Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mawlidman (talk · contribs)
• Saheehinfo (talk · contribs)
• MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute regarding which edit should be accepted for the article: this edit (mine) or this edit (opposing editor). I argue in favour of mine for 2 main reasons: 1) It has sub-sections because there are 2 distinct sections to the 'Permissibility' section: one for and one against. This gives the section greater clarity. 2) My edit simply quotes the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya, hence it is uncontroversial and fully self-explanatory. I argue against the other editor's version for 2 main reasons: 1) without sub-sections, the 'Permissibility' section looks very unwieldy. 2) in this version the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya is described as complex, even though plenty of other sources do not make mention of any such "complexity". This description is a matter of dispute, hence such controversy should be avoided--especially when my version easily offers a non-controversial solution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried extensive discussion on the talk page, sought a third opinion (but was rejected because a 3rd editor was nominally involved).

How do you think we can help?

Just to give fair advice about which arguments have merit and to offer a respectable opinion that can lead to a resolution to this ongoing dispute.

Summary of dispute by Saheehinfo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'll start with point 2) above because this is the major dispute we are having.

The existing version is based on the work of a respected academic scholar named Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. This clearly passes WP:RS and so I do not understand why it should be removed.

I have also seen other works from reliable sources which also seem to support the current text such as: Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL

The problem with the suggestion made by Mawlidman is that it seems to be a primary source. The source is a direct translation of one of Ibn Taymiyya's works. I do not see the need to refer to a primary source such as this translation when a number of secondary sources exist such as the one above by ukeles. Further, within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular.

For the record, I have no problem incorporating all reliable secondary sources regarding Ibn Taymiyya's views and am happy to expand on the existing version.

Regarding point 1) above, the disagreement regarding subheadings was a minor issue which I assumed had been resolved as Mawlidman stated previously that Regarding the sub-headings, i can live with their removal.

Anyhow, I was somewhat reluctant to have explicit sub headings of "support" and "opposition" as it gives the impression that only 2 views exist - I.e. either one is for the Mawlid or against it. In reality a wide range of opinions exist such as the fact that some historic scholars accepted certain parts of the mawlid but forbade others. Ironically Ibn taymiyya seems to be of those who were neither totally for or totally against the mawlid.

I am on holiday at the moment so may not respond in a timely fashion. apologies for any delays. Saheeh Info 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The two listed parties, while the main parties to the discussion, are not the only parties. Other parties who have commented should be listed. All of the editors should be notified of this filing. This case is being left open to allow for addition of other parties and for proper notice to be provided. (I will not be moderating the discussion if this case is opened.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer comment – I can open this case for moderated discussion once all of the involved editors are properly listed and notified. KSFT^C 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer comment – @Mawlidman: This is a reminder that all involved editors need to be notified on their talk pages before the case can be opened. It is your responsibility as the editor who filed the case to notify them. KSFT^C 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer comment – I am now opening this case for discussion. @Saheehinfo and MezzoMezzo: If you are willing to participate, reply here. KSFT^C 15:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: Can you respond below to Saheehinfo's points? KSFT^C 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if we dealt with point one first of all.
1) When i said i can live without sub-headings this was done as a goodwill gesture, but i never initially intended to remove them for any other reason i.e. i always believed they were appropriate. But since no goodwill was reciprocated i have put the issue back on the table. Anyway, to hold me against a past claim that i now so obviously disavow is a bit insultingly dismissive of my request. 2) Regarding the claim that there is no distinct 'Support' and 'Opposition' and that there is "a wide range of opinions [that] exist", if you read each scholar's ruling then you will see that each one has a general opposition or support towards Mawlid. They only elaborate on this support or opposition by setting conditions to their general rulings eg. some that support it then condition their support on the basis that Mawlid is conducted in a certain manner; some that oppose Mawlid then condition their opposition by saying that the month in which Mawlid is celebrated is special etc. Despite these conditons you will never find a conflict with their general support or opposition i.e. you don't have a 'support' scholar then saying that they oppose Mawlid. There are 2 distinct general views: 'support' or 'opposition'. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond to Saheehinfo's second point about your removal of a source that he claims is reliable? Why shoudn't it be included? KSFT^C 23:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: Yes, sorry. In answering his questions, i oppose Saheehinfo's version for several reasons:
1) This current version was first added by an obscure one-off editor called Thehistorian1984 here. This is the version Saheehinfo is defending based upon his claim that this is the consensus version as he states here in the first paragraph, Talk:Mawlid#Ibn Taymiyyah. As you can see the content is identical except that some extra sources have been added. Note that Saheehinfo had no qualms adding sources that supported the initial edit; however, he stubbornly rejected any of my edits that countered this edit—even if my edits were supported by worthy sources.
2) Now, as can be seen, Thehistorian1984's foundational edit cited one source: the pivotal Ukeles-authored work. Of all my searching for this source i have been unable to acquire it or to inspect whether its citation matches the content espoused in the edit. Likewise, even Saheehinfo has admitted that he has never seen the source and whether it matches the edit's content, as he admits here: [1] (to find press 'ctrl' + 'f' and type 'book' and it is the first one highlighted). I find it ridiculous that he has so staunchly defended this foundational 'consensus' edit even though he has admitted he has no proof to defend it.
3) The words "complexity of the issue" in Saheehinfo's version is rather subjective and open to dispute. While there are indeed sources that mention Ibn Taymiyyah's (IT's) views using adjectives like 'complex' (as the source quotes of Saheehinfo's version make clear) there are also sources that present IT's views using no such adjectives (some can be seen here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#Sources that don't raise issue of complexity). Likewise, the words "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" in Saheehinfo's version are also open to dispute, as my above sandbox link shows. When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other. If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit (shown here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#My proposed edit) offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively.
4) Saheehinfo objects to my version because he claims i am using a "primary source". In fact this is untrue. The source is not a book of IT or a translation of a book of IT; it is a book by the scholar Muhammad Umar Memon, published in the scholarly publishing house Walter de Gruyter. This makes it in fact a secondary sources that just happens to include IT's quoted opinion. Quoting IT doesn't make it a primary source. The source quotes IT—which is how i added IT's personal view at length. Note also that Muhammad Umar Memon makes it quite clear what he personally makes of IT's view on Mawlid here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#Sources that don't raise issue of complexity (last quote); it certainly isn't in agreement with Saheehinfo's version. So once again we have differences of opinions expressed by several authors, hence why i call for only adding IT's own quoted view and let that do the explaining—rather than conflicting authors. I also find it strange that Saheehinfo objects to quoting IT, yet the article has 2 quotes already in the Permissibility section. Why doesn't Saheehinfo count these as primary sources too? If a scholar like Al-Suyuti can be quoted at length, despite authors not being divided about his support for Mawlid, then why can't IT be quoted at length when his views are open to dispute among authors? If anything, Al-Suyuti shouldn't be quoted, but rather authors should quickly summarize his view because it is considered so uncontroversial. Saheehinfo also claims that "within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular." Again he is incorrect: i only quoted from IT what was relevant to his views on Mawlid. Everything of IT's words that precede and succeed this quote were not added because they veered of course talking about other issues. If "there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject", as he claims, could Saheehinfo please draw attention to them?
This is my reply to Saheehinfo. All i desire is to remove controversy by letting IT speak for himself—instead of others disputing over his views. Memon's source, as the only secondary source i could find that quotes IT at length, offers that solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saheehinfo: You need to check this page regularly. If you don't respond soon, I'll have to close this case as failed. KSFT^C 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: If he doesn't respond soon does that mean that my case is rejected? --Mawlidman (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I close the case because he doesn't respond, it will mean that you were unable to discuss the issue, so no consensus could be reached. KSFT^C 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: Well wouldn't that be very convenient for him not to respond? So i put in the effort to resolve this issue here most likely for nothing...how does such a system sound fair? If i had known that that's how it works then i wouldn't have bothered because from much experience the other editor is not approaching this dispute in good faith and seeking a fair solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: and @Mawlidman: Apologies for the delay - I am genuinely abroad at the moment and the Internet access here is very poor. I would very much appreciate a delay so that we can reconvene when I am back from holiday.

