Talk:Hagarism

message: It was & is the Prevailing(Q:5:48)(Q:7:2)Universal Message (Q:9:33)(Q:15:9)(Q:48:28)(Q:57:9)(Q:61:9) from the Universal God (Q:3:83) to the whole of Humanity (Q:4:174)to each & every individual since it's very beginning - since the start of its first revelation(Q:96:1)in the Cave of Hira - till it's very end its completion of the message(Q:5:3) at Mount of Mercy in Arafat & acknowledges all the Prophets (Q:2:141)(Q:4:163-164)of God since the first to the last - Adam (Q:3:33) to Mohammad (Q:48:29) - with Qiblah (Q:2:144)being the First House (Q:3:96) on Earth built & approved by God for His worship in the first city the 'Mother of Towns' on the first spot to appear as foam on the molten Earth & the most beloved to God & was best of a nation ever brought forth to deliver the message(Q;3:110) as per the both parallel revelations of Qoran: the Primary & the Core & Hadith: the Secondary & the Clarifier (of the first revelation). Qoran is verified guarded (Q:15:9) by God with the its original being in the Guarded Tablet, & verified by the Angel Gabriel by revising it with the Prophet once every year in Ramadan & twice in the last Ramadan , & verified in the following year  of the passing away of the Prophet by the First Caliph with the committee of the scribes of revelation when first collected in a scroll form from the clay tablets & the camel bones (shoulder blades), & finally re-verified 15 years later by the Third Caliph by reconstituting the same committee again to collect it in a book form, copied into number of master copies sent to each provincial capital of the caliphate. This is undeniable historically & is undisputed & is agreed by all Muslims & corroborated by all who had witnessed the revelation & who were the contemporaries. Perhaps she bases her doubt on hearsay, who did not witness the events first hand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.167.165 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam(Q:3:19&85)was Never 'Hagarism'(Q:49:13) ever at any time 

message: The quotation of Serjeant (not Sergeant!) about Hagarism is only improperly sourced. There is no article of him in "Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1981) p. 210", but he reviewed Hagarism in an earlier volume: Serjeant, R. B. (1978). Review of Quranic studies: Sources and methods of scriptual interpretation by John Wansbrough and Hagarism: The making of the Islamic world by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 110(01), 76–78, doi:10.1017/S0035869X00134264. I don't have institutional access to the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, so could please someone else check this citation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.37 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised this wasn't addressed earlier. I checked the 1981 volume for you, and you're right. The Serjeant review therein is of another book of Crone's: Slaves on horses: The Evolution of Islamic Polity. I also checked the 1978 article you linked to, and it does indeed contain the statements cited in the article. I'll make the correction. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serjeant's review of Hagarism 

message: I strongly doubt that interpretation, its as well not being found in any of the sources used to state that claim in the lede. Its based on a mere blog entry. Take http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/14933.html http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7630524&fileId=S0038713400085997 for actual reviews, current or past. None of them confirms the rather strong claims in the intro. Misuse of sourcing. Polentarion Talk 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you must have not actually read any of the sources cited. 2601:243:903:3F5B:C917:8B32:A2D7:7A03 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence for the current claims in the lede 

message: Note number 7 is wrongly cited. It is not Fred Donner's book that is being cited, but a REVIEW of Donner's book by Jack Tannous, in a journal called Expositions. I tried to edit the reference, but when I click on edit, I didn't get any of the note-text; that is buried in the text of the first para, in a way that makes it extremely difficult, for me at any rate, to figure out how to edit. The correct reference should be as follows:
Jack Tannous, Review of Fred Donner, Muhhamed and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (2010), Expositions 5.2 (2011), pp. 126-141.
I would greatly appreciate someone editing this for me, as I lack the skills to correct it myself. As it stands, the reference makes it seem as though the ideas and opinions belong to Donner. Some of Donner's opinions are indeed be reflected in the summary portion of the review. But the words used in fact come from Tannous, he deserves the credit, and the reader deserves to be fully informed of their origin. 
I've just noticed too that notes 3 and 4, are also incorrectly done, in that neither lists an author. This is a serious problem with note 4, because it is clearly an edited collection, that is, it has multiple authors, so we need to know which one of the several is being cited. Theonemacduff (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect references 

