Talk:Jinn

Dispute resolution of deletions on belief in jinn and belief in Islam
The issue of deletions on Belief in jinn and belief in Islam by VenusFeuerFalle can be found at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog WP:DRN discussion moderator seems to be waiting for further inputs from both of you.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some observations
 * @Louis P. Boog Your input request @ WT:ISLAM was better at giving brief synopsis of dispute but that seem to be now archived. I suggest you update the link of the same at WP:DRN
 * @VenusFeuerFalle both of you may have some misunderstandings about content as of now but my perception is both of you together work further on this article to make it GA or even FA.
 * I would like to share some observations content improvements in the article, let me know if you are going for GA review. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I hate being this type of person. Louis P. Boog usually enters editing an article after I did for a long time, and usually decreases the quality. This happened to several articles I edited, including Jahannam, Jannah, Islamic eschatology, Spirit possession and exorcism in Islam, Shaitan. Often not even the basic manual of style guides are paid attention to. For example, since 2022 the user uses ';' instead of '==' for sub-headers, so I need to constantly clean up. I told them multiple times about deconstructive edits, but ignores everything I say, sometimes trying to report me. I think there is enough reason to have bad faith here. Please keep an eye on them. THis user is not pushing a GA article, since none of the articles I left them, have ever achieved GA after disrupting them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am listing here users who edited this talk page previously and still active (Sourced from xtools) . If for more inputs or review either of you may wish to ping them. But if you ping then ping all of them.


 * User:Ashmoo
 * User:savvyjack23
 * User:Primalchaos
 * User:Iskandar323
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank Bookku. Have updated link to WT:ISLAM. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ashmoo, @savvyjack23, @Primalchaos, @Iskandar323
 * Greetings users! As recent editors of the Jinn article, you may be interested in giving input on a dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard  here, concerning edits in that article on the connection between belief in jinn and belief in Islam. Thank you. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Small note: In my search I found them among who edited this talk page Idk of the article page. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louis P. Boog, @VenusFeuerFalle
 * Fyi: The WP:DRN discussion seems to be closed by the moderator with some suggestions.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. will proceed with Be bold as suggested by Robert_McClenon --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For ref and record: Following is link of dispute summary by LPB at WT:ISLAM before DRN
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 12
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Earlier talk page discussion
for anyone interested there does not seem to be any discussion in the Jinn article talk page archives about belief in Jinn being or not being a necessary belief in Islam. (Bookku suggested I look this up.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting of WP:BOLD after closing of Dispute Resolution discussion
Dispute Resolution discussion closed "due to lack of response by one editor". i.e. VenusFeuerFalle. Volunteer moderator Robert McClenon ended with this:

"Closed due to lack of response by one editor. The filing editor has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply.  The filing editor should make the edits boldly.  If the edits are reverted, he may follow the advice in the discussion failure essay, and may note this proceeding, or they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts.  I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested.  Do not edit-war.  Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)"

So I, the filing editor (Louis P. Boog), made the edits boldly here and ... VenusFeuerFalle, who couldn't be bothered to make a response to the Dispute resolution  discussion, reverted the edits with the summary "this was not the resolution".

My questions for the deleter @VenusFeuerFalle:
 * 1) "this was not the resolution"? how so? the resolution started with "The filing editor should make the edits boldly."
 * 2) wikipedia help page gives a number of suggestions to avoid wholesale reverting, such as "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits" (Reverting).  How is following the advice of the Dispute resolution volunteer disruptive??? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 Pl. take note that WP:DRN is not a binding solution so win by absence of other side at WP:DRN is of very temporary nature. So advice all the sides not to engage in any further reverts.
 * The final step for you to go for WP:RfC (also follow WP:RFCBEFORE)
 * Or you can take pause in discussion here and request inputs at WP:NPOVN (this being primarily WP:DUE issue or at WT:ISLAM. And there after go for WP:RfC. (My personal recommendation is you take a chance at WP:NPOVN for more inputs before going for RfC for wider feedback.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also suggest all to go through or re-read policies WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:RNPOV, WP:PROPORTION.
 * I suggest to check already available refs in the articles Abul A'la Maududi and Nasr Abu Zayd for RS and also check if their importance has been cited in any reliable journals and academic books available at google scholar and google books. Take input help of WP:RSN forum to confirm if any source can be considered RS or not.
 * I suggest read the article body again and write down your own lead in your own sand box and then compare if you find the present lead has a proper weight from reliable contents made in the rest of the body. Such an exercise may help you in RFC discussion and during good article and feature article nomination reviews.
 * I suggest @TheEagle107 to take their references at WP:RSN to have community inputs which of their references can be considered as reliable.
 * Last but least to all incl. @VenusFeuerFalle please confirm you are signing your comments properly so other visiting users do not get confused by mistake.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do sign my comments, I just respond rarely, since I mostly response then there is new information. Until now, I am still waiting for my initiate objection (I this time even repeated) to be adressed. Until then, I will be waiting. I repeat it here again: Religions scholars, unlike scholars of religions, are not reliable sources, sources need to be understood in context, the lead is a sumamr yof the article. Whether or not jinn are a dogma, is no promiment element in the article and thus giving undue weight in the lead. I am still waiting for a proper response, instead I get revert after revert with the claim "but authentic source how dare you!". And no matter how often I talk to them on talkpages, they just ignore whatever I say, keep on quoting sources with no relevance, express indignation, and then go to an admin or disappear for a month. Last time, the source provided did not even supported their statement, similar thing happened with the other user last year on another article. For unexperienced users who do not want to engage in civil discussions, we have the Sandbox function. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Give them time to find academic sources at google scholar / google books approach WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN then WP:RFCBEFORE then WP:RFC many times inputs from different users help as I said earlier. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will probably not be online for a few days or a week. Maybe I have time for a quick check in. In case once again, my absense is taken as an agreement to edits my objections are left unanswered in the first place. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fyi: As a discussion facilitator I placed an input request at WT:ISLAM with a note to provide inputs @ this article talk page itself. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a discussion facilitator Input request also posted @ WP:NPOVN, WT:MYTH, WT:ARAB, WT:WikiProject Middle Ages, WT:WikiProject Religion project talk pages. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Input request made @GliderMaven since the article falls under :Category:Supernatural and GliderMaven seem to have substantially contributed to the article Supernatural as per xtools &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read what bold means or have you just taken it literal? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll take the liberty to ping some users here who are often editing Islam-related articles, and are recently active:, , , , and  Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--TheEagle107 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the last "undo" of edits under exegesis, I think it is fine to leave @TheEagle107's edits there. They are indeed relevant. Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight. So citing them as a source should be acceptable. Whether or not one chooses to follow that opinion is another story. But being exposed to different opinions and knowing who different scholars are is an important element in studying Islam.
 * Regarding this in the intro: "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran." First of all there are some typos and also I think there is ijma' anyways and it's not a matter of ikhtilaf to my knowledge. I would change it to: "Belief in the Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Qur'an." I think it's fine to include that. Regarding this topic: if one disbelieves in any part of the Qur'an, they have left Islam entirely according to Sunnis. Also it is mentioned in Aqida Tahawiyah upon which there is ijma': https://www.abuaminaelias.com/aqeedah-tahawiyyah/ So yes, a Muslim must believe in the existence of Jinn to be a Muslim to my knowledge and I am unaware of any opinion to the contrary. I think citing Aqida Tahawiyah as a source is a good idea. That's my view. Take the best of it.
 * DivineReality (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight." Not really, since in Islam there is no official clergy and who is trustworthy and who is not is eventually up for the individual. Apart from this claim to be factually wrong, it is besides the point since it is against the neutral point of view policy mentioned above. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose the insertion into the lead. The lead is a summary and should not contain anything not already present in the body of the article. But these facts have not been added to the body of the article. I suggest that the adding editor find an appropriate place in the body of the article to add the fact, work with other editors until it is done in a place and a way that other editors do not object to. Only then would it be appropriate to start as discussion as to whether it should be in the lead and if so, how much weight it should be given. Skyerise (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise But it is present in the body of the article. In the Exegesis section.
 * ''... many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. ...
 * The dispute being discussed or that was discussed, includes adding a bit more to this section. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically, if there is only one sentence about something in the body, that's not enough to give it enough weight to also add it to the lead. If the article goes more in depth about a topic, say a paragraph or two, then a sentence in the lead might be considered. But you are going to need more than one proponent of the position and of course sufficient third-party sources to support more material in the body before it makes sense to bring it up in the lead - otherwise the lead would be the size of the body, if every sentence was equally important! Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lede is pretty long. The sentence
 * ''Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.
 * ... not so much. The issue -- a requirement to be a true Muslim -- pretty important. But I will drop the issue for now. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this paragraph to the lead: "The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the Qur'an, and one of its chapters is even named after them. " Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that talks about the jinn.

