Talk:Jinn/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reverting of WP:BOLD after closing of Dispute Resolution discussion

Dispute Resolution discussion closed "due to lack of response by one editor". i.e. VenusFeuerFalle. Volunteer moderator Robert McClenon ended with this:

Closed due to lack of response by one editor. The filing editor has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly. If the edits are reverted, he may follow the advice in the discussion failure essay, and may note this proceeding, or they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. Do not edit-war. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So I, the filing editor (Louis P. Boog), made the edits boldly here and ... VenusFeuerFalle, who couldn't be bothered to make a response to the Dispute resolution discussion, reverted the edits with the summary "this was not the resolution".

My questions for the deleter @VenusFeuerFalle:

1. "this was not the resolution"? how so? the resolution started with "The filing editor should make the edits boldly."
2. wikipedia help page gives a number of suggestions to avoid wholesale reverting, such as "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits" (Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert). How is following the advice of the Dispute resolution volunteer disruptive??? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 Pl. take note that WP:DRN is not a binding solution so win by absence of other side at WP:DRN is of very temporary nature. So advice all the sides not to engage in any further reverts.

The final step for you to go for WP:RfC (also follow WP:RFCBEFORE)

Or you can take pause in discussion here and request inputs at WP:NPOVN (this being primarily WP:DUE issue or at WT:ISLAM. And there after go for WP:RfC. (My personal recommendation is you take a chance at WP:NPOVN for more inputs before going for RfC for wider feedback.

Bookku (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest all to go through or re-read policies WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:RNPOV, WP:PROPORTION.

• • I suggest to check already available refs in the articles Abul A'la Maududi and Nasr Abu Zayd for RS and also check if their importance has been cited in any reliable journals and academic books available at google scholar and google books. Take input help of WP:RSN forum to confirm if any source can be considered RS or not.
  • I suggest read the article body again and write down your own lead in your own sand box and then compare if you find the present lead has a proper weight from reliable contents made in the rest of the body. Such an exercise may help you in RFC discussion and during good article and feature article nomination reviews.
  • I suggest @TheEagle107 to take their references at WP:RSN to have community inputs which of their references can be considered as reliable.

Last but least to all incl. @VenusFeuerFalle please confirm you are signing your comments properly so other visiting users do not get confused by mistake.

Bookku (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I do sign my comments, I just respond rarely, since I mostly response then there is new information. Until now, I am still waiting for my initiate objection (I this time even repeated) to be adressed. Until then, I will be waiting. I repeat it here again: Religions scholars, unlike scholars of religions, are not reliable sources, sources need to be understood in context, the lead is a sumamr yof the article. Whether or not jinn are a dogma, is no promiment element in the article and thus giving undue weight in the lead. I am still waiting for a proper response, instead I get revert after revert with the claim "but authentic source how dare you!". And no matter how often I talk to them on talkpages, they just ignore whatever I say, keep on quoting sources with no relevance, express indignation, and then go to an admin or disappear for a month. Last time, the source provided did not even supported their statement, similar thing happened with the other user last year on another article. For unexperienced users who do not want to engage in civil discussions, we have the Sandbox function. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Give them time to find academic sources at google scholar / google books approach WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN then WP:RFCBEFORE then WP:RFC many times inputs from different users help as I said earlier. Bookku (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I will probably not be online for a few days or a week. Maybe I have time for a quick check in. In case once again, my absense is taken as an agreement to edits my objections are left unanswered in the first place. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fyi: As a discussion facilitator I placed an input request at WT:ISLAM with a note to provide inputs @ this article talk page itself. Bookku (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As a discussion facilitator Input request also posted @ WP:NPOVN, WT:MYTH, WT:ARAB, WT:WikiProject Middle Ages, WT:WikiProject Religion project talk pages. Bookku (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Input request made @GliderMaven since the article falls under :Category:Supernatural and GliderMaven seem to have substantially contributed to the article Supernatural as per xtools Bookku (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you actually read what bold means or have you just taken it literal? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty to ping some users here who are often editing Islam-related articles, and are recently active: @Yasinzayd:, @Apaugasma:, @DivineReality:, @Aqsian313:, @Albertatiran: and @Aafi: Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--TheEagle107 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the last "undo" of edits under exegesis, I think it is fine to leave @TheEagle107's edits there. They are indeed relevant. Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight. So citing them as a source should be acceptable. Whether or not one chooses to follow that opinion is another story. But being exposed to different opinions and knowing who different scholars are is an important element in studying Islam.

