Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars task force

Disscusions
Hello all. --Striver 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sai Baba
Hi: Recently Sai Baba of Shirdi was put under aegis of WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars. If somebody is suggesting that Sai Baba of Shirdi was a Muslim Scholar, may I get some idea of how this term is meant? He was a Sufi Mystic with Hindu Mystic leanings, or vice versa. I don't believe anybody anywhere considers him a Muslim Scholar. Or are YOU guys the Muslim Scholars???? Thanks for the clarification. --Nemonoman 04:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Did you notice that the tag included "note:the project includes non-Muslim scholars."? --Striver 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you join
Do you jsut put your name down? Miraculousrandomness 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Project scope?
Would Category:Muslim scholars or Category:Islamic scholars be more appropriate to use as the "scope" category of this group? John Carter 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Muslim scholar
Shouldn't the Death section be an optional parameter? Some articles deal with living Muslim scholars. Thanks, --Kimse (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani
Brothers the article about this Islamic legend is incomplete and needs an expert. There are contrary statements in the article and some information is merely fabricated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Hassan Raza Shah (talk • contribs) 10:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Syed Hassan Raza Shah 10:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Hassan Raza Shah (talk • contribs)

Nana Asmau and Usman dan Fodio
Hi. I'm not very skilled with wikipedia editing yet, but I thought I'd let you all know, in case you didn't, that the articles on Usman dan Fodio and Nana Asma’u are close to being in decent shape. Nana Asma'u isn't up to "Good" standard yet, but it's fully referenced and the language is clear. Usman dan Fodio needs a general clean-up of language, but has solid references and most of the facts in place. Pamela McVay (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Pamela McVay

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 361 articles are assigned to this project, of which 107, or 29.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Muslim scientists
I just came across a complaint that Ibn al-Haytham was labeled a "Muslim polymath" in the first line of his bio, but that Galileo is not labeled a "Christian polymath", or Einstein a "Jewish physicist". In the world of science, few people consider your religion to be relevant.

Later in the article, it said that Ibn al-Haytham studied "Islamic physics". That makes it sound like he didn't study real physics, but something hokey along the lines of Creation Science. I deleted these wordings, but retained the links.

I certainly understand that we'd have articles on the physics, astronomy, and mathematics of the Golden Age of Islam, and I have no problem giving a scientist's religion in his bio, but I do think we need to be careful not to give the impression with the first words of an article that someone is not a real scientist, but just some sort of subspecies, who wouldn't otherwise be notable.

Would the bio of a living scientist who happens to be Muslim be tagged with this template? My understanding from looking this over is that he would not, which means that a "Muslim scientist" is not a scientist who is Muslim, a rather bizarre way of communicating things.

What about changing the header of this template from "Muslim scientist" to "Science in Islamic civilization" or some such? I also think that we should move all the "Islamic science" articles to something similar, along the lines of Science in the Middle Ages.

Compare Jewish Science, or better yet, Jewish Physics for the kinds of connotations you get when labeling someone's professional career or life's work by his race or religion. kwami (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that similar proposals have been made before, and that no-one objected, but that they were never implemented, so I've started moving them. Sorry, I've made a bit of a mess of things. "X in the Golden Age of Islam" is the best wording I can think of. kwami (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't want "in Islamic civilization", as that would imply that Islamdom is no longer civilized. I moved to "in the Golden Age of Islam", but then realized that is not as neutral as it should be either. It could either be seen as POV pushing how wonderful Islam is, or a POV statement that Islam is past its prime. Either way, I think "in medieval Islam" would be best. kwami (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Need someone to do something very basic
I'm OK with writing and referencing but these work groups totally confuse me.

Will someone please add tags and/or assessment to:

Zain Bhikha - when I found the page, some of it looked like plagiarism from his website or some other place, although I tried to add a little and can't prove it.

Yusuf Islam - was a GA article once but now is a mess.

