Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Exchange copied over per editor's request

Per WP:TPO, closing section created by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As you're so knowledgeable about this, can you explain why @NeilN: put a similar notice on my talk re Muhammad images when that was dealt with by individual arb sanctions with no general sanctions whatsoever? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you on about now? Pages related to Muhammad are subject to discretionary sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 16:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. There's no policy that says a caption is exempt. Indeed, if it was a caption to a scientific diagram could be seriously misleading. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take this to the article talk page rather than here, that's the appropriate venue. SPACKlick (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced, factual information

Per WP:TPO, closing section created by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Factual information was included relevant to the artistic presentation of a picture in this article and was reverted. This is contrary to Wikipedia practice, which only permits facts to be suppressed in certain limited circumstances, which do not apply here. All edits must have a coherent edit summary explaining why a particular course of action was taken. Please provide a fully reasoned explanation of your revert. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It was pointy disruption. Continue and I'll bring the matter to WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The guidance to which you refer shows that your analysis is wrong. It says

editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".

The onus is on you to say why you consider the material to be disruptive, and why the normal rules about neutrality and sourcing should be suspended in this instance. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the RFC close: "The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section." This will be my last post on this matter. I maintain your edit was pointy and if you continue to make it, I'll bring up your behavior at ANI. --NeilN talk to me 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The issue is that readers must be presented with material that is neutral as far as point of view is concerned. Sectarian propaganda does not come under that heading. If you're not prepared to discuss in a reasonable manner you should remove the offending material instead of insisting on its retention in a POINTy way. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm responding to NeilN's post of 17:46 on his talk page here so that other editors can be aware of the discussion. The issue is that the views of other art experts were added to the article to balance it per WP:NPOV. NeilN has removed them because they don't align with his personal view. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obvious you didn't like the way the RFC was closed so you've decided to mess around with the caption which currently consists of a sourced, attributed interpretation of the image relevant to the section. --NeilN talk to me 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't get it into your head that some editors actually care about WP:NPOV and like to edit articles accordingly. It's rare that all experts agree. Editors need to be vigilant to thwart the less scrupulous who remove the views of experts just because their assessment is not in line with their own. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The RFC closing statement didn't deal with the NPOV concerns, hence shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Also, Hillenbrand's "sectarian" conclusion is notable, and usually the sole reason why reliable sources refer to his paper and this image set. It is disingenuous to ignore his conclusion and pass this image/MS. as neutral. Wiqi(55) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Images can have different interpretations. The image is in the article because one accepted interpretation is relevant to the article section. It is no accident that the IP seeks to omit or minimize the prominence of this interpretation. [1], [2] --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, do you have a source refuting Hillenbrand's conclusion about this Ms. and its illustrator? If not, then why should we treat this primary source as neutral even though reliable sources recognize as "sectarian" and "polemical"? Wiqi(55) 01:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You're using the same argument that is used to try to get images removed from Muhammad - the painter wasn't a "true" Muslim, the painting was done to insult Islam, etc. What caption would you propose? --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I partially edited the current caption a few years ago, but I wasn't aware of Hillenbrand's paper back then. Now I think the image should be removed. We usually don't refer to biased primary sources unless we're making a point about bias. And I'll always take the side of reliable sources against your other stuff exists. That said, if the image must be kept, then I'd support mentioning the sectarian and polemical purpose per Hillenbrand. Wiqi(55) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I opposed IP 87...'s recently proposed edits is that there is way too much text and detail for what should only be a footnote to a figure caption (other reasons are his misrepresenting of Hillenbrand's paper and adding his own research).

There is already a WP entry on Biruni's book where such detail and discussion would be far more appropriate. Why not open a new section on the Muhammad illustrations in the illustrated mss of this work and editors who claim that important and unused scholarly references are missing can add them there.

