User talk:Apaugasma

I have stopped contributing content to Wikipedia. You may find me patrolling from time to time, but most nights I will rather be studying like Aulus Gellius is doing here on the left. I will be back writing articles once the scholars and academics have taken over. ☿ Apaugasma (☉)

This collapsed section contains some old archived talk page threads that for various reasons I think are interesting enough to keep on display here. Lurkers enjoy!

Lurkers' cove

Hieroglyphs, decipherment of [edit] Hi Apaugasma! First off, thanks for the warm welcome and for the balanced edits :-). One request, though: I think "[...] was able to identify the phonetic value of a few Egyptian hieroglyphs" gives the wrong impression. This suggests that Ibn Washiyya was following the correct method like an early Young / Champollion, as per Dr. El Daly's claims. I would be very excited if that were true, but looking e.g. at the picture shown with the article (from Dr. El Daly's presentation), it clearly is not: Going through the list from the upper left, 𓊰 is not a uniconsonantal sign at all, certainly not "aleph", 𓏌𓏤 is /nw/ + determinative stroke, not "y", 𓏏 𓏥 is /t/ + plural strokes and not "q", 𓉻 is ayn+aleph (the word "great"), not "g", the next character 𓏌 is /nw/ again, now interpreted as "b", 𓊹𓊹 "two gods" (nTr.wy?) is certainly not "k" and so forth ... I could go on for the rest of the chart: it is not just that the phonetic values are misidentified but that word signs are interpreted as phonetics and the author clearly did not even understand which signs belong together. This impression is confirmed by a quick glance through the translation of the work linked to in the article: whole groups of glyphs are given allegorical translations "if a man was poisoned they would write it with XYZ glyphs" with no basis in the actual text displayed. So, if any glyphs were identified correctly I would ascribe that to mere chance (sadly, again - if the work had been done 1,000 years ago, I would be extremely excited). I think the reason why this never gets called out is because the number of reporters that can read Hieroglyphs and Arabic is vanishingly small if not zero. I would give Ibn Washiyya credit for trying and for his assumption that signs could be read phonetically (rather than just allegorically / as ideographs) - in itself an important step. But "correctly identified some signs" gives the wrong impression IMHO, especially since this has been hyped so much in the media and there has been no critical reporting whatsoever (outside of specialist circles). Can we find a better way to phrase this? I struggled, that's why I took the identification part out completely in the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikuChan39 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi MikuChan39! Thank you for posting here. However, since what you wrote could be of some benefit to future editors of the article, I moved it to the article's talk page and replied to you there. If you want to notify other editors that you wrote something on a talk page you can do so by using templates such as {{u|Apaugasma}} or {{ping|Apaugasma}}. Last but not least, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] The Arabic Hermes [edit] You appear to be an extremely knowledgeable person to me. Will come to visit you from time to time to discuss few things or to get some book recommendations on the history of philosophy, religion and science if you don't mind. I have started reading Kevin Van Bladel's "The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science." Interesting study. But the book I suppose suffers from some Hellenocentric biases. I don't know. That is just an opinion. I haven't even finished the book yet. Have you come across this term before? I mean, Hellenocentrism? I suppose you have. The article is not an well developed one. Need more references to enrich that entry. Anyways, Bladels' book is great. Learning many things from it. Wanted to let you know that I came to know of this book from one of your comments in a talk page. And yes, pardon my English, I am not a native speaker. Best wishes for you. Mosesheron (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Mosesheron: Thank you for the compliments! You're always welcome here to ask for references; I would be glad to help if I can. As for Hellenocentrism, I had not yet come across the term itself, but judging from the article it can refer to several different concepts which do sound familiar: Understood as 'Ancient Greek exceptionalism' (i.e., the idea that the cultural accomplishments of the ancient Greeks happened in complete isolation from the surrounding cultures and that they represent some kind of 'miracle'), it's of course a well-known position in the older historiography of philosophy and science which slowly but surely is getting exposed as the ahistorical nonsense it really is. The main problem with it, as I see it, is that it entirely ignores the fundamental role played by textual transmission: what we do and do not know about the cultural accomplishments of people who lived more than 2000 years ago is entirely determined by the people who lived in the two intervening millennia: its their interests, their preservation efforts, their politics, and their military successes and failures which have resulted in the survival of some texts and the perishing of others. Basically, most of what we know about the ancient Greeks is due to the efforts of Byzantine copyists, their intellectual (Eastern Christian) predilections, and the fact that Constantinople remained unconquered until the 15th century. If Alexander had never conquered the cities of ancient Egypt and Persia, and if the Muslims wouldn't have done the same a thousand years later, we might have had access today to a rich Coptic and Persian literature similar to what we now have in Greek. There is no doubt in my mind that if that would have been the case, the whole idea of the 'Greek miracle' would have been an obvious absurdity that no one would even ever had thought of. However, there also appears to be a secondary meaning of the term 'Hellenocentric' –one that the article strongly focuses on– which seems more closely related to identity politics, and which in my view wrongly blames modern (Western) historians for the vagaries of textual transmission as outlined above. That ancient Greek thought uniquely influenced all later civilizations west of India is not the result of some kind of Eurocentric bias, but merely a historical fact (and one largely due to the conquests of Alexander, which set into motion a process of Hellenization that had already reached levels of near-universality in early Byzantine Egypt and Sassanian Persia). That history books mainly focus on ancient Greek thought is partly due to this unique influence, and partly due to the fact that we have actual ancient Greek texts dating from that period to actually base our history books on. The simple reality is that we do not have an extant Coptic or Persian literature even remotely similar to what we have in Greek. Ancient Egyptian and Persian thought is all but entirely lost, and though what is left has not nearly been studied well enough, most of the pithy survivals were already under thorough Hellenistic influence, and just aren't of the quality and depth of what we have in Greek (and later, in Arabic). Again, this is entirely due to textual transmission, not to any inherent inferiority of Egyptian or Persian thought. But it still is the reality we have to deal with today, and the idea that modern (Western) historians are somehow trying to cover up or deliberately ignoring the evidence is itself a dangerous and damaging delusion. As such, I do not believe that van Bladel is writing from a 'Hellenocentric' point of view: he is deliberately investigating Middle Persian, Syriac and Arabic texts in order to recover some of the rich intellectual traditions of the late antique and medieval Middle-East. The fact that most of these traditions go back on Greek and Hellenistic thought is not of van Bladel's choosing. Neither is the fact that the Sassanids were already engaging in an early form of identity politics by claiming that Alexander 'stole' all supposed Greek knowledge from the Persians, a theme that would reappear in many different guises in medieval Arabic literature. What exactly