User talk:Bookku/Archive 5

Your comments at AE
Your comments at AE here is making the admins think that they have a lot to read. I think if you collapse all the text you added there, the admins will read and close that AE with or without action, faster (since everything you have typed is just friendly advise). I don't mean to offend you but I strongly believe that what I have typed here is in good faith!-Haani40 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Haani40
 * Uninvolved users play an important role in by providing assessment and different and likely more neutral  perspective to save admin time. My analysis in comments is policy wise quite relevant, I regret if other users are ignoring it.
 * I find it very strange you to presume some thing on admin behalf without providing dif of any such specific discussion by any admin. You know most part of my comment was already collapsed. Still in good faith I collapsed one more para after your request. Before reaching to misleading presumption you should have communicated with the admin and requested to close the case. Any ways I made the request to the admin. I wish and strongly suggest henceforth not to repeat presumption on somebody else's behalf. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ￼OK, thanks for doing so!-Haani40 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This turned out to be sock saga. For my own record before archival. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Pl help me find if possible
Can someone pl. help in finding  previous discussions, similar to the case discussed in No original research/Noticeboard  section, from archives of WP:NORN notice board or any other discussion, if possible?

Request made on own talk page since helpme template is strangely not allowed in Wikipedia namespace though at times help can be helpful at noticeboards too in multiple ways. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's intentional that the help templates be used on your own user talk page.
 * No, you may not ask for subject matter help using them. And, at its base, that seems to be what you are trying to get. What you have is a completely normal discussion about content and it's being handled in the normal way, on a noticeboard or talk page.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jmcgnh I can understand you seem to be providing only 'how to' help. Though I suppose Wikipedia needs data mining support to study similar previous discussions since users discussing issues may have other time constraints.
 * Any ways is it essential for me to retain replaced template or I can remove the same since I have taken note of it? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You will find data mining with such vague questions to be hard to automate; as it is, people seem to be having a hard time figuring out what the topic of that discussion is, much less how some older discussion might be similar to it in some way.
 * You are free to edit your user page as you see fit, including removing (or archiving) sections for which you don't expect there to be followups. In fact, just about the only thing you are forbidden to remove are declined unblock notices.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Providing support and help needs positive mind to understand difficulties without labeling, patience and perseverance; I am also in a role of providing help as discussion facilitator at No original research/Noticeboard. Support and solutions are needed where things are complex, but any ways presently no Support and solutions around so no choice other than accepting no choice &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

More Jinn page dispute
Recently tweeked my sandbox rewrite here. Adding some of User:TheEagle107's recent additions. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Louis P. Boog
 * Most of your citations seem to be from reliable publishers and that actually VenusFeuerFalle gets early satisfied if publisher is reliable. I don't think VenusFeuerFalle  would go to following length but being prepared is always better  so you would be ready to discuss with anyone in advance with more confidence less hassle.

Actually source is secondary and reliable enough is supposed to be enough in Wikipedia but some users tend to stretch to such lengths


 * Bellow I have visited only couple of refs I shall visit the rest as soon as possible.
 * But when RfC debates are polarized and hot there is tendency of further crosschecking of author antecedents.
 * For example if you cross check Mark A. Caudill profile at google books (your present ref no. '31' ) does not have academic teaching background but was/is in U.S. Foreign Service officer now some users may characterize the author as biased just because his back ground associated with US govt. service.
 * Ref no 32 William E. Burns Some WP user can brush him aside because google books profile mentions him only as historian, so google his name and you find him as academic historian at George Washington University we may think so far so good, but other side will cross check whether you are referring him up to historical fact and analysis or going beyond in realms of religion without William E. Burns having academic background  of religion in general and Islam in particular.
 * This way we will need to go one by one and look for alternate academic sources which give least chance of debate to other side. Also check if any academic is having exclusive religiously christian institutional background and I suppose you are already avoiding self-publishing authors too.
 * This way we will need to go one by one and look for alternate academic sources which give least chance of debate to other side. Also check if any academic is having exclusive religiously christian institutional background and I suppose you are already avoiding self-publishing authors too.


