User talk:Glyns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hi 2 RVs 3 Book of Mormon 4 Use of long quotes 5 Welcome 6 history of science

[edit] Hi

In a encyclopedia, we use scholarly work to explain issues. We use a tafsir to explain a scholars view on a verse - what you are proposing is to repeat the whole tafsir in the article about the tafsir. That is not what wikipedia does, that is what wikisource does. --Striver 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what useful light could possibly be shed on any verse of Sura Ghafir by a metaphysical (if not, indeed, fanciful) hadith such as the one in question, attributed to a man (Ka'ab al-Ahbar) who never met Muhammad and was condemned by Ali and Ibn Abbas as a liar. Glyns 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me? None, the guy was a lier. But the content is encyclopedic. we don't only include things that we think is true, we include everything. --Striver 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no merit in including things that are almost certainly untrue (such as this hadith) unless it is clearly labelled as probably untrue. Glyns 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RVs

Kindly desist from reverting my edits without giving me the courtesy of an explanation of why you dispute my edits. Glyns 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you have included the sentence below in a number of places unrelated to the specific articles in question - please keep the discussion in suras 8 and 9. Also, please provide a link/reference, don't just say "see ... the discussion" - what discussion? where???

"(see, however, the discussion of ahadith 785-787 in Sunnan Abu Dawood, relating to merging Suras 8 and 9, and the discussion of numbering the Basmala (q.v.))."

Wikipidian 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you took the trouble to read the sentence you would see that it links to the Sunnan Abu Dawood page in relation to merging suras 8 & 9, and to the Basmala page in relation to numbering that verse (you might want to look up the meaning of q.v.) - I believe the links i have provided are clear to the average user. Also, the sentence IS relevant to every sura after sura 7, as it questions the conventional sura numbering system from sura 9 onwards. Glyns 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I was quite aware of the fact that you had provided links to the other wiki articles. However, it is conventional in this encyclopedia to provide a reference list at the bottom of the article. And I disagree, with adding the sentence to the summary of EVERY surah article after 7 as every muslim I know accepts the current system and this would just be trying to unnecessarily propogate a particular point of view. Wikipidian 23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the hadeeth (link here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/003.sat.html) doesn't actually question the ordering of the surahs at all. What academic sources do you have that question the ordering of the suras as they are now? Wikipidian 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you (or, indeed, every Muslim in the world) agree or disagree is not the criterion for whether something should be included or not. The criterion is whether or not it is relevant to the subject. And the convention in this encyclopedia is overwhelmingly to include links within the text. If you persist in your brute force approach, i shall be forced to demand arbitration. Glyns 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not being fair here. You are the one that has included irrelevant material to the lead sections of a huge number of articles and without sources to support the material added. Wikipidian 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not questioned the ordering of the suras, just their numbering - and that based on authentic early ahadith which i have cited. Or are you unable to accept challenges to conventional thinking? My edits are relevant to every sura from number 8 onwards. Glyns 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just it. You have questioned the numbering based upon your reading of the evidence. This is against wikipedia guidelines - see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipidian 23:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So when Uthman ibn Affan says: "(Surah) al-Bara'ah (=al-Tawba) was revealed last in the Qur'an, and its contents were similar to those of al-Anfal. I, therefore, thought that it was a part of al-Anfal. Hence I put them in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal (the seven lengthy surahs), and I did not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" between them." (Sunnan Abu Dawood, ahadith 785 & 786), he was NOT contradicting the numbering system that has been adopted SINCE HIS TIME? Glyns 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you have ignored my points about original research and use of reliable academic sources in an encyclopedia. However, I don't see a contradiction. He didn't say "I disagree" or "I dispute" or any such thing, he said was asked by Ibn Abbas during a discussion and the (non-prophetic) hadeeth gives Uthmans response. The hadeeth doesn't give the end result of that discussion and the fact is that all "Uthmani" qurans have sura anfal and tawbah separate. Wikipidian 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Glyn, I'm just checking out your 'mass 'edits made on a lot of the suran articles, for example this one is an article on Surah 39 and has little to do with Sura 8 and 9. Maybe your edits would be more suitable for inclusion on a general article like Qur'an or one of its sub-articles. --Matt57 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be a footnote at best. Right now it looks so ugly that an article has one line in lead that this useless thing along with it. --- ALM 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to accept 'Matt57's suggestion that my note appear on the Qur'an page (under the "Format of the Qur'an" section) rather than on each sura page - thank you for this constructive proposal, finally! Glyns 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it wasnt suggested to you before. Also its hard to maintain that same text in 35 pages as you saw. I hope you're able to find the most appropriate place for this. It would have to be in the Qur'an article, or in one of its sub-article, or if any such article/section doesnt exist, a new section or article could be made on the structure of the Quran, ordering of the Surahs and other issues such as this numbering issue. You could start with creating a section and then if it gets long, make a new article on it. --Matt57 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for 'ALM', Wikipedia guidelines to avoid disputes state: "Be respectful to others and their points of view." Your description of my note as "this useless thing" is insulting, disrespectful and simply wrong - as a scientist(?) you need to learn to assess information on its merits (not on knee-jerk prejudice), as a person you need to learn some manners. Glyns 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, just responding to your message on my talkpage. The suggestion by Matt57 is a good compromise and makes sense. However, I would remind you that your claim is likely to be regarded as original research unless you provide cites/sources from credible third-party publications. Kind regards, Wikipidian 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Mormon

