User talk:Apaugasma/Archive 3

Your submission at Articles for creation: Asclepius (treatise) has been accepted

Asclepius (treatise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, this results from [3]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing some of TatesTopG's edits

When you have time, can you please undo TatesTopG's moving of Ziad Jarrah's page? The page is still titled Ziyad Samir Jarrah. And can you undo their edit on Ayman Zawahiri's page? I can't do it because the page is locked and despite what TatesTopG said, the article did provide proof of Zawahiri's middle names. Thanks. 35.142.253.69 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done per WP:EVADE. I'm going to undo more of this block-evading sockpuppet's edits later. In case I wouldn't be around next time it may be helpful to know that you can always request the undoing of page moves done by block-evading sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (be sure to read and specify WP:EVADE). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

New message

You have new message at Talk:Badi' al-Din. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Al-Razi

Hey, that image change you reverted didn't seem to get the details quite right. The image is from a library, so not obviously user generated. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that, and weren't editing on the basis on a misunderstanding. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iskandar323! You're right that it's not quite user-generated. I addressed the problems with this image previously here (archive). In the existing English-language metadata its provenance is unclear, though if someone would translate the attribution and date in Persian found on the image itself and add it to the commons file, we might use the image in the article (though the UN statue probably still is more appropriate as a lead image). I should have repeated that in my edit summary and linked to the previous discussion about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It has a Hijri date at the bottom that translates to 1916-17, with a signature that reads: Mohammed K... - a mystery late 19th to early 20th-century Iranian artist. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I was hoping for something more. I think that the notability and long-term significance of the artist/work pales in comparison to almost every other image currently on Abu Bakr al-Razi, and so I think it should not be used. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, This user is very problematic. He or she consider himself or herself as more smarter than our admins (but not really). You can see his or her bad behavior at Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam. I completely disagree with his or her attitude to control whole Wikipedia like his or her personal property . 27.123.253.83 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, yes. See also AN & RSN. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Abu Ali al-Khayyat

Abu Ali al-Khayyat's De Iudiciis Natiuitatum, a Latin translation of his Kitāb al-Mawālid ('Book of Birth'), published in Nuremberg (1546), Institut du Monde Arabe

Thanks for your message. Until the article text actually mentions astronomy in any way, astronomy related templates should be avoided. I will do some work on the article, and if notable information about his astronomical work comes up, I'll include it and amend the categories accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125, thanks for coming here. It's always a good idea to work a bit on an article, but this is really just a general thing: every pre-modern astrologer will be correctly categorized as an astronomer, regardless of how notable their work in astronomy is. I suspect that Abu Ali al-Khayyat's work on astronomy is not notable, and if categorization is inappropriate (even if correct) for astronomers who are only notable for their astrological theories, then he should not be categorized as an astronomer.

I'm just unsure about what is appropriate here. My thinking was that to categorize him as an astronomer would be helpful (since after all, he was one), but if Wikipedia guidelines on categorization (which I'm unfamiliar with) would contradict that, please feel free to revert my edit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I think the article text needs to mention he was an astronomer (and I agree with you, he almost certainly was one). The only policy to bear in mind here is that information needs to be verified, even for categories. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: just as a correction, information on Wikipedia needs to be Wikipedia:Verifiable, not verified. Depending on interpretation, wp:bluesky might apply. But of course, inline citations never hurt, nor does updating the article. Again, thanks for that! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks, also I've added a couple of sources to a Further reading section which provides more information, including that he was an astronomer. I'll add more in later. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's looking great! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The permanent Nazarite

Dear colleague, I wonder what you make of the following topic, linking the Nazarites with John the Baptist and the Mandaeans? In the Hebrew Bible, a permanent Nazarite is a vow usually taken on behalf of a child by the parent(s). There were three permanent Nazarites known, i.e. from birth; Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist. The vow requires the adherent to not cut their hair, not drink alcohol, not eat meat and to devote themselves to God. Similarly, Mandaeans, consider the cutting of the hair of the head or beard to be impious (to date a Mandaean priest does not cut any of the hair on their head or beard), they are forbidden from drinking alcohol and were originally vegetarians (reference E. S. Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, 1937, page 166). The word Nazarite and the word Nasoraean also have the same meaning, "to keep". Thank you From a member of the Mandaean community 163.160.252.100 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no expertise in this subject that would let me judge this hypothesis. I had always assumed that the term 'Nazarene'/'Nasorean' referred to Nazareth, as in 'holding Jesus of Nazareth in special regard'. I don't know whether 'Nazarene'/'Nasorean' might be related to the much earlier term Nazirite instead. I'm quite ignorant about this, and you may be entirely right. In the context of wholly anonymous wiki-communication, I would say . But thanks for letting me know about your hypothesis; it is interesting. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi

The article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi and Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi

The article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi for comments about the article, and Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ideas?

