Talk:Banu Fazara

Content removed on 25 Nov 2023
of content and sources with the wp:edit summary (ES): also  on 23 Nov 2023 with the ES of.

Thank you Adakiko (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see wp:OWN. When clicking "Publish changes", one "irrevocably releases" their contribution. Anyone may edit it per your agreement.
 * Please provide evidence that the content is "false". See the essay wp:EVIDENCE for info.


 * @Adakiko
 * I wrote the addition again. I placed as a source a link to an answer on one of the well-known Islamic sites, which is an encyclopedic site. It contains books and articles and receives questions from people, both Muslims and others, and answers them. https://islamqa.info/en/about-us Readers have a right to know that there is an opposing point of view, and that Muslims do not consider the story reliable. The reader who adopts that point of view can reject it. 2A00:801:77C:863C:F5B7:F8DF:F822:CFDD (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * www.ebnmaryam.com is wp:user-generated content (UGC) as it did not fully support any content, I removed that citation. UGC is not an wp:RS. Adakiko (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI: One can use the default Wiki editor to format a cite web citation. See wp:RefToolbar/2.0 (also Help:Edit toolbar and wp:citing sources). Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko
 * Thanks for the information, and thank you for cooperation. 2A00:801:77C:863C:6194:CFBF:F789:5B00 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko We have previously discussed here and agreed to keep islamqa.info and delete the other source. 2A00:801:761:7CCC:B075:191:5FE7:FB97 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Religious sources
IP 2a00:801:700:df90::/64. Please read our WP:SOURCE policy that we should:

What does independent source mean here? According to WP:IIS:

So, it's obvious that religious websites and research books written by followers of Aum Shinrikyo cannot be cited as secondary sources for Wikipedia articles about Aum Shinrikyo and its related figures, since they clearly have a vested interest in the topics, especially if the information is promotional or apologetic. The same applies to other religions, including Islam. That's why we can't and shouldn't use religiously motivated sources, moreover websites, such IslamQA, EbnMaryam, IslamWeb, etc., here. — Kaalakaa  (talk)  09:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect and does not justify deleting this statement from the sources.
 * Firstly, the mere fact that the source is biased is not sufficient evidence to delete it. Rather, the source can be mentioned along with what represents the source. He stated that this is the point of view of the party represented by the source.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources
 * Secondly, neutrality does not mean excluding viewpoints on the subject. Rather, Wiki presents the viewpoints of the parties in a neutral tone.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation
 * Thirdly, when talking about religions, the religious sources specific to those religions are the first source. Therefore, Wiki considers the sacred religious books to be the primary source when talking about religions.
 * Likewise, religious sources are considered the primary source of the viewpoint of adherents of that religion on issues related to their religion.
 * Of course, it does not make sense to take all the views of a particular religion while excluding the views of the followers of that religion. Rather, their point of view is stated and that point of view is attributed to them.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion 2A00:801:761:7CCC:68F5:D10C:7391:C5A3 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Get wp:consensus before restoring. islamqa.info is not a reliable source. It is considered wp:self-published. Adakiko (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko This is neither a blog nor a Facebook page. This is a specialized encyclopedic site. The site specializes in religion. The issue is related to religion.Therefore, I present it as a point of view for the followers of that religion.I previously discussed the matter with you, and you did not object to the source. But you objected to another source, which was a forum.2A00:801:761:7CCC:B075:191:5FE7:FB97 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko
 * This is about the site.
 * https://islamqa.info/en/about-us
 * An about general supervisor.
 * https://islamqa.info/en/about-director
 * The site is a site specialized in religious affairs and answers questions from Muslims and others about issues related to Islam. It is published in several languages, including English.
 * The general supervisor of the site is a Muslim scholar specializing in Islamic religious sciences, and he is a famous person. He founded the website in 1996.
 * This is a link from the English Wikipedia itself about the site.
 * An about general supervisor.
 * https://islamqa.info/en/about-director
 * The site is a site specialized in religious affairs and answers questions from Muslims and others about issues related to Islam. It is published in several languages, including English.
 * The general supervisor of the site is a Muslim scholar specializing in Islamic religious sciences, and he is a famous person. He founded the website in 1996.
 * This is a link from the English Wikipedia itself about the site.