 * Now still you would have confidence in some content but did not get expected academic book immediately one way to approach with user like VenusFeuerFalle is to request them only to help you with 'you yourself have direct access to libraries and you are well read on the topic' you help us find acceptable author who would have supported same or similar sentence, if you know of any.' If help comes well and good other wise WP:REREQ  is always there to request help.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louis P. Boog, @TheEagle107
 * Prima facie most refs in highlighted text seem to be okay except for last in TheEagle107's list Charles H. Brewton, since Google Book profile of Charles Brewton says he is an American professor of business strategy not of Islam, religion or history.  So its better to drop  Brewton  and look for alternate.
 * Prima facie most refs in highlighted text seem to be okay except for last in TheEagle107's list Charles H. Brewton, since Google Book profile of Charles Brewton says he is an American professor of business strategy not of Islam, religion or history.  So its better to drop  Brewton  and look for alternate.


 * Christiane Timmerman, seems to be an editor among other editor, you would need to check who is the author and whether there background is relevant.


 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed on Brewton who appears to be writing as a Christian apologist.
 * Did some digging on Timmerman book. p.310 is in Chapter 14. Struggling with the Jinn: Moroccan healing practices and the placebo effect (pp. 307-328) by Philip Hermans, "I am a guest professor of anthropology at the IMMRC (Interculturalism, Migration and Minorities Research Centre) since 2006. ... I have done research and published on Moroccan culture, Moroccan Islamic folk medicine, ethnicity, and the integration and education of ethnic minority children."
 * will make additions/changes to sandbox draft--Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bookku & Please see Talk:Jinn. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * will check --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louis P. Boog, @TheEagle107
 * In next steps I would suggest go through and note down various applicable policies, guidelines and essays for further discussion like WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe WP:FALSEBALANCE etc. You can seek inputs from other users at related notice boards one at a time there after open WP:BEFORERFC  discussion at the at article talk page to formalize neutral question for WP:RFC you can seek help of DRN admin in formation of neutral question for WP:RFC. And then go for WP:RFC and notify relevant project talk pages about RFC and let the community take consensus call. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello again, with all due respect, but I think this user should, at least, be banned from editing this article for like a year or something, due to his lack of neutrality & his disruptive tactics. Plz see: Talk:Jinn/Archive_1. Let me quote his own words: "Many content I already knew before, others I read from the books. For example I only needed about 4 days for the whole "Dämonenglaube im Islam" by Tobias Nünlist (about 500 pages)."--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I am not admin to do that. I suppose they too were new then on Wikipedia. Also generally I discourage personalization of disputes from any side since we all are here primarily for content development and personalization is huge waste of time and energy, believe me. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Anyway, let's wait and see! Thank you for your kindness, time, patience and effort in trying to resolve this dispute. I wish you all the best always.💚--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for moderating Bookku. What more do you see needs to be done before RFC?--Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Louis P. Boog
 * WP:RFCBEFORE:
 * 1) You have already completed steps - WP:3O, WT:ISLAM and WP:DRN.
 * 2) At article talk page open a new section for 'RFC Before' - a) Present your updates in the draft ask if VFF wish to contest any sources if any disagreement on reliability of source seek inputs from WP:RSN b) Ask VFF if which/ any parts of your requested updates they are willing to take on board - if yes then well and good c) For remaining parts of content disagreement write neutral RFC questions preferably in agreement with VFF if disagreement on form of question seek help of DRN admin who had already offered to facilitate RfC, me or any other RfC experienced user can help in writing neutral questions. d) Write neutral synopsis of issues and policies involved for benefit of uninitiated users
 * 3) Opening RfC in new section procedure is formatting as mentioned in WP:RFCTP -once neutral language questions are decided it's easy, the DRN admin RfC experienced user You can help you in this step. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Steps 2) a) and b) on the Jinn talk page here. Waiting for VFF reply. You may have seen my proposed RfC here --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Put question to No original research/Noticeboard about Maududi and Fethullah Gülen here --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Louis P. Boog
 * 1) Many users who do not know nuances of topic Jinn navigating through a new topic all of a sudden can prove difficult and chance of you getting response may reduce.
 * See if beginning with a common and simplified version would help uninitiated users, some thing like following:
 * In this case ".. many ... scholars, including ... scholar ABCD and the ... scholar PQRS, believe in specific philosophical side XYZ."  For this kind of sentence a specific RS is available from independent author. Say you wish to add two more notable author names 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' on the basis what they too have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly work on the same lines. Would it be okay to add such names as WP:SUMMARY in the list or would that be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH ?
 * There after your specific case, along with some collapse template to reduce feeling of Wall of text. :: Wall of text feeling is likely to reduce number of responses because other users would think that would be time consuming to navigate through lesser known or un known topic area.
 * 2) I can understand archives of No original research/Noticeboard will be huge but try randomly couple of them if you get any similar case.
 * 3) You can also seek help by putting below your section with request to help you in finding similar case from archives or previous talk page discussions.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. I'll start with 1). Thanks again. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I just wanted to point out something which I think you didn't notice:

In addition, I have did some more digging and collected some additional sources, just in case of any future objections.

Hope this helps. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparative mythology
Hello Bookku, 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! So I consider it irrelevant and not directly linked to the specific context, and it seems to me a combination of WP:OR. I would like to ping users @User:Dumuzid and @User:Slatersteven because we had the same problem with the same user in the article of God in Islam. What do you think or suggest about this?TheEagle107 (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would agree; the section seems to me a bit too apologetic in tone, arguing that jinn are present in other religions. While there's certainly worthwhile stuff in there, I think it should be edited down quite a bit.  As ever, that's just one old guy's opinion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheEagle107
 * A) Like most other issues this too seem to be WP:DUE/ WP:UNDUE issue, you can very well take it up at upcoming RfC. Again if you wish you can seek additional inputs from WP:NPOVN / WP:FTN after closure of present notice board discussions before the proposed RfC.
 * B) Since you are also getting well versed in referring, evaluating and discussing academic references and WP policies you do not need to be overly wary of other users having different opinions than you. Keep focus on content and not persons.
 * C) No doubt Wikipedia is for collaborative content development just take care of WP:CAN guidelines and this essay. In WP:DR concerns when we invite we generally invite all concerned.
 * For more inputs what I do is I find relevant article /article talk relevant project notice board talk pages - Refer page information page - refer revision history from xtools find active among top contributing editors and invite all irrespective of their inclinations, if any.
 * I hope this helps. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid any edit wars on the issue, it would be better to seek additional opinions from other expert editors to reach a consensus decision within the community. First, I will open a discussion on the article's talk page. If there are any objections raised, then, for the sake of neutrality, I kindly ask you as a discussion facilitator to present the problem on WP:NPOVN & WP:FTN.--TheEagle107 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid any edit wars on the issue, it would be better to seek additional opinions from other expert editors to reach a consensus decision within the community. First, I will open a discussion on the article's talk page. If there are any objections raised, then, for the sake of neutrality, I kindly ask you as a discussion facilitator to present the problem on WP:NPOVN & WP:FTN.--TheEagle107 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. It's a hopeless case. Even while the dispute still active, the POV template was removed. As I said above, I believe that this user should be banned at least from editing this article, due to his/her lack of Neutral point of view, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia & Ownership of content. Anyway, let's move on to the next step and see what others will say.--TheEagle107 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated intimations at couple of notice boards incl WP:FTN, WT:Myth, WT:Islam. Will do further needful as needed.
 * Any ways we are seeking inputs from relevant projects etc. and discussion will go for RfCs. My personal experience is Wikipedia community usually not much in favour of tagging articles, so getting community support on that remains difficult, though At personal level, usually, I would prefer tagging articles to seek more inputs/ participation from readers at least for couple of weeks.
 * Always remember there can be many more ways to have more inputs keeping focused on content. At the most dot down personal issues on your personal PC for future if needed any time at all. But preferably remain focused on content. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Always remember there can be many more ways to have more inputs keeping focused on content. At the most dot down personal issues on your personal PC for future if needed any time at all. But preferably remain focused on content. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Narendra Modi&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 12:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Template talk:Infobox political party&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Geoffrey Cuming&#32; on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)