The figure caption footnote on this page can then be kept concise and could either refer to the other WP page or should only refer to one of the more detailed studies on these illustrations such as Soucek (1975) or Hillenbrand (2000). AstroLynx (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You're twisting the facts again. The relevance of the artist not being a Muslim is that it gives the lie to Hillenbrand's claim that the picture is a deep theological statement relative to Muhammad's dogma that the divinely ordained number of months in the year is twelve.
God was capable enough to arrange that the sun and the moon are the same size - some people think that's a mystery although it's due to the sun being 400 times larger and 400 times further away. So if Muhammad was right God would have arranged for twelve months equals one year, not 12 1/3 months equals one year.
Since the "deep theological significance" argument is tosh, that means that the image of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is just that - Muhammad preaching in a mosque. Given that this article is about the Islamic calendar, the picture's relevance is peripheral at best.
Nowhere in my caption do I say "the painting was done to insult Islam". You go on to say "What caption would you propose?" despite the fact that Wiqi55 has indicated that my wording is satisfactory and there is consensus for it. You were the one who repeatedly removed sources without any attempt at dialogue although a talk page thread had been opened for that very purpose.
Your record on POV pushing is appalling. You give yourself an accolade for upholding NPOV above in your usual pleasant style:

...trying to smear editors (and me) for trying to make sure sexually - related articles meet our content guidelines. This is what you've sunk to?

However, when other editors do the same they get abuse:

It's obvious you didn't like the way the RFC was closed so you've decided to mess around with the caption which currently consists of a sourced, attributed interpretation of the image, relevant to the section.

Indeed it does, because you nuked all the other sourced, attributed interpretations. And I thought your mantra was "Wikipedia is not censored".

This post was drafted before Vgent's intervention, and I would just say this. Generally, quoting one source and referring the readers elsewhere for others would be giving undue weight to that one source. This is doubly unfair on the reader, since he comes here to learn about the Islamic calendar, not to be lectured on Islamic art. This just shows the unreasonableness of these people in insisting on the use of this particular image, despite the fact that an online petition secured 400,000 signatures against it (which may be a record for all I know). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi55 indicated no such thing. The fact that you think a caption is a lecture on Islamic art and that you give credence to an online petition calling for the censorship of Wikipedia only reinforces why you've been trying to get rid of the image for years - WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If we go with Vgent we will get a lecture on Islamic art. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Further comment - if 400,000 people vote Democrat in an election for a State legislature and one person votes Republican you presumably think the Republican should be elected. (Don't quote me - I have no idea how state elections work in your country:)). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Wiqi55. The "no true Muslim" argument has failed. There is zero evidence to support Hillenbrand's claim and Genevieve doesn't claim anything. Priscilla - who knows?

if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Wikipedia by not including it.

AstroLynx's suggestion to cite Hillenbrand and ditch the others is cherrypicking sources - see the admonition against this.[3]. If a wall of text is needed to justify the inclusion of something which is peripheral to the article let's just remove it and get back to building an encyclopaedia. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As you still seem fixated on removing the image, despite the RFC, see the admonition against tendentious editing. --NeilN talk to me 12:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone who has contributed to this discussion is agreed that the current caption is non - neutral and needs to change. So instead of slagging off other editors, why don't you do something constructive - i.e. agree that the proposed wording is satisfactory or (if that is the case) suggest a wording which you think is better? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The current wording is significantly better than anything that has been proposed. --NeilN talk to me 14:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Nor do I see any reason to change the caption as it is. It is concise and to the point and if necessary any further references and observations pertaining to this particular image are probably better given on the WP page on Biruni's book on chronology. Note that this image is used on several WP pages and it would be silly to have to repeat the same arguments again and again on all these other WP pages. AstroLynx (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The current caption is well sourced and provides as neutral a reading of the information presented in the image as will likely be achievable in an image caption. More detail can go on the relevant page for the image. SPACKlick (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN said that Wiqi55 was using the "no true musselman" argument against the caption. I don't see that at all. Wiqi55's argument was not that. His/her complaints (and mine) were:
  • Ali was given undue prominence in the picture.
  • The expert opinion is that the picture is biased to promote the Shia view, and WP:NPOV requires no favouring of one side over the other.
  • Per the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Direct link to wikidata entry in infoboxes the references must link to material cited in the article, not in some other article as suggested by AstroLynx. In any event, what may be opined in a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source.
  • On the face of it, the picture is of Muhammad preaching in a mosque, the sources say that he prohibited intercalation in the open air on camelback, and Hillenbrand's suggestion that the non - Muslim painter was expressing in art a belief that the divinely ordained number of months in the year was twelve was not supported by evidence. In fact the Persians had twelve months plus a "little month" of five days (similar to the French Revolutionary Calendar).
  • The caption misrepresents the sources, since it suppresses expert opinion that this is not a representation of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.