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IslamQA.info
 * 2A00:801:761:7CCC:B075:191:5FE7:FB97 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You added - nothing in the islamqa.info source mentions a poll. Find wp:RS source(s) and avoid wp:OR. Adakiko (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko This is not original research. I quoted exactly what is on the site.In general, if you object to the phrase (many Muslims), even though it expresses the truth. We can replace it with another phrase you suggest. Is it possible, for example, to say (the Islam.info website completely denies that story)?2A00:801:761:7CCC:B075:191:5FE7:FB97 (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko
 * Or we can write. ((The Islamqa.info website, which is supervised by the Muslim scholar Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, completely denies this incident.)) ? 2A00:801:761:7CCC:B075:191:5FE7:FB97 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't spread out your text unnecessarily. It makes following this discussion difficult and tedious.
 * The Sahih Muslim is a wp:primary source and therefore not RS. The quote also does not support your edit. I doubt that has been followed by every Muslim since Mohammad. Please don't add such content.
 * Where in the IslamQA.info article does it mention "majority of Muslims"? I do not see anything related to this. Please find wp:RS source(s) on the matter and avoid wp:OR / synthesis.
 * The question is if IslamQA.info is wp:RS.
 * Sources do not need to be neutral, but they do need to be reliable. See wp:RS. The listing on wp:RSN/P suggests otherwise. See below. I did not say it is a blog or Facebook page. I said it is considered self-published.
 * My error, the link to the wp:Reliable sources/Perennial sources entry is wp:IslamQA.info. It states See the archived discussions on Reliable sources noticeboard: IslamQA and Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?. If IslamQA.info now meets RS, please open a discussion on wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Make sure your request follows the guidelines. Adakiko (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko I did not publish my own text.
 * Therefore, I suggested that we write ((Islamqa.info website denies that incident)). As for Sahih Muslim, it is a primary source, but do not forget that primary sources are considered the primary source for religions. Sahih Muslim is one of the most important sources of hadith for Sunni Muslims of all sects ((they are the largest segment among Muslims)).
 * As for the website, it is difficult to find a website whose content all Muslims agree on. Since this site is Salafist, you will find Muslims who do not trust it because they are Shiite or Ash’ari. Even Salafists are divided into groups due to special political issues.
 * But of course, this does not mean that the rest of the Islamic groups or groups reject all the content of the site.
 * Therefore, if you are going to stipulate a website or book that all Muslims agree on, this is similar to an impossible condition.
 * Of course, I am saying this in haste.
 * Therefore, to avoid disagreement, I suggest that we write that the Islamqa.info website, which is supervised by Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, is the one that denies the incident. As for leaving the article in such a way that the reader thinks that this story is true and not a controversial matter, this is presenting points of view as facts. This violates wiki policy.
 * In general, this is a quick summary. I await your response and suggestions. 2A00:801:761:7CCC:B075:191:5FE7:FB97 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Citing the Sahih Muslim for what is in that book is acceptable. To use it for what all or what Muslims do or should think is not. See wp:RSPSCRIPTURE. If you add "many Muslims...", you need to cite RS that supports this. I don't agree that "Islamqa.info website denies that incident" is acceptable. I'll let others weigh in on this discussion. I suggest you start an wp:RfC. Adakiko (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko Well, if you find the phrase unacceptable, you can suggest another phrase.
 * I don't mind asking others to intervene. If you wish, you can also raise the category in the portal on Islam topics on Wiki. 83.187.190.9 (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to raise it on Islam portal. A wp:RfC is probably the recommended process. Adakiko (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko
 * Done.
 * Talk:Banu_Fazara 2A00:801:707:AFAE:FC02:57DA:9BB7:8E6E (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you are misrepresenting the policy. The source must be independent first; only then do WP:NPOV and WP:BIASED apply. It is not that WP:NPOV and WP:BIASED are negating WP:SOURCE. For example, a Cambridge University Press publication that is critical of Aum Shinrikyo. This is still considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, despite it being regarded as biased by the followers of the religion. But secondary or tertiary sources in the form of books or websites written by Aum Shinrikyo's own followers, especially if they are promotional or apologetic, are not acceptable because they definitely have a vested interest in the topic and do not cover the subject from a disinterested perspective, which contradict WP:IIS and therefore do not meet the criteria specified in the WP:SOURCE policy. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  12:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Umm Qirfa
Do you find this phrase acceptable?

I discussed with @Adakiko about adding a point of view denying this incident. Discussion above here Talk:Banu_Fazara.

Please read the discussion between us so that you have an idea about the topic.

I believe that the article cannot be left as it is so that the reader thinks that the incident is a historical fact. Especially since it is considered unreliable according to the rules of Islamic hadith studies. But the criticisms written by Muslims about it are mostly found in forums, blogs, or Facebook. Which cannot be considered as sources on the wiki. And according to wiki policy, original research cannot be published.

But I found Islamqa.info (a website that specializes in Islamic religious sciences and answers questions that come to it from Muslims and others) publishing a criticism in which it denies that incident and clarifies that it is not proven according to the rules of Islamic hadith science. But there is no consensus among wiki editors that the site is considered a reliable source. I suggest that the phrase ((the Islamqa.info website, which is supervised by Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, denies the incident)) be written as a consensus phrase.

Adakiko suggested that I start wp:RfC.

Waiting for your comments. 2A00:801:707:AFAE:FC02:57DA:9BB7:8E6E (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * History:
 * wp:RS/P mentions IslamQA.info. Archived discussions on wp:RS/N: IslamQA and Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?
 * Appears to have been a slow, ongoing edit war since January 2022. See extended page history
 * Adakiko (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adakiko (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adakiko (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
brief, neutral,]] or clear what is being asked. Please review WP:RFCBEFORE and rework this before adding the tag again. You can also ask for a third opinion to help find a consensus. Nemov (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the RFC tag on this because it's neither [[WP:RFCBRIEF|
 * @Nemov@Adakiko
 * Okay, I will write a new section and I will formulate the statement briefly 2A00:801:768:A493:8011:F761:123B:2253 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)