FYI - I do now have access to the work by Ukeles. The summary currently in the wiki article is an accurate reflection of her lengthy work so I really do not see why we should remove the existing version of the article. I scanned the pages before going on holiday with a view to provide the relevant quotes but unfortunately the Internet access here is so poor that the scanned documents do not open. You can also buy the book from Amazon if you do not believe me (it is not expensive). Can we therefore put this on hold until I am back? Saheeh Info 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer comment – I am putting this case on hold until Saheehinfo can participate. Saheehinfo, let me know here when I should reopen this case. KSFT^C 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saheehinfo: A time frame on your return to editing action would have been nice. Regarding your acquisition of the book, all i ask, when you return from vacation, is that you show me that the source says something like "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" (which was in the edit). I'm not concerned by whether the cite mentions "complexity" because as i have shown the "complexity" adjective is a matter of dispute between different authors, i.e. plenty of authors don't think the issue is complex. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll be back on Saturday and will respon then.Saheeh Info 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator's note: I've extended the archive date of this case 9 days until May 15 to allow for the hold. If not resolved by then, then the case will be automatically archived and, in effect, closed if any 24-hour period passes with no edit made to it. If May 15 approaches without resolution or manual closing, KSFT may then extend it beyond May 15 by adjusting the "Do not archive until" date in the case header, but the best practice is not to do so unless there is active ongoing discussion and some hope of resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)[reply]

I will not extend the archive date unless Saheehinfo is back and discussion has begun. KSFT^C 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: and @KSFT: Thank you both for your patience. Below is my response to the four points made by Mawlidman:

Point 1

As I have explained before, I reverted your changes on the contested portion of the article per WP:BRD. When we come to an agreement on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change. I explained this on a number of occasions over the last few weeks (here, here and here) and also made clear that we should work together on this.

This is the reason why I reverted your changes - it was not done out of "stubbornly rejecting" your edits.

Point 2

There is long standing version of Ibn Taymiyya's views from Jan 2015 as follows:

The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"

Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.

The book Ibn Taymiyya and his Times consists of a number of articles by academic scholars. The relevant article in this book is by Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is entitled "The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)".

On page 319 of the book, Ukeles states that "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality."

On page 320 she states that "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..."

On page 320 she also states that "he recognized that some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions."

Given the above, the summary by @Thehistorian1984: seems reasonable. However, I could not find an explicit mention to "although not (haram) forbidden" in the article. I would therefore be happy to remove this given that it was not explicitly mentioned in the book and seems to fall under WP:OR and perhaps WP:SYNTHESIS.

Question for Mawlidman - are you ok with this source and the summary?

Point 3

You stated that: When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other.

I have mentioned previously that we need to use all sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. So if conflicting views do exist from reliable sources then we should detail all of these.

You also state that: If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively.

I completely disagree. Your proposal to "simply quote" Ibn Taymiyya is problematic as it means that we bypass a number of rigorous secondary sources. Wikipedia guidelines state that we should mainly use reliable secondary sources since:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources

Point 4

The book you are quoting from is entitled Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion: With an Annotated Translation of His Kitab Iqtida As-sirat Al-mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Al-jahim (Religion and Society). It consists of three parts. Part three is entitled "Translation of Kitab Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat ashab al-Jahim". It is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyya's book and is 231 pages long (pages 89 to 320). As I understand it, a direct translation of an authors work would be a primary source with respect to the author himself. Please read WP:PRIMARY.

There is absolutely no reason to use a primary source given the number of academic works dedicated to the subject.

Examples of reliable works on this subject are:

• The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Marion Holmes Katz, The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam (Culture and Civilization in the Middle East) Routledge
• Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL

The above are excellent sources on the subject and certainly pass WP:RS. We should therefore definitely use them. Mawlidman - do you agree that these sources should be used?

Conclusion:

• 1) Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD not out of "stubbornly rejecting your edits"
• 2) The current version of the paragraph is a reasonable rendering of Ukeles's work with the exception of "although not (haram) forbidden" which seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore can be removed.
• 3) We should use all reliable secondary sources to come up with something that reflects all opinions.
• 4) Directly quoting from a translation of Ibn Taymiyya's work seems to fall under WP:PRIMARY which is unnecessary when so many reliable secondary sources exist. Saheeh Info 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saheehinfo: and @KSFT: Firstly, i'm glad you agree in removing although not (haram) forbidden from the article. I think this removal also, more than ever, reinforces my request to have the section divided into sub-sections since we have 2 clear views of general support and opposition--each including their own conditions.
Now, to respond to your questions:
are you ok with this source and the summary? No i am not ok with this source and summary for several reasons: 1) You said On page 319 of the book, Ukeles states that "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality." The key words you quoted are "This paper argues". That makes it quite clear that this is the author's personal view and hints that they acknowledge that authors hold conflicting views of IT's opinion; this is precisely what i have been arguing. I have shown some authors think his opinions are complex while others do not. So i don't see why the complex view should exclusively prevail in this conflict. 2) You say On page 320 she states that "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..." Thanks for finding this, but could you please quote the entire sentence? I don't understand why you cut it so short and i'd like to know the full content of this sentence because it could add further illumination to IT's views.
I'd like to respond to your Point 3. You said we should mainly use reliable secondary sources, so do you consider my source, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, to be a primary source? I have already shown Memon's book is not a primary source. The book quotes IT but i already showed that Memon mentions his view of IT's mawlid opinion and there is nothing wrong with adding IT's quote in the article when other pro-Mawlid scholars' opinions are already included in it. I have already covered this above.
Now to respond to Point 4. The book i used, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, is 444 pages long; you said IT's quote in the book is 231 pages long. So about half the book is his quote and half the book is the scholar Memon's words. In what world does that make Memon's work a primary source? We have IT's quote regarding Mawlid, but we also have Memon's view of IT's mawlid opinion. Therefore, we have a primary and secondary source regarding IT's views on Mawlid.
That brings me to answer your last question: do you agree that these sources should be used? No i don't agree. Let's be clear hear: your extra sources are all simply accessories to the foundational Ukeles edit by Thehistorian1984, i.e. they reinforce the initial edit's insistence that IT's view is complex. These sources add nothing new; they could readily be removed, to leave the foundational edit by the Thehistorian1984, and the initial edit will have gained or lost nothing. However, the problem that you keep ignoring is that your sources present one side of the coin: the "complexity" of IT's views. I have shown with my excellent sources that others view IT's opinion as not being complex at all. So why do you keep insisting that your version has the sole right to take precedence? My version takes the middle ground simply by quoting IT from a scholarly secondary source that provides us with the greatest amount of his own quoted opinion. I am not calling for an edit that says "IT was against Mawlid--period"; nor am i calling for an edit that presents his views as being universally accepted as being "complex"--as you are. I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: - there is too much going on here, so I would prefer it if we could try and agree on the fundamentals first.

You stated that:

I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions.

I could not disagree more with this. Please review WP:SECONDARY which states that:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

So we ARE absolutely meant to make use of scholarly works such as those by Ukeles who have thoroughly analysed Ibn Taymiyya's works and provided an interpretation based on this. Her work has been peer reviewed and published by a respected academic institute. All of this makes it completely acceptable to use as a source for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned before, if there are conflicting views amongst academics then all these views should be represented. To simply quote directly from one of Ibn Taymiyya's own books is problematic since it bypasses the specialist knowledge and analysis made by scholars who have spent much time to come up with there conclusions.

You also stated that: so do you consider my source, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, to be a primary source? I have already shown Memon's book is not a primary source.

As I mentioned above, the book you are quoting from is entitled Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion: With an Annotated Translation of His Kitab Iqtida As-sirat Al-mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Al-jahim (Religion and Society). It consists of three parts. Part three is entitled "Translation of Kitab Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat ashab al-Jahim". It is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyya's book and is 231 pages long (pages 89 to 320). As I understand it, a direct translation of an authors book would be a primary source with respect to the author himself. Please read WP:PRIMARY.