Hi @Apaugasma, Congratulations on the new GA! I am really happy to see your works. I'd be more than happy if you take a look on this and suggest articles related to Muslim academia and scholarship that should be created or worked upon. I feel we can remove a lot of subjective gap if we collaborate on this. Thank you very much. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello The Aafi! I have stopped contributing content to Wikipedia in order to better focus on other things, and if I would work on articles they would be those that I'm personally most interested in anyway. This being my approach to Wikipedia, I don't really feel comfortable suggesting which articles others should create/improve either. I wish you much success with the article creation/improvement drive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		A small reward for your expert-level edits to the early Islamic topic area, and thoughtful, in-depth, engagements with other contributors to this space. Your initiative, guidance, and commitment to quality is greatly appreciated. Al Ameer (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Al Ameer! This means very much to me, especially coming from you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Err...

Sock? Perhaps someone you know of? [4] HistoryofIran (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be the case [5]. Looks like your SPI inspired him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

My first impersonator! I feel kind of honored. Still, SPI filed. Thanks for letting me know, HistoryofIran, it's good to be aware of this kind of thing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Of isms and Islams

What are your personal thoughts on the varying prevalences of isms versus X Islams? Do you think the current regime of consistency between denominations is worthwhile? Honest Q, noting your comment on Shi'ism particularly. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that often the term most commonly used to refer to one and the same subject (it's important to note that this excludes terms in high usage but potentially referring to multiple subjects) also is the most 'natural' one, and that in the great majority of cases that means it's best to use that term for an article title. Based on the Ngram you cite, the GS results I cited here, and the GS results for "Ibadism" vs "Ibadi Islam", my normal take on these things means that I should be in favor of moving Shia Islam to Shi'ism and Ibadi Islam to Ibadism.

But maybe here we've got an exception. In this particular case, I feel that adding 'Islam' to the title makes it much easier for non-specialist readers to recognize that the subject is one of the major denominations within Islam. There are many Islamic currents commonly named with an Arabic word + ism, and adding 'Islam' helps the major divisions to stand out from the many smaller schools and subsects. In that sense, perhaps 'Ibadi Islam' does slightly differ in meaning from 'Ibadism', with the former referring to this Islamic current qua major denomination, while the latter rather refers to it qua subsect.

What I would be in favor of though is to streamline the three articles to each use the Arabic nisba + 'Islam', so like Sunni Islam and Ibadi Islam, also Shi'i Islam. But that really is a minor gripe.

I general I often feel that move discussions take up too much time and energy that would be better spent on improving (nay, rewriting from scratch) the article. One of the problems with these discussions is that once opened and having received a few reactions, they create a wp:consensus that makes it impossible to later move the article again without yet another discussion. Those participating in both discussions most often never worked on the article, will never work on it, and not seldomly argue for completely inappropriate titles. But why not let someone who actually read a large amount of sources while working on the article determine what term they've seen these sources most commonly use? Why not actually bring an article up to standards and then unilaterally move to the most appropriate title? When that editor's move gets challenged, that may be the right time to have an actual move discussion. Discussions eat up editors' time, attract clueless people, and create precedents necessitating even more discussions –for these reasons, they should be used much more sparingly than currently is the case. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I think it is a very valid point that particularly where Islam-related subjects are concerned there is a potential need to balance common name with the risk of devolving into a sea of isms. For the uninitiated, in an ism-strewn iteration of an encyclopedia, Sunnism, Hanafism and Deobandism might all sound like different subsects on a par, whereas when we use Sunni Islam, Hanafi school and Deobandi movement, the distinction (if not full meaning) become rapidly more available to all. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I wholeheartedly agree. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi

On 17 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to some Shi'i Muslim authors who wrote under the name of al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi, unbelievers will be reincarnated into animal, vegetable, or mineral bodies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sayyid

A pretty huge deletion got made at Sayyid on 2 April. The page is generally a bit of mess and needs a scrub down, but I'm struggling to tell if this deletion was constructive or something altogether less beneficial. What do you think? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iskandar323! Yes, I saw that and to be honest, I'm not sure whether these deletions –and MadRoyalist's edits to that page in general– are constructive or not. Some of it are true MoS-related improvements, and the images they added seem helpful, but with regard to the content I don't know enough about the subject to say. When I saw MadRoyalist's massive edits my reaction was to take the page off my watchlist. Sorry to disappoint, but I need to drastically cut down on the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia, and properly looking into this would accomplish the opposite.

