User talk:Eperoton

Do you think this edit was against WP:OR?^[1] 194.247.60.2 (talk)

Yes, it looks like it included editorial synthesis, meaning that a more general statement was made by the editor based on more specific statements found in the sources. We can only include a generalization if a RS makes that generalization. I'm not sure a section on extrajudicial killings belongs in an article about capital punishment at all, but since that section is there, we could include some statements that make use of those sources in a policy-compliant way. It could be statements like "incidents have been reported in country X and country Y", or "a report submitted to the UN by several human rights advocacy groups stated that..." Eperoton (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eperoton, could you take a look at what is going on at Talk:Concubinage in Islam? I have written a whole section explaining why I was restoring the last stable version but Vice regent keeps on bringing back the new version without consensus. I don't want to edit war. What do you think about it? Should the last stable version be retained while discussion is ongoing? And I have also shown the verifiability of every single sentence which is being removed. No one has engaged with me on that except for Vice regent and that too for only one of the sentences (out of the dozens). And I responded to that. Yet they keep on doing wholesale removal of everything. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Eperton some time back I reported this article to you and engaged in an extremely lengthy discussion on the talkpage. I did not engage in an editwar and simply made my reservations and objections felt. Nearly all of them went unheeded and dismissed and I was left pretty unsatisfied with the quality of the article.

Now I come back and see many of the objections I raised being repeated and sustained by other editors who are much bolder (and are probably right in being so). I agree with Vice regent in most of his claims (see talkpage).

Also, there is no consensus for the original article and hence no reason why it should be restored. There are serious problems with redflag/exceptional claims as well as misrepresentations, cherrypicking of sourcces, POV issues, relavance issues and others as well. There are problems with the recent edits being made as well but truth be told, this article requires a massive overhaul in order to adrere to WP:PG 39.37.151.149 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know things have heated up on the warfront once again, including a possible editwar. I agree with your recommendations but implementing them is proving to be an impossible task. You were spot on when you pointed this out and I do believe that most problems lie with the polysemous nature of the term Islam and how it causes, is affected by and interacts with phenomena. Editors, myself included, seem to have their own differing opinions on "Islam"s nature. 39.37.181.243 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm interested in the topic and try to check on the overall state of the discussion from time to time, but unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to take an active part in it these days. Eperoton (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The article's been protected once again. I'm not really sure how to proceed. Do you think the article requires expert attention? If not, how do we avoid an editwar again once protection is lifted? 39.37.182.26 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would help to address one point at a time and add more well-sourced content. I understand that some editors who've looked at the cited source believe that they haven't been reflected in a NPOV manner, and I don't get a sense that Mcphurphy objects to added text that accurately reflects RSs. Eperoton (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll make a few tweaks without removing any content when protection wears off. We can go point by point but I get the feeling that there are problems with the weltanschauung of the article. You noted on the talkpage that the article treatment of the topic is quite different from the academic treatments you've come across, but if the sources are presented in a NPOV manner then whence comes this dissonance? 39.37.169.191 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate about the reason. I don't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of RSs in the area. I'd like to look closer into this when I have time. Eperoton (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Eperoton, can I ask for your mediation on this article for a third (or is it the fourth?) time. I've tried to brush up and improve the article's presentation of academic views but seem to be running into a stonewall. Can you gauge which version is better ? Interestingly you seem to be influential enough to be quoted inverbatim on wikipedia with your assessment of Jonathan Brown's views. The comment "Brown's assessment of Islamic legal tradition is not widely shared by his peers" is part of a previous talkpage comment by you isn't it. Anyway, any input would be appreciated.119.152.146.52 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha, well, it seems the less frequently I show up to contribute the more of a legend I become. :) Just logging in for some patrolling tonight. This week is particularly busy. I should be able to take a look this weekend. As for Brown, I was referring specifically to his argument that the notion of darar does "the same moral and legal work" in regulating non-consentual sex in Islamically licit relations as the notion of consent does in modern law. He outlines it in the section Consent and Concubines and he goes on to state himself in the next section that his modern interlocutors have tended to not be convinced by this argument. Eperoton (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, You said you were reading Brown's book. Where did you get it? Is there somehow I can access it too? Thanks, VR _talk 08:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

More precisely, listening to it. I bought it from Audible. Sorry. Eperoton (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I finally started reading Brown's book. It is a great read and could be used for articles here. What did you think of it?VR _talk 20:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I agree. Both a great read and a valuable source for WP. Eperoton (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the "Arab slave trade", "Indian Ocean slave trade" and "East African slave trade"? I find that sources that talk about Arab slave trade in East Africa use the latter two terms to describe it, while sources that talk about slave trade to Morocco and North Africa tend to use the term "Trans-Saharan slave trade". Based on my early research the two phenomenon are treated differently. I posted something at Talk:Arab_slave_trade#East_African_slave_trade but so far no responses.VR _talk 13:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I'm somewhat familiar with the first one of these. It's been sometimes challenging to determine what content can be included there without violating WP:SYNTH. I think it's ok to use sources which do not use the term "Arab slave trade" if they provide additional detail on the same phenomenon that other RSs discuss under that rubric. We can't decide ourselves that some material belongs there, however, if we don't have sources that describe it using that term. Eperoton (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree its challenging, especially since sources seem to describe "Arab slave trade" without necessarily mentioning Arabs. For example, sources will describe Africans, Persians, Indians etc as being part of the same slave supply chain. They will then describe how starting in the 16/17th century, Europeans started to compete with Arabs in the same Indian Ocean slave trade. Other sources will describe the long history of transporting slaves down the Nile valley into Egypt from Nubia/Sudan stretching from 1500 BC, even though Egypt Arabized much later. I wonder if its better to split the article by geographic scope into "Trans-Saharan slave trade" and "East African slave trade", similar to Trans-Atlantic slave trade.VR _talk 00:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually Bernard Freamon seems to explain it best:

The “globalized” Indian Ocean trade in fact has substantially earlier, even pre-Islamic, global roots. These roots extend back to at least 2500 BCE, suggesting that the so-called “globalization” of the Indian Ocean trading phenomena, including slave trading, was in reality a development that was built upon the activities of pre-Islamic Middle Eastern empires, which activities were in turn inherited, appropriated, and improved upon by the Muslim empires that followed them, and then, after that, they were again appropriated, exploited, and improved upon by Western European interveners.

VR _talk 02:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Hmm, yes, the term "Arab slave trade" does seem to be very sparsely represented in RSs. There's the book Slavery in the Arab World (translation of L'Esclavage dans le monde arabe) by Murray Gordon, but that's not the same topic. The article in Oxford Bibliographies is titled Indian Ocean and Middle Eastern Slave Trades, and both these terms seem to be much more prominent than "Arab slave trade". I think it's worth considering reorganizing that article in some way under a different name(s). I'm not familiar with the sources on the topic well enough to have a solid opinion on this yet. Eperoton (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging a new user @Ibrahim5361: who seems to be interested in this re-organization. You might find the conversation above helpful. And Eperoton if you have any new thoughts on this, please share.VR _talk 11:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Links about the trans-Saharan slave trade used to re-direct you to the page about the Arab slave trade. However, now I have changed it so you will end up in the page trans-Saharan trade. I also made changes to links that used to mention the Arab slave trade now mention trans-Saharan slave trade or the Indian Ocean/ East African slave trade. The same needs to be done in non-English articles.Ibrahim5361 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.

Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.

• • I am also looking for need Article translation support English to Russian for article Kithaab since long time. Please see if you can help out on that too.

Thanks in advance and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bookku. Thanks for letting me know. I hope I've helped somewhat with the qisas dab. Eperoton (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help with DR here. One of the points of dispute is whether marital rape is allowed in Islam. I have left my response. If you have time please give your thoughts.VR _talk 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this article and see where the balance lies in the recent contested edits between me and Grufo. Thank you. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Eperoton, do you have access to Saeeds book about apostasy, and if so can you check what he says on pg 38-89? I can't see how these changes can be seriously justified but I'll keep my arguments to the talkpage there. 39.37.181.43 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I got access. I did post something about it. The diff you mentioned is now old material, and much of it has been replaced (or I will replace it in the near future). If you have specific questions, ping me on my talk page.VR _talk 00:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Some unsourced material like the first sentence of traditional jurisprudence section still remain . Editor Grufo certainly isn't making this easy. His mass alterations should have been detected earlier.

Info on the (contested) Hanafi position can be found here as well []. 119.152.158.43 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw this edit. The way I read the source is that the "permitted to hit his wife without any liability" is in the context of the law of qisas, which is mentioned in the previous sentence. I don't think it is meant to be a general and standalone statement. Meaning it does not rule out that the wife could still get some recourse under other legal principles (say, compensation or divorce). Of course, the onus is on me to find those sources.VR _talk 03:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yes, this is a tricky passage. In this source, the sentence about liability follows the sentence about qisas, and it's not clear whether liability means qisas liability or any liability. The best we can do with this source without WP:SYNTH is reflect that sequence, conveying the ambiguity. Other sources might clarify. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll find other sources.VR _talk 01:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I started reading Chaudhry's book and she says (page 89)

In the case of broken bones and wounds, husbands were liable for some sort of monetary compensation but not retaliation in kind (qisas). They relied on the legal maxim “there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage” to make this point. In the case of a wife’s death, however, a husband was subject to retribution in kind (qisas).

In the footnote she references a variety of scholars including Hanafi scholar Al-Zamakhshari. So it would appear that she means the Hanafis believed there is no qisas liability but monetary compensation could be due. She also points out that her views on this contradict Gibril Haddad's (page 167). I still haven't finished skimming through her book and also looking at other sources before I rewrite that section.VR _talk 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• PS, people are talking about your opinions here but they don't seem to have pinged you, so I thought I'd let you know.VR _talk 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Thanks for the heads up. I look forward to see what else you find in the sources. I wish I had more time for WP these days... Eperoton (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

An "editor" who apparently believes Galland didn't insert the orphan tales, but "restored" them from "earlier European versions" from the "original Arabic text" has been attacking the lede of this one. Please, I think I need some help maintaining the facts here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals: Thanks for the heads-up. I'm watching the article, but I'm on a little sporadically these days. If it becomes a challenge, please start a section in talk and I'll comment if needed. Eperoton (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

At the moment things seem quiet - going to talk could even provoke further nastiness. For the moment - at least until we have a resumption of hostilities - it may be best to leave things as they are unless they once more "becomes a challenge". Thank you for your concern and helpfulness". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muhakkima, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhakkima until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A Peer review request has been made for article Islamic marriage contract to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)