Both musicians above need a freee photo for the infoboxes. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Muslim scholars
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal FAR
nominated Muhammad Iqbal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed Khan
nominated Syed Ahmed Khan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

help requested
Hello,

I've been adding the original Arabic to the names of stars. There are a pair of stars in Ursa Minor, Anwar al Farkadain and Alifa al Farkadain, which are supposed to mean "the brighter" and "the dimmer" of the two calves. I've been able to find what I hope is a sensible Arabic equivalent for the former (أنور الفرقدين), but I'm stumped with the latter: the only thing I can find that sounds like alifa is عليفه. Can anyone help?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Works by Muslim Scholars
Actually I came here directly from reading the Wikipedia article about al-Bukhari (THE al-Bukhari - I forget his full name). It is not a bad article - but it does not satisfy me. Here are two points I think impacted upon me.

(1) Style of biographical writing. There is a traditional Islamic (at least in Arabophone Islam) way to present biography and there is a very different western style. As nearly as I can tell, modern Muslim biography of modern Muslim thinkers is not noticeably different than the western style. But when it comes to classical thinkers (like al-Bukhari) modern Muslims revert back to the the classical Mulsim style.

Part of the problem is that we really don't know a great deal about these men and, on the assumption that an important person should have a large biography, we are given long accounts of their piety and excellence and how other people admired them. There is nothing, a priori, wrong about this - but it isn't the way things are usually done. I may go back to al-Bukhari and edit the entry to conform with my ideas.

(2) Works. I see no reason for listing lost works (unless they play a significant part in the biography) - there is always the possibility that they never existed (and are listed because some later scholar imagined that they must exist). Works that have survived need to carefully examined to insure that different titles do not refer to the same work. In al-Bukhari's case his book on narrators seems to have been extracted and abridged by later scholars and now appears a half dozen times under different names. Not to mention the fact that the big book itself is NOT by al-Bukhari (his students put it together).

And, of course, each work mention should be completed by a respectable bibliographic reference - not all of them, one will suffice.

Most of the other difficulties are standard Wikipedia difficulties and I need not mention them.

DKleinecke (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Muslim scholars articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Muslim scholars articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Farhad Daftary
Created by an SPA, this article is so short that no editors have patrolled it as acceptable. I feel there may be grounds for notability of this 10-word stub that consists only of a list of publications. Perhaps the Islam/Muslim scholars task force could improve this stub. --Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Al-Kindi
An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rumi from a neutral point of view

 * Hello, I have a recommendation about the article Rumi.
 * Please read all the information, I wrote on Talk, and tell whether you agree or disagree.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rumi#Let.27s_Remove_POV_with_a_Neutral_Point_of_View
 * You know the ethnicity of Rumi is unknown and debated. I hope you contribute to this matter. Alternatively, from a neutral point of view, I recommend to change the (POV) sentence to a (NPOV) sentence:
 * "a 13th-century Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic."
 * to "a 13th-century Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic of Persian literature. 81.213.117.125 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates up for deletion
Of the series of templates Mu'tazilite-Class Ahmadiyya-Class Salafi-Class Shi'a-Class Sunni-Class NOI-Class ;
 * Sunni-Class NOI-Class have been nominated for deletion

-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Formatting issues with the Muslim scholars template
Some attention is requested at Template talk:Infobox Muslim scholar. I attempted to implement some changes to the infobox and I fear that I have made some sort of a formatting error. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Maliki Scholars
Hello, I've been working for the last several weeks on Muslim scholars of the Maliki school, which is my area of expertise. Please feel free to help, particularly with technical help. You'll notice I've also made a new template to organise all the scholars of the school. Thanks. Jaw101ie (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Winter listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Timothy Winter to be moved to Abdal Hakim Murad. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi to be moved to Ibn al-Jawzi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ahmad Musa Jibril
Would someone more knowledgeable than me about what qualifies as "scholarship" decide on whether Ahmad Musa Jibril should be added to this category. I will remove the tag that I added from the talk page for now. Feel free to put it back if this project deems it appropriate. Thank you.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review
I have nominated Malcolm X for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan Featured article review
I have nominated Akhtar Hameed Khan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)