I read your edit today on this article that clarified that Joseph "claimed" to have done something. To produce articles that are not clumsy and full of repetitive phrases, we need to find a balance. How many qualifiers are necessary? Does every statement describing an action require a qualifier? Please go back to the article and count the number of times the clarifier "he said" or other similar qualifiers are used to ensure the reader understands the topic is based upon religious belief. This is an interesting topic where I have not reached a conclusion and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that the 2nd. paragraph of this article could be more elegantly phrased. My attitude is that any unprovable statement should not be phrased as a definitive statement of fact. This, of course, raises the question of how does one "prove" a statement, which is too large a topic for this discussion. However, i think it's not unreasonable to classify Joseph Smith Jr.'s claim to have returned the Golden Plates to an angel as unprovable. Glyns 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I firmly, strongly agree that any statement in any religious article that demonstrates action is unprovable. However, if every statement that can not be proved is qualified then the resultant article may be clumsy. I am focusing on writing style now, not provability. For example, in the paragraph mentioned:

Joseph Smith, Jr. said the book was a translation of Golden Plates he found in a hill near his home, guarded by an angel. Smith had no knowledge of ancient languages, but he said he received the translation from God through the act of looking into seer stones, or a set of crystal spectacles he said were with the plates, which were called the Urim and Thummim. During the translation, Smith obtained the affidavits of Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses who testified they saw the plates. These affidavits are published as part of the Book of Mormon. When Smith's translation was complete, he claimed he returned the plates to the angel Moroni^[1].

In one paragraph there are four qualifiers used to ensure that the reader can not possibly miscontrue the subject matter is based upon religion and thus a topic demanding faith to be believed. IMO, readers are brighter than we give me credit and readily understand that religious topics are not based upon scientific fact and do not need to be constantly reminded that actions are according to the individuals involved in the article.

Again, I strive to ensure that all religious articles meet the same standards of Wikipedia and that they are well written. You might want to review WP:Words to avoid, claimed is one of those words because it can be so easily used to denote doubt or incredulity, which is POV. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of long quotes

Just a caution that the Wikipedia community typically frowns on the reliance and use of long, extended quotes such as you've recently added to Joseph Smith, Jr. While the information is needed and helpful, it breaks up the narrative and makes the article unreadable. But it needs to be properly done according to the wikipedia process.

In addition, as has been stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, "Reliance on long quotes [typically] shows a lack of sources on a topic, and typically smell of a POV pushing," and adds to redundancy. Long quotes are often "used to push ones personal view, rather than a balanced, multiple sourced statement."

I'd encourage you to add in a sentence or two summarizing the quotes and then include the full quote in the reference section. This way, readers can still read and access the quote, and it doesn't look like you are trying to push a POV and/or make the article unreadable. Just some friendly advice from your local friendly experienced Wikipedia editor.

Let's include the information, but in a readable form. Talk pages are for unreadable forms, which is why I keep my long quotes there rather than in the article themselves. -Visorstuff 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm quite new to editing wikipedia, and i'm still struggling with how to relegate the full quote to the reference section - i've only just discovered how to do referencing at all. Glyns 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally understand. In this case, everything between the tags is placed in the reference section - it wasn't always as complicated, and there are at least five different referencing systems on wikipedia. Just follow the format of the article you are in. Let me know if I can help in anyway and of course - happy editing. -Visorstuff 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

[edit] history of science

Hi! You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science.--ragesoss 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)