I see that another account (Dragon819010) has now arrived alleging that MadRoyalist's edits are biased and promoting a specific family [6][7][8]. We've had similar stuff in the past (see, e.g., here), and I wouldn't be surprised if both MadRoyalist and Dragon819010 were editing this page for promotional reasons (not saying they are, just that I wouldn't be surprised). The only way to avoid this really is to get a proper grounding in the RS on this subject, but for the reason given above I'm not quite up for that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Mass-monitoring can indeed be all-consuming. So far, I've just weighed in against the side most obviously causing disruption - deleting the lead and infobox etc.; I'll have to see if I can get around to greater scrutiny. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for watching the featured article today. Surprised it isn't protected, but I guess when you're on the job we're safe. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The article was on my watchlist and I happened to be online during the major streak of vandalism, so it wasn't much of a special effort. I was delaying bed time to 00:00 (UTC) though, so I could keep on watching the article until it would be off the main page. Rather tired now, so I'll go to sleep and dream about that colorful star you gave me! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Zipporah

Hello! I don't know if this in your area of interest, but if you'd like to take a look at today's edits, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of this is based on primary sources (the last paragraph references a secondary source, but comments on it from an authorial point of view, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia), so I think your diagnosis of OR is correct. This IP editor may be an expert who just does not realize that we strictly report the content of secondary sources here, so please go easy on them.

I am currently studying the Vulgate and Septuagint versions of the Psalms, but this really is my first serious dip into Bible study, and I wouldn't say that anything else Bible-related is within my area of interest yet. I am planning to someday study the rest of the Bible, as well as to learn some basic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac to really get into the depths of it. At that point it will probably be possible to coax me into looking at some secondary literature for a Wikipedia article, although it will still not be my first choice. I also studied the whole Qur'an in Arabic, yet I never write on the Qur'an here. It would be hard too, since I read but very little secondary sources on the Qur'an (perusing Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān entries is mostly as far as I'd got).

This is because my real interest is history of philosophy, and any study of religion only serves as a background to aid my understanding of religious philosophy, i.e., ancient and medieval philosophy which takes pagan ritual or revealed scripture as a starting point rather than secular Aristotelian dogma. Having been derided as 'pseudo-philosophy' in most historiography of philosophy from that discipline's very beginnings in the 17th century until about thirty years ago, the huge and severely neglected field of religious philosophy is still full of surprises and exciting new discoveries for the modern researcher.

So that's what I'm at, which also means I shouldn't spend too much time on Wikipedia. The very wide field I'm trying to cover with my studies means that I don't have much room left for reading secondary sources anyway (I tend to limit my secondary readings to stuff that is directly about history of philosophy itself, but even that falls by the wayside when I'm studying languages or non-philosophical primary sources). For the time being I'm happy patrolling the 1,439 articles on my watchlist, and I really don't want to do much more than that. I will return to writing articles and to greater availability someday, but given what's on my plate that may well be in twenty years or so. Okay, it will probably be earlier, simply because I won't be able to resist... But for now, I'm only a patroller. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Tewodros II

Hi Apaugasma. I refer to your reversion here: [9]. I'm not going to contest your reversion because I don't like or currently have the energy for ongoing disputes, though you seem genuinely interested in the discussion so I thought I'd answer your question. Yes, 'committed suicide' is currently the much more common term, however, like many old terms, it is becoming less and less acceptable to use. As well as being outdated, it's also technically inaccurate if we get a little pedantic about terminology and etymology. The term 'committed' is a vestige from the times when it was literally illegal to attempt suicide, so people who attempted suicide were said to have 'committed' this offence. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence, therefore in the strict definition of the term originally applied, people no longer 'commit' suicide, they 'suicide' or 'die by suicide'. See Suicide terminology, or this psychology article here [10]. And yes, I understand this is a historical case of suicide, though I feel updating to modern language is still important. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually I've since thought of a middle ground, something that doesn't sound like a euphemism but also doesn't have a stigma or inaccuracy concerns with it. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after I reverted I wondered whether that had really been necessary, and so I went looking for what has been said about this before on en.wiki, and found MOS:SUICIDE. Apparently there has already been a lot of discussion, perhaps even too much discussion, about this. The last RfC on the subject found no consensus to ban the expression 'to commit suicide' and advised against systematically changing it either way.

In my view, 'to commit suicide' is not necessarily more problematic than any other fossilized term: it's perfectly normal for words to become archaic as to their literal meaning but still remain in use as so-called fossil words. In addition, I think that 'to die by suicide' is ever so slightly different in meaning, emphasizing the result ('he died', 'he is dead now') rather than the act and the circumstances that led to it, or the general context in which it happened. Your alternative 'killed himself' avoids that, though this expression is perhaps too 'active' in meaning for the context here.

In any case I think it's fine, I'm going to go by the RfC's advice and not make too much of a fuss about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

pls explain how 'some of these copy-edits made the text worse'

indeed im not native, but they feel more natural to me, can u explain how's that worse? also i didnt 'copy'. 捍粵者 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Copyedit in English doesn't mean someone copying something -- it's a term for editing spelling, grammar, or formatting, rather than changing the content. I won't speak for Apaugasma on the edits, though it can be tricky even as a native speaker to write clearly on these kinds of technical subjects -- but I did want to clarify that you weren't being accused of 'copying' anything. Vaticidalprophet 15:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello 捍粵者! As Vaticidalprophet (hi there!) said, improving and revising a text is called copy editing, it has nothing to do with copying.