Parts one and two of the book are Memon's interpretation. Both of these parts would be acceptable as a secondary source. However, the long quote that you have suggested is from the third part.

I haven't touched on your other points as we need to agree on the fundamentals first (although please note that I disagree with your view that there is a major conflict amongst academics or that some academics claim that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex").

So can we first agree on the following:

a) Reliable secondary sources such as those by Ukeles, Katz, Memon etc... should be used

b) *IF* there is a conflict amongst academics then all these all these views should be represented

c) The use of Primary sources (e.g. direct quotes from Ibn Taymiyya's own books) are unnecessary given the multitude of reliable secondary sources that are available. Saheeh Info 15:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saheehinfo: I am not in the habit of circular arguing and repetition. You have my answers to all your questions above. I answered all your questions in detail; the least you could do is to answer my one real question: could you please quote the entire sentence? If you want the context of this question then re-read my response above (the question is also in bold).
@KSFT: could you please give us your input because this argument between me and Saheehinfo is going nowhere and we are running out of time. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: - A simple yes or no would suffice and then we can discuss content. So do you agree on the following:

a) Reliable secondary sources such as those by Ukeles, Katz, Memon etc... should be used

b) *IF* there is a conflict amongst academics then all these all these views should be represented

c) The use of Primary sources (e.g. direct quotes from Ibn Taymiyya's own books) are unnecessary given the multitude of reliable secondary sources that are available.

If we cannot even agree on the fundamentals there is no point discussing content. So please answer YES or NO and then I would be happy to go through content with you. Saheeh Info 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the dispute is about, and it seems like you might not either. It looks like one disagreement is that Mawlidman wants to split a section into two subsections, one with information about who agrees with the subject of the article and one about people who disagree, and Saheehinfo doesn't want the subsections. Is that correct? If so, Saheehinfo, can you explain why it shouldn't be split? Per WP:PSTS, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources can all be used on Wikipedia. Translation is not "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis", so a translation of a primary source is a primary source. That shouldn't be relevant for citing facts or quotes, though, as long as the article has other independent sources. Can one or both of you summarize the other points you disagree about? KSFT^C 21:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of my requests is for sub-sections. My second request is that we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: The major disagreement we have is about how best to summarise the views of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyyah on the Mawlid. I believe that we should base his views on reliable secondary sources such as:

1. Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
2. The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
3. Marion Holmes Katz (2007). The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam. Routledge.

The above individuals are recognised scholars and their words are easily verifiable by the reader.

Mawlidman believes that "we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid". I consider this problematic and unnecessary for a number of reasons:

1. We have a number of excellent reliable secondary sources on the subject published by Oxford University Press, BRILL etc... which summarises Ibn Taymiyyah's views well. I do not understand why we should bypass these. According to WP:SECONDARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
2. Ibn Taymiyya wrote a lot of material on the subject. To try and add all of the material from his books would take up a lot of space. Per WP:LONGQUOTE this would be undesirable. On the other hand if we selectively quote from his works this would lead to POV pushing one way or another.
3. Quoting directly from a translation of Ibn Taymiyya's work is making use of a primary source. WP:PRIMARY states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is not the case here. The subject matter is complex - academics have spent months analysing Ibn Taymiyya's views and have published lengthy material about the subject.

The second (minor issue) is regarding subheadings. I do not believe that we should add subheadings as this would give the impression that there are only 2 possible views on the subject ("for" and "against"). In reality, there are diverse opinions on the subject. e.g. Some scholars permitted certain types of celebration and prohibited other types. Saheeh Info 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: Can you concisely respond to the three points Saheehinfo mentioned above? KSFT^C 13:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: Sorry for the late response; i've been busy. Of course i can respond to his 3 points above, but i don't know how i can be anymore illuminating than my explanations above:
1) Saheehinfo's "excellent reliable secondary sources" are subjective in a controversial, disputed manner. They are fixated on proving IT's views are complex when plenty of other "excellent reliable secondary sources" don't consider his views complex, e.g. see here.
2) My quote does not "selectively quote from his works". The quote is IT's full opinion of Mawlid—period. Saheehinfo has provided zero proof that "Ibn Taymiyya wrote a lot of material on the subject." If such material exists then the burden is upon Saheehinfo to provide such other Mawlid opinions of IT, i.e. material that adds something that wasn't included in my quote.
3) Using the definition provided by Saheehinfo regarding WP:PRIMARY, I would actually argue that my quote does in fact "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone who reads my quote, i believe, would easily be able to indentify IT's views on Mawlid because it's thorough. To portray his views as complex would be to favour the views of one group of academics while discounting the views of another group that doesn't share their conclusions. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: You need to explain what specifically about the sources is bad and cite policy. Also, I don't see the quote you mentioned on this page. Can you copy it here?

@Saheehinfo: You claim that that author has written multiple books on the subject, but Mawlidman claims that a quote in the article covers the author's "full opinion of Mawlid". That should be easy to disprove, if it's false, by showing examples of other writing on the subject by that author. Can you do that here, just below this comment? KSFT^C 13:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: - Ibn Taymiyyah wrote about the Mawlid in the following books:

1. Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqlm li-mukhalafat ashab al-jahim, 2 vols, Riyadh: Dar al-'Asima, 1419 ah/1998 ce. Ibn Tulun al-Salihl, Muhammad ibn 'All, al-Fulk al-mashhun ft ahwal Muhammad ibn Tulun, ed. Muhammad Khayr Ramadan Yusuf, Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm, 1416 ah/ 1996 CE. Mufakahat al-khillan ft hawadith al-zaman, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Tlmlya, 1418 ah/1998 ce.
2. Majmu ' fatawa shaykh al-islam Ahmad ibn Taymiya, 37 vols, collected and arranged by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim al-'Asiml al-Najdl, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963.
3. Fatwa Fi'l Qiyam wa'l alqab in Rasa 'il wa-nusus, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln al-Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963, pp. 9-12.

The above books have been quoted from extensively by both Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and Marion Holmes Katz within there works outlined above. I have provided some example quotes from the above books here and here. The main point I am alluding to is that if "we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid" we will necessarily either end up adding all his quotes (which would be problematic per WP:LONGQUOTE AND WP:QUOTEFARM) or adding only some of his quotes (which would be problematic per WP:NPOV).

Further, we should be cautious about adding lengthy quotes per WP:PRIMARY which states that: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Finally, there are questions regarding copyright violations given the amount of material potentially copied from these sources per WP:COPYPASTE.

I have also provided reasons that explain why the sources I am suggesting are reliable per Wikipedia policies here. Also, I am not suggesting that we restrict ourselves to the sources I am supporting (though they seem to be the most thorough). I am suggesting that we use ALL sources that fulfill WP:RS to come up with something that represents ALL academic viewpoints. Again this is in line with Wikipedia policies such as WP:YESPOV which states that:

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Saheeh Info 17:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: My quote is this (as taken from here):
"...It is rather the Christians and Jews who turn the eventful days in the lives of prophets into festivals, in particular the former who commemorate events in the life of Jesus. A shar'i festival means only one thing: whatever God has laid down must be followed and that which is not of the original faith must not be innovated.
Under this heading come also the practices of some Muslims undertaken in imitation of the Christian observances of Christmas or out of love and reverence for the Prophet of Islam. God may reward them for this love and effort (ijtihad), not for innovations such as celebrating the Prophet's birthday (Maulid) as a festival, while people are not even sure of the actual date of his birth. The Salaf would have none of that, though it may have been expected and though there could have been no objection. If such a practice had been good, entirely or preponderantly, it would have been natural to expect the Salaf to have instituted such a celebration, what with their greater love and reverence for the Prophet and their zeal for the good. Indeed the most complete expression of one's love and reverence of him lies in following and obeying him, in carrying out his command, upholding his Sunna both in inner as well as external life, and in advancing the cause of Islam with heart, hand and tongue. Such was indeed the way of the earliest Muslims, whether Muhajirun or Ansar, and of those who followed them in piety.
Notwithstanding their good intent and rewardable effort, most of those people who are eager for these novelties are found rather lukewarm in complying with the Prophet's expressed command...."^[1]
To answer your request You need to explain what specifically about the sources is bad and cite policy: What's bad about the sources is that they purvey only one side (WP:UNDUE) i.e. they portray IT's opinion as complex when the other side portrays his opinion as very straightforward. Hence, this does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Quoting IT, however, is as neutral as one can get—unless Saheehinfo can prove that i am somehow selectively quoting IT.
@Saheehinfo: I asked you to provide me with quotes of IT that add info that is not already included in my quote; you have not done that with your response above. You simply rattled off a list of secondary sources with zero mention of any new IT opinion quotes. Please quote IT saying something other than what is mentioned in my quote. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at in your sandbox. Where, specifically, do those secondary sources explicitly claim that IT's views are not complex? Also, can you point out where, specifically, WP:UNDUE says supports your view, which seems to be that sources that contradict other sources should never be used? Unless I'm misunderstanding Saheehinfo's comment above, he gave a list of other books written by IT about Mawlid. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's what you claimed didn't exist. KSFT^C 13:57, 15 May 2016 (UThoww

All the sandbox sources simply mention that IT considered mawlid a heretical innovation—not the more mild sounding "reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice" in the wiki article. They don't mention complexity precisely because many view his opinion as being strongly against mawlid. Do my sources need to explicitly claim that IT's views are not complex for them to be considered so? That sounds odd to me.
Regarding WP:UNDUE: i can add more sources which make no mention of IT's views as complex; with these extra sources included i am pretty sure that it will be shown that a minority of sources make the complex claim.
About Saheehinfo's books: sorry, what i meant was that Saheehinfo has to show that within these books there is new info that hasn't been included in my IT quote. I am confident that the quote i provided covers all of IT's arguments against mawlid; these other primary sources will elucidate no new IT arguments.
Sorry if i wasn't clear previously. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't "need to" claim that; I thought your point was that they did. I'm just trying to clarify your argument. I'm not sure why your point that "a minority of sources make the complex claim" is relevant. To be clear, are you claiming that those books that Saheehinfo listed above make no mention of Mawlid? If not, you'll need to be more clear about what you are claiming. If so, Saheehinfo, can you find a quote that does mention Mawlid? KSFT^C 16:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No my sources do not say specifically that "IT's views on mawlid are uncomplex." What i am saying is that they all bluntly state his opinion was that it is a heretical innovation; by this way, they didn't see his views as complex.
My point with my minority argument is that Saheehinfo has included complex in the wiki article even though this is not the consensus view, hence he is giving WP:UNDUE.
Regarding Saheehinfo's books: What i am saying is that his books may contain mention of Mawlid—still unproven though—however, what he has to prove is that these books contain new info, of IT's mawlid views, other than that provided in my quote. Saheehinfo argued that my quote couldn't be included because it doesn't elucidate all of IT's views regarding Mawlid, i.e. that it lacked all of the views of IT. I am saying that my quote covers all of IT's arguments against Mawlid, hence this is a worthy quote to include. In fact, my quote pretty much covers every argument used by opponents of mawlid—as the opposition section of the wiki article makes quite clear. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have explained here as to why the sources I am suggesting we use are reliable and pass WP:RS. Mawlidman hasn't provided any policy reasons for rejecting these secondary sources. He simply stated that "What's bad about the sources is that they purvey only one side" This isn't Wikipedia policy, this is simply his POV.

He also mentioned WP:UNDUE as a reason for rejecting these sources. This is a misreading of WP:UNDUE as it actually states the opposite of what Mawlidman is claiming:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

If an 18 page article on the subject produced by Oxford University Press isn't a "significant viewpoint" then what is?

@Mawlidman: - please provide actual policy reasons for rejecting these secondary sources.

Secondly, none of Mawlidman's sources state that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex". This seems to be a case of inference on his part. WP:STICKTOSOURCE states that:

Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Mawlidman - can you please provide an explicit statement that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex"?

Thirdly, I have mentioned previously that we need to use all sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. So *IF* conflicting views do exist from reliable sources then we should detail all of these. WP:YESPOV states that:

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

Therefore, even if academics differ there is absolutely no reason to reject sources that contradict other sources.

Mawlidman, do you agree with this? If so, then do you agree that we should be using all sources? If not, then can you explain why not.

Fourthly, Ibn Taymiyya discussed the Mawlid in a number of his books such as:

1. Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqlm li-mukhalafat ashab al-jahim, 2 vols, Riyadh: Dar al-'Asima, 1419 ah/1998 ce. Ibn Tulun al-Salihl, Muhammad ibn 'All, al-Fulk al-mashhun ft ahwal Muhammad ibn Tulun, ed. Muhammad Khayr Ramadan Yusuf, Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm, 1416 ah/ 1996 CE. Mufakahat al-khillan ft hawadith al-zaman, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Tlmlya, 1418 ah/1998 ce.
2. Majmu ' fatawa shaykh al-islam Ahmad ibn Taymiya, 37 vols, collected and arranged by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim al-'Asiml al-Najdl, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963.
3. Fatwa Fi'l Qiyam wa'l alqab in Rasa 'il wa-nusus, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln al-Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963, pp. 9-12.

The above books have been quoted from extensively by both Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and Marion Holmes Katz within there works outlined above. I have provided some example quotes from the above books here and here. Please check my sandbox for the explicit quotes. If you want me to copy and paste them here I would be happy to do so.

Fifthly, I mentioned above that one of the main problems with adding large quotes directly from Primary sources is that this would be problematic per WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:QUOTEFARM. If we only selectively quote it would be problematic per WP:NPOV.

Mawlidman - what is your response to this?

Sixthly, Mawlidman stated that Saheehinfo argued that my quote couldn't be included because it doesn't elucidate all of IT's views regarding Mawlid, i.e. that it lacked all of the views of IT. I am saying that my quote covers all of IT's arguments against Mawlid, hence this is a worthy quote to include.

What I actually stated was that "To try and add all of the material from his books would take up a lot of space. Per WP:LONGQUOTE this would be undesirable. On the other hand if we selectively quote from his works this would lead to POV pushing one way or another."

For example, Ibn Taymiyya states that:

If you see someone observing the Mawlid and you know that he would only abandon it for worse do not summon him to abandon it for an even more detestable act, nor should you enjoin him to abandon something obligatory or recommended which [its abandonment] would be worse than observing their (makruh) reprehensible deed. But if there was a good element in the innovated practice, substitute it with a lawful good to the best of your ability. Since people do not relinquish something without something to replace it, and it is not necessary to abandon something good except for something equally good or better.

(Iqtida 2:125, Taken from Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, Oxford University Press, p 326.)

The above is not apparent in the quote that Mawlidman supplied. So what do we do? Do we start adding even more quotes directly from Ibn Taymiyya (there are plenty more).