the ancient Greeks from the 6th century BCE owed to the Persians has been the subject of some speculation among 20th-century historians, but what Khosrow I claimed about this 1200 years later in the 6th century CE is simply of no historiographical value. Again, the actual facts about this are long lost, and it is wrong to blame modern historians for this. With all this said, there is also the (different) phenomenon of Eurocentrism, which is a very real and much more insidious problem in Western historiography. Actually, the very idea that the ancient Greeks were somehow 'European' lies at the core of it, though there's of course also the neglect of anything not perceived to be 'European'. In fact, 'Europe' is a cultural construct dating from the 18th century, and the ancient Greeks really had nothing to with it: their world was part of the larger eastern Mediterranean, and they were looking to the inhabitants of Egypt and Mesopotamia as cultural 'relatives', not to the ancient Celts living in what is now Western Europe. Greek philosophy and science spread over Egypt, the Levant, and Persia about 1500 years before it finally reached Western-Europe (during the so-called Renaissance of the 12th century). Like ancient Greek culture itself, the history of Greek influence is a non-European one at least until the late Middle Ages. However, (Eurocentric) books on history of science or philosophy generally skip from ancient Greece to the Renaissance or the Early Modern period, leaving a huge gap that actually constitutes the greatest part of the story. In this context, Peter Adamson's History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps is a wonderful initiative. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] It was really enlightening. However, do you believe that modern historians have genuinely attempted, or are still attempting, to reconstruct the cultural context in which ancient Greece flourished, with all of its knowledge of philosophy, theology, and so on? Was it that difficult, given the fact that they have “successfully reconstructed" many aspects of history that were almost unknown to us? I'm sure you've considered the time period between the so-called first philosopher of ancient Greece, Thales, and the "all-knowing" Aristotle, in whose figure we see the culmination of nearly all ancient knowledge? How could they achieve so many things within such a short period of time? What are the real sources of pre-Socratic philosophy, theology, and so on? Did it all begin with them? If the answer is no, then, who were their real inspirations? People like Martin Bernal et al might well be wrong in their theses, but what really have the mainstream historians taught us about this aspect of intellectual history? I've been looking for a few works on the history of ancient philosophy, theology, sciences, and other subjects that explore the origins and sources of pre-Socratic philosophy in depth, but to my surprise, I have found none. Now that maybe because I am not an expert in the filed or a student of the history of philosophy and sciences like you. But again why are they so scarce if they really exist, if such works exist at all? Most books or journal papers I read start with the pre-Socratics, with an introduction that largely rejects rather than recognizes the contributions or contacts with other civilizations in a very smart way. They frequently spare a few lines to demonstrate how primitive and mythological other civilizations were, while claiming that the Greeks were unique and original in such and such ways. I made a comment on the Talk Page of the pre-Socratic philosophy about its sources and origin few months ago, which two devoted editors took very seriously. What do we come know about its origin and history from that page now? The straightforward answer is nothing. I am not of course undermining their efforts. Perhaps they did their best. Or perhaps they thought such little description was sufficient for it. Would you kindly recommend me some works that discuss the origins and sources of pre-Socratic philosophy in depth? Lastly, I thank you for your comment. It offers some ideas that our academics frequently fail to express. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Mosesheron: it's all about textual transmission, really. To understand this, first you need to understand what our knowledge of ancient philosophy is actually based on. Did you know that we do not have even one work from a Presocratic philosopher? All of our knowledge about Presocratic philosophy is based on what we can glean from Plato and Aristotle (who have already been shown by Cherniss 1935 to be rather unreliable when it comes to the Presocratics), and from the fragments that can be found in late (and very unreliable) doxographical collections such as those compiled by Arius Didymus (fl. 1st century BCE), Aetius (fl. c. 100 CE) and Diogenes Laërtius (fl. 3d century CE), as well as in the works of some Church Fathers and other later thinkers (Cicero, Galen, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Plotinus, Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle such as Simplicius, etc.). The most extensive of those later sources are the doxographical collections, but they're also the least reliable: to know how unreliable they really are, it suffices to look at what they say about Aristotle and Plato (whose actual works we do have), which often doesn't even remotely resemble the ideas found in Plato's and Aristotle's extant works. So the whole venture of reconstructing Presocratic philosophy is based on puzzling with mostly unreliable late fragments, and much, much speculation. But at least we do have the Greek works just mentioned to glean the fragments from, which is entirely due to medieval Byzantine copyists and geopolitical vagaries as explained above. On the non-Greek (Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian) contemporaries of Plato and Aristotle, we have absolutely no textual evidence (apart from some travel tales and myths retold by Plato himself, who in this case constitutes an even less reliable witness). But there are also important differences between the Presocratics themselves. Of Empedocles (c. 500 – c. 430 CE, not so long before Plato, c. 428 – c. 348 BCE), we have been able to reconstruct two almost complete poems. Of Thales (c. 625 – c. 550 BCE), on the other hand, we have not even one authentic fragment, and only some sparse and very questionable testimonies from Aristotle (i.e., we know almost nothing about him). So what are we going to say to someone who comes asking not about Thales himself, but about Thales' sources? There is a broad consensus today that in all probability, it did not start with Thales, and that he learned what he knew (whatever that was) from Mesopotamian and perhaps also from Egyptian itinerant teachers. But here we have entered the field of complete and utter speculation. There are no sources. This is an important point to grasp, because it both answers all your questions and leaves you entirely puzzled. More precisely, it leaves you as puzzled as scholars are, and I assure you that if there was anything that scholars could do to arrive at a better understanding, however slight, they would do it in a heartbeat. But the puzzle is unsolvable, because almost all of its pieces are lost. There are some Babylonian clay tablets which contain practical instructions related to sciences like astronomy and medicine, some Egyptian papyri dealing with medicine and mathematics, etc. These are very similar in content to extant ancient Greek papyri such as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, i.e., mainly practical in nature and generally very far removed from the highly sophisticated texts dealing with philosophy and science, which also in the ancient world were very rare and constituted a very small minority of the written material (actually, they were more akin to jealously guarded treasure). This kind of text, which undoubtedly also existed in many other languages than Greek, did not easily end up somewhere buried under the sand, but needed to be diligently copied every few centuries or so to survive, which means that its survival depended on the existence of a scribal class who had the knowledge and the means to read, understand, translate, and copy material. This class of people often perished along