Here are some sources that might be of interest:

Peace.TheEagle107 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Noone here disputes if the jinn are important or not. This is completely besides the point. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Can some of this information be included in the article? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition to Exegesis subsection
Following Bookku's suggestion that I do research in WP:RS I looked up Jinn in the wikipedia library and found material in Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English) I think should go in the Exegesis subsection. It seems to indicate pretty strongly that "the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted" in early Islam. I would just add parts of it to the article now but that would distract from the discussion at hand.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts, so we can properly reply to it and know who is participating in the discussion. I would ignore this comment entirely, for these reasons, if my comment made above does not apply here as well. I also recommand to read the entire article, since the article states multiple times that most Muslims believed in jinn from the very beginning up to the post-modern period and "even after graduating in medicine" this believe may not change.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louis P. Boog I suggest you drop updates to Lead until you have improved consensus on rest of the article body and so first focus what updates you are looking in the rest of article body.
 * May be you copy the article body in your personal Sandbox update it and then propose specific changes.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed rewriting of body of article
here (in my Sandbox). Includes my version and bits from TheEagle107 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Note: all specific changes/proposed edits are in the blue highlight of {{talkquote| to distinguish them. @Bookku: notifying you first Bookku for your comments before sending general notice to all involved users. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Noted, give me a day or two to go through. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some improvements, yet same parts need a more fleshed out spelling.
 * {{blockquote|text=who "worked out" the consequences implied by their}}
 * reads like a subtile thread. Given that you previously tried multiple times to add that a Muslim received death-threats for stating that jinn do not form an external reality (a position definately present in Medieval Age Islam as cited in the article), it cannot be ruled out that this is exactly what you have in mind.
 * {{blockquote|text=Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition or faith, "completely accepted" in official Islam; prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars}}
 * might also suffer from a citation overdosis and some weasal words. Ask yourself, what is "official Islam"? What is the difference between "Muslim tradition" and "Muslim faith"? What does "quite seriously" mean? Bad writing might decrease the quality of an otherwise pretty decent article, which could soon meet GA or even FA standards. The prominence of jinn in Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and the Quran, is made clear right below the paragraph you want to add. WIth other words, without your addition, it is exactly the next thing the reader is gonna read. The quesiton here is, how is this repeation an improvement? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the Qur'an 34:12–13, God subjugated the jinns under the control of Solomon so as to have their assistance in the construction of huge buildings. They used to perform tasks for Solomon that required great skill, wisdom, and technical expertise. I am not 100% sure if the text of the article mentions anything about this; if not, then it probably should. Good work anyway!


 * Here are some more sources for you:
 * {{talkquote|Muslims accept the existence of the jinn as part of their faith. }}


 * {{talkquote|The belief in jinn is very much alive in Morocco and like the belief in angels and the devil it is part of Islamic dogma. }}


 * {{talkquote|Islamic dogma lists humans as the third spiritual creature created by Allah after angels and jinn. }}


 * And finally, here is an interesting article in Arabic about jinn in Islam written by one of the researchers of the Muhammadan League of Religious Scholars. Cheers!TheEagle107 (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply to VVF at the request of &#32;Bookku
 * @VenusFeuerFalle @&#32;Bookku
 * Having trouble with your English. what is a subtile thread?
 * Given that you previously tried multiple times to add that a Muslim received death-threats for stating that jinn do not form an external reality (a position definately present in Medieval Age Islam as cited in the article), it cannot be ruled out that this is exactly what you have in mind.
 * Not sure what you are talking about. This seems to be in conflict with at least one scholar (Mark Sedgwick)
 * {{talkquote|Openly expressing of doubt about the existence of j̲inn was not common even amidst the Muʿtazila; and among the erstwhile philosophers, al-Fārābī also, tried to skip the question with vague  definitions. Ibn Sīnā was an  outlier-- he outrightly rejected their existence.  In present-day Islam, only a "small number" believes that  jinn in the Quran should be understood symbolically instead of  literally. ({{cite book|author=Mark Sedgwick|title=Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X_Z8DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT72|publisher=Hachette UK|publication-date=2006|isbn=9781473643918|page=72}})}}
 * (and you might add that you were the one who deleted the incident about a Muslim received death-threats.)
 * "who 'worked out' the consequences implied by their"
 * 'worked out' is a direct quote from the source (Jinn, Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English), D.B. MacDonald, H. Massé, P.N. Boratav, K.A. Nizami, and P. Voorhoeve)
 * Ask yourself, what is "official Islam"? What is the difference between "Muslim tradition" and "Muslim faith"? What does "quite seriously" mean? Bad writing might decrease the quality of an otherwise pretty decent article,
 * These are different terms different scholars used to describe the importance of Jinn in Islam. Again, these (mostly) quotes come from the sources, reputable scholars, all cited -- "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition from {{cite book|author=Mark A. Caudill|title=Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZbjOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA92|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing USA|publication-date=2006|isbn=9780313084850|page=92}}, etc. Is this "bad writing"? If a third party suggests rewriting it I suppose I might not mind as long as the substance of the text remains. I suppose we leave that to the RfC. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist}}
 * references

Paragraph Move Proposal
There is a wonderful table about each day of the week and their relation to angels and jinn. However, I wonder if this is not rather something for the article Worship of heavenly bodies. In Islamic tradition, the seven planets are not consequently called jinn, but also ruhanniya (as a reference to the "spirits inhabiting the planets") and are not a reflection of genuine jinn belief, although some source do identify them as jinn. Yet, since in Arabic every "invidible being" can be jinn, the designation of "jinn" does not suffice to be significant for a jinn-article, or else it also needs to include angels and turning the focus of the article in "spirits in Islam" in general. It should be noted however, that in modern times, according to Magic and Divination in Early Islam, the seven planets are frequently identified with jinn or at least jinn-like entities. However, the concept behind that is more related to Hellenistic Planet Worship, and less to genuine Islamic (including the entire culture) jinn-beliefs.

Carboni, Stefano writes in "The Book of Surprises (Kitab al-bulhan) of The Bodleian Library.":

"'In the Kitab al-bulhan a couple of images are missing in this section on the jinns and we can refer to the Ottoman copies in order to reconstruct the full series of the seven ‘Kings of the Jinns’, each one connected with a specific day of the week, an angel, a planet and a metal following many literary treatises on magic and talismans.'"

and

"Among the extant illustrations in the Kitab al-bulhan, the ‘Red King’ (al-malik al�ahmar) is the jinn of Tuesday and here the talismanic symbols are evident both in the monotonous repetition of individual letters (in this case, the letter ‘ta’), and numbers, and in the so-called ‘spectacle symbols’ originally deriving from the Kabbalah or other mystical and magical traditions (fol. 31r). The Red King of Tuesday has a close relationship with Mars, the planet of war, and is consequently depicted as a monstrous being riding a lion while holding a sword and a severed head."

Thus, the idea of jinn-kings are int he citations linked to the planets.

An excerpt from "Saif, Liana. The Arabic influences on early modern occult philosophy.", sheds more light on that matter (and I would add this to the article Worship of heavenly bodies then): "The word used in these Arabic texts to denote spirit is ruhaniyya. In the Picatrix, which Hermann could have read in Arabic, the author explains that the knowledge of the correspon�dences of things and their astral origins is essential in order to invite the ruhaniyyat to bestow their powers into a talisman or ritual.65 But he adds that we must prepare our spirits by theurgic rituals in order to commu�nicate our will to the stars and their ruhaniyyat. 66 It is notable that in magic these ruhaniyyat tend to be endowed with more personality and a level of tangibility, in contrast with the ruhaniyyat we encounter in the context of natural philosophy and astrology. In the Picatrix we read: The ruhaniyya may appear in the spiritual world [of the magus] as a person that converses and teaches him what he desires, it may endear him to kings and sultans, tie and unravel any matter he wills [... ] and answer the caller with what he wants [... ] talismans are the most Celestial Souls and Cosmic Daemons 181 powerful choice for attracting a ruhaniyya [ ... ] and that is because the natural properties, through the ruhaniyya, can perform wondrous acts singlehandedly."

Special attention should be paid to this part though: "reconciled in the Ghaya. Peripatetic causality is used to account for the existence of occult properties in all things – minerals, plants, animals, anything used in a magical operation – which are given by the stars in the process of generation and corruption. Neoplatonism elucidates the power of signs and its impact on the soul of the operator whose knowledge of these signs enables her to organize the elements of magical practice towards a specific purpose. Furthermore, the spiritual powers mentioned in the text, especially those related to the stars, are explained as the multiplication and individuation of the Universal Soul through emanation, distancing them from traditional ‘demons’ or ‘devils’, Jinn or shayateen (Arabic: devils) as we shall see in detail in Chapter"

Accordingly, I propose that the minor references within the body of the text can stay, to move the table to the proposed article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Cherrypicking?
Hello everyone! Please check out the citation number [3], which have been used several times as a reference.