Further, we should be cautious about adding lengthy quotes per WP:PRIMARY which states that: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Mawlidman - what is your policy response to this? Saheeh Info 08:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have answers to your questions, but i think you have deviated from KSFT's plan to control this discussion by keeping questions and answers focused and dealt with one at a time. You have added new questions and hence inconveniently expanded the scope and focus of this discussion. I will wait to see what KSFT desires me to answer. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is fine. You can definitely answer the questions. KSFT^C 23:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saheehinfo: to answer your questions:
please provide actual policy reasons for rejecting these secondary sources. I gave WP:NPOV and UNDUE. By stating that the issue is definitively complex (based upon a few sources) you have breached UNDUE because you did not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints". What would be fairer, and a minimum requirement, is to say something like "IT's views on Mawlid have been described as complex by several authors/scholars, such as Ukeles..." But it is not being fair when you present his views as being universally and indisputably accepted as being complex.
can you please provide an explicit statement that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex"? No i don't have an explicit statement saying his views are considered uncomplex. But does that matter? I take the sources i have provided, and their succinct views, to definitely not imply that they considered his views complex. Even if you disagree with me, neither can you argue that they agree IT's view is complex. Therefore, you can't word the sentence to imply that IT's views are unanimously accepted as complex.
Mawlidman, do you agree with this? If so, then do you agree that we should be using all sources? If not, then can you explain why not. Yes i do agree we should use all sources; however, what i completely disagree with is presenting the complex view as being universally accpeted. This is where you have extended the coverage of the source beyond what is fair. If you insist on keeping complex then you need to narrow its scope by re-writing the section as something like what i suggested above: "IT's views on Mawlid have been described as complex by several authors/scholars, such as Ukeles..." This would meet the criteria of fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
To respond to your 2 questions regarding the quotations: 1) All the quotes you provided (except Iqtida 2:125, Taken from Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, Oxford University Press, p 326) add nothing new to my quote. Your Iqtida 2:125 quote is actually secondary to the primary issue of permissability of Mawlid. The primary issue is whether Mawlid is considered Haraam or Halaal. My quote shows that IT considers Mawlid generally Haraam; however, he conditions this upon a person's intention. Your quote goes beyond this initial permissibility issue to the secondary issue of how to deal with those still performing Mawlid. Hence your quote doesn't belong in the article anyway; perhaps it could warrant a one sentence summary. Therefore, there is no issue of LONGQUOTE and QUOTEFARM. Regarding PRIMARY (Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.), my one quote is nowhere near meeting this accusation.
Since i answered your questions could you answer a question of mine: can you provide me with the rest of the Ukeles quote, on page 320: "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..."? --Mawlidman (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: You haven't answered the fundamental question that Saheehinfo and I have asked a few times now: Why does not being in other sources mean that including a claim made in one source shouldn't be included in an article? That is, what policy supports that? You've cited WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE repeatedly, but you haven't shown which parts of those policies support your view. As a neutral mediator, I'm phrasing this as a question, because I have not read every policy. I do not believe that there is one that supports this view, but I'm asking you to prove me wrong. I think this because a policy like that would prevent anything from being written in any article on Wikipedia; for any given claim, there are sources that do not make that claim. I normally wouldn't be this involved in the content of the dispute, but you will not get anywhere by making this claim without citing specific policies that support you. KSFT^C 02:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before i respond to your question—which i will—it's important to draw your attention to the fact that the words you are defending are not even in the quoted sources. You said "Why does not being in other sources mean that including a claim made in one source shouldn't be included in an article?" However, no source even says the words in the wiki article "The complexity of the issue [Mawlid]..." The sources draw attention to the complexity of IT's view—not to the complexity of Mawlid in general. So you are accusing me of not backing my uncomplex claims with the sources, while the current wiki version you defend isn't even backed by the sources. If anything, the sentence should first be re-worded to reflect the sources e.g. "IT's views are described as complex..." --Mawlidman (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: It has been over twelve hours. I hope you will answer the question soon. This discussion hasn't gotten very far, and I don't plan to extend the archive date if that continues. KSFT^C 00:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, i'll just re-submit another DR request. So are you or Saheehinfo going to tell me how you can allow "The complexity of the issue [Mawlid]..." to be included in the wiki article when not a single source says the issue of Mawlid is complex? Every source used actually says only IT's views regarding Mawlid are complex. We should first deal with OR in the article before dealing with my proposed edits. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: - nobody here has suggested that the existing version is set in stone and cannot change. In fact, I mentioned on a number of occasions (as early as the 6th April - over 6 weeks ago) that "when we come to an agreement here on the talk page on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change." So I am absolutely open to changing the current version.

The problem I am having is that you seem to hold views that oppose fundamental Wikipedia policies.

For example, you initially stated that the secondary sources I listed were "bad" and "purvey one-sided" and therefore could not be used. This was despite the fact that they clearly passed WP:RS.

Likewise, you also held the view that when reliable sources contradict one another they should not be used. This was not backed up with any policy reasons.

You also seemed to suggest that we should ignore secondary sources altogether and use only primary sources when you stated that: I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions.

If we cannot agree on such fundamental issues it makes it nigh on impossible to work together on a new version. This is why you are being asked about these core issues.

Now regarding your concern, I think we can improve the wording.

Ukeles states that:

"This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality."

Ref: The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

In another of her works she uses the phrase "paradoxical":

Not only does Ibn Taymiyyah recognize the pious elements within devotional innovations, but he asserts that sincere practitioners of these innovations merit a reward. As I argue elsewhere, Ibn Taymiyyah's paradoxical position stems from a practical awareness of the way that Muslims of his day engaged in devotional practices.

Ref: Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL

So we could change the text to something like "Ibn Taymiyya's position on the Mawlid has been described as "paradoxical" and "complex" by some academics...."

However, as mentioned above, what I believe is more important than discussing content is that we agree on the fundamentals so please answer the policy questions that you are being asked.

Finally, please also review WP:BATTLEGROUND. This isn't about conflict, its about cooperation. Saheeh Info 13:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you change the edit to what you stated above ("Ibn Taymiyya's position on the Mawlid has been described as "paradoxical" and "complex" by some academics....") then i can live with that. Unfortunately, it appears that WP trumps commonsense regarding this issue. Youse claim somehow that since my sources don't explicitly mention complex that as result they agree with others like Ukeles who use such terms. Just because they don't use complex doesn't mean they agree with Ukeles et al. What youse are ignoring is that Ukeles et als words are their opinions—not facts—and IT never describes his own opinions as complex. If someone is giving their opinion then this should be noted in the article; this wouldn't, as according to KSFT, "prevent anything from being written in any article on Wikipedia". --Mawlidman (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman:, You still haven't answered the question that @KSFT: asked you. Can you please do so?

You stated that: Youse claim somehow that since my sources don't explicitly mention complex that as result they agree with others like Ukeles who use such terms.

That's not true. Neither me or @KSFT: claimed this. Rather it was you who claimed that I have shown with my excellent sources that others view IT's opinion as not complex at all.

The point is your sources don't show that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex". There is no statement to that affect. Unless we have a clear statement that directly supports the claim it would fall under original research. WP:OR states that:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

So we need a direct citation that supports the claim. Further, WP:STICKTOSOURCE states that:

Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

If you still disagree with this, then please provide policy reasons for your disagreement. Saheeh Info 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, i don't have sources that say its uncomplex or a policy to back up my views. But that's ok because my focus is on re-wording the sentence that i mentioned above. Unless it's re-worded, the current version falls under your own words above: "Unless we have a clear statement that directly supports the claim it would fall under original research." So could you please re-write the sentence as you suggested above? --Mawlidman (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: I'm going to ask you again. You claimed above that including a statement that is not in a particular source is against policy. I do not believe that such a policy exists, as I explained above. If you don't prove otherwise by referencing it, then this particular issue is resolved as a simple misunderstanding of policy. KSFT^C 03:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: You have been asked this several times, and you haven't answered. If you are still interested in using this noticeboard to resolve the dispute, you need to answer it. I have to ask you not to make any other comments here before you do. KSFT^C 17:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout you have been fanatically insistent upon my answering questions, yet you have not appled the same standards to yourself or Saheehinfo. I have asked straightforward questions, that have gone unanswered, several times. Thankyou. --Mawlidman (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawlidman: This is your final warning to stop making personal attacks. If there's a question that you think I should ask Saheehinfo that I haven't, then you can ask him yourself. I'm going to take this comment as an agreement that Saheehinfo's source should be included. If that is not what you meant, then you need to support that by referencing policy. Assuming that is what you meant, we can now move on to the next issue, which I think was about the sub-headings. @Saheehinfo: Can you both concisely state your opinions and reasonings about the sub-headings below? KSFT^C 04:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be divided into sub-sections since we have 2 clear views of general support and opposition—each including their own conditions. (Even IT is generally opposed to Mawlid.) This is per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Currently, the section in the article is too long and cluttered. --Mawlidman (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT:, I don't believe that we should add the sub-headings of "support" and "opposition" as it gives the impression that only 2 legal views exist - i.e. either one is for the Mawlid or against it. In reality a wide range of opinions exist such as the fact that some historic scholars accepted certain aspects of the mawlid but forbade other aspects. For example:

1. The medieval scholar Ibn al-Hajj "applauds the desire to venerate the Prophet's birth" (Ukeles, pg 330) and "recognises the potential merit of a day celebrating the Prophet's birth" (Ukeles, pg 329) but considers the festival as "a day of reprehensible, if not sinful, deeds" (Ukeles, pg 330).
2. The medieval scholar Ibn Rajab restricted the commemoration of the Prophet's(s) birth to the practice of fasting but did not acknowledge any other mode of celebration. (Katz, pg 63-64)
3. The views of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyya have been described as "paradoxical" and "complex". He suggested that those who celebrated the Mawlid for the love of the Prophet (s) would receive a great reward whereas those who celebrated out of imitation of the Christians would be sinning. (Ukeles, pg 324-325)

Pigeonholing individuals such as the above into "for" and "against" camps would over-simplify there actual positions which were quite intricate.

An alternative might be to have two subsections entitled "Medieval scholars" and "Modern scholars". The former subsection would list the views of scholars in the pre-Modern period and the latter would list opinions in the modern period. Saheeh Info 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, as appears to be the case, you can reply to each other. I only need to get involved to make sure the discussion stays on-topic. KSFT^C 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my argument; i don't have anything else to add. Could you give us your opinion? --Mawlidman (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, again, that isn't my job. Saheehinfo gave examples of people whose views don't fit into either of those categories. Where do you think they should go? KSFT^C 11:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am extending the archive date of this case by one more week until May 22. You can continue the discussion above this comment. KSFT^C 19:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Jimmy John's (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Taquim (talk · contribs)
• Mendaliv (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Regarding the Wikipedia page about Jimmy John's. I edited the History section of the page to include mention of the calls for boycotting Jimmy John's and I included a cite to the Wall Street Journal documenting this news. Another editor feels that there should be no mention of this incident.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the Talk page. I invited Mendaliv to Formal Mediation. He declined my request.

How do you think we can help?

The consensus of a variety of senior editors would be very helpful in this case.

Summary of dispute by Mendaliv

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Late in the summer of 2015 there was a call for a boycott of Jimmy John's sandwich shops by animal rights activists because the franchisor's owner and founder, Jimmy John Liataud, went big game hunting in Africa. The peak of the coverage appears to have been an eight-paragraph post to a Wall Street Journal blog (as far as I can tell the story never made it into the newspaper itself). This appears only to have gotten any traction because of the roughly contemporaneous scandal over the killing of Cecil the lion. There was a brief flurry of coverage in that period, but just about anything printed since November 2015 has been about Liataud himself, been extremely cursory, doesn't mention an ongoing boycott, or is printed in an unreliable source.

This story has previously been put in the article as a full paragraph in its own section, which I disputed. To Taquim's credit, he or she has backed down from insisting on the story being in a standalone section, and very slightly shortened it. However, in light of the current length of the article itself, and that it's an article about the franchise business rather than its owner's behavior—which is the real focus of the news story—I stand by my argument that including this ephemeral story about a boycott that never seemed to gain any traction would violate WP:UNDUE, and moreover WP:NOTNEWS.

The dispute itself can barely be called that. Taquim inserted the section about a month ago and it was rapidly removed. The page was full protected a couple times in the ensuing edit war between Taquim and an anonymous editor. I started a talk page section to try and get discussion started. There were some initial posts made setting out the subject of the argument. Taquim requested formal mediation very quickly, which I declined arguing that the issue was not ripe for formal DR. Then nothing happened until just yesterday when Taquim proposed re-adding the section and paragraph. I responded, opposing its addition. Taquim made some changes, and I voiced my continued opposition to including any mention of the boycott. So now we're here.

I'm really not sure if this is a case that's ripe for DRN. There really hasn't been much discussion. I suppose we are deadlocked insofar as Taquim seems unwilling to budge on including a mention of the news story, and I'm pretty set against including it myself. So that's my summary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jimmy John's discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. (The filing party should have notified the other editor, but, since the other editor is aware of this thread, I provided the notice.) Moderated discussion here is voluntary, and will only be started if both parties state that they wish to begin moderated discussion. If either party does not want to have moderated discussion, then a Request for Comments can be used to decide whether to include a "Boycott" section. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Note If both parties agree to this discussion, I will accept the role of moderator. Already Started with other moderator. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to begin moderated discussion. In addition to the Wall Street Journal, the trophy hunting/boycott issue has been covered in Business Insider, Advertising Age, Chicago Daily Herald, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, Salon, Seattle Times, etc... It seems that merely one sentence within the company history section of JJ's would be reasonable since the topic has been so well publicized and because business news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal have considered the topic newsworthy due to the potential impacts of a boycott on the corporation and investors. Taquim 01:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

We can try this, but I don't think it'll accomplish anything. This by and large rests on an application of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS that is, in my view, straightforward. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to start moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Each participant is expected to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions at least every 48 hours. I will enforce that rule strictly. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address all comments during moderated discussion to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they are do or do not want in the article, and why this is consistent with Wikipedia policies. In particular, if there are any other issues than a hunting-related boycott, please identify them (and identifying any other issues gets you one extra paragraph for that purpose). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors

I do not want content related to the August/September 2015 news cycle on a boycott of Jimmy John's in response to publicity of Liataud's history of African big game hunting in the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion. Exclusion of this content is appropriate for the following reasons. Inclusion would violate WP:UNDUE: Jimmy John's is a company that has existed since 1983. In the 33 years since then, the news stories pointed to regarding Liataud's big game hunting were printed by and large during a two-month period. Furthermore, the vast majority of the stories appearing in reliable sources are reporting on the same incident, in the same way, which reduces the independence of the stories, and thereby reduces their impact for WP:UNDUE purposes. Moreover, the article as it is has about 6 paragraphs in its "history" section, and 11 overall. The proposed paragraph gives an undue weight to these frankly very minor news stories. Additionally, covering this matter would violate WP:NOTNEWS. From all appearances this boycott never materialized in any significant form: It rose as a flurry of news coverage and died down just as quickly. Wikipedia is not the place to report news stories of this sort, particularly not so far removed from the incident (which gives rise to WP:SOAPBOX concerns). Finally, we should avoid making the Jimmy John's article into a WP:COATRACK by including tangentially related content about its owner. Taken together, I submit that it is inappropriate to include coverage of this Jimmy John's restaurant boycott given the evidence that has been provided thus far. If there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to indicate that there was a boycott, and that it wasn't simply a minor and temporary distaste for Liataud, then there might be grounds for inclusion as a single sentence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Tribune had an article in 2013 that referred to the boycott and photos that began circulating "a few years ago.". Calls for a boycott have been present for years, and peaked in the summer of '15. I can rewrite the sentence to reflect that if you'd like. The boycott issue is simply not, as a simple Google News search will reveal, "very minor news stories." "The proposed Paragraph." Please note that what is being proposed is one sentence in the general History section, not a paragraph. WP:NOTNEWS indicates that "breaking news should not be emphasized." The hunting/boycott issue has been ongoing for years. This is not a flash in the pan story that has faded or will fade from the spotlight. In regards to Soapbox concerns, yes hunting for endangered animals is controversial, but this controversial topic has been covered by a huge variety of news sources, including the Wall Street Journal, the original source cited in the sentence that I added to the article. Soapbox refers to using Wikipedia as a "vehicle of propaganda." Please do not suggest that this is the intent of myself and others that would like to see a major event in the company's history covered in the Wikipedia entry. Concerns of Coatrack/tangential information: Wikipedia's entry on Coatracking defines such as "irrelevant and biased material." The Wall Street Journal and many other news services have covered calls for a boycott over the years. The Wall Street Journal published this information because of the potential impacts a boycott would have on the chain and its investors. It would be hard to define this article as being either "irrelevant" or "biased." As for what constitutes a "boycott," that might be difficult to define. If credence might be given to Change.org, one could point to the plethora petitions to boycott Jimmy Johns and voice opposition to the founder's trophy hunting.One petition has gathered over 70,000 signatures. The boycott was viewed as serious enough for a Wall Street Journal reporter to ask an investment group about it: Atlantic Street declined to comment on how the boycott might affect its investment in the franchisee group." This article references an interview with Liautaud by the Chicago Tribune wherein he reflects on the damage to his repution and possible damage to his business because of the boycott. Mendavil's main issue with the inclusion of one sentence about the boycott in the Wikipedia entry is needing proof "that there was a boycott." It seems that when Liautaud himself refers to the damage of "the boycott" and the Wall Street Journal asks investors about "the boycott" it is in fact real. The size/effectiveness of boycotts are difficult to ascertain, as is the number of customers that Jimmy John's has lost due to the owners trophy hunting. The hunting issue is a part of the Jimmy John's story, and certainly a one-sentence mention of this should not be viewed as excessive. Taquim 06:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)my talk page