Most of your changes in that edit are either not an improvement or rendering the text slightly less idiomatic. Examples of making the text less idiomatic include changing "In the laboratory, nitric acid can be made" to "Laboratories can make nitric acid" (laboratories don't make anything), changing "the nature of the metal" to "metal's nature", or changing "The industrial production of nitric acid from atmospheric air began in 1905" to "The industry started making nitric acid from atmospheric air in 1905".

If you wish you can ask other editors what they think about your copy-editing skills, but my advise is to give up on copy-editing and to look for another Wikipedia task. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

oh maybe i was too high when editing those parts. the other parts are alrite then? if so maybe i can simply edit other parts and keep those alone. 捍粵者 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No, there are other mistakes too. That's why I advise doing something else: if I or other editors needed to point out every error you made, you would create more work for others than you are yourself doing. If your goal is to correct errors, but you're actually introducing so many errors that other editors need to review every edit you make to catch out the mistakes, that would not be helpful. The most helpful thing you can do right now is to focus on something else. Thanks for taking this into consideration! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ghadir Khumm or Ghadir khumm

Hi Apaugasma! I can use your input here :) We had an exchange earlier about the correct capitalization of transliterated Arabic book titles (sentence case). My new question is about the capitalization of Arabic proper names in general. What's your advice here? One good example is 'Ghadir Khumm' (title case) vs. 'Ghadir khumm' (sentence case). Or perhaps one should follow the common usage in reliable sources which, in this case, might be 'Ghadir Khumm'. I can't seem to find a specific guideline on WP: and MOS: pages. Let me know what your thoughts are, please. Albertatiran (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran! Yes, by far the most common usage is to capitalize each word in the transliteration of Arabic proper names, with the notable exception of al-, which in the most common usage only gets capitalized when it is the first word of a full sentence (that is, a sentence containing a subject and verb).

Whereas the use of sentence case for book titles is only a majority-practice (i.e., you will find some sources using title case for book titles), capitalizing proper names like Ghadir Khumm is pretty much universal. This also borne out by the sources, e.g. [11][12][13][14].

As far as I know, the only use case where sources are really divided (as in approaching 50%/50%) is in the capitalization of religious titles and concepts (Imam or imam, Caliph or caliph, Companion or companion, Ahl al-Bayt or ahl al-bayt, Ahl al-Kitab or ahl al-kitab, etc.). This is pretty complex because sometimes some of these terms in specific contexts do get capitalized consistently in the sources (e.g., Imam when referring to the Shi'i concept). Because of this complexity, and partly to avoid it, I'm leaning to support the capitalization of all these terms on Wikipedia. But currently, we do not have a MOS about any of these things, and usage is thoroughly mixed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fowden's hermetica book

Moved to Talk:Hermetica § Fowden's hermetica book

 – ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

SheryOfficial

Hi Apaugasma.I believe 205.164.155.147, 205.164.155.109 are SheryOfficial. Check the edit history of pages like Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Liaquat Ali Khan. I also believe that AlbaniaeDominus and MawlidistMan were both blocked without the connection to SheryOfficial being revealed. Look at the history of pages like Muhammad Ayub Khan, Yoweri Museveni, Ziaur Rahman, Iskandar Ali Mirza, 2002 Bali bombings. There are other examples but I think it's pretty conclusive. 2.103.229.41 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP, please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and use the 'How to open an investigation' box to post a report there.

I think you're right that the IPs are SheryOfficial. It's immediately clear to me that the IPs edit on pages previously edited by SheryOfficial, but the clerks and admins at SPI generally need this to be specifically shown through diffs (one diff showing a suspected IP or account editing a page, another diff showing a known SheryOfficial sock editing the same page). Bonus points if the diffs show similar changes to the same content, such as [15] vs [16].

For the suspects accounts you can request a checkuser in the SPI report, provided that you also give some evidence for them in the form of diffs.

Last but not least, it's always a good idea to look into the archives of the existing SPI page (in this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial/Archive). There you can see that I already filed a report for this IP on 22 April 2023, as well as mention it on 27 May 2022. Be sure to link to the 22 April 2023 report in your own report, because it is an important piece of evidence that SheryOfficial is in fact using this IP range.

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan

Duly noted, Apaugasma - I was worried I might be winging it a bit on that last link. Glad you found 'Poison Damsel' and 'Chankaya' acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobbadob (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Flobbadob, thanks for coming here! It's not always easy to know what should be linked and what not (if you want, there's a guide on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking), but it's not a big deal either. Most of the time, someone else will come along to adjust the links if necessary. Happy editing! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Abu Lu'lu'a

Your revert edit summary says I changed the NPOV framing on this article. My edits were in fact to correct editorialising in the article. What facts did i contract from the source material?

The article already explains the Muslim relationship with non-Arabs as mawali and the edits you reverted place undue weight on ethnicity. Sasanian Iran is the focus point of a metric ton of irredentist editing here on Wikipedia that editorialises about an imagined pure Persian past and that's why I made those edits.

