Jump to content

Talk:Islam in Kerala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Muslims of Kerala)

Shia and other sects Muslims of Kerala?

[edit]

Please help updating with other minority sects Muslims in Kerala including Shias including Bohras common in Mattanchery,Kochi,Kozhikode areas. many Gujarati muslims are Shias. they have their own mosques. Ahmedis/Qadiyanis are present all over Kerala doing missionary work among Mappilas and their worship places can be seen in every major town in north/central Kerala and some southern Keralan towns. Aga Khanis, Khariji etc are diaspora of north Indian muslims. also, please list the important centres of Mappila muslims in Kerala like Malabar towns, central kerala towns like ponnani,kodungallur,vadanappally, chavakkad, aluva, perumbavoor,muvattupuzha-kothamangalam and south towns like karunagappilly, kollam etc. Sunni Muslims in Kerala also differ. Mappilas are a majority only till Ernakulam district. Hanafis coming from Tamilnadu are predominant in south towns. is it correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praka123 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing

[edit]

There is some poor sourcing in this article. A notable example is the Indian Kanoon reference, which is WP:PRIMARY. We never cite legal judgements directly in situations such as this because they are always open to interpretation. It will have to be replaced with a reliable secondary source. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush I added the primary because I am not sure if there are any English newspapers from the locality who are published online. I do have secondary source but it is archived, I have no idea about WP policy on archived sources. would like(and appreciate) your input
Secondary source http://archive.thedailystar.net/law/2004/03/03/index.htm
Second para last line. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with archived sources. There is also nothing wrong with non-English sources but there are a few hoops that you would need to bear in mind - see WP:NOENG. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sitush Thanks man. I appreciate the help. I'll put this up for the time being and when I find the other source I will put that up. Finding a 40 year old Kerala newspaper is gonna be daunting FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I wouldn't bother looking for the non-English source if the Daily Star one does the job. The latter is in English and is written by an associate professor of law - I think it is acceptable in its own right. The only proviso would be if there are sources that dispute what the writer said. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to using the Daily Star source that is linked above? - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. You can add the source if you think it satisfies the criteria for a good source.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I object to using the Daily Star source Sitush, because it does not meet WP:NEWSORG. You need a reputable news source from which to extract statements of fact as mentioned in the aforementioned page. Please find an alternate source, otherwise the statement in the article should be deleted. Alternatively, it seems FreeatlastChitchat could find the information from a well-established news source, from a non-english source if that would do the job. Mbcap (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What relevant bit of NEWSORG does it not comply with? - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First thing first; I do not appreciate you accusing me before letting me know on my talk page. Moving on, the statement does not comply with the following:
""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it."
Please let me know why you think the source is a well-established news outlet. Plus, I though this was a non-issue. The other editor said that there is another non-English source so why do you not just add that one in instead. Mbcap (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been in operation for at least a decade, so I think the onus might be on you to explain why it is not a "well-established" outlet. Provided that we note that the thing is the opinion of a legal expert, I really don't see what the problem is. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Operating since 1991, actually. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also mention that as per WP:NEWSORG;"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

As you can see if you click on the daily star link, the source is an opinion piece so therefore the source cannot be used as a statement of fact. Mbcap (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained how we will handle that. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush Yes I think I know what you mean. I missed the bit where you said we will note that it is the opinion of a legal expert. In that case, I withdraw my objection to using the source. Mbcap (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadi persecution

[edit]

Can we have a rock-solid source that explains why the Ahmadis are persecuted in Pakistan? The sentence would then read something like "The Ahmadi community are persecuted in Pakistan because they do not accept Muhammad as the only prophet" (or whatever it is, with a citation immediately following). - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that just writing the linked text is enough. The reasons for their persecution are various. So instead of adding them here, we should just add the linked text which takes the reader to the Persecution of Ahmadiyyah page. Ty for you input.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a good idea. Articles should stand on their own sources wherever possible, in part because things might change at the linked article and that would have a knock-on/domino effect. There is an argument in favour of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but not one that really works well, and certainly not here because without a source for the statement etc the implication is that the source we do have actually covers this sentence also, which was not in fact the case. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, I too was referring to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but I see that your argument carries weight. I think we can used the info and the source from the persecution article. They are very good(secondary, thirdparty, genuine authors and widely accepted). To be honest it is either that or we start a new search to gather sources, which is kinda bizzare. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a suitable source in the linked article that supports a simple explanation achieved through slight expansion of the existing sentence here then that should do the job. Without some sort of explanation, the statement about persecution dangles a bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of India

[edit]

@Sitush: The content removed in this edit is sourced to a Voice of India Publication, hardly the most reliable. The content itself might be accurate, but the source needs replacing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of India is a joke and shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia, not because they're always wrong but because it they blend fact and fiction in a manner that is plain loopy. In this instance, while not commenting on the exact numbers (I think they originated in an equally dodgy report of the 1881 or 1891 census), I don't think there is much doubt that many conversions during Tipu Sultan's time were forcible. They involved involuntary circumcision etc, IIRC. Shouldn't take me long to find some sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All this said, it probably is important to balance things, especially in view of that census report - the Brits demonised Tipu even during his lifetime, saying that he tortured and forcibly converted members of their armed forces. See, for example, this. It might also be worth bearing in mind the context of his letter, which was sent when he was appealing for help from the Ottoman Empire (see, for example, [1]). A great general overview of British attitudes to Islam is JSTOR 10884, which actually mentions the anecdotal record (from 1793) that was later used in the census re: forced circumcision and eating of beef. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in Kerala. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mappila

[edit]

I have just removed a load of info from Mappila because it appeared to relate more to Islam in Kerala generally than to the Mappila people specifically. Some of what I removed might be relevant for this article, although not all of the sources were great. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove such large portions of the article without any consensus. Discuss the details in the Mappila article talk page, reach editor consensus and then remove the parts of the article.

AbuBer (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above is as irrelevant to this article as the removed material at Mappila was irrelevant to that article. Please try to focus. - Sitush (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the details in the (Mappila) article talk page. Please keep the discussion on a single page.

AbuBer (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I do not understand you even raising the issue here. My note was to let people know that there may be useful info in the history of that article. You're the one who created the subsequent mess of irrelevance in this section. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to take part in the discussion in the (Mappila) article talk page.

AbuBer (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

[edit]

Can I add this to the demography section?

In 2015, 42.87 % of births were recorded as Hindus, 41.45 % Muslim, and 15.42% Christian.[1] In 2016, total annual births to Muslim parents surpassed that of Hindus for the first time.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Government of Kerala Annual Vital Statistics Report - 2015" (PDF). February 2017: 21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ "Government of Kerala Annual Vital Statistics Report - 2016" (PDF). September 2017: 21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Communities

[edit]

I think it's relevant to mention that Today, Muslims in kerala are given reservation under the Other Backward Communities category. Don't you think it's relevant?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_Kerala&oldid=1207748284"