Second statement by moderator

It appears that one editor says that at least one sentence is required, and the other editor says that no more than one sentence is needed. Does this mean that there is agreement that including one sentence is a valid compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors

I think on the basis of the Chicago Tribune article, which is at least a month removed from the initial burst of coverage, I can compromise on including a sentence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is this sentence ok? In the summer of 2015, following the killing of Cecil the lion, pictures of Liautaud posing next to the dead bodies of elephants, rhinos, and other exotic animals became more widespread on social media along with increased calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.[2] Taquim 17:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Third statement by moderator

There seems to be agreement on the compromise of one sentence. Is there agreement on the proposed sentence? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors

Counter-wording: "In the summer of 2015, Liataud's past African big game hunting became more publicized on social media, leading to calls for a boycott." Source should probably be the Chicago Tribune piece. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... with all due respect I prefer my sentence.... predictably huh? As for the source WSJ or Trib is fine, or both. Taquim 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

Fourth statement by moderator

We have agreement that one sentence is in order. We have disagreement on what the sentence should be. Are the editors prepared to try a compromise on what the sentence should be, or is a Request for comments needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors

Before proceeding to Request for Comments I’d like to request policy clarification if I may: When an editor makes an addition to a Wikipedia article, other editors can alter the sentences of the original editor to improve grammar, accuracy, etc… But is it appropriate for an editor to alter an original edit based simply on their preference of an alternate, but not necessarily better prose form? The only difference between Mendaliv’s sentence and mine seems to be reference to the photos. While some people might suggest that a Liautaud hunting photo should be placed in the Wikipedia article next to the hunting entry, I am only suggesting that a mention of the photos be made. The photos are a critical element of the story. It was/is the prevalence of the photos online that led to calls for a boycott. Taquim 00:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)my talk page

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• User talk:Eik Corell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:NHL 15 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:NHL 12 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:NHL 10 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:NHL 13 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Everyone Dies In the End (talk · contribs)
• Eik Corell (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is User:Eik Corell and his systematic deletion of content from articles just because they are poorly written. I came across him from his deletion of new features in NHL video games. He refuses to tag them to be re-written and says "they'll never be rewritten". I've looked through his history and that's his main edits (blanking sections). Some are fine like game item lists and soundtracks that clearly violate WP:GAMECRUFT others are very baffling and clearly don't are are just poorly written.

Even after discussions on the NHL articles talk page saying that the main issue is the promotional tone and writing style of the sections and it's not WP:GAMECRUFT #7 that is being violated, he goes on delete it again. Saying that the content shouldn't be there on it's own (needs a gameplay section) even though no editor on the discussion agrees with that. They all say it need to be rewritten (I agree on that). He is sticking to the fact that it can't be on the page until the a full gameplay section is there. And, before we even get a chance to talk about how we are going to re write the sections he deletes it saying only when a gameplay section is there does this belong. Even when no other editor says that but him. The disturbing point is the failure to understand the basic wikipedia policy on consensus when he justifies his re deletion.

I have tried to stay civil with this user, but he refuses to listen and collaborate with other users and seems to only what to do what he wants. I'll even admit that I've become a little uncivil during the tail end of this back and forth.

I'll be working with the other users to re-write the sections.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried explaining to him that blanking section and gutting articles isn't the way to go and try to re write it himself. His response is he doesn't know much about NHL to do it (however his history shows he never does)

Next is I said tag it for Manual of style issue and alert the editors who wrote it (which takes 2-5 mins). His response is he doesn't have the time.

Next is just tagging it. Nope he won't do that because the tag will just stay there.

How do you think we can help?

First, this user needs to learn the collaborate. Working with him has is "my way or the highway".

Next is to know for sure if it's okay to blank notable sections instead of tagging them for cleanup/manual of style. If it's not, the best would be to also alert editors.

Summary of dispute by Eik Corell

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Clear violations of #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT. I resort to deleting such when I see them, other editor doesn't agree, reverts across the articles above. Request for comment happens on whether to delete or keep, 3 for keeping, 2 against. Debate goes back and forth for a bit, devolves into heaping personal attacks against me on the article talk page and my talk page -- Me destroying wikipedia, me being useless, etc. Shouldn't have reverted while discussion was still going on, I did so because I missed one of the comments for keeping the material, thinking debate was deadlocked. Eik Corell (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Eik Corell discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Note Can the filing party provide diffs of the opposing party's edits? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. These are the main article diffs. This is when the user re deleted during a discussion. [2] [3] [4] [5] and this which for some reason he didn't restore [6] -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I will accept the role of moderator, after Eik Corell posts his counterargument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator Statement

I have opened the discussion. Please make your case, and follow WP:CIVIL. I will be involved in this discussion, trying to help. All parties should check the case once every 30 hours. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors

I would like to point out that none of the other editors (even the one for delete) supports Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT #7 as support for delete. The other user who supported delete is due to how it was written (not the content) and said the content is fine if you can find reliable sources which I have. Everyone in the discussion agrees that it's poorly written and should be re written. Even GAMECRUFT #7 says "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry." Remember this is a game that only gets produces every year because of these new features. It would make no sense not to include it.

After I brought up the last part, the other user changed his reasoning and said it's okay if there's a Gameplay section. This is where I told him that the best course of action if you think that is either fixing it yourself (adding the gameplay section) or tagging it for expansion and cleanup. As this is now a content issue and no guildline ever says you delete stuff because there's no content to go with it. However, the user refused and said the article would just stay like that forever. This is where I have the biggest problem. This user's first choice of action seems to always be delete. Not alerting the main editors of the article on his thoughts or ever discussing it. This is main issue I'm here, as I'm sure enough that the discussion on the talk page is clear to everyone but this user that's it's re-write.