In addition, recently, I have found something interesting, which I think should be included as well in the article body. Among the achievements of the Hanafi-Sufi scholar Mustafa ibn Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (d. 1749/1162) that he took the general covenant from all the denominations of jinns, and initiated seven of the kings of the jinn. This is also mentioned here & here on the Arabic Wikipedia.--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for other sources the Arabic Wikipedia is in a catastrophic condition in religious matter in general, I do not see how your comment contributes to anything. Most people here will probably not be able to read the Arabic Wikipedia, and the other links are only snipshits. Maybe you provide a translation for all the other readers as it has been done in the sources you copied here for mysterious reasons. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is still about the discussion whether or not jinn are an important part of Islam, just re-read the discussion again, since noone except you and the user with the questionable edits since 2 years discuss this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheEagle107
 * 1) Just for clarity, are you trying to say that despite using 'Tobias Nünlist' as a substantial source in the articles, point in the above highlighted part of 'Tobias Nünlist' is not given due weight in the article or you are trying to say some thing else?
 * 2) Your suggestion on Mustafa ibn Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (d. 1749/1162) is separate point you wish you want to be included? or you are trying to connect dot with 'Tobias Nünlist' or 'importance of Jinn in Islam'. If that is a separate I suggest separate sections /sub sections for separate points.
 * @VenusFeuerFalle I understand and respect your study and effort in this topic area still may be you need to bear with some discussions until go through RfCs as conclusive part of WP:DR process.
 * As said earlier I respect your grip on the topic, and you can weigh the sources still quite a good number of sources TheEagle107 referring seem to be from university presses. Keep the Arabic part aside ref of Levtzion seem to be from an University press. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my response came off as interuptive. I just could not shale off the feeling that it was an implicit reproach to me, as I added the source and did the translation of the article as well. The claim for "cherrypicking" in this content sounded like there was an accusation of me being cherry picking then it came to Tobias Nünlist's "Daemonenglaube in Islam", hence my response. I hope the resolution can be made without opening entirely new sections with implicit accusations of working intentionally against the neutrality of the article. Apart from that, I would love to withdraw from this discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand some times certain some micro-aggressive usages are used for get some tactical advantage in the heat of discussions, many times incautiously but later may end up in discussions spiral getting off the track.
 * I urge every one not to repeat micro aggression Usages like 'cherry picking', 'user with the questionable edits since 2 years'. Don't leave discussions keep them on healthy track of content issue resolution.
 * Instead of cherry picking may be we can utilize terms like 'surprise' or at the most 'strange' or 'disappointing,. At times we express disappointment but need not repeat disappointment again and again. Use phrases like  request to have a re-look or re-visit, to add emphasis write (emphasis added) in a bracket or at the most 'read again' in a bracket. I suggest to collapse this incl my this comment and move on towards healthy discussion.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! 👍

Yes, exactly! 👍--TheEagle107 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My questionable edits notwithstanding, I don't see how ...
 * One cannot deny the existence of the ginn without incurring the accusation of kufr (disbelief) and being excluded from the community of believers (takfīr). In addition to the Koran and the words of the prophets, additional written sources that have emerged over the centuries underline the widespread acceptance of the existence of demons in the Islamic world. Even in modern Muslim societies, the Jinn belief is deeply rooted.
 * can't be added to the pile of other sources indicating belief in Jinn is important in Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * References

Pre-RfC
The brief of main Talk:Jinn discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) as discussion facilitator (most of this "Pre-RfC" procedure is following the advise of &#32;Bookku  ) @VenusFeuerFalle, do you wish to contest any of the sources added in the Proposed rewrite? What if any parts of the rewrite are you willing to accept? (I will be available to reply off and on May 6 and May 7.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposed rewrite of the article has been updated with most if not all of suggestions of TheEagle107


 * I object to your suggestions based on WP:OR, WP:NOTNP, and the lenghty quotes might even touch on copy right infringements. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement, since the prominence of jinn is already covered sufficiently in the article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OR and CR expectations can be fair enough, so let us check. Earwig doesn't show major concern on CR side ( I can see just two sentences used from fgulen.com in Quote=parameter, that seems fair use to me). Pl. mention, if you find any thing more specific.


 * If you can be more specific which specific sentences are OR concerns can help better.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fyi: This is to keep users informed that User:TheEagle107 and another user have expressed interest in contesting relevance and WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE weight of content coming under section Jinn. This is likely to further deepen the scope of ongoing discussion. This aspect and some aspects discussed at WP:NORN make me feel that some users at proposed RfC may discuss borderline WP:FRINGE aspects/concerns. So I suggest users to pre-study policies and guidelines relevant to WP:FTN too. Happy editing. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Original Research "and more recently revivalist preachers Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen,"
 * CR might be on "Publicly expressed doubt of the existence of j̲inn was uncommon even among the Muʿtazila; and among the earlier philosophers, even al-Fārābī, tried to avoid the question with ambiguous definitions. Ibn Sīnā was an exception -- he flatly denied their reality. In contemporary Islam, only a 'small minority' believe that jinn in the Quran should be interpreted allegorically rather than literally" since it sounds like lenghty quotes from the sources. Taking a greater look at the source I furthermore doubt that this (Hachette Livre | Hachette Livre is the world’s third-largest trade publisher | Hachette.com) is a reliable publisher.
 * I further want to point out that the importance of jinn-belief has been highlighted sufficiently already.
 * "Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. It is generally accepted by the majority of Muslim scholars that jinn can possess individuals. This is considered to be part of the doctrines (aqidah) of the 'people of the Sunnah' (ahl as-sunnah wal-jammah'a) in the tradition of Ash'ari" There is an example form the Zahiris, from the Hanbalites, and pointed at a consensus among Asharites in general that jinn are undeniable part of Islam. I do not see why there needs to be a more vague discussion about whether or not they are part of the creed or not or who may have denied them. The latter is problematic from a research view point as there is no sufficient analysis on who might have denied them. It is, for example, not clear if Maturidites consider jinn to be real or a merel psychological phenomena, as mentioned next in the section "'Māturīdī focuses on the dynamics between jinn and humans based on Quran 72:6. He states that seeking refuge among the jinn increases fear and anxiety, however, not because of the jinn, but due to the psychological dependence of the individual towards external powers'" it is furthermore not clear, how important the belief in jinn as external instead of internal things has been. In later Islamic theology, such as the writings of Ghazali, we see that "metaphors" have been considered "real", further blurring the lines between metaphor and reality, as mentioned in the Shaitan article: " Al-Ghazali (c. 1058 – 1111) reconciles the literal meaning (Ẓāhir) with Avicennan cosmology based on reason. According to the philosophers (falsafa), the word 'angel' refers to "celestial intellects" or "immaterial souls". Ghazali opined that devils might be of a similar nature, that is, that they are celestial immaterial objects influencing human minds."