with the empire that supported it, although there often was also some form of continuity (most notably in Christian monasteries, or in special cases such as when the descendants of Sassanian administrative functionaries were restored to power by the early Abbasids, most famously the Barmakids). For example, we know that there was an extensive philosophical literature in Middle Persian which was developed under the Sassanids (note, however, that this literature was already thoroughly Hellenistic), but which is almost entirely lost today (some traces of it may be found in the scanty Zoroastrian literature that does survive, such as in the Bundahishn; some works also survive in Arabic translation, such as part of the Arabic Hermetica). When it comes to ancient (before c. 300 BCE) non-Greek philosophical literature though, this was all swept away by the Macedonian, Roman, and Parthian conquests, and there's just nothing left for us but speculation. Now scholars generally don't write books based on nothing but speculation (OK, Martin Bernal did, but there's a reason why we call his work pseudo-historic around here), so that's why you're not finding such. I don't know any real good reference for pre-Greek science (i.e., Babylonian and ancient Egyptian science), but I highly recommend checking the first chapter of Lindberg, David C. (2008). The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (2d ed.). University of Chicago Press., which probably refers to some good sources on this in the bibliography (actually, the whole book is worth reading in itself, as it is the standard introduction to the history of science west of India). For Presocratic philosophy, there's Cherniss, Harold F. (1935). Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy. New York: Octagon Books., which is of course outdated in many ways, but remains the go-to classic when it comes to source criticism with regard to the Presocratics. For Presocratic philosophy itself, there are the well-known standard introductory works by scholars such as W. K. C. Guthrie and Jonathan Barnes (especially Guthrie is still very often cited), but I suspect you will find a much more up-to-date historiographical approach (as well as some interesting references) in Laks, André; Most, Glenn W. (2018). The Concept of Presocratic Philosophy: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Princeton University Press. There's much more where that came from, so please feel free to ask. I too wish you all the best, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] I cannot thank you enough. Of course, I will come back to you for more references. But for now I think I will have to meditate upon your comment and look into the sources you have mentioned in order to fully comprehend what you have said. Best regards. Mosesheron (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] History vs legend [edit] Hey, What, in your opinion, is the difference between history and legends? From what I understand, a legend is a folk tale and its historicity can either be: confirmed by historians, in which case do we still call it legend? doubted by historians, in which case it is definitely not indicative of historical facts (but still possibly useful as an indicator of what people believed) neither confirmed, nor doubted, or perhaps a mixture of both, in which case I've seen historical books mention it with attribution ("Locals say the city was founded by..." etc) From my reading, I'm seeing the legends of Abadir falling into the third category. It seems that historians agree Abadir existed; they doubt some of the more exaggerated tales surrounding him, but consider other stories of him believable enough to mention. For example, A Yemeni Sufi called Abadir migrated to Harar after the conversion and established Islamic schools there. His influence was important and today many Hararis sons of Abadir. The same source then goes on to mention Abadir domesticating hyenas (which sounds mythical to me).[3] But as a general question, though, doesn't history include a lot of folk tales and hearsay?VR talk 16:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hello again Vice regent! A legend consists of a narrative featuring human actions, believed or perceived, both by teller and listeners, to have taken place within human history. Contrary to what our article –misleadingly– indicates, this is much wider than mere folk tales: actually, the great majority of serious historical sources contain at least a few legends. It is the historian's task to separate fact from fiction, history from legend, within one and the same primary source. Rather then 'confirming' or 'doubting' narratives that are already known to be legends, historians identify legendary narratives within a wider narrative that may well be, and often is, historical. That's also why you'll commonly see figures like Abadir, Ishaq ibn Ahmad, Darud, etc., being characterized as 'semi-legendary': while almost anything that has been written down about them is probably fictional, it is not possible to completely exclude the possibility that they may actually have existed. The stories about such (semi-)legendary figures are also commonly interpreted as representing a fictional 'rendering' of historical fact: for example, while the stories about Ishaq ibn Ahmad's 12th/13th century migration from Arabia to Somalia and his conversion of the local population to Islam are undoubtedly legendary, they are commonly understood to reflect a historical settling of Arab Muslim tribes in Somalia during that period. So your third option, a mixture of impossible, doubtful, possibly accurate, and almost certainly accurate information is in fact how most historical sources may be described. In that spectrum, the existence of Abadir definitely falls within the 'doubtful' range, and this is how you'll find actual subject specialists speak about him. I don't have the wherewithal right now to quote you all of those sources (I've already quoted a few at the AfD [4] [5] [6], but there are of course many more, and probably more relevant ones too), but as a professional historian broadly familiar with this kind of subject myself, I'm just going to ask you to trust me on this. Whom you shouldn't trust is non-historians, even if they are scholars, like the politologist and international relations-expert Keith Somerville (the source you cite). It is very common for non-historians to take the information found in primary sources, or at times oral information picked up from locals, on face value. This is an intuitive approach, motivated by an attitude which you'll also commonly find on Wikipedia: this-or-this medieval source says this, or this-or-this local is deeply impassioned by this subject matter and seems to know every little detail about it, so why should some modern, western historian scholar know better? Because they're historians, meaning that they know how to properly interpret that primary source. Because unlike the non-historian, they have examined a broad range of other primary sources, written from different perspectives and often contradicting each other. Because they have gone through the trouble of reading all the studies of those primary sources done by other scholars, from which they have gained a broader perspective, enabling them to judge what is likely and what is not. Because they are independent of the subject matter, and have no personal vested interest in whether this-or-that element of it is true or not. That's why we have historians, and we should trust them, and no one else, especially on a project like Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] You're right that the source I presented was poor. Mainly because its not on the topic of history, but rather hyenas. History of Harar should come from sources in fields that are more relevant. I found plenty of good sources on Abadir migrating to Harar from Hejaz and spreading Islam, but most of them don't say this in their voice but rather "according to Harari belief"[7] etc. This source seems to treat him like a real person who was influential in spreading Islam in its own voice. Would you agree that wikipedia can mention the legend of Abadir in a History of Harar article, with attribution? VR talk 21:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I would much rather insist that Abadir be mentioned in a History of Harar