strong comment about current content: The information in that section is terribly sourced and makes extravagant claims about the alleged "health benefits" of not eating for half the day during Ramadan. I only objected to the removal of NHS as a link because, well, they're the NHS. However, upon examination, it's actually not a very reliable source. I would agree that to date, I have not seen any reliable sourcing on this matter at any location I've ever encountered it. (I'm a Muslima, so I've heard this stuff endlessly and it's always "Sheikh Internet" [i.e. some bossy yet clueless dude with {{CN}} floating next to his head] telling us how Ramadan is magic and also usually something sexist about my life to cap it off.) The article is by an anaesthetist, which isn't what we'd like to see. So if we keep it as-is, it might not have any content. Basically, I'm not saying we should ban health sections on Ramadan, but there's not anything there now that is reliably sourced as far as I noticed. Ogress _smash! 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, Fauzan, Khestwol, Debresser. I have found two possible sources while I was looking for a source for weight loss as a "benefit" of fasting, since that was, what I thought, the only claim that might hold water.(and the claims of our kinda RS was solely depending on) Not surprisingly though, both studies are contradictory with our article, one saying it actually causes weight gain[[14]], and the other article[[15]] reports no significant change(approx 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of weight loss over 4 weeks, quickly regained.) In light of these new reliable sources (one is the "Nutrition Journal" (IF:2.6), and the other is "journal of public health, oxford journals") I believe our only semi reliable Anesthesiologist's claims about loosing weight and helping diabetes is completely baseless. And right now removal of that content is fully justified, in fact necessary.

• Proposal: Removal of the benefit subsection, and adding a new subsection called Weight change to include material from these two sources.(possibly more) I will work on the wording for this section and post here for review.

PS: This was really too much red tape for what I thought was a clear cut removal.:) I would like to fix this section and move on reasonably soon, so I'm hoping for your prompt response. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Strong Oppose section name change. As for the 2 sources DarwinianApe proposes, I agree with adding the second one, which confirms the weight loss argument. I think though his first source should not be included as its only mentioning Saudis, a nationally who represent merely ~2 % of all the Muslims fasting, and Saudis are known to have extremely disproportionately high obesity rates as compared to the rest of the ~980 million non-Saudi Muslims who normally fast this month. Roughly 70% of Saudis are obese according to studies. So including Saudi population and ignoring all other nationalities explicitly would not hold a WP:DUE weight, let alone claiming Saudis as representative of general fasting Muslim population. The conclusion of the first source begin with In contradiction to what is logically expected after a month of fasting and to what was reported in literature, it is found in this study that weight gain and not weight loss was likely to happen after Ramadan by Saudis living in Jeddah... so its words makes it clear its talking about an extreme trend, not a normality. If that source is to be added then studies about other nationalities must also be added for neutral comparison. Otherwise, just the second source seems enough. Khestwol (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You should not strong oppose to the removal of fringe science though. And The source I cited doesn't confirm a significant weight loss that can have an impact of the magnitude suggested in our article, in fact those extravagant claims have no substantiations in reliable sources. Please do not make your own conclusions, it's becoming WP:OR As for the other source, studies like these are usually not multinational, but I see your point perhaps we can find other studies to balance that, or not include it at all. I believe my first draft is neutral enough about that source though. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: even if we count the weight loss as a benefit, it would make a short list so it is logical to list all health issues in one section without dividing them as benefits and concerns. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to change the section name. Health benefits is fine. This isn't about weight loss, it's about a lack of RS. Until we've got RS there's no cause to make a special section on weight loss, which is a subset of health. Ogress _smash! 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand that. Do you mean that weight loss is a health benefit that we don't have any RS about? What I am saying is even if we say that the weight loss is a health benefit, it would be the only benefit listed in the section. So, my question is why are we dividing "health issues" section into two: benefits and concerns. It doesn't seem necessary. you should check out how our article lists concerns one by one, we can add weight change as such. What I'm proposing is remove the concern and benefit distinction and list all health issues in one undivided section. you can check it in my sandbox to see what I mean. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, it just occurred to me that we are, probably because we live in an affluent society and obesity is a big problem, assuming weight loss as beneficial on its own. Although there is no study that would suggest that Ramadan fasting causes significant weight loss, we can't claim weight loss itself to be a net benefit. Think of people in Africa where they suffer starvation. The Saudi study is an example of how in an affluent society fasting can be resulted in gaining weight, It would be a nice comparison to find a study in a poor society. It would also eliminate the possible undue problems since both would serve a purpose of showing how fasting effects health in extreme ends. I will look for such a study. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

comment: Okay, I felt like this talk page was becoming a monologue, so I decided to give it a go to see what happens. 5 minutes later it was reverted by Khestwol. The changes I believe are necessary since they are removing WP:OR and WP:FRINGE information, as well as adding scientifically backed content, I fear some editors are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I am starting to feel like there is a preferred POV here that is being protected. If the editors are so keen to keep the current claims, they should find reliable scientific sources, and they can always add the content if and when they can find them. Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

First Draft for Weight change Health section improvement:

Weight change
There are several studies on the weight change during Ramadan. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained. Another study, conducted among Saudi families in Western Saudi Arabia, notes a self reported weight gain. This may be a result of a local pattern of increased expenditure on food consumption, dietary habits during Ramadan. Also I think we should add the conclusion of this article to the top of health issues section; [[16]] "Although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations." Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

After I asked their assistance, An editor from WikiProject Medicine deleted considerable part of health section and my proposal is now obsolete. I asked the same user's opinion on this change since the health section is now a bit empty, any opinions?