Regarding this in the intro: "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran." First of all there are some typos and also I think there is ijma' anyways and it's not a matter of ikhtilaf to my knowledge. I would change it to: "Belief in the Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Qur'an." I think it's fine to include that. Regarding this topic: if one disbelieves in any part of the Qur'an, they have left Islam entirely according to Sunnis. Also it is mentioned in Aqida Tahawiyah upon which there is ijma': https://www.abuaminaelias.com/aqeedah-tahawiyyah/ So yes, a Muslim must believe in the existence of Jinn to be a Muslim to my knowledge and I am unaware of any opinion to the contrary. I think citing Aqida Tahawiyah as a source is a good idea. That's my view. Take the best of it.

DivineReality (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight.

Not really, since in Islam there is no official clergy and who is trustworthy and who is not is eventually up for the individual. Apart from this claim to be factually wrong, it is besides the point since it is against the neutral point of view policy mentioned above. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the insertion into the lead. The lead is a summary and should not contain anything not already present in the body of the article. But these facts have not been added to the body of the article. I suggest that the adding editor find an appropriate place in the body of the article to add the fact, work with other editors until it is done in a place and a way that other editors do not object to. Only then would it be appropriate to start as discussion as to whether it should be in the lead and if so, how much weight it should be given. Skyerise (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise But it is present in the body of the article. In the Exegesis section.

... many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. ...

The dispute being discussed or that was discussed, includes adding a bit more to this section. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Typically, if there is only one sentence about something in the body, that's not enough to give it enough weight to also add it to the lead. If the article goes more in depth about a topic, say a paragraph or two, then a sentence in the lead might be considered. But you are going to need more than one proponent of the position and of course sufficient third-party sources to support more material in the body before it makes sense to bring it up in the lead - otherwise the lead would be the size of the body, if every sentence was equally important! Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede is pretty long. The sentence

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.

... not so much. The issue -- a requirement to be a true Muslim -- pretty important. But I will drop the issue for now. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this paragraph to the lead: "The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the Qur'an, and one of its chapters is even named after them." Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that talks about the jinn.

Here are some sources that might be of interest:

... These two passages provide the strongest textual verification of the existence of jinn within Islam. Belief in the existence of jinn is considered equivalent to belief in the existence of angels, one of the primary articles of faith in Islam, and consequently, to disbelieve in them would be heretical. The majority of Muslims believe jinn to be a species of spiritual beings created by God out of smokeless fire long before he created humans out of mud. God gave jinn the earth to inhabit. They are drawn to both good and evil.

In Islam the existence of jinns is axiomatic: according to Muslim belief, jinns were created of fire, in contrast to the angels, who were created from light. They are considered more powerful than men, but less powerful than angels. The jinn is capable of humanly impossible tasks, and the intelligence of the jinn is considered much superior to that of humans. The belief in jinns is so strong in Muslim and Arab thought that Muslim theologians judge disbelief in jinns as heresy – except for the Mu'tazila, who dare to question their existence.

The jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.

Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief. They are referred to 25 times in the Qur'an, not counting surah 72 (“The Jinn”).

The jinn are an integral part of the Muslim tradition from the Qur'an onwards and thus are inescapable even for the modernists (who often see them as internalized psychological states).

... Some Muslims educated in the modern Western tradition maintain that mentions of angels and jinn in the Koran should be taken allegorically rather than literally, but they are in a small minority, and even they never quite lose their fear of the jinn.

According to traditional Islamic faith, djinns were created by Allah out of smokeless fire (Qur'an 15:27). As such, Muslims generally consider these creatures part and parcel of the living world and believe that they actively participate in the lives and social interactions of humans, as do angels and Iblis (i.e., Satan) for that matter.

Jinn are supernatural entities created by God before the creation of Adam. Whereas Adam was created from clay, the jinn were created "from the fire of a scorching wind" (Q 15:27) or "from fire free of smoke" (Q 55:15). They are mentioned several times in the Qur'an as well as in numerous other genres, including sira (biography), hadith (tradition), kalam (theology), and adab (literature). Belief in their existence continues in many predominantly Islamic countries to the present day, and fascination with these creatures in the West is evidenced by their appearance in popular movies and novels. Although they feature prominently in folklore, jinn are also taken quite seriously by Muslim scholars, both medieval and modern. Like humans, jinn have free will, and although many of them were converted to Islam by the Prophet Muhammad, others despaired at the coming of the new religion.

Common narratives usually portray jinns as evil or mischievous, but they can also appear to be as morally complex as human beings. Muslim scholars have taken their existence seriously, even considering the legal question of whether jinns and humans could intermarry; Mālik, foundational figure for the Māliki legal school, argued that such a marriage was not itself a violation of sacred law, but added that it seemed undesirable. One hadith scholar in the eighteenth century presented a narration whose chain of transmission included two jinn reporters.

Peace.TheEagle107 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Noone here disputes if the jinn are important or not. This is completely besides the point. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Can some of this information be included in the article? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Refs to this section

References

Suggestion for addition to Exegesis subsection

Following Bookku's suggestion that I do research in WP:RS I looked up Jinn in the wikipedia library and found material in Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English) I think should go in the Exegesis subsection. It seems to indicate pretty strongly that "the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted" in early Islam. I would just add parts of it to the article now but that would distract from the discussion at hand.

II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined. Stories of the loves of d̲j̲inn and human beings were evidently of perennial interest. The Fihrisl gives the titles of sixteen of these (308) and they appear in all the collections of short tales (cf., e.g., Dāwūd al-Anṭākī, Tazyīn al-aswāḳ , Cairo 1308, 181 ff.; al-Sarrād̲j̲, Maṣārīʿ al-ʿus̲h̲s̲h̲āḳ , Istanbul 1301, 286 ff.). There are many stories, too, of relations between saints and d̲j̲inn; cf. D. B. Macdonald, Religious attitude and life in Islam, 144 ff. A good summary of the question is given in Badr al-Dīn al-S̲h̲iblī (d. 769/1368), Ākām al-mard̲j̲ān fī aḥkām al-d̲j̲ān (Cairo 1326); see also Nöldeke’s review in ZDMG, lxiv, 439 ff. Few even of the Muʿtazila ventured to doubt the existence of ¶ d̲j̲inn, and only constructed different theories of their nature and their influence on the material world. The earlier philosophers, even al-Fārābī, tried to avoid the question by ambiguous definitions. But Ibn Sīnā, in defining the word, asserted flatly that there was no reality behind it. The later believing philosophers used subterfuges, partly exegetical and partly metaphysical. Ibn K̲h̲aldūn, for example, reckoned all references to the d̲j̲inn among the socalled mutas̲h̲ābih passages of the Ḳurʾān, the knowledge of which Allāh has reserved to himself (Ḳurʾān, III, 5). These different attitudes are excellently treated in the Dict , of techn. terms , i, 261 ff.; cf. also al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ, lxxii.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, so we can properly reply to it and know who is participating in the discussion. I would ignore this comment entirely, for these reasons, if my comment made above does not apply here as well. I also recommand to read the entire article, since the article states multiple times that most Muslims believed in jinn from the very beginning up to the post-modern period and "even after graduating in medicine" this believe may not change.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog I suggest you drop updates to Lead until you have improved consensus on rest of the article body and so first focus what updates you are looking in the rest of article body.

May be you copy the article body in your personal Sandbox update it and then propose specific changes.

Bookku (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Refs to this sub-section

References

Proposed rewriting of body of article

here (in my Sandbox).
Includes my version and bits from TheEagle107 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: all specific changes/proposed edits are in the blue highlight of {{talkquote| to distinguish them.
@Bookku: notifying you first Bookku for your comments before sending general notice to all involved users. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted, give me a day or two to go through. Bookku (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some improvements, yet same parts need a more fleshed out spelling.

who "worked out" the consequences implied by their

reads like a subtile thread. Given that you previously tried multiple times to add that a Muslim received death-threats for stating that jinn do not form an external reality (a position definately present in Medieval Age Islam as cited in the article), it cannot be ruled out that this is exactly what you have in mind.

Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition or faith, "completely accepted" in official Islam; prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars

might also suffer from a citation overdosis and some weasal words. Ask yourself, what is "official Islam"? What is the difference between "Muslim tradition" and "Muslim faith"? What does "quite seriously" mean? Bad writing might decrease the quality of an otherwise pretty decent article, which could soon meet GA or even FA standards. The prominence of jinn in Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and the Quran, is made clear right below the paragraph you want to add. WIth other words, without your addition, it is exactly the next thing the reader is gonna read. The quesiton here is, how is this repeation an improvement? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an 34:12–13, God subjugated the jinns under the control of Solomon so as to have their assistance in the construction of huge buildings. They used to perform tasks for Solomon that required great skill, wisdom, and technical expertise. I am not 100% sure if the text of the article mentions anything about this; if not, then it probably should. Good work anyway!

Here are some more sources for you:

Muslims accept the existence of the jinn as part of their faith.

The belief in jinn is very much alive in Morocco and like the belief in angels and the devil it is part of Islamic dogma.

Islamic dogma lists humans as the third spiritual creature created by Allah after angels and jinn.

And finally, here is an interesting article in Arabic about jinn in Islam written by one of the researchers of the Muhammadan League of Religious Scholars. Cheers!TheEagle107 (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Reply to VVF at the request of Bookku

@VenusFeuerFalle @ Bookku

Having trouble with your English. what is a subtile thread?

Given that you previously tried multiple times to add that a Muslim received death-threats for stating that jinn do not form an external reality (a position definately present in Medieval Age Islam as cited in the article), it cannot be ruled out that this is exactly what you have in mind.

Not sure what you are talking about. This seems to be in conflict with at least one scholar (Mark Sedgwick)

Openly expressing of doubt about the existence of j̲inn was not common even amidst the Muʿtazila; and among the erstwhile philosophers, al-Fārābī also, tried to skip the question with vague definitions. Ibn Sīnā was an outlier-- he outrightly rejected their existence. In present-day Islam, only a "small number" believes that jinn in the Quran should be understood symbolically instead of literally. (Mark Sedgwick (2006). Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World. Hachette UK. p. 72. ISBN 9781473643918.)

(and you might add that you were the one who deleted the incident about a Muslim received death-threats.)

"who 'worked out' the consequences implied by their"

'worked out' is a direct quote from the source (Jinn, Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English), D.B. MacDonald, H. Massé, P.N. Boratav, K.A. Nizami, and P. Voorhoeve)

Ask yourself, what is "official Islam"? What is the difference between "Muslim tradition" and "Muslim faith"? What does "quite seriously" mean? Bad writing might decrease the quality of an otherwise pretty decent article,

These are different terms different scholars used to describe the importance of Jinn in Islam. Again, these (mostly) quotes come from the sources, reputable scholars, all cited -- "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition from Mark A. Caudill (2006). Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 92. ISBN 9780313084850., etc. Is this "bad writing"? If a third party suggests rewriting it I suppose I might not mind as long as the substance of the text remains. I suppose we leave that to the RfC. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

references

Discussion Summary

VenusFeuerFalle (VFF)

There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @Louis P. Book (referred to as LPB), @TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.

The dispute on the Article The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given.

The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised. Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.

At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895) I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by Fetullah Gülen (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711). Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse. While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Wikipedia entry, also advocate of Islamism as seen here: Abul A'la Maududi). Religious authorities are not reliable sources (WP:RNPOV and WP:PARTISAN), even if the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between Religious studies and Theology.

Afterwards, I undid their edits, and exlained with each step why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568) A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996)

For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,

Talkpage The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the Shaitan article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users)

Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.

Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead. He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia), which could lead to an immediate ban (WP:HUSH) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to gaming the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

Summary Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them. Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value. I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Louis P. Boog

@VenusFeuerFalle, @TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.
My suggested edits to the Jinn article are posted in blue of "{{talkquote|" in this sandbox post. The basic idea is encapsilated in the sentence I'm trying to add to the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.

While it is unlikely that many people would suggest Jinn are a major part of Islam, the suggested edits (using some research by TheEagle107) only include

• a few sentences to the Jinn#Exegesis section (which I would rename Belief) summarized in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244 as 3 points

1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.[1](p33)

2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included among two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam). (The point here being that Maududi has/had a huge following and readership);
3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. (The significance here is that belief in the apostasy of Nasr Abu Zayd in his country (Egypt) was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him). (He lamented that "it took one week for my name [Nasr Abu Zayd] to be cursed all over Egypt. Even in my village they were saying I was teaching heresies to the students...")

• and one long sentence in the Prevalence of belief section.

To help resolve the dispute I (with the help of Bookku) hashed it out on the talk page, apealed to took the issue to

• Third_opinion answered by User:StereoFolic
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Archive 244)
• A discussion at No_original_research/Noticeboard --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply to VFF summary

Below is VenusFeuerFalle's Discussion Summary from above chopped up with replies by myself to make the point and counterpoints easier to read.

There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @Louis P. Book (referred to as LPB),

(He is mispelling my name -- it's Boog not Book.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.

The dispute on the Article The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given. The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised.

Actually I rewrote my edit, addressing your complaint that "the lead is a summary of the body off text." I shortened the edit of the lede and put the extra in "the body of text". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.

A misquote???.

Here is what the author said: [listing answers to the question "why write a book" on the jinn?]:
"... secondly, although belief in jinn is not one of the five pillars of Islam, one can't be Muslim if he/she doesn't have faith in their existence because they are mentioned in the Qur'an and the prophetic tradition."

"one can't be a Muslim" certainly sounds like a religious obligation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895)

accused you of "bias"? My talk page post did say I wanted to know "why a short piece of information from a scholarly source indicating the popular belief in Shaitan being a jinn should be deleted" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) ... sounds more like a question than an accusation.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

An example of one of his explanations, (in reference to [Nasr Abu Zayd], the professor threatened with death for blaspheme, cited by me as evidence that belief in Jinn can be important):
"noone cares if some dude went to exile for denial, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper...." --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by Fetullah Gülen (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711).

Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse.

Not sure which particular edit he's referring to but one he reverted here was of an edit I made following a Dispute_resolution_on the noticeboard session done by User:Robert McClenon here which ended with Robert McClenon stating:

Closed due to lack of response by one editor [i.e. VFF]. The filing editor [me, LPB] has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly.

VFF deleted my bold edits. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Wikipedia entry, also advocate of Islamism as seen here: Abul A'la Maududi).

Yes, Maududi is an Islamist but last time I checked that did not exclude him from being an important figure in contemporary Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Religious authorities are not reliable sources (WP:RNPOV and WP:PARTISAN), even if the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between Religious studies and Theology.

Both of the "religious authorities" I want to briefly mention in the article (Fetullah Gülen and Abul A'la Maududi) are religious scholars. Maududi has written a multi-volume commentary on the Quran. Religious authorities are not WP:RN on the doctrine or history of a religion, But I put it to you that they are reliable authorities on their own interpretation of religious doctrine when clearly stated. And when they have a large following, their interpretation is notable. Yes, you will have a hard time finding academic scholars of Islam commenting on all aspects of the doctrines of Gülen and Maududi (such as doctrine on Jinn), but the fact stands that they are notable and they have spoken (Maududi especially) on Jinn. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Afterwards, I undid their edits, and exlained with each step why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568)

(The link is to a revert by Davemck, not you, with an edit summary of "renumber duplicate parm", whatever that means.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Davemck,

1) Pl. can help understand what your edit is about. Is it general copy edit or content update?

2) The other user above seems claimed your edit as theirs, hopefully you have only user account but your clarification may help your self.

Bookku (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My edit was a copy edit that fixed a typo: VFF had added a {{multiple image}} template (here) with these parms:

image1= width1= alt1= caption1=

image2= width1= alt2= caption2=

resulting in a "duplicate parm" error for width1=. My fix was to change the obvious typo to width2=.

(I have only this one user account.)