You're supposed to engage in intelligent discussion, not just keep repeating "I am right because I say so" without engaging the issues and analysing the opposing arguments. WP:NPOV is non - negotiable, so if you can't prove your case anyone can remove both the image and the caption. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • No undue prominence is apparent within the picture
  • No sources of bias in the original source have been presented since the RFC and the opinion of the RFC was that the image relating to intercalation was in neutral and reliable enough sources.
  • Is not an objection to using the image
  • The consensus view of the RFC of a variety of editors was that the image did represent that, no evidence has been presented since that was not presented during. If there is more to say on the image it can be said on Al Biruni's page.
People are engaging in intelligent discussion but other people are stamping their feet at not getting their own way. SPACKlick (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You wish to rehash the RFC - simple as that. Not interested. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the close can be justified by the arguments. The specific problem is

the prominent placement of ahl al - Bayt: al - Hussien is favored over al - Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc.

Also, the expert opinion is that this image has sectarian purposes. The close does not address these issues so cannot be used to support your argument. It does not address the point that

Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov.

It makes no mention of the experts cited in the argument who say the picture is not Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. It makes no allowance for the fact that the picture will give the readers the mistaken idea that the pilgrims (thousands of them) gathered in a mosque to hear the Prophet speak.

I've read right through the RfC and nowhere does the argument say that "the image relating to intercalation was in neutral ... sources". Even if it did say that, it happens all the time that biased images are presented in neutral sources - that's objective scholarship.

"The RFC and the opinion of the RFC was that the image relating to intercalation was in ... reliable enough sources". The image is in al - Biruni and al - Biruni is a reliable source. So what?

"No sources of bias in the original source have been presented". I don't think you've ever seen a copy of either al - Biruni's or Hillenbrand's book in your life. Hillenbrand argues that the pictures are biased, not the book they appear in, and all later commentators agree with him. An artist with a political agenda is not going to be worried about faithfully portraying what is described in the text, so the fact that al - Biruni mentions that Muhammad prohibited intercalation is no basis for latching on to that to say that the artist decided to portray him prohibiting intercalation. Why should he decide to paint a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation when the reader who sees him in a pulpit addressing his followers will read no more into it than him giving a sermon? His purpose was to portray the Shiites cosying up to the Prophet so why should he have given a tinker's c*ss about the subject of the sermon?

"Is not an objection to using the image". - if an argument that an image misrepresents Islamic art and bears a caption misrepresenting scholarly opinion as to what it represents is not an objection to using the image what do you think it is?

There's no intelligent discussion from you people. It's just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just spotted NeilN's post of 15:36. "Not interested" sums it up nicely - more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Replying to AstroLynx - as confirmed at the Village Pump, references must be to cites within the article and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Thanks for alerting me to the use of biased art on other Wikipedia pages - if I find anything there that isn't neutral and doesn't comply with sourcing rules I'll remove it. If you think Wikipedia's policy on citation and neutrality is wrong go to the Village Pump and make a fool of yourself. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the close can be justified by the arguments. In short tough. Dispute the close at ANI (there may be a more apt venue but if there is I'm not aware of it) if you think the closer acted wrongly but until it's overturned the RFC close represents the consensus of wikipedia and your arguments are not overturning it with those engaging here. SPACKlick (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You edit like NeilN, who is notorious for something - [4]. Your editing is just f*ck, f*ck, f*ck.[5] I haven't suggested challenging the close - that suggestion comes from you. You make a lot of noise about following the guidelines, and how you're the white knight around here who reverts everyone else who doesn't (in your opinion). Consider this - do we need an RfC every time an editor adds a sourced fact to an article? Of course not. The sourced facts added were:
  • Hillenbrand says the depiction of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is a fiction for which his suggested explanation is that it is designed to make a theological point.
  • T W Arnold's view is that this is not a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.
  • Yvette and Marie - Genevieve do not explain how a picture of a man preaching in a mosque can be attributed to the prohibition of intercalation when we know that this was done in the open, on camelback in front of thousands.
  • The picture shows shiites cosying up to the Prophet and is intended for propaganda purposes, rather than to illustrate an abstruse theological point.