article. Not doing this would be as absurd as writing History of Rome without mentioning Romulus and Remus. But I would strongly disagree with any implication that he was anything more than a legend: we should describe the legend, but as a legend, and also properly contextualize that (as shown by Gibb 1999, there are important religious and sociological factors at play in these legends). But here's the thing with Wikipedia: editors have this bad habit of going on a googling trip, thus finding all kinds of non-expert sources, and then insisting that these are given the same weight as the views of dedicated experts. For almost any subject, you will find non-expert scholars who have written all kinds of nonsense about it. This is often innocent enough from the point of view of these non-experts themselves: the fact that it's nonsense is in most cases not crucial or even relevant to the topic they are really writing about, and on which they are the experts. But when it comes to evaluating sources it ought to be simple: where non-experts contradict the experts, the non-experts should be flatly discounted. The problem is that editors are not even interested in identifying who the experts are for any given topic, and just want the view they happened to find on Google to be reflected on Wikipedia (and that's of course already assuming good faith with regard to having an agenda, etc., which really is as often the case as not). The great majority of Wikipedia editors just lack the basic heuristic skills needed to write a truly reliable encyclopedic entry, and that problem is much worsened by the fact that they don't even know they're lacking these skills. They have no idea about bibliographies, about going through the tertiary literature, about checking footnotes to see who is cited for what, to learn whose views are cited with approval and whose views are rejected, etc. They don't realize that this is even something that can be done, let alone that it ought to be done. To put it crudely, due weight on Wikipedia is whatever shows up first on Google and is published by an academic publisher. There's no awareness at all about how one scholar relates to another: if it's a scholar, it's 'reliable', and we should be good to go. Except that most often, the results arrived at through this method are not reliable at all. If you want to pursue this, I've found a tertiary source that should be authoritative and that should refer to authoritative secondary sources which can then be checked: Wagner, Ewald (2003). "Abādir ʿUmar ar-Riḍā". In Uhlig, Siegbert (ed.). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, vol. I (A–C). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-3-447-04746-3. One slight problem: I don't have access to this source. I will not pursue this myself though. I think it's very productive for me to be researching and writing content myself, but I should really learn to leave random articles I encounter stay the mess that they often are. Trying to improve them just slightly by removing some unreliable sources or adding some reliably sourced content, or even just pointing out that something is an error, or a hoax (!), turns out to be an exhausting exercise. It's really unproductive to spend days on end explaining basic stuff, and then only scarcely being heard or understood by other editors. I really want to continue patrolling and stewarding the articles I've written even when I'm not writing content, but apart from that I should really adopt a 'live and let live' attitude. Wikipedia's Horn of Africa-related articles are incredibly bad, but that's on other editors, and there's nothing I can, nothing I will do about it. Anyways, I'm sorry about the rant. I'm really getting at wit's end, and I just need a break from having to argue over every last little thing. One day someone who is academically at home in Somali-Ethiopian studies will come by, and write beautiful articles about Abadir and all the rest. I've come to learn that this is the only true way for Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't believe we've been introduced... [edit] ...but I've seen your name around plenty, and given the current unpleasantries I've finally decided to click on your very interesting-looking signature. Some fun topic area overlaps :) Admirable work on As above, so below -- with some expansion and tweaking (sandwich the images less, maybe a less indiscriminate list at the end) I could envision it making GA, and there'd be a Quarter Million Award in it if that's anything that interests you? (I was working on The Magician (Tarot card) when much newer, with quixotic aspirations to bring the whole Major Arcana to GT/FT, but not for now.) Vaticidalprophet 20:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi Vaticidalprophet! Thanks for coming here, and thanks for the compliments! I've seen your name around a lot too (I'm a big lurker around here ), and I've often appreciated your insightful comments, as well as your enthusiasm for content work. I fear that the As above, so below article looks better than it really is: the topic being rather close to the subject of my original research, I was able to make an OK article out of it, but the sourcing is actually very thin. It's almost all passing mentions, and there's really not much material on it out there. I guess I'm just very happy to have a reliable article on a topic like that. I'm not really interested in GA/FA stuff, to be honest. I'm mainly here to fight the enormous spread of misinformation represented by Wikipedia, which often means that I'll go through an article replacing and updating the most offensive stuff. Only when I have a lot of time and encounter an article that is disastrous from beginning to end (cf., e.g., [8]), I will rewrite it from scratch. But once everything in it is directly based on impeccably reliable sources, I'm generally happy to leave it at that and move on. There are so many other bad articles out there! Then again, I do plan to further expand some of the articles I've already rewritten, and I will probably nominate one for GA at some point. Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz might actually already be there, I don't know. I can imagine myself doing a lot of that in the future, but I guess that right now my priorities lie elsewhere (mainly off-wiki, that is). If you stay around here, we'll probably have plenty of opportunity to collaborate! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz quite likely is already there although I have to query the huge image in the last section -- I understand wanting to get the architectural detail, but it squishes the text quite a lot. I get what you mean about AASB and thinner-than-expected sourcing; it's frustratingly the case for some of my internet-culture articles. That said, you'd be surprised how niche a topic can be and still be able to pass those processes. There are FAs not much longer -- they're very niche topics, but they're as thorough discussions of it as there's possible to write. The interesting thing about GA is it's not actually, in the end, a very high bar. It fits pretty well with your stated goal, even. I find it's something that looks scary from the outside but winds up being surprisingly easy when you're there; there's a reason the term often applied, not unkindly, to the GAN process is "lightweight". (Hence the comment at the top of User:Vaticidalprophet/GANs, referring to comments by Ritchie333 possibly, IIRC, by way of Eric Corbett? he'd know and Carrite respectively.) One benefit of the process is it lets you take an article through DYK, which can (for exactly the reasons the GSoW is a fan -- it's a powerful tool) be really useful to the combatting-misinformation goal. If an article was in poor shape for years, bringing attention to an improved version on the main page is a powerful way to influence things in the opposite direction. Food for thought. Vaticidalprophet 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] What is your issue with mentioning alcohol on al-Razi's page? [edit] The guy literally coined the word "alcohol" for christs sake. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is based on reliable, secondary sources. No such source exists for the claim that al-Razi discovered alcohol (for a somewhat thorough discussion of the unreliability of the many non-secondary sources which unduly repeat the claim without evidence, see here), let alone for that he should have coined the term. What's my issue? Just to make sure that Wikipedia presents to its readers reliable information, and avoids contributing to the spread of misinformation. For reliably sourced information on this subject, see Alcohol (chemistry)#Etymology and Alcohol (chemistry)#History. I will summarize it here for you: The word 'alcohol' originally referred not to ethanol, but to the eye cosmetic kohl (from the Arabic, الكحل, al-kuḥl), which consisted either of lead(II) sulfide (produced from galena) or –in the early modern context wherein the Latin term 'alcohol' was coined– antimony trisulfide (produced from stibnite). Antimony-based kohl was produced through sublimation, and somewhere in the 16th century the word 'alcohol' started to be used more generally for any 'raised' substance produced through sublimation or distillation (another word used at the time for this was 'spirit'). The exclusive use of the word 'alcohol' for the substance produced through the distillation of wine dates only from the 18th century. The author of one of the works attributed to Jabir ibn Hayyan (c. 850–950) experimented with the boiling of wine, but does not mention its distillation, giving a good indication that the cooling methods needed for distilling alcohol were not yet developed at that time. The distillation of wine is attested in a work attributed to al-Kindi (c. 801–873, but this could well have been written by a later author who falsely attributed it to al-Kindi) and in a work by al-Zahrawi (936–1013, a likely period for the first successful attempts at distilling alcohol in my view), but not in the works of al-Razi (c. 865–925), who was a contemporary of the anonymous Jabirian author. The first known recipes for alcohol as such (called aqua ardens or 'burning water' at the time) date from 12th-century Latin works, though further research is likely to find earlier instances in as of yet uninvestigated works written in Arabic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:WikiProject Core Content [edit] It would be so exciting to see it work, so please, please make that WikiProject a reality :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi CactiStaccingCrane! Well, I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but instead I find myself writing a whole new article with corresponding template, looking to rewrite another article, and proposing a new way to technically distinguish core content with an associated start-up WikiProject. Clearly something is wrong. I find that most guidance pages on wikipediholism around here 'aren't meant to be taken seriously', but I do think I'm in serious trouble. I do dream of Wikipedia, wake up with thoughts about Wikipedia, edit Wikipedia before even taking breakfast, forget to eat, the whole shebang. So what I'm going to do is to finish these articles I've been working on (mostly offline, but I'll upload when ready), and then just really get a break. Hopefully other editors will step in at the WikiProject, and if not, it can always be revived in the future. My personal priorities at the moment just lie elsewhere, as I'm sure you'll understand. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ouch, wikipediholism is potent stuff. Hopefully things will be all well in the end. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] putting academic views over the community own views [edit] Considering an academic opinion over the views and opinions of the believers of the Ismaili religion is a form of bias. Also new works have show connections between the Umm-al-Kitab and Ismailism, check Intellectual Interactions in the Islamic World, The Ismaili Thread for more. 201.92.244.22 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for that source, it's a really valuable contribution to Ismaili studies! I wasn't aware of it yet, but I have now incorporated it into the article. Do note, however, that this source too says that it is commonly thought today that the doctrines exposed in the Kitāb al-Haft, the Umm al-kitāb and related texts have nothing to do with Ismailism. This clearly is the status quo, and on Wikipedia we always tend to give more weight to long-established views than to cutting-edge insights. In any case, the new source argues for an influence of ghulāt ideas on later (mainly Tayyibi) Isma'ilism, which seems probable enough. As for bias, the simple fact is that Wikipedia follows academic views. If some would like to call that being 'biased' to academia (see also WP:ABIAS), then so be it. It's not different from a physician being 'biased' to medical sources or a priest being 'biased' to religious sources: writing an encyclopedia is an academic endeavor. But in the end it really doesn't make sense to say we are biased. Summarizing what academic sources say is simply what it means to write an encyclopedia, and being what one is supposed to be is not being biased (see WP:NOTBIASED). I would expect Isma'ilis to understand this though, given the fact that the Agha Khan himself sponsors such excellent academic institutions as the Institute of Isma'ili Studies (which, not coincidentally, published the source with which you delighted me). Again, thanks for the source, and happy days! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] Zipporah [edit] Hello! I don't know if this in your area of interest, but if you'd like to take a look at today's edits, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Almost all of this is based on primary sources (the last paragraph references a secondary source, but comments on it from an authorial point of view, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia), so I think your diagnosis of OR is correct. This IP editor may be an expert who just does not realize that we strictly report the content of secondary sources here, so please go easy on them. I am currently studying the Vulgate and Septuagint versions of the Psalms, but this really is my first serious dip into Bible study, and I wouldn't say that anything else Bible-related is within my area of interest yet. I am planning to someday study the rest of the Bible, as well as to learn some basic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac to really get into the depths of it. At that point it will probably be possible to coax me into looking at some secondary literature for a Wikipedia article, although it will still not be my first choice. I also studied the whole Qur'an in Arabic, yet I never write on the Qur'an here. It would be hard too, since I read but very little secondary sources on the Qur'an (perusing Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān entries is mostly as far as I'd got). This is because my real interest is history of philosophy, and any study of religion only serves as a background to aid my understanding of religious philosophy, i.e., ancient and medieval philosophy which takes pagan ritual or revealed scripture as a starting point rather than secular Aristotelian dogma. Having been derided as 'pseudo-philosophy' in most historiography of philosophy from that discipline's very beginnings in the 17th century until about thirty years ago, the huge and severely neglected field of religious philosophy is still full of surprises and exciting new discoveries for the modern researcher. So that's what I'm at, which also means I shouldn't spend too much time on Wikipedia. The very wide field I'm trying to cover with my studies means that I don't have much room left for reading secondary sources anyway (I tend to limit my secondary readings to stuff that is directly about history of philosophy itself, but even that falls by the wayside when I'm studying languages or non-philosophical primary sources). For the time being I'm happy patrolling the 1,439 articles on my watchlist, and I really don't want to do much more than that. I will return to writing articles and to greater availability someday, but given what's on my plate that may well be in twenty years or so. Okay, it will probably be earlier, simply because I won't be able to resist... But for now, I'm only a patroller. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Ogress 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nominated Hydrochloric acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ogress, here's your three edits combined [9].