Facing the complicated matter about the relationship between "reality" and "metaphor" in Islamic theological discourse, I think we should not overestimate the discussion about the reality of jinn. Jinn are an integral part of Islam, this is nowhere to be denied and the article as it is now, makes this clear. However, the nature of these jinn is up to debate. As also mentioned int he article, some consider 'jinn' to be a neutral term for angels. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a discussion facilitator I initiated WP:RSN to seek community inputs about reliability of the source. CR concern seemed for two sentences only so temporarily I re-paraphrased the sentences a little, since LPB have mentioned they may be on break and we do not know when they will join back.
 * About your OR concerns rlated to sentence about 'Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen' I shall let that be for LPB or RfC to address. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fyi, LPB has requested inputs on the OR issue at No original research/Noticeboard &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fetullah Gülen is not a scholar, but a sect-founder and falls outside of neutral view point in religious matters. Apart from the lack of reliablity by Gülen, he also lacks authority. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Requested update as highlighted in the sandbox seem to have 4 paragraphs, consisting 9 sentences around 12 inline refs and around 15 supportive refs in foot note by TheEagle107. Please count and confirm/ correct me as needed.
 * VenusFeuerFalle /other participants let us know if numbering those sentences will help?
 * @TheEagle107 Please confirm foot notes referred by you are just supportive foot notes or you wish to add some thing from there for RfC. Being clearer the better. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I just want to make it clear to other users who will try to resolve this dispute that there are three editors (Louis P. Boog, me and DivineReality) who are holding the same point of view, which is that belief in jinn is necessary in Islam, because jinns are mentioned in the Qur'an and authentic hadiths,       while VenusFeuerFalle disagree or just have another point of view, which in my opinion is considered WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE. Therefore, VenusFeuerFalle opposes adding this to the lead of the article, and even cherry-picked that source, thus giving a false balance in coverage.TheEagle107 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Before we discuss on the sources, I would like to get clean with the accusations towards me. @TheEagle107 has thrown a lot of accusations, from cherrypicking, to "playing the system" and I expect that the User backs it up. Such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. If Eagle wants to retreat their accusations, it is fine, but they need to make it clear and owes me an apology. Before, I refuse to spend time in debates concerning sources or citations. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @VenusFeuerFalle @Louis P. Boog Please refer to discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437 discussion indicates First publisher Intercultural Press a Nicholas Brealey Publishing Company along with a good review for the book hence WP:RSN discussion seem to suggest to consider "Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World" by Mark Sedgwick. as WP:RS. If you wish to contest it then you would need to go for RfC or else would need to accept the same as RS. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @VenusFeuerFalle, @&#32;Bookku    I'll wait a few days for a reply and then add the sentence and citation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog Brief summary of inputs about 'Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen' at No original research/Noticeboard (Link need to be updated as gets archived :"..Over all consensus seem to be forming OR is not much concern in this case ; but side note suggestions seem to be importance of weighing content on other counts like supporting with  whether it has been talked about  by other scholars importance of Jinn to Islam in  the interim centuries? foremost is whether substantially supported by secondary academic sources for the relevant content last but not least WP:DUE. .." &#32;Bookku    (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Noone is objecting to the calim that jinn are important. This is a strawman @Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 made up for themselves. It is something only they debate. In case the disote is still ongoing, I am still waiting for my answers above. If they cannot find them, it is, honestly, their fault, because they  failed to respond to my inquiries and instead decided to lead discussions with themselves. I never said that jinn are not important in Islam, and it is hoently, no my job to explain to them what I said. I cannot force people to read properly and after dozens of replies ignoraing my original statement, I withdraw from their discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fyi: A pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at WP:NPOV/N, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion WT:ISLAM. &#32;Bookku (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also a pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at WP:FTN. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Next step
@ VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog, @ TheEagle107
 * In brief: wait for VFF to join back or 7 days since VFF not editing. After that we shall begin RfC formatting step, then RfC.
 * I had intimated VFF at their user talk page also, about ongoing input request discussions regarding RS and OR concerns raised by VFF at respective notice boards namely WP:RSN, No original research/Noticeboard.
 * But VFF do not seem to be active since May 11th, as such VFF and LPB both are used to taking some days editing gap (possibly for real life) and I feel it's best to respect each others editing gaps hence I suggest to wait for 7 days, if at all VFF wishes to get reviewed notice board discussion with one more opinion again. ( I can help VFF in requesting another experienced user for review if VFF requests me so)
 * Also note that notice board inputs are valuable guiding  posts but last call is taken in RfCs.
 * If you see the above discussions not moving ahead at notice board, and also not automatically archived after 7 days (since VFF not editing), then close by using collapsing template
 * I hope above helps. Last but not least let me appreciate all you three are reasonably co-operating with my suggestions as discussion facilitator with sincerity and patience. We shall collapse this subsection when we move to next step. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107  Taking into account inputs received from WP:RSN and WP:OR/N see if you wish to consider any changes in the updates (under consideration (your sandbox) to bring for RfC.
 * Let us know if you need some more time for preparation or you are ready for RfC formatting stage? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, give me some time to add my suggestions.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheEagle107 Why don't you also create your own sand box and then discuss with LPB and then here at RfC. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry for further delay, I got over 18 notifications last time I logged in and was still busy, so I couldn't do much but minor stuff at break. Now, I am mostly done, but now the notifications tell me that the discussion on the Board is closed. If everyone is fine by that, I would start at the point of the results of the discussion. We don't need to make a big fuzz about it in my opinion, when this discussion gets strict to the point. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @ TheEagle107 and VenusFeuerFalle; this seem to be second instance, within four days, of POV template tagging and the revert. I also do not know nuances about POV template hence I shall refer the same to WP:NPOVN for inputs. Mean while I urge patience to both sides to avoid reverts since any way we are in process of sorting out through discussion. I also urge to provide neutral summary of various parts of disagreements so we can proceed towards RfC formatting step. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When the template should be used can be read here: Template:POV. Per " In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Wikipedia Users are required to remove these templates. I cannot follow your request on a summary of the dispute, since I do not sense a dispute. @TheEagle107 makes edits and objections already adressed and clarified but choose to ignore these. Especially after their most recent comments "'You can say Jinn are the “demons of Islam”. A Qur'ānic chapter (72) is named after them. Please note also that there is not a single source in the whole article that says that jinn are mythical creatures. Anyone who objects to that must show me the source along with the text.'" and "' For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see Essentials of the Islamic Faith.'" there is good reason to assume that @TheEagle107 is not here to build an encyclopedia but to further personal religions views. I am also waiting for over 3 weeks not for them to adress the points I raised, instead, the User added new discussions or talked about ther personal opinions. For my part, I decided to go with Avoiding difficult users, until the User complays with the proper protocol of the talkpage usage. And edits not confirming to Wikipedia guidlines will be, of course, still reverted. Ignorance does not provide someone with a greencard. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. RfC format suggestion request has been made at WT:RFC. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparative mythology
Hello everyone, I would like to suggest removing this section from the article, because it gives too much weight to present the views of other religions, while the main topic of the article is jinn in Islam, NOT comparative mythology! According to Islamic belief, jinn are REAL creatures, not mythical or legendary creatures like unicorns and centaurs. The section seems to me irrelevant, and a combination of WP:OR & WP:FRINGE. So I suggest deleting this section completely or just moving it to Comparative mythology, or to any other appropriate article.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree (mostly) and had the comparative section on my eye for a long time. Comparative mythology can be a valid sub-section, since "in the wake of the recent Multiculturalism trend" (to quote the Islam article), the role of jinn is indeed subject of much academic debate. Especially how they compare to Christian demons and devils.
 * I see, you already removed it because of your reasoning "it is Islam and not non-Islam" despite the very introduction stating otehrwise. Sighs. Alright, here we go again. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, lets discuss which parts should be removed and why. First, Jinn are "not a strictly Islamic concept; they may represent several pagan beliefs integrated into Islam" as the lead explains and is supported by two sources and also covered by most of the text below (It helps to actually read the article before entering a discussion). However, there is a good point made by asserting that there is an overemphasize on comparative mythology. Comparing Buddhist Deva with islamic jinn is sourced only once by a quick reference. Of course Muslim authors identified devas with jinn, but by making them jinn, not by similarities between those two concepts. I think this can be removed without further dispute. The Ancient Mesopotamia section reiterates mostly the parts of "pre-Islamic Arabia", with the letter being much better.
 * I would keep the Judaism section though, since this comparasion has been made several times and "shedim" even has become the Hebrew word for "jinn". It was once part of the Quran section due to analysis of the Quran, but deided to remove it below. The Christianity setion is aprtly of value. While the interpretation by Abraham Ecchellensis is neat to know, it had no impact on a historical scale. The term used for Bible translations is OR again and also worthless from an encyclopedic viewpoint. The discussion about fallen angels on the other hand, is frequently discussed even in academic circles also to understand the cultural exchange between Hellenistic ideas and Islam, and Islam in Andalus and its impact on European religion, including astrology and Medieval Philosophy. Maybe it even needs some additions.
 * Since Eagle decided to remove everything, I am sure Eagle is fine with any removal of the content. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Requesting synopsis / summary so other users to understand share inputs in the discussion if they wish. (Consider these tips).


 * *Fyi: Updated WP:FTN, WT:MYTH, WT:ISLAM intimation, intimated input requests to substantial and active contributors to article /talk Mythology (xtools), Comparative mythology (xtools) and talk page there of namely User names Bloodofox, Nyarlat 1920, RealLifeRobot, Last1in, Phatius McBluff, Gizziiusa, Alarichall. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion (xtool): IZAK, Doug Weller; WT:ISLAM (xtool) :RiskAficionado

1)
 * Pl. feel free and help keep difs updated as necessary as discussion moves ahead.