message: In what way is that section about how the book is received (its reception) as opposed to its significant claims? If it is about "reception," then why are there both "reception" and "reviews" sections? 2601:243:903:3F5B:45EF:36FB:2D7C:2FA3 (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The section "reception" begins by mentioning the name of a person who listed various controversial claims made in Hagarism. A book's "reception" refers to how people evaluated it. Describing a book's claims as controversial is an example of such an evaluation. The "Synopsis" section is there for describing what the book's claims actually are. As for why there are separate "reception" and "reviews" sections, that is simply a result of the way other editors have edited the article; I'm not responsible for it. There should be a single section entitled "Reception" which includes everything that is currently in the "Reception" section as well as what is currently in "Influence" and "Reviews". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has one clause describing the column writer's impression about the claims ("'controversial claims'" of Hagarism's at odds with Islamic doctrine"), while the remaining nearly 200 words simply describe the claims themselves with no additional commentary by the writer. 2601:243:903:3F5B:45EF:36FB:2D7C:2FA3 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's totally irrelevant. The material is evaluation of Hagarism and as such obviously belongs in a section titled "Reception". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To what extent are the claims being evaluated? 2601:243:903:3F5B:45EF:36FB:2D7C:2FA3 (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent that he summarizes and addresses them. El_C 04:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They are merely summarized. 2601:243:903:3F5B:45EF:36FB:2D7C:2FA3 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the section "Claims" under "Synopsis" fits the content better. This is a summary of how the book diverges from the mainstream. As any summary, it might be cherry-picked or biased in some way (I personally believe it's fair), so it is good to make it clear who originally summarized it this way; but that's just making attributions and references more clear (and a lazy way to work-around copyvio, I admit). The section could also easily evolve with references to major sources that discuss these claims, to make it clear which ones have been retracted by authors or rejected by mainstream Western scholars, and which ones are still considered valid, to some extent. (But in any case I don't see any reason for just deleting the content as FreeKnowledgeCreator originally did.) Tokenzero (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I also wanted to ask: what's irrelevant? Your reasoning here is pretty circular. 2601:243:903:3F5B:6526:4CD7:E3DE:ACD4 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't pretend to be faultless but I've commented on the ridiculousness of FreeKnowledgeCreator's conduct here. There are open questions here but FreeKnowledgeCreator has stopped engaging in meaningful discussion. 2601:243:903:3F5B:8057:3EB0:C440:CE4E (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP editor and I obviously have different ideas about how to go about editing articles about books. The IP editor deems this edit to be a "valuable contribution". I would never add a section titled "Claims" to an article about a book. The title leaves it unclear whether the section's purpose is to describe the book's contents or to describe evaluations of the book's contents. The material originally added to the "Claims" section was, apparently, material evaluating the contents of Hagarism, describing them as controversial. It was very poorly written, consisting mainly of an excessively long series of quotations, taken from a popular magazine rather than a scholarly journal, and I have no apology for simply removing it, as I did here. The IP is now insisting in a childish manner that the removal of the term "controversial" improves the "Claims" material and makes it appropriate as a summary of the book's contents. Obviously the contents of a scholarly book should not be described using a  series of overly-long quotations taken from a popular magazine. The material should simply be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. This seems like your original position was "We don't need that material in that particular location. It belongs somewhere else (because I might have not entirely read the material). I'll just delete it." Now it's "I've entirely changed my justification but my original removal was correct." I think I've adequately described here why it is your actions instead that are disruptive or childish. It's curious that you were okay with the "series of overly-long quotations from a popular magazine" while going back and forth about the title of the section as long as it was named "Reception."2601:243:903:3F5B:8057:3EB0:C440:CE4E (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The need for a scholarly journal to describe the contents of a book is not supported by WP:RS, which is satisfied by content from The Atlantic according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources#The_Atlantic. 2601:243:903:3F5B:8057:3EB0:C440:CE4E (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to put words in my mouth. I never made any such comment as, "We don't need that material in that particular location. It belongs somewhere else (because I might have not entirely read the material). I'll just delete it." I was never "okay" with the quotations that were added to the article, it was simply that I took the view that if they were going to be included in the article at all, they belonged in a section devoted to the reception of the book, because they are material that, in the form in which they were first added, are concerned with evaluating the book, not simply describing its contents. The idea that the contents of a scholarly book should be described with quotations from a popular magazine is stupid. Even if Wikipedia's policies permit that, it's clearly not how an article should be written. The description of the contents of a scholarly book should be based on the book itself; quotations from non-scholarly popular magazines are not necessary or suitable for that purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The Atlantic may well count as a reliable source per WP:RS, but that does not absolve editors of the task of deciding how best to use it. I have added a small amount of new content, summarizing the most relevant points noted in the Atlantic article. That's what is needed, not a whole series of long, unnecessary quotations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the (sub)section should not be a sequence of quotations from someone's summary. However, if "Hagarism" includes suggestions that the Quran did not exist in any form before 690 (in particular, that it was not compiled under Uthman around 653-656, but instead it is not unlikely that al-Hajjaj after ~690 collected and destroyed the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others composed according to his own tastes), then shouldn't the article mention it? This is an example of a claim in the book which is notable because it is controversial, and the Atlantic article is a reliable source for that, in my opinion. (Of course there's better sources, in fact we can just link to the much more extended discussion at History of the Quran#Origin according to academic historians). Tokenzero (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The article is better off with the quotations than without them for the average reader, even if the quotations are not perfect. We should permit the content to remain; someone else, if not one of us, will eventually come along and integrate the source more fluidly. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, as you well know, and your deletions are not constructive. 2601:243:903:3F5B:7C90:4989:D076:6E5F (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with IP: having the quotations, even if not perfect, is preferable to avoiding the content completely. I'm working on a better synopsis (the most glaring issue being that both the current Synopsis and the removed Claims completely ignore chapters beyond the first, shortest one). But in the meantime the removed part pointed to important claims made by the book not covered elsewhere, so I believe there is no reason to remove it; if you don't like the quotation style, edit and improve it (or wait for me to do it)!  your avoidance of discussion (even outright removal of requests for comment from your talk page) is disrespectful. Tokenzero (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reception" section 