Davemck (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see the confusion: that url above is a diff that spans 7 edits: 6 by VFF and 1 by me. The diff software shows only the last editor (me), making it look like I did all 7 edits; but I did only the width1= edit.

Davemck (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I have already advised to @VenusFeuerFalle about importance of citing only the specific relevant difs. I hope they take care here after. Bookku (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,

This is not a dispute about "identification of jinn with satans". It's about adding information about how "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith".

As for "blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satan", where the hell have there any cites of blogs arguing "for the identification of jinn with satans" in this article?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

and omitting other positions also prevailing in Islamic tradition as also mentioned in secondary literature).

Talkpage The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the Shaitan article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users)

Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.

TheEagle107 hasn't made an edit since June 2 but I should note that what he does suggest at the link above is adding to the lead:

that "The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the Qur'an, and one of its chapters is even named after them." Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that talks about the jinn.

How is this "inappropriate"?? It's backed by secondary sources, would not take up that much space in the lede, and is not stating that Jinn are "essential". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead.

It is a bit frustrating that on the one hand questions to VFF are answered like this:

I think I answers all your objections in my edit summaries. When you want to discuss the issue, please include my reasons and object to those. I do not intent to go forth and back.

On the other hand VFF is patiently "waiting for responses to my objections" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia), which could lead to an immediate ban (WP:HUSH) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to gaming the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

Summary Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them.

Did these people include anyone besides yourself? (There was another unrelated issue -- Comparative mythology -- that I edited here after a RfC here seemed to come to a conclusion. I was wrong, and part of my edit was reverted by User:Aquillion.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value. I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that you are an editor like the other users involved in the dispute, and not some authority to decide who will be given "one last chance". We would all like to spend my time on other things. As for "canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry", feel free to investigate me. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You doing WP:CANVASS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoe_Roe&diff=1232209761&oldid=1232066712 (again) is a reason to report you. So yes, there is a difference between editors being wronged and editors who ignore input. However, Eagle is first, so do not worry. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by facilitator

• For uninitiated: My role here has been largely of good faith discussion facilitator similar to spirit in village pump proposal (under discussion), largely to help involved users to focus on content aspects.
• @VenusFeuerFalle As I replied you at User talk:VenusFeuerFalle#Request to refactor, I had requested everyone of you a neutral summary of content dispute, Whereas what you seem have produced is a surprising WP:wall of text of personalized complaint -seems like breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF, avoidable and uncalled for at this juncture when healthy discussions taking place for RfCs- which at the most should have been discussed at respective user talk page then ANI.
  • For example See at Talk:Borg (drink) user @BanjoZebra provided such a neutral summary - so appreciable and helpful for other users to take a call.
• @Louis P. Boog

1) Quoting other user while rebutting point by point is quite okay; same time one is not supposed to change original post of other user, and leave it as is, so I suggest, though it (VFF post) is a WP:Wall of text you place it back (restore) as it was -let your format of answering as is there is no issue in format of your answering as far as I understand.

My mistake. My plan was to leave the original VenusFeuerFalle (VFF) post unedited and copied and pasted it below as Reply to VFF summary so as to avoid violating the prohibition on changing someone else's original post. I see I messed up a couple of times, I've tried to fix it. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

2) It's true that VFF seem to have been prejudiced from disagreements from other articles and unhappy about requests for updates in this article too and that should have been handled at user talk page, anyways they have posted here and you replied.

• If I am in your place I will try to find who is last active admin at WP:ANI request them on their user talk page to review whatever has been this personalized stuff has been and guide and also if possible to collapse this wall of text section, if possible. Bookku (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Here is my notice to VFF. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Bookku , Reporting back. No success in interesting admins after several attempts. None said they thought there was nothing wrong with VFF's rant, but either they made no reply to my appeal (here, here, here), or they suggested I take it to ANI (here), which I did and they had no response. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe because most of them were not even admins? Maybe because you need follow protocol when you want things to workout??? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they from the admin list and no one complained about violating protocol. Thank you for your concern though. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have had different priorities. Basically all of you involved users wish to have good quality content in the article, then I would suggest attempt to develop this article to WP:Feature article level that will help you getting better guidance and attention from more experienced users all the way. Bookku (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)