There are some health issues involving Ramadan fasting. It has been suggested that although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations. Fasting on Ramadan may cause a change in weight. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained.

References

Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the issue seems resolved. With regards to expansion of the section, other than the Saudi source I have no problems with adding the rest of the two sources quoted here. Khestwol (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I left out the Saudi study in my revised proposal. The sources are from respected scientific journals so I believe we met the WP:HEALTHRS but I asked that editor for his opinion on his talk page to be on the safe side.(He removed much more than I expected, I guess medical RSs need more care than I previously thought.) Anyway I will add them now, he/she can remove if he/she deems necessary. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support changes proposed above. The article currently contains a claim about increased alertness, which should be removed. The section will necessarily be short because the standard for information that can be included is high and research on the topic involves many factors that can't be separated from each other. (Ramadan fasting and halal diet go together, for example.) If there is a need to expand it, it would be acceptable to add information about what happens to the body during fasting for periods of time similar to the Ramadan fast — lower triglycerides in the evening, for example. However, no speculation should be made on what effects those changes might have. Roches (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

break

I've made some changes. The NHS-sourced stuff about "alertness" should probably come out since it appears to be the opinion of one guy. While in general there is a lot of medical material published on Ramadan fasting, most of it is of poor quality and fails WP:MEDRS. What we need are secondary sources (e.g. reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses in reputable journals): at a minimum I suggest any journal source should be MEDLINE indexed as a mark of quality. WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information, not just health end-results. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the rfc. I am concerned about the removal of the kidney material. It's common in practice to have questions about this area from patients, plus there's a lot of ignorance, so what appears to be a well balanced reference is valuable, and I've restored it, though happy to discuss. Sorry if I've trodden on toes in doing so. This article is on medline - full text here. Cpsoper (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fine by me. The statements I objected were really poorly sourced, Alexbrn removed considerably more per medRS Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No fluids at all?

"While fasting from dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain from consuming food, drinking liquids, smoking, and engaging in sexual relations." No fluids at all from dawn until sunset? And this was started by a desert people? That seems suspect on the surface. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspect? What are you talking about? By the way, same is true for Jewish fasts, another desert people. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's no wonder in practice that strict fasting for fluid and food (per ref) is often privately violated, given that the fast is compulsory.[17] Cpsoper (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "often"? Does it exist? Of course. "Often" is am unclear term, and the article you link to does not mention statistics. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I write from extensive personal observation, as a physician, but perhaps you'd like to commission an opinion poll in Tower Hamlets, or better still in Medina or Mecca? I'd suggest taking a few precautions ... Cpsoper (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm. As a physician, you are likely to be visited by those who have good medical reason not to fast. Also, there may be differences between Muslims in the States, for example, or Middle Eastern countries. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

True, I was in the Middle East at the time, and I have every sympathy with Muslims in this position, it's highly unenviable in the height of summer. Anyway, we digress... Cpsoper (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please notice that Muslim fasts move all over the Gregorian calendar, with a 34 year cycle, as opposed to Jewish fasts, which always fall more or less during the same period of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

The name of Prophet Muhammad is without prefix Prophet and suffix (SAW) Faisal Ghalib (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see honorifics in English WP. AstroLynx (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use religious honorifics, as explained in the link given by AstroLynx. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Education

We need an education section. A lot of education ministries world wide criticize Ramadan. Children can't concentrate under Ramadan! --Rævhuld (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

2A02:2149:865A:A100:351D:F970:9E8F:72F7 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 03:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018

I like to add a reference. My link is : Krishnashisroy (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done It's not clear what content this reference is intended to support. In other words, where in the article would you put this? Also, this website does not appear to meet the requirements of a reliable source (see WP:RS) and therefore wouldn't be appropriate to include anyway. Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Using Arabic sources

@AstroLynx: Is using Arabic sources not acceptable in English Wikipedia? Who said that? --SharabSalam (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody forbids the use of Arabic-language sources on English WP but as most visitors will not be able to read Arabic adding such links is rather pointless. It would be more helpful to find English-language links. AstroLynx (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@AstroLynx: well that's your opinion. I don't find any rule that states this. There isn't any English sources that gives details about when the moon was seen and which countries saw it and which not. I tried searching for English sources but I couldn't find. They just gives superficial information. Also the previous source was a calendar which is not accurate.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at the ICOP website? Clicking on Ramadan 1440 gives you all the info you need. AstroLynx (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You are talking about the calendar you are obviously not informed about the subject. The calendar is not accurate. Do you need me to explain why?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do and please check the ICOP site before you reply. AstroLynx (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You are obviously wasting my time. You have gave a calendar source. Ramadan starts when the moon is seen. Not all countries see the moon at the same time. We don't use calendar to tell us when Ramadan is. Do I really have to explain this to you?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And secondly the source you gave is in Arabic. It appears to me in Arabic. Doesn't appear to you in Arabic?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I just used VPN and entered that website as if I am browsing from the US and guess what?! It was in Arabic. You are simply wasting our time with disruptive edits. Also the source you gave doesn't contradict the information I put. is the problem about Al-Jazeera? Because I am trying to understand your objection here. The source that you gave can actually be primary source which will be removed. News agency like Al-Jazeera is a reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The ICOP website is both in Arabic as in English (there is a language switch that should not be so difficult to spot). Try again and you will see that it offers much more and better info than your Arabic link. AstroLynx (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources for an answer to this question. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. I didn't need an answer I knew the answer. Thanks anyways.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

Remove the POV word "beautifully" from the description of the second image in the Cultural practices section. 92.0.139.188 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)