Talk:Arba'in

message: An early version of this article was based on translations of the entries for Arba'in in the fr: and de: Wikipedias. -- The Anome 21:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: Regarding this edition in which calendar items are removed by Anders Feder; Today is Wednesday, what kind of reference does it need? Mhhossein (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One that is reliable, e.g. time.gov.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you know these dates are unchallengeable and you could tag them with  at most. By the way, per WP:OR we know that the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Mhhossein (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) No, I don't know that those dates are "unchallengeable", because nothing is unchallengeable. The notion of "unchallengeability" exists in degenerate religious thinking, but not in informed and civilized discourse. (2) "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." The aim of Wikipedia is not to be a mishmash compilation of unverifiable speculation as you mistakenly think. (3) If the statement is attributable to a reliable source, then go ahead and do it. Until then, it does not belong in Wikipedia. As for whether it is likely to be challenged, that is a moot point - I've already challenged it, and the likelihood of it being challenged is 100%.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, Wikipedia never cares what your belief is about religion, neither do I. So, lets ask Howcheng If you could remove those dates merely for being unreferenced? Btw, did you get the point of France and Paris? does it need a reference? Mhhossein (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about your beliefs about degenerate religious thinking either, and neither does Wikipedia. It cares about information being verifiable and reliable, no matter how zealously you think that religion is absolved from having to meet those standards. As for France and Paris, you don't even understand what it means. We don't need to cite Paris being capital, because that is verifiable in an infinitude of reliable sources. The reverse is the case for your calendar.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are to follow the letter of the law, then yes, uncited material can be removed, but let's be reasonable here. We're looking at individual calendar dates. Arba'een takes place 40 days after the Day of Ashura. We don't really need a citation for math. If we know that Easter is on a certain day, you can calculate that Ash Wednesday falls 46 days before that, no reference required. —howcheng  {chat} 18:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say we need a reference for math. Dating the Day of Ashura is itself dicey, as explained here, and adding 40 to a dicey date does not make it any less dicey.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but that just means that Ashura needs a reference. The date for Arba'een by extension doesn't. —howcheng  {chat} 07:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is the same. A reference for neither has been given.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Given that that would bring the section into compliance with WP:V, that ought to be just fine.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the countries also be mentioned based on the fact that the date varies from place to place? Mhhossein (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a reliable source for it, sure.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So now according to Umm al-Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia you'd better restore the removed materials. Mhhossein (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would I "better" do that? The material was removed in full accordance with WP:BURDEN, just like it should be. If anyone wants to add new material that does not violate WP:V, that's up to them - not me.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah you are right, based on what WP:BURDEN says. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I'll do that ASAP. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you check how this site actually computes the Islamic dates for Iraq and Iran (and why list only those countries)? I wouldn't be surprized if it gives identical dates for whatever Islamic country you choose. You also got the Islamic years wrong: the current year is 1436 AH, 2005 was 1426 AH. Why give the date for 2005 anyway? AstroLynx (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that I had fixed those dates (1436 and 1426). Thanks for reminding that. Sorry I don't know the basis of site their work. Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You still got the current year wrong - it is 1436 AH. Doesn't it bother you that you have no idea how the site you refer to computes its dates? AstroLynx (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

text: What's the problem with this site? Mhhossein (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know who they are or what their methodology is. In general, webpage scripts are a very bad source for Wikipedia's purposes, because their way of functioning can't be reviewed by someone without programming expertise.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Btw, how are you going to mention the countries? I mean is the table suitable for that? Mhhossein (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Muharram can have either 29 or 30 days.   Does the text allow for that? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if Arba'een is 40 days after Ashura then it falls on 20 or 21 Safar. If the day of Ashura is included in these 40 days (see my earlier remark) it falls on 19 or 20 Safar. AstroLynx (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Calendar

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arba'een. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710184413/http://elpasoinc.com/readArticleNYT.aspx?guid=04734d5d-49a1-edce-78a3-89dd4b6ccada to http://elpasoinc.com/readArticleNYT.aspx?guid=04734d5d-49a1-edce-78a3-89dd4b6ccada
*Added  tag to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/41-Martyrs-as-More-than-Million-People-Mark-Arbae.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Arba'ein is the largest annual pilgrimage in  the world ..." So Arba'een is bigger than the Hajj? IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest? Largest? 

message: This article now contains at least three spellings of the title word "Arba'een", and an IP editor just removed a fourth. Can the editors agree on a spelling, and maybe someone insert a comment at the top asking that it not be changed? Note that I have nothing remotely like enough expertise to have an opinion on the correct Romanized spelling of an Arabic number. IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everyone, I wanted to follow up on the comment above. The correct Arabic transliteration seems to be Arba'in, per WP:MOSAR. Does anyone object to changing the article name accordingly? Albertatiran (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Arba'een" is a better choice per WP:TITLE and the reliable academic sources  which use a similar spelling. I don't agree with the move by User:UtherSRG. Albertatiran's ping came just on 25 Aug. Please move back to the previous title and start a discussion for the move. --Mhhossein talk 11:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I'm sorry if I moved the page too early. (Asked for feedback here on August 25 and the page was moved on August 28.) All sources cited in the article use Arba'in, including Brill's Islamica, Iranica, and Momen's Introduction. More importantly, WP:MOSAR favors Arba'in over other transliterations. It's true that Arbaeen has also been used in the literature but it's difficult to see if it's predominant (WP:TRANSLITERATE), at least from the link you shared. In any case, the previous title was Arba'een and not Arbaeen.  Your views would be very appreciated. Albertatiran (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've initiated a formal discussion for you. Any potentially controversial move should go through a formal discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: While this matter doesn't seem to be of considerable worry. 'Arba'een' kinda mirrors the prolonged 'ee' sound better than 'Arba'in,' remaining faithful to how individuals vocalize and identify the term. StarkReport (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi . Thanks for the ping. Both sounds good to me. I cannot choose between them at the moment. Best. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Arba'een →  – Per discussion immediately above. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Iraq has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Support: as the default basic transliteration most suitable for the page title per WP:MOSAR, as well as the more prevalent transliteration of forty in general, and  the wiktionary version, and due to it being roughly equally common on Google scholar as Arbaeen or Arba'een, so unobstructed from that perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Though on a side note, would "Ziyarat al-Araba'in" be more precise? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 August 2023