message: At User:Tokenzero/Hagarism, I rewrote the Synopsis section to make it more accurate, concrete, structured, and detailed. I also rearranged the lead and first section. This is based on reading all of Part I and some of the reviews. Unfortunately Parts II and III are beyond my possibilities, partly because of the wider background they require; anyway I only see one review that actually refers to them, so perhaps only Part I is really notable.  Any feedback?
I can put references to specific pages if some sentence raises doubts (perhaps I should add them everywhere using ?). The existing summary was a bit inaccurate, like in reasons for the name Hagarism, the role of Jerusalem (much weaker in the book), and a somewhat misleading chronology. I believe that this now also subsumes Toby Lester's summary points (most of them already in the lead, the remainder made more precise in the main text). Tokenzero (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the Synopsis section to be (1) well-written and (2) useful. Thanks. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft 

message: I can't make any sense of the citation to The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. The letters themselves were written way before Hagarism and neither the letters nor prefaces even mention Islam or Muslims, let alone Hagarism, Crone or Cook, as far as I can tell. Pinging  as you added the reference, and  as you reversed its removal. I've since removed it again. Tokenzero (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''John Henry Newman'' citation 

message: You've removed virtually all negative discussion in the lead and left all the positive. I believe this is far from a balanced view. Saying it was "criticised" is saying nothing, all scholarly work gets criticised, while "Hagarism" has definitely more serious issues, which are consistently pointed by even the most friendly references. Specifically, I think the words "generally rejected" (with reference to the specific factual theses listed in the paragraph above) and "controversial" should be in the lead, as equivalent formulations are found in numerous references, e.g. "universally rejected" (which is even stronger!) in Waines' An Introduction to Islam and the same in Newby's A History of the Jews of Arabia (and I can't find any reference that would say the factual theses were even slightly accurate).
We have to discuss these factual claims made in Hagarism, but doing that carries some weight: the reader can expect a rather large level of credibility from a scholarly monograph. This should be countered by an overview of the current scholarly view on these claims. I don't think I'm putting undue weight on the most critical reviews, I really tried to highlight later textbook references, which discuss Hagarism from a distance and in a wider context. Tokenzero (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you have a point, but I just felt there was too much negativity in the lead, as if the main aim was to trash the book. But feel free to restore what you deem necessary. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead