User talk:RCSCott91

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RCSCott91 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Hello. If you still object to the definition of Muslims, then check this source. I have not seen any other source define Muslims like you do. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to gate keep. But this concept is so simple to a culturally strict Muslim that the preference for the word adherent over member stems from the fact that member to a non native English speaker gives the feeling that one could leave the faith or be kicked out, which is not possible under Islamic belief.

Please look up any Muslim ruling on the status of a child born to Muslim parents. This argument has been settled for over a thousand years, literally. Across the board Sunni to Shia if both parents are Muslim the child is Muslim even if they have never practiced and in many schools of Islam they extend that even if only the father is Muslim.

If you'll look up what the definition of an adherent and follower of a religion, those are people who practice. But a child who born of two Muslims and adopted by people of another faith is still Muslim even if that child is never a practicing Muslim.

The main point is the people inside a group get to decide how that group defines members not oxford and not through an outside lens. Side note: If we use the word adherent or follower in the Islam page, because of the definition of those words, that 1.9 billion will need to have a caveat on it. I can think of 2 apostates I grew up with who would still be considered Muslim but are neither adherent nor followers of Islam. RCSCott91 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia and this is how we define things - through sources. If a religious group defines people in a certain way, it could be mentioned as a point-of-view, but for factual statements, we rely on scholars. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The religious group in question is all of Islam. The religious scholars would be the Imams and Ulama who have made those rulings and opinions.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130231/a-small-child-follows-the-religion-of-whichever-of-his-parents-is-muslim

It even has proper sources.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adherent

A blaspheming person against islam in theory doesn't believe in Islam, thus are not an adherent. By the definition they would no longer be a Muslim. Islam doesn't allow exiting of the faith, after declaration, you are Muslim even if you stop practicing. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IslamQA is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. Articles are not written exclusively in the Islamic perspective. That would not be in line with WP:NPOV. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the definition of adherent would be in line, invalidating the reason to use that word, you just used it as a source to me. Wait, IslamQA specifically writes articles in the Islamic perspective, it's literally the point. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really about the perspective but about its reliability. You can read the archives on why it is considered unreliable. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the reasoning. I agree with the reasoning. The potentiality is there for abuse from one sect. The cites in it are valid and predate Salafism by nearly 800 years.

It is very frustrating trying to find a non religious source that supports this about Islam. I mean there are a ton of sources but they are all religious which means they probably come from a specific school. I can't think of any school of Islam that doesn't see a child of two Muslims has a Muslim automatically but getting a decent unbiased source that I would feel comfortable presenting doesn't seem possible. Please know that the belief is extremely common amongst Muslims,

I do stand by Adherent not being the correct word. Also, Pew, where that 1.9 billion Muslim figure estimate comes from uses a measure that looks for how someone identifies and not their religious adherence. So using that word and that fact literally in the same paragraph seems like we are switching between definitions mid breath.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/07/05/how-does-pew-research-center-measure-the-religious-composition-of-the-u-s-answers-to-frequently-asked-questions/ RCSCott91 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not quite understand you here since adherence is actually about self-identification. If you find any reliable source about this perspective, you can add it in the article. It can be an academic who wrote about this perspective too. Keep in mind that academics can be religious too and they are reliable too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your first sentence logic, I can self identify as a vegan but eat steak and I'm still a vegan.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adherent

Well...https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/273808/children-are-muslims-if-only-one-parent-is-muslim

Would that work? I'm not joking, such a common belief in Islam. This one took the stance of either parent being Muslim and the child is Muslim. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my bad but practicing is also part of the definition. Surveys are not really good for such matters plus that survey limits itself to the US. If it is as common as you claim, you would not have trouble finding it in reliable sources. Anyway, I will let others weigh in, if they are interested, on the article's talk page. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it in a non religious source is the issue. I apologize that I equated a religious source with being unreliable. There are a ton of religious sources claiming same as me, just no non religious ones that I can find thru simple web search. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyway, I will let others weigh in, if they are interested, on the article's talk page." I tried just that, it's probably because my context was inadequate or the framing of the question. Not sure how to get others to weigh in on that question. RCSCott91 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can still ask the reference desk. By the way, editors are not willing to discuss unless you bring up sources. No one will consider changing or adding content without one. A source is always the key. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I thought requesting a source through that, one that wasn't simply from any specific Islamic school of thought. Thank you so much for breaking that down for me. I've accepted that adderant is just the word preference and I can't in good conscious push to change it.

If you were serious about having never before known about what constitute inclusion in the Muslim people. IE: People who disavow after conversion are still considered Muslim and a child born of Muslim parents is Muslim by blood instead of just by birth as the belief is we are all born in fitra, which is Muslim like.

Please, look at some of the religious schools of thought, I know they are not objective and each school can't speak for the faith as a whole but it is a pretty standard belief across the board. Plus you will learn a lot of cool theological details about Islam on the way. RCSCott91 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Islam. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

~~Points to note:~~

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz I am not edit warring. I attempted to change the word adderant when describing Muslims because based on the oxford definition of that word and the theological beliefs of what included a Muslim, the term seemed disingenuous. IE: a child born of Muslim parents of an apostate are still Muslims, no adderance required so member would be a better word in English. In hindsight, there is a better full sentence later in Islam page that avoids the use of either the word "member" or "adherent", "the statement being, individually referred to as Muslims, collectively referred to as the Ummah". which is both more inclusive Ummah being the correct Arabic term for all of the Islamic people, not just those who are practicing.

After the word adherent was changed for the second time, this time with an over explained explanation as to why. If you look on my talk page between Stephen Macky, you will see a back and forth. I have accepted that I am unable to find a neutral source, IE. one that does come from one of the schools of Islam, although to my knowledge nearly all Islamic schools of thought hold this overarching belief, that once you join you are always Muslim and a child born of Muslim parents is born Muslim. I even tried putting a question in the talk page of the Islam page, it was closed, although probably due to not enough context for its reason.

If you look at my edits, the one of contentious nature, changing the word "Adherent" to "Member" to be inclusive of all Muslims. I made the edit twice and only attempted the second time because the person who changed it back the first also changed back indivisible to incomparable with reference to Allah concept of Tawhid, which is a separate concept called Al-Ghayb, they also somehow having less edits than even me, which made me believe they were someone who may not have perfect command of English language and thought member in that case meant like in a club that can kick you out which is understandable from the perspective of an adult English learner.

Main point: I am not warring. All of my edits have been tidying and making the page better by either adding sources, linking relevant pages, or adding sourced context/content. RCSCott91 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought I was in trouble the two times I changed the word adherent in the Islam page.

I didn't see the rollback. I'm not warring, literally was just adding sourced context, sources, and linking the relevant pages. Ex. Islam page describes Al-Ghayb, you have a wiki page for it but you didn't have it linked. 2603:6011:5B0A:32:3B3D:BDA0:3D1F:C45C (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RCSCott91, apologies about that, I misread the situation and have struck out the warning for edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, worries. I'm aware how it looks especially considering my number of edits. I have no ill intentions. I do stand by the substance of the roll backed edits.

But I will bring each into the talk page, to be individually discussed for consensus especially considering the contentious nature of the Islam page. I'm confident with proper sourcing, most of my suggestions would reach consensus.

Thank you for taking the time to read my reply and investigate the situation. RCSCott91 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]