The WP:BURDEN is on you to show why sourced facts should be removed and why editors should be allowed to make an end - run round WP:NPOV. If you do nothing, then any editor is free to remove the disputed content. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Trawling through my edit history hunting for discrediting remarks is disingenuous and smacks of bad faith
2) The original intention of the picture has little to do with its use here. Whether or not it was drawn to make shiites look good or used to make shiites look good is neither here nor there.
3) The RFC shows that the content is not disputed consensus was reached, as assed by the closer that the image should remain. This consensus was assessed against all our policies and guidleines whether specifically raised or not. To challenge it would be to declare the closer wrong and to do that you need to do that rather than whine here. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

as assed by the closer

Couldn't agree more. Read what I wrote. I am not going to "whine" (as you put it) at ANI that the close was wrong.

This consensus was assessed against all our policies and guidleines [sic] whether specifically raised or not.

Source for that claim? Try referring to Newyorkbrad before opening your mouth. We know that Wikipedia is not a court of law but he has said that he and his fellow experts set up the dispute resolution mechanism to be as close as possible. Every legal system has a provision under which fresh evidence can be adduced at any time. In Wikipedia, that's done by adding facts and referencing them. It's done a hundred thousand times a day. So don't be so presumptious as to claim that editors are not allowed to add content to articles.

By linking the picture to the text you put the original intention of the artist in issue. The text refers to prohibition of intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage. The caption says the picture is of prohibition of intercalation. The reader will infer (not synthesise) that the Farewell Pilgrimage consisted of six shiites gathered in a mosque listening to Muhammad preach.

The caption relies solely on Hillenbrand's passing statement that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Hillenbrand makes it clear that that interpretation is only valid if the artist was making some abstruse theological point. However, all experts are agreed that the artist's purpose was aggrandisement of the shiites at the expense of the sunnis.

Doing some trawling of your edit history (thanks for giving me the idea) I see that you fancy yourself as an administrator (God help us) and Bishonen has told you to shut up. Frankly your language to her is disgusting.[6] 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference to the ANI thread, this consensus is not phantom. It's an RFC still on this page. Immediately above this section. Which you participated in and are therefore fully aware of. Which closed less than 50 days ago. And you started this thread 2 days after that close, in response to actions against the consensus formed at that RFC. Link. Drop this, accept that the user base has concluded the picture can be used for this purpose and stop stalking editors it's cheap. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary is nonsense. It is verifiable that François Hollande visited an orphanage yesterday. Doesn't mean it belongs in his biography. The IP, for as long as they've been editing here, should know that WP:V does not mean guaranteed inclusion. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The RFC closing statement didn't deal adequately or explicitly with the two issues raised, thus not sure why it should stifle this discussion. The two issues are 1) including material that reliable sources consider as having a sectarian/polemical function in this article, and 2) ignoring reliable sources that do not link this image to intercalation. I've been reading this discussion on and off and I haven't seen a compelling answer to these two points. Wiqi(55) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
But in the RFC they were raised and considered. They have been since. 1) The image may have been created with sectarian or polemic intent, that doesn't preclude it from being used in non-sectarian/non-polemical ways here. 2) A broader discussion of this image should be found at the work it's in. The image caption is to say why the image is here, because it is believed, by a reliable source, to depict something relevant to this article. Simples. SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the image is being used here in the same context that reliable sources have described as sectarian (i.e., illustrating a neutral text about calendars). So your claim that it's "being used in non-sectarian/non-polemical ways" is nonsensical. Your 2nd point shows that you have very little experience in content editing. We are not supposed to give preference for one source and ignore others. In this case, reliable sources differ on caption and pertinence. This article must reflect these differences to meet WP:NPOV. Wiqi(55) 17:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not used in the same context and the RFC above concluded that it was not here used for nefarious or sectarian purpose and did not purport a nefarious or sectarian message. This article is not about the image, or about the meaning of the image. This article is about the calendar so a deep discussion of the meaning and purpose of the image would be inappropriate here per WP:V and I quote While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The content is disputed. The consensus appears to be to include that content on the page relevant to the image and to include the image here captioned as a relevant illustration. Policy is against you, consensus is against you. SPACKlick (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content

You said it yourself. You and NeilN want to include this crap, everyone else doesn't. So out it will go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry 87.81 but that's not true. You want to add some additional "crap" and Wiqi wants to include additional "crap" NeilN and I are arguing to not include it on this page. The onus is on you to overcome consensus. As already stated the RFC above approved the image as was. No discussion of the caption in that RFC or previous attempts to remove the image has gained consensus to change the caption. Make your cae but stop trying to wikilawyer your conclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You do not understand how editors make use of sources. If you choose to use a source the onus is on you to summarise it dispassionately. Hillenbrand starts off by saying that it's highly unlikely that the artist would choose to illustrate Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. He then speculates that, if he were deeply religious, he might construct a fictitious scene involving the Prophet prohibiting intercalation in a mosque. If you don't make it clear to readers that this is speculation unbacked by fact then you are misrepresenting the source. Because it cannot be verified that the artist was deeply religious you also fail to meet the verifiability guideline. In fact, experts are of the opinion that the illustrator was a poor artist who was commissioned by a bookseller to make a volume more attractive to a rich ruler.
The artist wasn't being paid to depict boring historically accurate scenes. He was being paid to spice up a Shiite ruler's book in a way that would be pleasing to him. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not dispute that the image is an illustration created, with little reference to historical fact, in order to illustrate a manuscript as commissioned by a ruler with a particular interpretation of islam. I do dispute the relevance of that fact here. Nobody is claiming "This is exactly how intercalation happened".
As much as you claim I don't understand how editors make use of sources you seem to be struggling with what consensus means and how wikipedia works. You make no argument worthy of over-ruling the above consensus and have yet, on the talk page, to propose a relevant change to the article.SPACKlick (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Strawman argument. You are claiming that the picture is an image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. The closer did not say that that claim was correct, nor would he because the evidence he had to consider was that of the experts who had investigated the provenance of the picture one denied the claim outright and the other said that it could be true but only in very unlikely circumstances. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you might need to read the closer's statement again

The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section.
— [[User: HiDrNick!]] 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What salient point do you think @HiDrNick: was referring to? I've notified them so they can answer. Also note, I'm not saying the image is an image of mohammed forbidding intercalation. I'm saying that it is or likely is an illustration of mohammed forbidding intercalation. SPACKlick (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Previously you denied any possibility of this being anything other than Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. So we seem to be making progress. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
My position hasn't changed in the slightest but you seem to be missing the distinction being drawn between an image IS a thing and an image is an ILLUSTRATION of a thing. Here we have an illustration intended to illustrate an event. Even if the facts of the illustration and the facts of the event wildly differ it can still be an illustration of that event.SPACKlick (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's ever been suggested that the image is Muhammad. The nearest analogy would be the Roman Catholic interpretation of the sanctified bread and wine in the Mass as "really" (in it's old sense, opposite to the way the word is used today) the true body and blood of Christ. That is, the "accidents" (appearances) remain unchanged, so that they are indistinguishable from bread and wine.
As the artist hasn't said this is an illustration of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, why do you prefer the non - intuitive interpretation (a fictitious representation of him prohibiting intercalation) to the obvious one (a factual illustration of Muhammad discoursing with his shiite followers in a mosque)? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To try and bring this back to the issue. The agreed points as far as I can see are;

  • This image we show is a copy created in or about the 17th century of an original illustration from Al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (a.k.a. Chronology of Ancient Nations).
  • The section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage.

are either of the above in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So why don't you craft a caption building on the above? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Before I move on I want to confirm, you agree neither of the above are in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not me. You have to get a consensus of the editors who participate in the discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, I'm pretty confident everyone agrees on those two points except you, given the pre-existing consensus but why not state clearly whether you agree with those two points? SPACKlick (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're confident go ahead and do it. End of story. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is my point, given the above 2 points, the current caption is satisfactory. SPACKlick (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You agree that this is no more than a picture of Muhammad added to a manuscript at a point where his name is mentioned. Just to point to an inconsistency in the logic,

section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months

does not equal

Muhammad prohibiting Nasi

You are presumably familiar with Boolean operators in computing - if you coded a logical inconsistency like that your programme would not work. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That depends on how well you code for them. You are also familiar with the fact that English, as a means of transmitting information is not purely logical?
It is perfectly fine to caption an image of a speaker giving a speech in which they calls for higher taxes "Speaker calling for higher taxes in his speech at place and time" You'll see it in newspapers all the time. The image isn't necessarily at the moment the words "tax rises" comes out of their mouth, but it's the event where they did it and the image would be similar enough either way. Also note, I didn't say "no more than a picture of Muhammad added to a manuscript at a point where his name is mentioned.". SPACKlick (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
But if a report of the Pope at a conference describing the Turkish massacre of Christians in 1915 was accompanied by a picture of him preaching in St Peter's you couldn't accurately caption the picture as "Pope Francis preaching against genocide". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well there your slightly running into an issue of difference between illustrations and photos. SPACKlick (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A photo is factual. An illustration can be anything that takes the painter's fancy. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes and because an illustration is created, and here noted to be created well after the event, the reader understands that not all the details will be perfectly accurate to the event, or even indicate the event ever happened. (for instance there are plenty of illustrations of George slaying the Dragon). SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. So you have no mandate to say that a picture of Muhammad preaching to the founding fathers of shiism in a mosque is "Muhammad prohibiting Nasi". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly. This is an illustration of Mohammed giving the farewell sermon where he prohibited Nasi. That's what we can say about it. You can't call a picture of George slaying the dragon not a picture of George slaying the dragon because the text clearly says Oak woods and the image shows pines. It's an illustration, the contents are not expected to be 100% accurate to any version of the facts. They are interpretive and every reader knows that. Nobody is being misled by the current image and caption. SPACKlick (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. In the example you give we have a picture of a man slaying a dragon. Where in this picture are the thousands of pilgrims, Mount Ararat and the camel which would enable you to make this logical leap. And how do you explain away the presence of mosque furniture? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The same way I explain the pine trees and the swords and the dragon in the George picture. Artists interpretation. As I said, an illustration will not confirm to everyone's interpretation of a story, it may differe wildly, that doesn't stop it being an illustration of that event and discussing the differences between the contents of the image and the narrative is not appropriate in the caption. SPACKlick (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Beam me up, Scotty. If we're going to divorce what is in the picture from our interpretation of it then you can equally logically caption it "Muhammad hailing a taxi in Oxford Street". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No we can't because it was not created to illustrate a passage about Mohammed hailing a taxi in Oxford street (also hailing a taxi is generally a shorter event than giving a speech so there'd be more discussion as to precisely what it illustrated) In this case, it illustrates mohammed giving the farewell sermon and prohibiting Nasi. So it's an illustration of mohammed giving the farewell sermon and prohibiting nasi. See?SPACKlick (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Further up on this board there's an analysis of this series of pictures. Among them there is one of somebody being chastised for sodomy. Where does al - Biruni discuss someone being punished for sodomy in a work on chronology? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Further proof of how little you know about the actual contents of al-Biruni's work. This scene refers to the pseudo-prophet Ibn Abi-Zakariyya and his followers; see p. 213 of Sachau's edition of the Arabic text and p. 196 of Sachau's English translation. See further Soucek (1975), p. 128 ("The Punishment of a Pederast"). AstroLynx (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year (f.5v)
Reported on page
  • Isaiah sees the Messiah accompanied by the prophet Muhammad (f.8v)
Reported on page
  • Birth of Caesar (f.12v)
Reported on page
  • Ahriman tempts Masya and Maysani (f.32v)
Reported on page 108
  • Feast of Sede on Mount Damavand (f.73v)
Reported on page
  • Peroz at the fire temple (f.74v)
Reported on page
  • Death of Mani (f.80)
Reported on page 192
  • The Prophet Muhammad, Fatima and Ali at Gadir Humm (f.87)
Reported on page
  • Fair of Ukaz (f.110v)
Reported on page 324
  • The prophet and the messengers of Musaliyma (f.111)
Reported on page
  • Bihafrid ibn Fawardin and a peasant (f.111v)
Reported on page
  • Defeat of al - Muqanna' (f.112v)
Reported on page
  • Execution of al - Hallag (f.113)
Reported on page
  • Chastisement of one of the followers of Ibn - Abi - Zakariya at - Tamani guilty of sodomy (f.114)
Reported on page 196
  • Celebration of Mihrgan (f.120)
Reported on page
  • Faridun judges Zahhak (f.121)
Reported on page
  • Feast of Favardigan: Abel beside Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve are mentioned on page 115 but there is no mention of Abel.
As usual you're on the wrong page, try pp. 210-211. AstroLynx (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Celebration of the autumnal equinox (f.142v)
Reported on page
  • Death of Eli (f.146v)
Reported on page
  • Buhtnasar orders the destruction of the temple (f.147v)
Reported on page
  • Abraham destroys the idols of the Sabaeans (f.156v)
Reported on page
  • Baptism of Jesus (f.161v)
Reported on page
  • Annunciation (f.162v).
Reported on page 307

The other pseudo - events are not mentioned at all. This is only to be expected - al - Biruni was presumably Sunni and would be turning in his grave when his masterpiece was trashed by the shiites.