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

As for changing "Kufa (southern Iraq)" to "Kufa in Lower Mesopotamia (now in Iraq)", it's possible to see this as a content issue (i.e., over how to name this region), but given the fact that reliable sources routinely use both "Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" in this context I think that "southern Iraq" and "Lower Mesopotamia" are more or less equivalent styles, and so once more this is a stylistic issue. I probably missed a few changes you made that are harder to spot in the diffs, but I think there are more than enough purely stylistic MOS-invariant changes here to justify my reverting the whole thing [10].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Apaugasma,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, we can we use another source, the point being that the cited Sura is from Mecca and not Medina, as stated on the Sura's page in on Wikipedia: Al-Muʼminun with this 1982 citation.^[1] Simpatico qa (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning @Apaugasma,

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

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

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

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

In the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam article, I removed 4 as they did not had the WP:RS and WP:OR sources. First one: Nargis, in her article I cant see any info regarding her conversion to hinduism in fact opposite "she expressed her wish to be buried following the Islamic rites, Sunil and Sanjay eventually offering the Islamic funeral prayer" in the Personal section.

Another is Khusro Khan, his Religion section explicity states that "Barani's narrative is unreliable, and contradicted by more reliable sources. Khusrau Khan wished to be seen as a normal Muslim monarch, and had the khutba in the mosques read in his name." Hence including him on the list severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:Fringe.

Another case is of two brothers, Harihara I and Bukka Raya I, both articles explicity state that their early life is "unknown and most accounts are based on various speculative theories" the same paragraph that conjecture their religion. So we need stronger and more WP:Reliable sources to make them in the list.

Some are forcefully inserting these info thus violating Wikipedia core policies, can you inspect it. 182.183.11.100 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user! You and Capitals00 should discuss this at Talk:List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. Since the entries you removed [11][12][13][14] had sources, it seems perfectly possible to me that Capitals00 just didn't find your short explanations in the edit summaries sufficient? Please assume good faith and try to remain as civil as possible, and please discuss what various reliable sources are actually saying about each subject.

What the respective Wikipedia articles are saying is in principle not relevant, because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and so these articles may themselves need modification. Instead, please look at the sources, those cited in the separate articles and any other reliable sources you can find. If you discuss the sources for each subject one by one, I'm sure you will come to an agreement. If after some discussion you find you cannot come to an agreement, I strongly recommend following the procedure outlined on Wikipedia:Third opinion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ya 7amr stop trying to lie about somalia 🇸🇴 theres only one tribe that claims arab lineage and is documented I will report you for your fake claims Beni Dawud (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beni Dawud! I'm sorry that the sources you provided at the article talk page are not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. It is important for you to know that Wikipedia is based on consensus, and more specifically that the onus to get consensus for including disputed content is on the editor who wants to include that disputed content. Discussion is underway at Talk:Aqil ibn Abi Talib#Discussion, so please do not edit war.

As for the content issue, I believe there may be a misunderstanding. Yes, the Darod claim descend from Aqil ibn Abi Talib, and this is currently well covered in the article. However, the Somali clans who regard Samaale and Sab as their forefathers also believe that Samaale and Sab themselves descended from Aqil ibn Abi Talib, just like the Darod believe that their forefather Darod descended from Aqil ibn Abi Talib. Please see the table in Lewis 1961, p. 12. I've also provided and quoted from another source that shows this (Bader 2000 p. 85) on the article talk page.