In addition, you removed the edits I made that underline the fact that Abu Lu'lu'a is a Twelver martyr. It is a part of Twelverism.

Ogress 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, perhaps this would fit better on Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz? Feel free to move both your comment and my reply to the article talk page.

The NPOV issues here are quite subtle, but the basic point is that I wrote this article by closely following all the reliable sources I could find on the subject, and that what is written there now reflects these sources, not only in pure content but also in their choice of words and their general focus. If there is something specific where you can show that the sources speak about it in one way and the article in another, I would very much like you to point that out. But NPOV corrections should be based on the sources, not on one editor's sense of what is appropriate: the point is to neutrally represent the POV of the sources.

With regard to your changes of Shi'ism to Twelver Shi'ism, I suspect that you may be wrong about this. As far as I recall, the sources consistently speak about Shi'ism in general rather than about Twelver Shi'ism in particular. The position on the legitimacy of the first three caliphs has always been a little bit shifty in all Shi'i sects, with attitudes depending on the ever-changing political climate. However, I don't think there's anything to single out the Twelvers for the view that the first caliphs' rule was illegitimate, nor to state that there is one Shi'i sect which absolutely regards their rule as legitimate. Since you mentioned that Isma'ilis do not hold the same views (i.e. that the first caliphs were usurpers of Ali's right), I went looking in Farhad Daftary's The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines (2d ed. 2007), whom I would have suspected to mention something about this if it were true. In stead, I found him writing the following (p. 66):

It was during the period of oppressive Umayyad rule that the radical Shı'ı̄s, out of their exaltation of the Alids, began to curse not only Uthmān and other Umayyads, but also Abū Bakr and Umar, as usurpers of Alı̄’s rights. This public condemnation of the Companions (sabb al-sahāba), especially of the first two caliphs, which probably originated with Ibn Saba' but in due time was to be adopted by almost all Shı̄'ı̄ groups, remained the chief offence of Shı'ism in the eyes of Sunnı̄ Muslims.

Like many things in Shi'ism, the position that the first caliphs were usurpers seems to have originated among the ghulat and was held to be 'radical' at first, but later was adopted by almost all Shı̄'ı̄ groups. About Zaydism, Daftary 2007 writes (p. 74):

During the 2nd/8th century, the Zaydı̄s were doctrinally divided into two main groups, the Batriyya and the Jārūdiyya. The Batriyya represented the moderate faction of the early Zaydiyya, upholding the caliphates of Abū Bakr and Umar. They held that though Alı̄ was the most excellent (al-afdal) of Muslims to succeed the Prophet, nevertheless the caliphates of his predecessors who were less excellent (al-mafdūl) were valid, because Alı̄ himself had pledged allegiance to them. [...] These ideas were repellent to the radical Shı'ı̄s who condemned the early Companions for ignoring Alı̄’s succession rights, but they appealed to the Muslim majority. In fact, in time the Batrı̄ Zaydı̄ tradition was absorbed into Sunnı̄ Islam. On the other hand, the Jārūdiyya adopted the more radical Shı̄'ı̄ views and, like the Kaysānı̄s and Imāmı̄s, rejected the caliphs before Alı̄. By the 4th/10th century, Zaydı̄ doctrine, influenced by Jārūdı̄ and Mu'tazilı̄ elements, had been largely formulated.

Apparently, the one Shi'i group (the Batris) which did uphold Abu Bakr and Umar's caliphates was absorbed into Sunnı̄ Islam. Daftary mentions Jarudis (= Zaydis) and Imamis (= Twelvers) as having adopted the ghulat/radical view, but for some reason doesn't mention anything explicit about the Ismai'ili view on this subject. However, on p. 181 he relates a fairly typical episode about al-Hakim's decrees regarding the public denouncement of the first two caliphs, which does shed some light on the Isma'ili view:

In the meantime, al-Hākim had maintained his anti-Sunnı̄ measures, although at times he intensified them and then had them temporarily revoked. For instance, his order for the denouncement of Abū Bakr, his two successors and others amongst the sahāba, issued in 395 AH and according to which the relevant maledictions were inscribed on the walls of the mosques, was repealed after two years, only to be reintroduced in 403/1013.

Nothing here indicates that the Isma'ilis, or any other Shi'i sect, regarded the rule of the caliphs before Ali as legitimate. Clearly, at least in some periods the Isma'ilis participated in the tradition of publicly vilifying (sabb) the first caliphs, which is also described in the Abu Lu'lu'a article in relation to the Safavid institution of this practice and its retraction in the Qajar period. While such practices of public denouncement shifted, the basic doctrine that the caliphs before Ali were not legitimate seems to be something historically held in common by all Shi'i groups.

Finally, it has to be kept in mind that while those who celebrate Abu Lu'lu'a and Omar Koshan are Twelver Shi'is, not all Twelver Shi'is participate in this, and the large majority of Twelvers in fact condemns it. For this reason too, it's not a good idea to link Abu Lu'lu'a too closely to Twelverism in particular: the sentiment behind it is a general Shi'i one, but also a 'radical' one that has historically shifted and changed and that is highly politically charged.

In fact, the topic of the article in general is politically charged and highly controversial. As I mentioned in my revert, some parts of your edits were good copy-edits, but with this type of article, anything that changes the text's meaning or tendency should be approached with utmost care, and be thoroughly grounded in the sources. If you're not going to dive into the sources (which would be totally understandable), it's better to stick to pure copy-editing (rephrasing, breaking up sentences, etc.) and MOS-related stuff. If, on the other hand, you do have something to be improved or corrected based upon a close reading of the sources, I would be happy to discuss it on the article talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I meant to send this a while ago (back in March!), but it completely slipped my mind. Thank you for your consistently fluent well-researched edits and your kind and thoughtful talk page messages. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Freedom4U for putting a big broad smile on my face today! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Hydrochloric acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sadiq

hi! hope you are doing well! May I ask you to please look after Jafar al-Sadiq for the next couple of weeks? the usual disruptions, you know... my internet connection is going to be poor and anyway I have problem using the app. thank you very much. and I'm sorry for the poorly composed message on my cell phone. Albertatiran (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: I put Ja'far al-Sadiq on my watchlist again for a month. I can't promise that I will always be quick to revert disruption since I'm not checking in every day here, but I'll do my best. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

thank you :) Albertatiran (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Arab Sword Article

I don't see why the improper sourcing of the image of what is reputedly Umar's sword would be grounds to remove the file. SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The image under discussion, removed by me from Umar and from Arab sword; diffs [1][2].

Hi SufficientChipmunk3! This is because of the nature of Wikimedia Commons, to which anyone can upload any file and claim whatever they want about it. I would be trivial for any sword owner to take a picture of their sword and have it end up on Wikipedia as the sword of some famous historical figure, making millions of people believe it (4,928,037 views in 8 years). That is why we need some verification that archeologists and historians indeed regard the sword in question as Umar's.

Unfortunately neither Commons nor en.wiki has a fully fitting policy for this, but I would say that the contents of an image is a type of information ('this is the sword of Umar'), and all information on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability. If there is no way to verify that archeologists and historians indeed identify it as the sword of Umar, it does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:V. I hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia (u t c m l) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ghulat

How do you feel I changed the style of this wikipedia page? I mostly put the titles in English rather than Arabic transliteration. I did specify that Lower Mesopotamia has its own wikipedia page... but I'm not sure why you said "style". Can you clarify?

Thanks, a fellow editor. Ogress 01:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, here's your three edits combined [17].

• You changed Shi'i to to Shi'a (two equivalent styles, one of which should be used consistently in each one article)
• You changed "or" used for indicating an alternative term to double quotes (again, two equivalent styles).
• You changed the full name of Ali ibn Abi Talib to only a single name Ali (once more, two equivalent styles).
• You changed "Isma'ili Shi'i" to "Isma'ili" (equivalent terms, though the first style was used here to clarify for readers that Isma'ilism is a type of Shi'ism).
• You changed "Ibn Nusayr" to "ibn Nusayr" (here it's actually a mistake: "ibn" is written lower case when it occurs in the middle of a name, e.g. Jabir ibn Hayyan, but upper case when it is the first part of a name, e.g. Ibn Khaldun).
• You changed the WP:MOSAR-compliant "Kitāb al-Haft wa-l-aẓilla" to the non-WP:MOSAR-compliant "Kitāb al-Haft wa l-ʾaẓilla" (hamza is not transcribed when it is the first letter, also not in strict transliteration; on using "wa-l-" or "wa l-" WP:MOSAR is silent, but the article uses "wa-l-" throughout so the style shouldn't be changed here, if only for consistency but also per MOS:STYLEVAR).
• You removed the single quotation marks in 'path' even though it's a gloss and MOS:SINGLE advises to use single quotation marks for glosses.

As for changing "Kufa (southern Iraq)" to "Kufa in Lower Mesopotamia (now in Iraq)", it's possible to see this as a content issue (i.e., over how to name this region), but given the fact that reliable sources routinely use both "Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" in this context I think that "southern Iraq" and "Lower Mesopotamia" are more or less equivalent styles, and so once more this is a stylistic issue. I probably missed a few changes you made that are harder to spot in the diffs, but I think there are more than enough purely stylistic MOS-invariant changes here to justify my reverting the whole thing [18].

I appreciate that you are only trying to improve articles, but there's an important reason why MOS-invariant stylistic changes are discouraged: they tend to break up the existing consistency in articles, and in style-related issues the single most important thing is actually consistency. So if you change anything, please be very careful to change any and all instances of it throughout the article. But much better is not to make stylistic changes at all unless there's a very clear direction for it in the MOS.

Thanks for taking this into consideration, your fellow editor, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about a source

Hi, sorry to bother you. Can I ask your opinion on this source?

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.

