Talk:Asim ibn Thabit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asim ibn Thabit article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Salafs article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Salaf. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Copypaste 2 Changes and compromise

[edit] Copypaste

The source is Sahih Bukhari, there is no copyright on it and is freely quoted in its entirety all over the web. --Striver - talk 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Bukhari and learn how to use it instead of explicit external links! —72.75.85.159 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with a copyvio tag? --Striver - talk 15:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being paranoid ... {{copypaste}} is not the same as {{copyvio}} ... it says, "section appears to have been copied and pasted from a source", and the Bukhari templates exist so that you do not have to copy&paste whole paragraphs from other websites, copyrighted or not (that's why it says "possibly" in italics.)

Even if hadith are in the public domain, you can't just copy&paste them into Wikipedia articles ... that borders on violating WP:NPOV by making Wikipedia just a mirror for material also avilable on Islamic websites ... now if you have some Shi'a problem with citing Abu Huraira by using the template, then I suggest you get over it, because that is a non-NPOV attitude and it will not be tolerated. --72.75.85.159 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While that last bit was a bit more hostile then need be, I would point out {{quotefarm}} — Generally, an articel should have more prose and actual articeltext then quotes. Especially in this instance, since about 7/8ths of it appears to be one whole quote. 68.39.174.238 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I was being rather polite given my previous history with this editor, also discussed on my talk page... I tag an article for dubious citations, the author removes the tag, another editor prods it, the prod is removed, a third editor does a CSD, and the author takes it to DRV, where the Speedy is overturned, and it goes to AfD for consensus ... I try not to feed this troll, so I'm abrupt in my replies in an attempt to terminate further communications ... I suggest you do the same should you encounter them. --72.75.85.159 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like i made a mistake, it was not bukhari but Riyadh as-Saaliheen.--Striver - talk 16:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag since you are using the new {{QuoteHadith}} template, and I have wikified the quote so that it is more apparent why such a large hadith had been copied in its entirety, because it is over 80% of the article's length and written in a very unencyclopedic voice ... but what really ticked me off the most was that it was just copied and pasted, with no attempt to reformat it for readability (can you say, "This paragraph is Too Long?") or to use Wikipedia's resources ... case in point, you assume that the reader knows that Abu Huraira is talking about Muhammad when he refers to "Messenger of Allah" ... it's already a redirect to the article about him, so link to it!

Print the article and you'll see that it says all that it needs to say - the Hadith is not in a printed verion of the page, which is a Very Good Thing ... all that long-winded prose with hard to pronounce Arabic language names essentially just tells the story of his death, because a non-Muslim would come away Totally Clueless about what it means to pray "two rak'ats" ... in other words, it is not a copy&paste if you wikify it because then you are providing more than just raw information without any context.

I'll leave it to you to find some more things that can be linked, but I really feel that having so much unrelated text is a burden on the reader ... I mean, what does repeating who was martyred and who was sold to whom have to do with the subject of the article? Couldn't you skip some of the non-related parts? I would have just made a reference to the hadith and provided the link so they can read it if they choose without interrupting the flow of what they were researching ... at least break it into multiple paragraphs, or is that kind of cosmetic editing of an English language translation of a hadith somehow prohibitted?

So, when I encounter this kind of long-winded, rambling, un-wikified copy&paste, then template or not, I'll still stick a {{Wikify}} on it ... I already started on this one, so I won't have to now that you've got the idea ... make it shorter, wikify it, or drop it, because it's Too Much Information for an encyclopedia article.

Unless, of course, you're trying to use Wikipedia as a mirror for hadith collections, in which case you should get some funding to make a HadithWiki with protection on the "authentic" translation pages, and then all of the people mentioned in this hadith can have their own articles as well (without redlinks like they would be here) and you'd have none of those pesky little WP:Notability issues ... "They are mentioned in a hadith, and that is sufficient for notability in HadithWiki." ... and you can play your little Shi'a/Sunni revert wars over which ones are authentic (or how to translate and spell an Arabic name with an English alphabet) over there instead of here. (I give thanks that I missed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 21#Template:QuoteHadith!)

Now don't get me wrong ... personally I think that the template is a Good Idea ... I just feel that it is being abused in this particular article, that it's citation fields are lacking (which one in Chapter 253, The miracles of the friends of Allah and their excellence? Ah, 1509, correct?), and that most editors would agree that the printed version is Much Better than the screen version ... BTW, I also feel that {{quotefarm}} is inappropriate in this case (not too many quotes, just one quote that's too long) ... for myself, if I have any occassion to quote hadith, I'll stick with Sahih Bukhari and the {{Bukhari}} template, and leave the text on Some Other Website ... Wikipedia is not a mirror. --72.75.85.159 13:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes and compromise

OK, I've chopped up that One Big Paragraph into something that is readble ... this is what an editor does ... it's purely cosmetic, but paragraph breaks make it Much Easier to pause, abosorb what you've just read, and change gears to a new topic without causing confusion. Speaking of non-sequitors, I also moved the hadith to the endo of the article and gavit its own section.

Now, as for it still being Too Long ... let's face it, the subject is only mentioned in the first three and the very last paragraphs, the way I have broken it up ... the first three could also be recombined as two ... the point is, why it is sunna to pray two rak'at if you die in captivity does not have much to do with the subject of the article, except that it involves events associated with his death ... in other words, it's {{off-topic}}, but instead of just tagging it, I'm helping you to fix it.

So, what say we cut out the boring middle and substitute … for those paragraphs to indicate that we skipped a part of the quotation? Again, no disrepect, or attempts to censor or alter sacred text, but this is what editors do ... I won't remove That Much text without floating the suggestion on the talk page first, but I don't think you'll be reverting my most recent edits ... which I broke into stages so that the changes were easier to see ... notice my comments in the history of both the article and this talk page? Kinda tells a story, don't it? You should try it sometime. --72.75.85.159 14:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)