If you want to discuss this further, please do so at the article talk page. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Apaugasama,

I hope you are doing well. I just received the notification of your thanks. You are welcome. I still remember a few of my earlier interactions with you. After editing for almost 2 years now in almost all the areas of Wikipedia and going through lots of reading in the past two years in the hope of becoming a somewhat constructive editor, I got to know that my 2022 behaviour with you was nonsensical and premature. So I want to apologise to you for my past rude behaviour and mistakes. I wish I could be lucky enough to get your forgiveness. Regards. Maliner (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maliner. No worries, we all make mistakes. I'm just glad you're still here editing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Apaugasma, see you around. Maliner (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edit. Please point me to a Wikipedia policy or essay where it is mentioned that banned or blocked users need to wait for at least 2 years before applying for the WP:standard offer. It was really very new to me. I will be happy to learn. Regards. Maliner (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maliner! Wikipedia:Standard offer itself is not policy, but just a WP essay, meaning it contains advice, not hard rules. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Banning policy, more specifically the WP:UNBAN part. All that says is that banned users can submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and should not be abused or used to excess. What happens usually is that the unban request as written by the banned user is copied over by an admin to WP:AN, where it is discussed by the community. Whether the user gets unbanned depends on how regular editors and admins who frequent AN !vote over the unban request.

Now this is where common sense and experience comes in. A user who has been violating WP:SOCK for five years straight with dozens upon dozens of accounts is very unlikely to get unbanned in such an AN discussion. It almost never happens. SheryOfficial was originally blocked for copyright violations, and this has been a problem even in some of their most recent sock editing (specifically, close paraphrasing remains a problem). If this were the only issue, they might have been successful after waiting the minimum of six months recommended by WP:OFFER and providing evidence that they understand copyrights. But if you look at actual unban discussions at AN, you will note that very often discussants would have preferred the banned user to wait for a longer period (again, the six months is just advice: in theory one could request an unban after a week, but in practice that would always be rejected). More importantly, copyvio is not the only issue here: socking tends to be regarded as much graver than almost any other offense. In practice, where any kind of socking is involved, waiting a year is much better advice. Where five years of socking is involved, actually waiting another five years would probably be the wisest thing to do.

This is about what will realistically happen at AN. I don't decide what happens at AN, nor is there any hard rule about what should happen at AN, but in practice there is a type of precedence at AN which will allow observers to tell what usually happens, and to predict outcomes from there. If you would have observed AN discussions, you would know that telling an LTA that they don't need to wait years, just the 6 months of the standard offer, is really, really bad advice. I reverted it per WP:IAR, because it damages SheryOfficial real chances of ever getting unbanned, which in turn damages Wikipedia.

I appreciate that you want to learn, so please accept this last tip from me: when a user who is much more experienced than you does something project-related, consider asking them about it first before reverting them. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: To be honest, I am not at all convinced by your piece of personal opinion, which you are attributing to ignore all rules. Also, it is concerning that you are saying that I have not seen Wp:AN discussions related to unblock in the past two years, really? I just wanted to say that unless you have a strong consensus on your self-made policies or essays, please do not try to impose it on others since you failed to point out to me where your rule of waiting for two years to post an unblock appeal had received a strong consensus, either as a policy, essay, or at least at the village pump. Period. Maliner (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 'self-made policy or essay' (btw everyone can write wp:essays; I wrote one too), nor a rule of any kind, but it is an accurate reflection of actual community practice. Not everything is written down in stone here, but you can ask any other experienced editor about this. I assure you that they will confirm that telling an LTA who socked for five years that waiting six months should be more than enough per WP:OFFER is simply a very bad idea. The IAR part (which is both policy and WP:5P btw) was not in this accurate and justified opinion, but in reverting a talk page post, which is normally not done per WP:TPO.

If you are not willing to listen to experienced editors because what they're saying is not immediately and literally to be found in the PAGs, you are going to make a lot more mistakes. If it can help in avoiding this particular mistake in the future, please do ask around at the village pump about this issue. If on the other hand you think this is just me trying to tell you what to do, then by all means do what you want, but do not waste my time with it any further. Thanks. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apaugasma,

I was about to add a short description to this article when I noticed that the statement at the beginning, that it's an alchemical work, could be taken as contradicting a later one about alchemia not really referring to alchemy at that time. So I'm wondering (i) whether calling it a work on alchemy is the best description, and (ii) if it is, whether you might want to add something that addresses the possible contradiction. (Eg something that does the job of Though the title didn't at the time strictly refer to what was later called alchemy, the book itself is regarded as . . . )

I'm reluctant to change it myself when I can ask the person who wrote both statements and is already familiar with the material. :-) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Musiconeologist! Although the word alchemiae in the title of the book indeed does not refer to alchemy, the subject of the book in general is in fact alchemy.

I would think this to be clear enough by the way the issue is introduced in the article: "The word alchemia in the Latin title does not yet refer to the art of alchemy, but rather to the mysterious material which alchemists claimed could transmute one substance into another (i.e., the elixir or philosophers' stone)."

A book about a mysterious material claimed by alchemists to effect transmutation is a book about alchemy, right? Am I presupposing too much background knowledge here? If so, I'm not sure how to proceed to make it clearer. Feel free to add something to the article yourself though!

Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I thought, but wanted to check. (For example, alchemy might have a more specialised meaning than the familiar one.)

I think it is clear when read carefully rather than skimmed. If I do add anything, it'll probably just be two or three words somewhere (ideally just one!) to confirm to less careful readers that there's no contradiction.