Do you think it can be used in the article about Muhammad? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kaalakaa! Since his work is published by the University Press of Florida, it probably falls within the lines of WP:RS. But that is just the first step in assessing whether a source is good enough to use in an article. The second step is to assess the WP:WEIGHT the source carries among other scholars, which is a much longer and much more difficult process.

First we have to look at the notability of the subject: on some subjects, so few sources have actually been written that almost anything passing WP:RS should be good enough. On some other subjects there is a very large scholarly literature, which means we will have to be extremely selective. Some subjects fall in the middle: scholars have written about it, but the amount of scholarly literature is limited, and we should not be too picky.

Muhammad clearly falls in the category of subjects on which a huge scholarly literature exists, so for this subject we will have to be selective. The next thing to do then is to look at the sources which cite Rodgers. Are they themselves top-tier scholars, or are the sources that cite Rodgers rather of the unreliable type? If a large amount of high-ranking scholars publishing on the same subject are simply ignoring his views, we should too, so that's easy. If they all cite his views with approval, it's equally easy to determine that he can be used without any problem.

If he does get cited by respected scholars, but only to criticize his views, it gets a little bit trickier. If it's a controversial subject on which scholars have many different views, Rodgers's views can be mentioned along with other scholars' views in a discussion which explicitly attributes these views to the different scholars. The most tricky situation is where it's a relatively non-controversial subject, i.e., a subject on which all scholars agree but only Rodgers dissents: it can be hard to decide whether it's due to mention Rodgers' view at all in such a situation. Most often it's not, unless the dissenting view has created such a storm that's it's notable enough to write a wholly separate section about.

I don't know Rodgers, and I don't feel like researching him, but I suggest you do. Look for other high-quality scholarly sources that cite Rodgers: if you can't find such sources, don't use Rodgers, and if you do find such sources, assess to what extent they approve of Rodgers views and whether they are due to include. If you already used Rodgers without going through this process (which is a normal occurrence; we can't be checking all sources in this way all the time), and if as I assume you are asking about it here because other editors don't agree with using Rodgers, now is the time to initiate the process of checking for Rodgers' WP:WEIGHT in the scholarly literature.

Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Display Name Magic

How does one go about getting a magical black cloud to surround one’s username on one’s edit tags? It’s pretty frickin’ sweet. hello, world (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Trs9k, in your Special:Preferences page, under 'User profile', 'Signature', you can enter a custom signature. Be sure to check the box 'Treat the above as wiki markup.'

The shadow is created by prefacing the text with <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em"> and putting </span> after it. For example, <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">This text has shadow.</span> will produce This text has shadow. Fiddling with the numbers will change the position of the shadow (the middle two numbers), its thickness (the last number) and/or its color (the first number). As you can see, this also works when regularly editing wiki pages.

Similarly, <span style="color:#6a0dad">colored</span> will change text color as in colored. You can replace #6a0dad with any other hex number to produce a different color; to pick a color you can type in 'hex color' on Google and it will show a hex color picker.

One more useful thing to know is that   will produce a non-breaking space, which is helpful to keep your signature from line-breaking in an inappropriate place (this one actually also comes in handy on article pages, e.g. to keep something like CE on the same line as the date to which it belongs, as in 1258 CE for 1258 CE to avoid "1258" being the last word on a line and "CE" the first word on a new line).

More information may be found on Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. Also listed on that page are a number of things you should not do with your signature, such as WP:SIGFORGE, WP:SIGAPP, WP:SIGIMAGE, WP:SIGLENGTH, WP:SIGLINK, etc. It's generally helpful to recognizably include your username (Trs9k) in your signature. Also, at least one link to either User:Trs9k, User talk:Trs9k, or Special:Contributions/Trs9k is mandatory, and somehow including all of them is often useful for other editors.

More tips for vamping up your signature (changing background color, using special fonts, etc.), including a wealth of examples, are to be found on Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Have fun, and happy editing! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! Also thank you for all you do to keep this place running :) hello, world (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Introducing sfnlink

Hi, Apaugasma,

We are both members of a probably smallish club of users that are comfortable creating CITEREF-based wikilinks; I've seen your work at various articles. I've often thought it was tedious putting these links together and there had to be a better way. Plus, once you have them, they look mysterious in the wikicode to the average editor. At the same time, there ought to be an easier on-ramp for other editors who feel comfortable enough using {{sfn}}, but are too scared off by the intricacies of CITEREF to create links of that nature. I finally decided to do something about it, and the result is {{sfnlink}} (alias: citelink). Here's one example; the destination of this link will look familiar to you:

• {{sfnlink|Prophet|2018|article=Hermeticism}} ⟶ Prophet (2018)