Not to mention the reasoning that something is notable only if there's another section is wrong. Either something is notable or it's not.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell: Your response? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing minor graphical and technology upgrades like physics is not a concise summary, and it's not relevant to understanding the gameplay at large, either. Many titles feature such minor improvements, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:VG/GL states that trivia such as this should be moved to the relevant categories; Development, reception, etc. Note for example that the Fallout 4 game features many graphical upgrades compared to its predecessor. Its article does go into specific details here and there, but it does so in the Development section, using developer commentary to at least try to establish how and why they feel that these upgrades are important or noteworthy. Instead, what we have here is a list of all new things compared to the previous game in the series. Being told that there are now new physics for the puck, "250 new goalie animations" or that the game features "spectacular new ways to score" tells me nothing about the games fundamental gameplay. This is exactly the kind of stuff that WP:GAMECRUFT is in place to root out; Trivia in the place of actual substance. For this reason, this trivia is not suitable to be kept in a prose-style rewrite of the lists, either. Eik Corell (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still refuse to address how the NHL series only gets produced because of these series and now you are comparing a completely different series and using statements we already agree that doesn't need to be there ("spectacular new ways to score"). Let me ask you this do the new physics get talked about in so much depth in the Fallout series? No they don't. Yet, they do in these yearly sports game which clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline and with the context that these games only get produces because of those minor (only to you) details it deserves to be there. You continue to ignore the context on why it's important. That's the problem here. I have told you this context over 6 times now and you refuse to address it. Does Fallout get produced every time because of their improvements. No it doesn't. How can other users see the context but not you? -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that this 'trivia' is what gets people to buy these games every year. You keep saying that you need gameplay? Really a gameplay section on a sports game. What is it going to say? Players take the puck and put it in the net? -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyone Dies In the End: please remember to be WP:CIVIL. My opinion so far is that it might merit inclusion. I'm not so sure, however. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it matters that the games change very little since this doesn't prevent the writing of a proper gameplay section, I simply don't see that as an excuse to circumvent WP:VG/GL. Sure it's easier to write this way, but it's in direct contradiction to said guideline's WP:GAMECRUFT as I mentioned, and articles are not supposed to be comparisons to earlier, related articles. I just don't see anything in WP:VG/GL that justifies lowering the standard just because this series has less changes per game. The fact that sports games, and indeed many game franchise series often change very little doesn't justify pulling out small changes and explaining the game by turning the gameplay article into a list of every single one of these, that's why I mention trivia -- When we've stooped to mentioning the "spectacular goals" and "new puck physics" kind of stuff, we've hit bedrock of WP:GAMECRUFT. Using the NHL 15 article as an example: I don't even know whether it's about managing a team, what part and how big a part that plays in the game, or whether it's first or third person, that's what I'm getting at with this "telling the average reader nothing" thing. As it stands, the NHL 15 article's best section is the infobox, everything else is trivia and comparisons, and it's a sad state to leave an article in or rewrite it off of. In summary, I understand when you say that the context is that these changes are often the only ones between games. My point is that that we haven't actually describing the gameplay that these changes are supposed to compliment. Eik Corell (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In #7 says "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.". We are now discussing if it's appropriate to understand the game. You can not continue to say it's violating it while we discuss it and that we are circumventing it. When the guildlines themselves say that if it's important to understand the game (what we are arguing), it's okay.

Now we are back at this doesn't belong if there's no gameplay section (you see how these are two different arguments)? Please show me the guildline that says that. About how you should delete sections because more information is needed on it. Don't use GAMECRUFT #7 because it's not about that. It's about whether something deserves inclusion or not. What you are saying is basically if a sports team page only talks about the recent 10 year only that that section should be deleted because the last 100 years isn't there. Take the Yankees article and imagine only 1996–2007 section (dynasty) is in the article. By your logic, we should delete it. Why because it doesn't make sense. (The context is gone) How did the Yankees get Derek Jeter? How did they turn around their team? So, let me ask you this would you delete that section and why? Please don't say that this isn't a GAMECRUFT issue because nether is the information on wikipedia needs to precede anything.

So, stick to the GAMECRUFT or find me the guildline that says information needs to precede or come in order. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you didn't really respond to my point that the NHL games get many third party sources on these changes (other games don't). It must be important if so many sources have to comment on it? Which clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that some video game pages need updating, but some do a pretty good job already. A gameplay section might be a good idea, but I do think that Eik Corell's opinions are worth considering. Could we have the section kept, but let Eik do what he wants with the rest of the article? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell: @Everyone Dies In the End:

The gameplay sections should indeed be expanded, but for the most part, not on the basis of what's comprising them now. The stuff in, for example, the NHL 13 list could conceivably be converted if rewritten in prose and with said expansion to include basic aspects of the game, but the two lists of features added and removed on the NHL 15 article, not so much. The new features list is totally random trivia half of which is visual improvements, and the "removed features" list is again useless to the average reader -- If you come to an article like this, you leave non the wiser knowing what was removed from the previous game. This section is largely without sources as well to talk about any of these removals, and seems to be to stray clearly into WP:GAMEGUIDE territory; it's something that would be relevant only to players of the previous games allowing them to better adapt to the new game. Eik Corell (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my points. Especially, Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. I assume you didn't find the guildline that says information can be deleted if it doesn't come in order. You continue to say false stuff right after I say something that disproves it. No sources? You are saying there's no sources when I post a whole bunch on the talk page of NHL 15 (which I have already re-written the sections on the talk page in prose which again is ignored by you). You can't say there's no sources in the section therefore it's not notable. You must do your research and google it and see if you can find them (which btw was the first thing I told and once again you ignore it). You continue to say trivia over and over like it means something without addressing the fact that it gets talked about a lot in every source I post. I didn't know random information gets written about by media outlets over and over again. You're whole argument is a big Circular_reasoning fallacy. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with an added gameplay section. I've even proposed it as a comprise before, but like everything else I've tried to say it's blatantly ignored. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  – New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Southern Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Drsmoo (talk · contribs)
• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I recently made an edit that I'm confident was an improvement to the lead at Southern Levant. Unfortunately, the edit was reversed with the claim that it was "out of context" with no elaboration provided. This is, in my opinion, a ridiculous rationale as "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan" is a direct statement from a scholarly article which is well supported within the source text. (The exact quote from the source is "Much work continues to be done in these regions, and not surprisingly this work is now of great interest to those studying the southern Levant [i.e. the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan].")

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted discussion for years. Oncenawhile will claim that we have worked together effectively, but it's untrue, and our interactions have consistently lead to personal attacks from him directed towards me and further disputes.

How do you think we can help?

Ruling on policy and standards, providing an independent view of the situation, providing additional insight into the article. The article now mainly only has the two of us editing and additional input is needed.

Summary of dispute by Oncenawhile

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The nominator has not attempted to discuss these recent edits with me, as the talk page will attest. However, we have been bickering over this topic for the last five years, and we appear not to have a constructive working relationship any longer. The heart of the issue is the usage of the recent term "Southern Levant" versus other geographical terms for the same region. The nominator here has opened ANI proceedings against me on 4 or 5 occasions over the years, each time relating to the Southern Levant. A visible proportion of the editor's entire wikipedia editing history has comprised contributions relating to this debate [7].

Two days ago, Category:Southern Levant was purged following a CFD, which the editor then tried to roll back twice across all the articles. I know I should resist speculating on such matters, but it appears to me that the final outcome may have engendered an emotional response from the nominator, insofar as a major edit was then made to the main page Southern Levant turning back years of slow and steady consensus forming between us. This edit promoted the reference which supports his view as a direct quote in the lead, and deleted the two references which provided critique to his view. He feels very strongly about this edit and is now "putting [his] foot down" [8]. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Levant discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Being involved in the upmerge and re-categorization of Category:Southern Levant, I feel a bit connected to this post. I just want to say a few general words, that even though the category was deemed unnecessary, that does not mean the article has no meaning. Adding sourced information of a general nature, seems a good idea. However, that same edit also removed other sourced information. The solution seems obvious: keep the information that was there, and the new information, both, side by side. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my first edit didn't remove any sourced info. It was as follows:

The Southern Levant roughly encompasses the lower half of the Levant, resulting in some variance of geographical definition, with the widest definition including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert.[1] Archaeologically, it is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world.[2] The southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan." [3] Many scholars studying the region's archaeology have adopted the term Levant (including northern and southern halves) as the "term of choice" due to it being a "wider, yet relevant, cultural corpus" that does not have the "political overtones" of Syria-Palestine.[3] The term Southern Levant has been criticized as imprecise[4] and "an awkward name[5] but "at least a strictly geographical" description of the region.[5]

Thoughts? Drsmoo (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other party of the filing of this thread. I am neither opening nor declining this case, but a moderator can open the case. I would advise the parties and others to keep remarks here until the case is opened to a minimum, and to confine any comments to content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]