Books
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Islam

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pinging @Bastun: who reviewed this page and found no problems. Apparently the User:UrielAcosta is hellbent on deleting almost all the content on this article because the user claim it is WP:PROMO. That is, snippets of third party book reviews and journal articles, are allegedly "promotional" (even articles which attempt to refute the book). This doesn't make any sense since reviews and journal articles are routinely used for articles about books on Wikipedia. Thismess (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that it is not enough that content be sourced, it must also be relevant and appropriate for an encyclopedia. I gave specific explanations in the edit summaries of the reasons I removed content, reasons which were not addressed in the edit summaries restoring it, which merely said that it was sourced (which was not the reason given for removing it).

UrielAcosta (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit restoring specifically rejected that there is anything "promotional" about third party book reviews and journal articles, which are routinely used for book articles on Wikipedia. It is you who have to explain why this article is different, why it is suddenly not allowed to use those sources in an article about a book, when it IS perfectly relevant and appropriate, nothing indicates it isn't. Thismess (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove all book reviews, and I made clear in my summaries that the problem was not the presence of reviews but the excessive use of them. So neither of your stated reasons for reverting them (that they are sourced, and that book reviews are commonly quoted on Wikipedia) actually addresses the specific reasons I gave for removing them. Please read the linked guidelines that I have cited in my edit summaries and then, if you still think the content should be restored, seek consensus on the talk page first. UrielAcosta (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So anything more than half a sentence is "excessive"? You seriously claim that we can't use a source for anything more than half a sentence in an article? And you even completely deleted two journal sources, the image of the book cover, and the short description template that was added by user @Entranced98: Thismess (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again attributing to me things that I did not say, as you have done repeatedly. Please stop doing so, and in general stop treating what should be a discussion of edits as a personal argument with another editor, something which has already required me to remove one of your comments per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. UrielAcosta (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attributed to you your edits, which have left only about half a sentence for most of the sources if you haven't deleted them completely, that you have not "said" it is irrelevant. Thismess (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, both of you, please consider this as a three-revert rule warning. Discuss, don't edit war. Thismess, this is standard practice, per WP:BRD, and UrielAcosta is correct that the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate why something should be included, after they have indicated why it shouldn't be. UrielAcosta, you have been careless with your reverts, repeatedly removing the book's image when, by your edit summaries, you just wanted to remove text. Please restore the image. I do not understand why the quote from Spencer was removed; it seems relevant and pertinent. The reviews from journals/authors with their own WP articles should definitely be included. The full quotes were also relevant and pertinent, and weren't promotional. While a source having its own WP article is an indicator of notability, the absence of such an article is not necessarily an indicator that a source isn't notable. This is especially the case where a source isn't from the western world - there is a significant (and understandable) geo-political weight in the articles we have, favouring western sources. But, for example, Rahat-Ul-Quloob appears to be a reputable journal with peer-review, editorial board, etc., quoted on Google Scholar.[1][2]. It is absolutely WP:DUE for inclusion. I am not going to go through all the other removals, but I suggest you do. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]