2) which is restored and pruned and updated by VFF further in following stages

3),   &#32;Bookku    (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * article current stage


 * It's hard to decide how wide to cast the net in sections like this, but I agree with @VenusFeuerFalle that it's useful to have a 'comparative mythology' section in this article. Readers may want to know what pre-Islamic traditions have been incorporated into the concept of jinn in the wide Islamicate world, and also to know what evidence there is for the array of beliefs on which Islam drew in its earliest stages. (For what it's worth, Elf has a section 'Equivalents in non-Germanic traditions', which is a bit messy and unfocused, but no-one as far as I know has ever objected to the idea of the section being there.) Alarichall (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mesopotamia had impact on a wide range of different demonic and spiritual ideas. The pre-Islamic jinn section deals precisely with jinn and provides a great deal about jinn before the advent of Islam. So, I am finw with that being removed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Take a chance if both sides can come on same page. Any way RfC is in offing but even before that if okay to both sides, I can extend input request umbrella further for more thorough discussion. For example the article Ancient Mesopotamian religion (xtools) has been edited by User:Midnightblueowl  and they seem to have strong GA FA level article experience. But in that case I shall try to invite top active users of most relevant and articles internally linked in this Jinn article. (can't predict which users would join for providng inputs). Other way round is we  take up the issues to notice FTN and NPOV notice boards boards one after other for more inputs. Let us know which one both sides would prefer the first option or second option, or just RfC? &#32;Bookku    (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am OK with anything that reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia editors, and that generally comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:OWN and WP:VERIFYOR.TheEagle107 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?
Relisting:Above discussion deserves inputs at least from few more users (before we go for RfC) that too preferably from users who contributed to related articles so they know the nuances better. Hence relisting the question with following brief synopsis of above discussion. for details pl. refer above.
 * *Fyi:intimated input requests to substantial and active contributors to article /talk, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool) :HouseGecko, GenoV84; Pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool):Sunriseshore, ‎ Gog the Mild; Judaism in pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool):Pogenplain; Islamic culture (Xtool):Johnbod; Schools of Islamic theology (Xtool):Billjones94; Muslims (Xtool):Wiqi55; Islam (Xtool): Sodicadl, User-duck, StarkReport, Guavabutter, AgisdeSparte;

1)
 * Pl. feel free and help keep difs updated as necessary as discussion moves ahead.

2) which is restored and pruned and updated by VFF further in following stages

3) ,
 * article current stage


 * User:TheEagle107 feels section Jinn to be irrelevant, and a combination of WP:OR & WP:FRINGE. So suggests deleting the section completely or just moving it to Comparative mythology.
 * Though User:VenusFeuerFalle agreed partial deletion, VFF says ".. Comparative mythology can be a valid sub-section, since "in the wake of the recent Multiculturalism trend" (to quote the Islam article), the role of jinn is indeed subject of much academic debate. Especially how they compare to Christian demons and devils."
 * VFF is okay with removal of 'Comparison of Buddhist Deva with islamic jinn'.

".. keep the Judaism section though, since this comparasion has been made several times and "shedim" even has become the Hebrew word for "jinn". It was once part of the Quran section due to analysis of the Quran, but deided to remove it below. The Christianity setion is aprtly of value. While the interpretation by Abraham Ecchellensis is neat to know, it had no impact on a historical scale. The term used for Bible translations is OR again and also worthless from an encyclopedic viewpoint. The discussion about fallen angels on the other hand, is frequently discussed even in academic circles also to understand the cultural exchange between Hellenistic ideas and Islam, and Islam in Andalus and its impact on European religion, including astrology and Medieval Philosophy. Maybe it even needs some additions. .."


 * VFF seem to have continued with removal of Mesopotamia related content but not happy about the removal. And says ".. Mesopotamia had impact on a wide range of different demonic and spiritual ideas. The pre-Islamic jinn section deals precisely with jinn and provides a great deal about jinn before the advent of Islam. .."

Do sources support saying jinn are a mythical creatures?--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Received just one input up til now, Alarichall says, ".. it's useful to have a 'comparative mythology' section in this article. .. It's hard to decide how wide to cast the net in sections like this,.. "
 * Waiting for more inputs:


 * Just for clarification: User VFF did not "continued with removal" but restored parts of the removed content by @TheEagle107. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have given stages dif of related content in collapse template above and that's self descriptive. I did not see 'Mesopotamia related content' restored but read you are not pleased, hence the wording and since both sides still seem to have reservations hence we are requesting more inputs. Let's hope we get some soon. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no quarrels about the current state. I merely considered the removal of all the content an overdo. If @TheEagle107 is fine too, the dispute seems to be resolved (on my part). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep but it needs to be modified.
 * Rename from "Comparative mythology" to "Historical context"; that is the paradigm under which antecedents are typically discussed.
 * I have made an edit replacing "scholars discussed how the jinn fit into the Judeo-Christian concept of demons" with "scholars discuss the relationship between Islamic notions of jinn and earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons."
 * The restriction to "demons" does not make sense as the section itself also mentions relationships to angelic beings, and also misses potential relations to spirit/spirit-like entities from the pre Islamic period.
 * "William of Conches" sentence should be removed. I cannot tell why it is relevant.
 * Sentence beginning with "In Islamic tradition, jinn and angels form two entirely different species" should be removed. This basic distinction should be stated earlier in the page, not here.
 * The first paragraph ends with a citation of the Quran Seminar Commentary but no page number. I checked this volume (its open access) and could not verify any support in it for the content of the first paragraph.
 * At the same time this section ignores almost all the scholarly work relating Quranic/Islamic-era jinn to pre Islamic ideas. Where is Josh Falconer's paper "Familiar Spirits in the Qurʾān: Retracing the Origins of the Jinn" ? Where is Valentina Grasso's paper "Historicizing Ontologies: Qur’ānic Preternatural Creatures between Ancient Topoi and Emerging Traditions" ? I have not read it but this book may contain much material of relevance https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Tengour-Esma-Hind/dp/2806609607. Nicolai Sinai's Key Terms of the Quran is low-lying fruit for citation, and discusses historical context of the jinn idea on pp 180-181 for Arabian background and late antique background in 183-186. It seems jinn mentions in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry are not mentioned. Pogenplain (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For whatever my input is worth - The article is "Jin" not strictly "Jinn in Islam", I don't see how having a section comparing to other religions is undue weight. Content within the section can be kept or deleted if it is OR or not. Sodicadl (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to have a look at that later. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "I have made an edit replacing 'scholars discussed how the jinn fit into the Judeo-Christian concept of demons' with 'scholars discuss the relationship between Islamic notions of jinn and earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons.'"
 * Appreciate the edit, it makes things much clearer. Nothing to object.
 * "William of Conches" sentence should be removed. I cannot tell why it is relevant." While he was influenced by Arabic writings, his distinction between "higher demons" and "lower demons" in turn influenced astrological works by al-Buni and al-Razi and their "demonology". However, this is not clear and, after checking, not adressed properly in the source. It is probably a remnant of the recently (by myself) moved "table" of the seven jinn-king, since they deal with the ambiguity between the ruhaniyya and jinn-kings. Lack of scholarly support makes it plausible to remove that (as per OR as stated by @Sodicadl)
 * "'Sentence beginning with 'In Islamic tradition, jinn and angels form two entirely different species' should be removed. This basic distinction should be stated earlier in the page, not here.'" I disagree here, since this is speficically related to the issue of comparative theology/mythology. In Islam the term "jinn" has a double meaning as stated in the exegesis section. It is used as a term for all supernatural beings (including angels and demons) when they morality is left ambigiuos and also for a specific supernatural species. The notion of jinn and angels being clearly distinct is the result of discussion in comparative mythology/theology. If this is rather confusing, I suggest to delete it entirely and not to move it.
 * The citation of the first paragraph might refer to the following part of the work (pp. 378-388): "'Several participants in the Notre Dame gathering wanted these beings to be fallen angels, meaning those “sons of God” who descended to mate with the “daughters of men” according to Gen 6:2–4 and whose story is developed in 1 Enoch (the Enoch book preserved in Ethiopic). This seems impossible to me. For one thing, there is absolutely nothing in the tradi�tion on the fallen angels at any time in its long history to suggest that these angels tried to, or even could, fly back to eavesdrop on proceedings in heaven; and the ǧinn in Q 72 are never actually called angels." It is the closest I was able to find. How much this does support the claim made here, I leave open to the opinion of other Users.
 * Regarding the last part, I think the section on Jinn sufficiently discusses the role of the jinn in pre-Islamic times by two separate sections, including one dedicated Jinn. This is also my reply to the adressed concerns in the opening paragraph: I do not think the section needs to be re-named "Historical context", since the article does discuss the pre-Quranic, and post-Quranic image of jinn pretty extensively. As @Sodicadl pointed out correctly and failed to be acknowledged by @TheEagle107 this article is not about "Jinn in Islam" but "Jinn". As the article already mentions in the introduction, "Jinn are not a strictly Islamic concept; they may represent several pagan beliefs integrated into Islam", the existence is rather popularized through the Quran and Islam.
 * The focus should be on the inclusion of the comparative mythology; how much similarities between jinn and demons/angels from Judeo-Christian tradition discussed in literature should be included, if included at all. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can get behind much of this and I understand you are fine with deletions of the two individual sentences making up the second paragraph. Based on Quran Seminary Commentary quote, at least one can say that the sentence about Augustine's views is not supported ? "They bear similarities to Augustine's descriptions of fallen angels as ethereal, since jinn seem to be considered as the same substance." I have removed this as well since Augustine does not seem to be mentioned. Pogenplain (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This would technically fall under Original Research. Would you mind to have a look on Fallen Angel? The source is used in a simialr way in the lead section to discuss the distinction between fallen angels and jinn in interreligious dialogue? Else, I would just copy most of your edit and paste it over, if you do not mind. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Jinn is an Islamic religious-based term/concept/definition for a species of super­nat­ural invisible beings, known as ‘genies’ in West­ern lexicon. You can say Jinn are the “demons of Islam”. A Qur'ānic chapter (72) is named after them. Please note also that there is not a single source in the whole article that says that jinn are mythical creatures. Anyone who objects to that must show me the source along with the text. So somehow I agree with the suggestions of User:Pogenplain that was stated above. The section should be removed or its title should be changed and rewritten  in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, and WP:VERIFYOR. For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Back to idea of a rename to "Historical context". Jinn can be conceived in broader terms than just the Islamic tradition, but it is also true that the page is heavily oriented to the Islamic perspective and a Comparative mythology or Historical context section should be written with that in mind. As it is the CM section compares Islamic belief/ritual with pre-Islamic (1) Christian angels (2) Jewish Solomonic stories (3) Jewish ritual. Though it is clearly lacking in detail, anyway - sure there is a Pre-Islamic section but this section does not do the task of comparing (and identifying similarities/differences) between Quranic/Islamic and pre-Islamic spirits. Also, while "Historical Context" studies have done the task of making these comparisons (which is what Id place the work of Falconer, Grasso, and Sinai in), I do not know of specialized comparative mythology experts/literature on this subject. Pogenplain (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarification:
 * Jinn are only considered "demons" within anthropological context, when discussion "demonic possession" in Islamic culture (see: "Women and Demons: Cult Healing in Islamic Egyp" or "Sexual Intercourse btween humans and demons in Islamic tradition" by Pierre Lory).
 * When talking about Islamic theology/cosmology/demonology, 'demons' mostly matches 'shayatin' not (evil) jinn. (see for example "Demons, Jinn and Figures of Evil in the Qurʾān" by Guillaume Dye, "Commanding Demons and Jinn: The Sorcerer in Early Islamic Thought" by Travis Zadeh, or Amira el Zein "Islam Arab and the Intelligent World of the Jinn".)
 * Even in some Anthropological studies, identifying jinn with demons has been considered to be too reductionistic and a distinction is made. (See: "Muhaimin, A.G. (2006). The Islamic Traditions of Cirebon: Ibadat and Adat among Javanese Muslims. ANU E Press."). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On "Mythology": The term "mythology" does not need to be proven to you, since the term is academic jargon and in line with all the guidlines you listed here. See WP:BLUESKY for further information. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Requesting mid-discussion synopsis: Summary along with important edit dif will help understand progress, remaining disagreements, communication gaps and help nominally observing users too.&#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pogenplain @VenusFeuerFalle
 * @TheEagle107
 * I urge neutral summary / synopsis of above discussion up til now. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been absent for a few weeks now. I really could not effort to go into lenghty discussions. Is this debate still ongoing? I do not want to enflame a discussion whihc might have been settled for the time of my absence. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @VenusFeuerFalle Slightly longer real life wiki-break seems usual to all users at this talk page. Edits by LPB @ indicates issues still need to be sorted out. IMO Section wise Summary from involved users would have helped better. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Page Number request
The sentence "The Quran condemns the pre-Islamic Arabian practice of worshipping or seeking protection from them" has an incomplete citation. I tried to find the statement (or a similar one) in the source, but could not find it. On the other hand, there is a similar sounding one in "Routledge Revivals: Medieval Islamic Civilization (2006): An Encyclopedia - Volume I". Unfortunately, the Google Book review is not transparent about the page number. It can be said, however, that the statement is under the entry 'Jinn'. The statement in question goes as follows: "'The most important source for understanding the concept of jinn in Islam is the Qur'an, which strongly condemns the worship of the jinn by the Arabs before Islam and their search for protection from them (72:6).'" Should we simply replace "South Asian Folklore: An Encyclopedia" by "Routledge Revivals: Medieval Islamic Civilization"? (maybe this was even the original source and then things got messed up during some edits). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and refusal to elaborate on the talkpage
@TheEagle107 makes constantly disruotive edits I have a go soon, so maybe somone else could keep an eye on them. In my opinion, the User needs to be reported and banned, however @Bookku can still muster good faith, I found myself unable to. They constantly say something, and then you check it, it is just not true. I for my part User is simply motivated by religious bias as seen in their refusal of accepting basic Jargon and interfering unreliable sources in their recent comments here, while at least some users it seems they are considered to be simply struggling to understand the meaning of these guidlines (or not familar with them themselves). What is the opinion on others regarding their edits? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edit: Oh and they started spamming my talkpage... must be something personal.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue is now referred to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Pl give there your sides in 150- 200 words without personalizing; Soon proceeding to RfC formatting so urging patience from both sides. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, since he vandlied again, I reported him. Hoepfully he just gets deleted. Especially since he started spamming my talkpage. Enough is enough. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems Eagle is edit warring/engaging in WP:DE. Objecting to use of "Mythology" in section title does not entail all section content should be deleted. I think it should be kept. Pogenplain (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Apprehensions are understandable but in the heat of the moment we do not realize mistakes on our own sides. This time situation seem to have been saved since the issue was listed at WP:NPOVN. Let us take positive note of article protecting admin's note ".. further edit warring would probably cause a need to long-duration partial blocks to prevent the impact on other editors ..". Let us, take differences in stride and try to move on by helping in forming neutral summary so that discussion can move on towards RfC formatting. We all are aware of importance of focusing on content; I suggest and urge, When things go off the track come back to the track of content discussion. Let us come back to mood of cheers and happy editing. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheEagle107, @VenusFeuerFalle


 * If you can make sense out of the user, go ahead. With best efforts, I do not get through them. I think I made multiple times clear that the issues are. But with their last response, I just think they do not understand what is said. Neither their posted wikiguidliens make sense, nor their templates, nor their responses on the talkpage. For example, they said I would have said taht jinn are not an essential part of Islam previously, and listed about 10 sources stating otherwise. The thing is, neither I nor the article said that. Quite contrarily, the article does say that jinn are essential to Islam and was once added by myself. If you can communicate with the User properly, go ahead, I give up on them. Either they do not want to understand me or is not able to, this is not mine to decide. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have only one direct question: Where are the sources that say that jinn are mythical creatures? Well, after more than a month of discussion and providing many sources that support my position, the user's answer was the sky is blue, while the first sentence in the lead states that jinn are invisible creatures! On "Mythology": The term "mythology" does not need to be proven to you, since the term is academic jargon and in line with all the guidlines you listed here. See WP:BLUESKY for further information.

Anyway, for my part, I will accept the consensus of Wikipedia editors whatever it is, and I hope the other user will do the same. Peace. TheEagle107 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Serious question. Do you really not understand what people write you? Because this would explain a lot of your responses and replies. Until know, I just assumed you have a religious personal bias, but if you really quote the correct comment, yet fail to grasp its meaning, when I might have been mistaken about you. Nonetheless, you are required to spam my talkpage, or you will have been on the admin-page again soon (this is not a threat but a clarification). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are seriously requesting a source, it would have suffices to check the article. By the way, when someone responses to you and there are blue letters, it is a link usually related to the response. You need to click on it for more details about the arguement (or to read into the topic). For example, the meaning of "mythological cerature" would have been explained to you as here: "A legendary creature (also called a mythical or mythological creature) is a type of fantasy entity, typically a hybrid, that has not been proven and that is described in folklore (including myths and legends), but may be featured in historical accounts before modernity." If you had clicked on it, we would not have needed any discussion about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC formatting
Please suggest neutral questions for RfC.. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest something like: Please answer with a brief statement of why, on your view, the section should be or should not be: 1) deleted, or 2) its title should be renamed, or 3) merged into another section, or 4) moved to an appropriate article.--TheEagle107 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you not be including LPB's questions too?
 * I suggest write neutral summary (without any personal complaints) for sections: Pre-RfC, Comparative mythology and Real/ religious/ Mythical creature or not issue.
 * While writing summary include links to previous notice board discussions (update when archived).
 * It will help you in suggesting questions and help RfC participating users in understanding the issues better.&#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, User:Louis P. Boog's suggestions and concerns should be included as well. Take, for example, this: My questionable edits notwithstanding, I don't see how ...
 * One cannot deny the existence of the ginn without incurring the accusation of kufr (disbelief) and being excluded from the community of believers (takfīr). In addition to the Koran and the words of the prophets, additional written sources that have emerged over the centuries underline the widespread acceptance of the existence of demons in the Islamic world. Even in modern Muslim societies, the Jinn belief is deeply rooted.
 * can't be added to the pile of other sources indicating belief in Jinn is important in Islam.
 * Template:POV should be added or not?--TheEagle107 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Comparative mythology section relevant?
Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * My suggestion:
 * Change heading to something like Comparative belief/mythology
 * trim section
 * change opening sentence:
 * ''In Comparative mythology, scholars discuss the relationship between Islamic notions of jinn and earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons.
 * to something like
 * ''Islamic notions of jinn have been compared by scholars to earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose any change. Wikipedia reflects the highest-quality academic sources, which treat things like djinn as mythology; Islamic beliefs must be confined to the "Islam" section and clearly labeled / attributed as such, and cannot alter or inform the text of other sections outside of brief attributed mentions of those beliefs. Neither do I agree with the implicit argument here that using the term "mythology" is somehow offensive to people of faith - a folk-mythology with no religious or textual basis can form around or alongside a faith, and is often referred to as mythology in that context. We must reflect the language used in high-quality academics; while I'm usually reluctant to cite it, WP:NOTCENSORED clearly applies here. (Finally, I will note that the assertion that "most" Muslims believe in Djinn as literal, non-allegorical sources, repeatedly made above as a justification for these proposed changes, doesn't seem to actually be backed by any sources. Many religious texts incorporate local mythology in various ways; that does not mean that it is all accepted as literal truth by every believer. The mentions of Leviathan in the Bible, for instance, do not mean that all believers think Leviathan literally exists; that article rightfully describes it in both religious and mythological terms.) Comparative Mythology is the correct academic term for an entire field of study that covers things like eg. the flood myth or primordial chaos; we mention the founding myth of the Egyptian captivity used in Judaism (and faiths descended from it) in that article, too. Using it here is entirely correct. Christianity, the Bible, and so on are mentioned repeatedly in our article on Comparative Mythology; similarly, Genesis flood narrative describes it as a Flood myth in its first sentence and throughout. There is no particular reason why we would defer to religious sensibilities over academic ones solely in the case of Islam. --Aquillion (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aquillion Just for info, in above talk page discussions I am playing just role of discussion facilitator. There is tendency of longer real life Wiki-breaks at this talk page hence slow speed of discussion, still it's good discussion has moved on.
 * Since RfC-OP does not seem to be around let, keeping individual belief parts aside, let me try to put up policy and guideline wise their likely questions to facilitate the discussion.
 * Comparative Mythology may be very well a correct academic term, but is it used by respective sources being used in the article? if yes then which one?
 * Similarly RfC-OP seem to contest use of the term "Mythical creature" in infobox and seem to wish to see WP:RS for the same. Where as the other user seem to say it's obvious so ref not needed there. What is your opinion on that?
 * On side note I suggest to go through talk page discussion, User:Louis P. Boog may come up with one more RfC about their own questions. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Aquillion: Do academics consider angels or devils part of  mythology (myth, stories)?  And if so, does that mean academics don't understand that some people consider them religious figures, part of their religious belief?  And if academics do consider angels or devils part of a religion, a belief system, what's the difference between them and jinn? Jinn are, after all, mentioned in the Quran and in hadith of Islam.
 * Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, the theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, {{cite book||quote=

Anderseits verweist Ibn Hazm ähnlich wie Ibn Taymiyya darauf, dass sich die Muslime in der Bejahung der Existenz von Dämonen einig seien (agma'a, igmä). Auch die Christen, Zoroastrier, Sabier und die meisten Juden, hier mit Ausnahme der Samaritaner, würden sich zustimmend zum Geisterglauben äußern. Ibn Hazm schließt seine Überlegungen zur Existenz von ginn mit der folgenden, für die Position traditionalistischer Kreise bezeichnenden Bemerkung: "Wer die ginn leugnet oder über sie Umdeutungen ersinnt, durch die er sie aus der äußeren Welt hinausdrängt, ist ein ungläubiger Polytheist (käfir mušrik), dessen Blut und Besitz vogelfrei sind (haläl ad-dam wa-äl-mäl)." Mit dieser Aussage brandmarkt Ibn Ḥazm das Leugnen der ǧinn als kufr (Unglaube) und bezeichnet all jene als vogelfrei, die die tatsächliche Existenz von Dämonen nicht akzeptieren. {{sc|Translation:}}''' {{in lang|en}}, automatically translated by Google Translate. On the other hand, Ibn Hazm, like Ibn Taymiyya, points out that Muslims are united in affirming the existence of demons (agma'a, igmä). Christians, Zoroastrians, Sabians and most Jews, with the exception of the Samaritans, would also express their approval of the belief in ghosts. Ibn Hazm concludes his reflections on the existence of ginn with the following remark, which is representative of the position of traditionalist circles: "Whoever denies the ginn or thinks up new interpretations of it by which he pushes it out of the external world is an unbelieving polytheist (käfir mušrik), whose blood and property are outlaws (haläl ad-dam wa-äl-mäl)." With this statement, Ibn Ḥazm brands the denial of the Jinn as kufr (disbelief) and describes as outlaws all those who do not accept the actual existence of demons. |author=Tobias Nünlist
 * source={{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yoE_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33|title=Dämonenglaube im Islam|page=33}}
 * and more recently revivalist preachers Abul A'la Maududi,{{Efn|In his introduction to the Quran, Maududi defends "the reality of the jinn" against the influence of "modernism", the failure of modernists to believe in what cannot be perceived, and their idea that the jinn of the Quran were not supernatural invisible beings but actually "savage and wild mountain tribes, and sometimes the people who used to listen to the Quran secretly".  }} and Fethullah Gülen,{{Efn|From Essentials of the Islamic Faith, "As mentioned earlier, jinn are a species of invisible beings. A short Qur'anic chapter is named for them, and in it we learn that a band of jinn listened to Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, and some became believers: ..." "Jinn can harm the body and cause physical and psychological illnesses. It might be a good idea for medical authorities to consider whether jinn cause certain types of cancer, since cancer is an unordered and diseased growth in the body that we can describe as cellular anarchy". }} believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. {{rp|style=ama|p=33}} Openly expressing of doubt about the existence of j̲inn was not common even amidst the Muʿtazila; and among the  erstwhile philosophers, al-Fārābī also, tried to skip the question with vague  definitions. Ibn Sīnā was an  outlier-- he outrightly rejected their existence. In present-day Islam, only a "small number" believes that  jinn in the Quran should be understood symbolically instead of  literally. (In 1995 a  Professor Nasr Abu Zayd was accused of blaspheme and apostasy,  in part for his alleged disbelief in Jinn. He left Egypt for exile after a joint statement calling for his killing was issued by a group of professors at al-Azhar University, the "theological centre of Egypt".)  --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think its obvious academics see them as mythical since they are compared to the demons of the Testament of Solomon, the gny' from Palmyra, the spirits of Jubilees et cetera. Pogenplain (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But they are also figures of belief are they not, for the reasons described above?
 * And since this is an article about Jinn, isn't it more appropriate to have an opening sentence in the section like:
 * Islamic notions of jinn have been compared by scholars to earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons. --02:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose change to current section {{summoned by bot}}. Jinn are not real entities regardless of any particular religious beliefs and we should not shy away from that fact, until such time that proof is discussed in peer reviewed literature. We should rely on the best sources and talk about the belief in relation to other beliefs. TarnishedPath{{sup|talk}} 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparative mythology Sources
Greetings, I remember about a month ago, there was work ont he Comparative Mythology section. @User:Pogenplain maybe "A Comparison of Superstitious Beliefs and Rituals in Buddhism and Islam | Pastoral Psychology (springer.com)" is another good source for you. It could be attached tot he shedim and exorcism rituals section t compare to general beliefs in ghosts/spirits in folklore. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle (VFF)
There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @Louis P. Book (referred to as LPB), @TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.

The dispute on the Article The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given.

The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised. Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.

At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895) I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by Fetullah Gülen (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711). Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse. While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Wikipedia entry, also advocate of Islamism as seen here: Abul A'la Maududi). Religious authorities are not reliable sources (WP:RNPOV and WP:PARTISAN), even if the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between Religious studies and Theology.

Afterwards, I undid their edits, and exlained with each step why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568) A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996)

For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,

Talkpage The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the Shaitan article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (Avoiding difficult users)

Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.

Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead. He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia), which could lead to an immediate ban (WP:HUSH) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to gaming the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

Summary Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them. Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value. I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Louis P. Boog
@VenusFeuerFalle, @TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku. My suggested edits to the Jinn article are posted in blue of "{{talkquote|" in  this sandbox post. The basic idea is encapsilated in the sentence I'm trying to add to the lede {{talkquote|Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran. {{rp|style=ama|p=33}}}}

While it is unlikely that many people would suggest Jinn are a major part of Islam, the suggested edits (using some research by TheEagle107) only include


 * a few sentences to the Jinn section (which I would rename Belief) summarized in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244 as 3 points

1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede
 * Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.[1](p33)

2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included among two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam). (The point here being that Maududi has/had a huge following and readership); 3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. (The significance here is that belief in the apostasy of Nasr Abu Zayd in his country (Egypt) was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him). (He lamented that "it took one week for my name [Nasr Abu Zayd] to be cursed all over Egypt. Even in my village they were saying I was teaching heresies to the students...")


 * and one long sentence in the Prevalence of belief section.

To help resolve the dispute I (with the help of Bookku) hashed it out on the talk page, apealed to took the issue to
 * Third_opinion answered by User:StereoFolic
 * Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Archive 244)
 * A discussion at No_original_research/Noticeboard --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply to VFF summary

 * Below is VenusFeuerFalle's Discussion Summary from above chopped up with replies by myself to make the point and counterpoints easier to read.

There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @Louis P. Book (referred to as LPB),
 * (He is mispelling my name -- it's Boog not Book.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.

The dispute on the Article The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given. The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised.
 * Actually I rewrote my edit, addressing your complaint that "the lead is a summary of the body off text." I shortened the edit of the lede and put the extra in "the body of text". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.
 * A misquote???.
 * Here is what the author said: [listing answers to the question "why write a book" on the jinn?]: "... secondly, although belief in jinn is not one of the five pillars of Islam, one can't be Muslim if he/she doesn't have faith in their existence because they are mentioned in the Qur'an and the prophetic tradition."
 * "one can't be a Muslim" certainly sounds like a religious obligation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895)


 * accused you of "bias"? My talk page post did say I wanted to know "why a short piece of information from a scholarly source indicating the popular belief in Shaitan being a jinn should be deleted" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) ... sounds more like a question than an accusation.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)


 * An example of one of his explanations, (in reference to [Nasr Abu Zayd], the professor threatened with death for blaspheme, cited by me as evidence that belief in Jinn can be important): "noone cares if some dude went to exile for denial, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper...." --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by Fetullah Gülen (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711).

Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse.
 * Not sure which particular edit he's referring to but one he reverted here was of an edit I made following a Dispute_resolution_on the noticeboard session done by User:Robert McClenon here  which ended with Robert McClenon stating:
 * Closed due to lack of response by one editor [i.e. VFF]. The filing editor [me, LPB] has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly.
 * VFF deleted my bold edits. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Wikipedia entry, also advocate of Islamism as seen here: Abul A'la Maududi).
 * Yes, Maududi is an Islamist but last time I checked that did not exclude him from being an important figure in contemporary Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Religious authorities are not reliable sources (WP:RNPOV and WP:PARTISAN), even if the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between Religious studies and Theology.
 * Both of the "religious authorities" I want to briefly mention in the article (Fetullah Gülen and Abul A'la Maududi) are religious scholars. Maududi has written a multi-volume commentary on the Quran. Religious authorities are not WP:RN on the doctrine or history of a religion, But I put it to you that they are reliable authorities on their own interpretation of religious doctrine when clearly stated. And when they have a large following, their interpretation is notable.  Yes, you will have a hard time finding academic scholars of Islam commenting on all aspects of the doctrines of Gülen and Maududi (such as doctrine on Jinn), but the fact stands that they are notable and they have spoken (Maududi especially) on Jinn. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Afterwards, I undid their edits, and exlained with each step why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568)
 * (The link is to a revert by Davemck, not you, with an edit summary of "renumber duplicate parm", whatever that means.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Davemck,
 * 1) Pl. can help understand what your edit is about. Is it general copy edit or content update?
 * 2) The other user above seems claimed your edit as theirs, hopefully you have only user account but your clarification may help your self.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * My edit was a copy edit that fixed a typo: VFF had added a template (here) with these parms:
 * image1= width1= alt1= caption1=
 * image2= width1= alt2= caption2=
 * resulting in a "duplicate parm" error for width1=. My fix was to change the obvious typo to width2=.
 * (I have only this one user account.)
 * Davemck (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see the confusion: that url above is a diff that spans 7 edits: 6 by VFF and 1 by me. The diff software shows only the last editor (me), making it look like I did all 7 edits; but I did only the width1= edit.
 * Davemck (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I have already advised to @VenusFeuerFalle about importance of citing only the specific relevant difs. I hope they take care here after. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,


 * This is not a dispute about "identification of jinn with satans". It's about adding information about how "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith".
 * As for "blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satan", where the hell have there any cites of blogs arguing "for the identification of jinn with satans" in this article?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

and omitting other positions also prevailing in Islamic tradition as also mentioned in secondary literature).

Talkpage The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the Shaitan article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (Avoiding difficult users)

Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.
 * TheEagle107 hasn't made an edit since June 2 but I should note that what he does suggest at the link above is adding to the lead:
 * that ''"The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the Qur'an, and one of its chapters is even named after them. " Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that talks about the jinn.
 * How is this "inappropriate"?? It's backed by secondary sources, would not take up that much space in the lede, and is not  stating that Jinn are "essential". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead.
 * It is a bit frustrating that on the one hand questions to VFF are answered like this:
 * ''I think I answers all your objections in my edit summaries. When you want to discuss the issue, please include my reasons and object to those. I do not intent to go forth and back.
 * On the other hand VFF is patiently "waiting for responses to my objections" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia), which could lead to an immediate ban (WP:HUSH) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to gaming the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

Summary Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them.
 * Did these people include anyone besides yourself? (There was another unrelated issue -- Comparative mythology -- that I edited here after a RfC here seemed to come to a conclusion. I was wrong, and part of my edit was reverted by User:Aquillion.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value. I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind that you are an editor like the other users involved in the dispute, and not some authority to decide who will be given "one last chance". We would all like to spend my time on other things. As for "canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry", feel free to investigate me. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You doing WP:CANVASS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoe_Roe&diff=1232209761&oldid=1232066712 (again) is a reason to report you. So yes, there is a difference between editors being wronged and editors who ignore input. However, Eagle is first, so do not worry. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by facilitator

 * For uninitiated: My role here has been largely of good faith discussion facilitator similar to spirit in village pump proposal (under discussion), largely to help involved users to focus on content aspects.
 * @VenusFeuerFalle As I replied you at User talk:VenusFeuerFalle, I had requested everyone of you a neutral summary of content dispute, Whereas what you seem have produced is a surprising WP:wall of text of personalized complaint -seems like breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF, avoidable and uncalled for at this juncture when healthy discussions taking place for RfCs -  which at the most should have been discussed at respective user talk page then ANI.
 * For example See at Talk:Borg (drink) user @BanjoZebra provided such a neutral summary - so appreciable and helpful for other users to take a call.
 * @Louis P. Boog
 * 1) Quoting other user while rebutting point by point is quite okay; same time one is not supposed to change original post of other user, and leave it as is, so I suggest, though it (VFF post) is a WP:Wall of text you place it back (restore) as it was -let your format of answering as is there is no issue in format of your answering as far as I understand.
 * My mistake. My plan was to leave the original VenusFeuerFalle (VFF) post unedited and copied and pasted it below as Reply to VFF summary so as to avoid violating the prohibition on changing someone else's  original post. I see I messed up a couple of times, I've tried to fix it. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) It's true that VFF seem to have been prejudiced from disagreements from other articles and unhappy about requests for updates in this article too and that should have been handled at user talk page, anyways they have posted here and you replied.
 * If I am in your place I will try to find who is last active admin at WP:ANI request them on their user talk page to review whatever has been this personalized stuff has been and guide and also if possible to collapse this wall of text section, if possible. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Here is my notice to VFF. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @&#32;Bookku , Reporting back. No success in interesting admins after several attempts. None said they thought there was nothing wrong with VFF's rant, but either they made no reply to my appeal (here, here, here), or they suggested I take it to ANI (here), which I did and they had no response. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe because most of them were not even admins? Maybe because you need follow protocol when you want things to workout??? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they from the admin list and no one complained about violating protocol. Thank you for your concern though. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They seem to have had different priorities. Basically all of you involved users wish to have good quality content in the article, then I would suggest attempt to develop this article to WP:Feature article level that will help you getting better guidance and attention from more experienced users all the way.&#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)