It's configurable in several ways; you can find details at the template. I haven't advertised it yet (you're the first), and I've come to a stopping point in development, so I thought I'd ask for your feedback before I do, in case it needs further work. Let me know what you think. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot! On a quick test, even somewhat more challenging citelinks (two authors, extended formatting in date) like Ishkevari & Nejad (2008) or Asatryan (2000–2012b) seem to be working just fine. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do extensive testing, and since I'm semi-retiring I probably won't be able to give you any feedback on it through regular use either. I'm not at all experienced with this kind of thing, but I'd think that the best way to test something that basically works like this would be to advertise it broadly and let as many people as possible use it. It's just for talk space, so it won't break anything reader-facing, right? Anyways, thanks for creating this template, I think many users will find it useful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it will probably be mostly useful from Talk space, but there are some specific use cases where it will be useful in mainspace, and those are illustrated in Examples #1 and 3, and explained elsewhere in the Notes section. In particular, I keep running into the mediawiki bug involving nested {{sfn}} links in list-defined references, and {{sfnlink}} is the only way around it that I am aware of (other than hard-coding a CITEREF yourself).

Maybe I should add a "When to use" section, naming the use cases. But I definitely think it will be most useful from talk space. I'm especially interested in making things easier for users who are intimidated by complex coding issues like CITEREF, and aim to provide them with something usable. Thanks for those additional tests you tried, I will probably steal them, and add them to the test cases. I will advertise it soon, but I wanted to get some feedback from you, and I'll try a couple of other users who have used CITEREF as well. Going forward, if you notice any issues/problems/bugs/desired enhancements, please feel free to comment at Template talk:Sfnlink. Don't worry about extensive testing, but feel free to add anything to Template:Sfnlink/testcases that doesn't seem to be covered yet. Thanks again for your feedback! Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Abd Allah ibn Sa'd

You reverted this edit of Abd Allah ibn Sa'd citing that islamic-awareness.org is unreliable.

Okay, we can we use another source, the point being that the cited Sura is from Mecca and not Medina, as stated on the Sura's page in on Wikipedia: Al-Muʼminun with this 1982 citation. Simpatico qa (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Hello Simpatico qa! Thanks for providing a source. However, your new edit has created a new problem, which is that the text you added to the article is not directly supported by the source cited, but rather needs to be inferred from it as one of multiple premises leading to a conclusion. Please have a read of Wikipedia:No original research and you'll see what I mean.

I will not revert the edit again, but in the future please only add to Wikipedia articles what you have directly read in a reliable (which in this case more or less means 'written by an academic historian') secondary source. If you ever read in such a source about Abd Allah ibn Sa'd's story and why Muslims do not believe it, please do come back and add that source to the article.

Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've just edited the page again citing academic article.

I've also clarified the sources of those claims and cited narration, as those are actually disputed, by the above article and Muslim scholars responding to the question on sites like islamqa.info. Simpatico qa (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most anything published by Brill is very good to use on Wikipedia. Websites like islamqa.info on the other hand are better ignored when editing here. Thanks for everything! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa reverted it again citing: So much WP:ORand material from non-independent sources has been added. How to address it now? Simpatico qa (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Simpatico qa! Please discuss with Kaalakaa on Talk:Abd Allah ibn Sa'd. Be sure to thoroughly read and re-read Wikipedia:No original research before you proceed.

In the case that after having discussed it for a bit, you two should not agree on whether the material is OR, you may request further review from uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

I will personally not be looking at the edit or the page in question. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ibn Arfa Ra's alchemist

Good morning @Apaugasma,

thank you for filling out Ibn Arfa Ra's page. I have a question, does Ibn Abbar say that Ibn Arfa or Ibn Naqirat were both born in Andalusia? Is a birth in the Maghreb excluded or possible?

@Hayani-maghrebi Hayani-maghrebi (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hayani-maghrebi! I'm not sure about that. When writing the article, I have followed Forster & Müller (2020) (this source is open access, so you can read it for yourself if you're interested). They mention that according to Ibn al-Abbar, Ibn al-Naqirat was born in al-Andalus (so not in Morocco), but I don't think they went into further detail. If you want to know more about that, you should take a look at Ibn al-Abbar's biographical dictionary itself: maybe he mentions the city. In any case, his nisbas point to Medinaceli (al-Sālimī) or Jaén (al-Jayyānī).

As for Ibn Arfa' Ra's, if he is not identical with Ibn al-Naqirat, his birthplace is unknown, but the fact that he is sometimes given the nisba "al-Andalusī" makes Forster & Müller 2020 think he was also from al-Andalus. I do not remember their reasons, but Forster & Müller 2020 seem to think that he was most likely born in Granada. Granada was of course part of the Maghreb at the time, but he was probably not born in Morocco. On the other hand, nisbas are not always reliable, and I do not think that Forster & Müller 2020 would say that a Moroccan origin is excluded: it is possible (after all, he also carried the nisba al-Maghrebi), it's just that an Andalusian background is more likely (please read Forster & Müller 2020 for the evidence they lean upon). Also keep in mind that it would be strange for someone born in Morocco to be called "al-Andalusi", while "al-Maghrebi" both includes al-Andalus and was a common nisba for Western Muslims who migrated to the Mashreq. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)