Really I was just anxious to avoid inadvertently giving the article an inaccurate short description—those seem to be rarely checked by anyone, and I've seen some that completely misunderstand their article and have stayed wrong for years. (Usually in areas of science that I'm familiar with.)

By the way, it was refreshing to see the care you take with your writing and editing. I can see why this would be frustrating. For myself, I wish more people here would familiarise themselves with how professional copy-editors work, and understand that it's not just a matter of mechanical application of rules or personal preference. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apaugasma. How are you doing? If you don't mind, may I ask your opinion about this new account [15]? I suspect it is another sock of PaullyMatthews. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kaalakaa! The uname type and the contrib tags match the usual in PaullyMatthews socks, so I'd say it sure looks like them, but I'm not sure whether that's enough to request a checkuser at SPI. You can either report them to SPI as is or wait it out and see whether they start reinstating old socks' edits, at which point SPI should be obvious. Allways do request a checkuser for this one. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Apaugasma! I just filed an SPI report. 😀 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		We may have disagreed on a few things, such as how to handle a fringe theory. But I've always been fascinated by how meticulously you prepare your arguments and how eloquently you present them. I hope you'll be with Wikipedia for a long time, even if it's not mostly in content contribution. — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Kaalakaa! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The "prophet Muhammad" (lowercase 'p'). Thank you. ~ Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus that systematically removing "the prophet" before Muhammad is somewhere between unhelpful and disruptive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory report. Ronnnaldo7 final-warned for EW. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, from knowlege of both, the previous more robust) statement is (and was) better. But I did not want to risk the repercussions of reverting your edit.MaynardClark (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaynardClark: what edit, and what statement? Is there some statement in an older revision of the page that I'm unaware of? Could you provide a link to it?

I never edited Leucippus, though I was about to make an edit removing the claim about "Leucippus's theory of change regarding the movement of atoms" being "generally accepted in physics until the early 20th century", as I discussed in my talk page post. I'll wait a bit now though; please let me know on the article page if you disagree. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Since you have previously created topics at the talk pages of WikiProject Occult and is currently an active contributor, you might be interested in participating in the ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Eastern esotericism, which focuses on proposals of splitting, balancing the proportion of information regarding the main subject and whether the article is adequately written in English. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your !vote at the ongoing RfA, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should be a little more discerning when we decide how to handle incapable editors. I absolutely agree that someone with so little content experience should not have been given these content-related user rights. But this looks to be much more of a WP:Competence is acquired issue than a WP:Competence is required one. Chastising an editor so harshly for doing something wrong is going to be counterproductive in motivating them to learn the correct way—especially since this is probably the first time anyone ever told them that they were doing this wrong. Personally, I made some sourcing mistakes when I was new to content-writing, but today I think I have a rather strong grasp on content-writing practices.

I won't ask you to walk your comment back or make an apology if that's not something you're willing to do, but it would help if you clarified. "You are hopeless and should be blocked from editing" is very different from "slow down, take a break from NPP, and ask for help before writing more content". The latter will almost certainly get better results and give the candidate a chance to prove themselves, but I read your comment as closer to the former. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming here to raise this issue! I completely agree with everything you say. I did not and do not intend to chastise the candidate, but I'm finding it hard to say what I want to say without doing so. I adjusted my original comment a little and wrote a further clarification. Do you think this will be enough? Any advice to improve my statement is welcome. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just didn't want it to blow up into a whole big issue on the RfA page like things sometimes do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly did you revert my edits, they are almost entirely grammatical edits? What do you mean by "some of it as a consequence of a poor understanding of the subject matter, some of it because of bad English"; I straight up did not address the subject matter and I greatly object to your characterisation of it as "bad English". Ogress 01:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply mean that the changed text, while often an improvement, does not always read better, and sometimes worse, than the original.

As for subject matter (which is much more important and the primary reason for the revert), we've had this conversation before (please see here here): I realize that the changes you make are meant as grammatical edits, but they do change the meaning of the text, often in ways that result in a text that presents the subject matter less accurately. In this case for example, changing "is" to "was" in the lead sentence is misleading, because Jabir is regarded by most scholars as a legendary figure, and so probably never 'was'.

To avoid this kind of thing, you might want to try making multiple smaller edits, so it's easier for other editors to do partial reverts. You may also want to avoid WP:NOTBROKEN edits, because these too only clutter the useful parts of your edits.

Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on reorganizing the article in my sandbox: User:Skyerise/sandbox/Hermeticism. The only bit not yet integrated is on that sandbox's talk page. Tell me what you think.... Skyerise (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyrise! It's a bit hard to see the difference without reading through both articles, but unfortunately I don't have time for that now. One suggestion: you might consider moving the etymology section to the end of the article, since the etymology is quite obvious here (Hermes -> Hermetic -> Hermeticism) and not the first thing most readers are likely to be interested in. I liked the copy-editing you did before, and I'm sure the rest of what you've been doing will be great too! Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored revision: #1245649572 My edits: #1246809176

"Please do not use primary sources in this manner on Wikipedia; instead, please look out for reliable secondary sources and summarize what they write."

Any explanation, besides the summarizing part? OneQuranOneMessage (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OneQuranOneMessage!

The best (though still somewhat limited) explanation in the Wikipedia policy pages is probably Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We need editors to rely on secondary sources because we want Wikipedia to represent the authoritative analyses and interpretations of academic scholars, not those of editors themselves. This is because anyone can edit Wikipedia, and we can't reasonably expect random people on the internet to have a correct understanding of primary sources.

This also means that even if you are an expert (as I too am an expert on certain topics I edit), you still have to restrict yourself to summarizing what other, published and therefore citable experts are writing.

Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia relies on independent sources, which for religious topics means that we generally need our secondary sources to be written from a secular, non-sectarian point of view. The best guarantee for this is to look out for sources published by academic presses.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Have a nice day, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]