As for Priscilla, I'm fairly certain now that she blows your argument out of the water.

Why don't you prove me wrong by looking it up for yourself?

According to you to get the book would involve ordering it from the library and then waiting several days for it to arrive. But you had no difficulty quoting from it instantly today when you thought it would bolster your case. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but only a tiny fraction of the pictures are linked to the text. I see SPACKlick is now up before ANI for a topic ban. His/her editing is tendentious. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As usual your claims are false. If you had taken the trouble to look up Soucek's (1975) paper in a library you would have seen that she provides the page refs in Sachau's edition of the Arabic text and in his English translation for all the illustrations. If you can't find the proper page refs this doesn't mean that you are correct - it merely shows your poor knowledge of Biruni's text. AstroLynx (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Off topic discussion of SPACKlick ANI thread

Acually 87.81 I'm up for an edit war invovling a battleground dispute with one area in a topic area unrelated to this. Dragging that here to cast WP:ASPERSIONS is specifically against policy. SPACKlick (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're up for mindless reverting, which is what you've been doing here. As for your ANI thread, further down the same page you will see

This is a disruptive proposal ... in order to eliminate an editor who opposes the proposer's editorial viewpoint.

above post by 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply Ok you don't know the case and it isn't relevant here but I'd like you to take note, the quote above refers to the person PROPOSING that I be topic banned not to me. I have been taken to ANI for violation of 3RR as you can see from the thread. Please stop disrupting this thread with aspersions based on that one. If you have further comments please take them there. SPACKlick (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Journalists are aware that if their reporting is not fully objective they will soon find themselves on the wrong end of a libel action. If Barack Obama is due to fly to Afghanistan at 10 pm the early editions (which you will read next morning) will say "Obama was due to fly out at ten o'clock last night". The later editions will say "Obama flew to Afghanistan at ten o'clock last night.

A general picture of a president - elect at her swearing - in ceremony will be captioned "President at her swearing - in ceremony". If the picture shows her, Bible in hand, repeating the oath it will be captioned "X being sworn in as President of the United States".

I've examined numerous newspaper articles with pictures and there is no evidence of the abuse which you advocate. For instance, the London Metro of 4 June 2014 has on page 4 a picture of a lorry carrying an octopus alongside a bus. The caption is

Squidlock: A lorry carrying an octopus used in a Betfair ad campaign breaks down in Oxford Circus bringing traffic to a standstill.

It is beyond the realms of possibility that a news photographer happens to be on the scene at the exact moment the engine conks out. No, the traffic got snarled up and the photographer came along later. It would therefore be very wrong to caption the picture "Squidlock: A lorry carrying an octopus used in a Betfair ad campaign breaking down in Oxford Circus bringing traffic to a standstill".

As for (Personal attack removed) AstroLynx-cum-Vgent, I am dying to know how Priscilla describes the first picture in the book. Are you going to reveal your little secret? Is a Sunni writer really going to write about the investiture of Ali? The list of pictures is further up the page. Please fill in the blanks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why should I do your homework? You can also look up Soucek's (1975) paper yourself. On 5 February I pointed out that there are at least four libraries in your vicinity which have it. Why trust/believe me while you can easily check yourself. AstroLynx (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A photo of a definitive moment vs an illustration of an event are quite different. You have no point and are at this point simply being tendentious. SPACKlick (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If someone goes into a market and asks a stallholder to sketch her, for which she pays a pound, how is that different to her handing her mobile phone to the stallholder and asking her to take a photograph? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Right you have two types of image there but neither are equivalent to our illustration.

1) A photo taken of PersonA in the market between stalls before they bought item x 2) A drawing of PersonA in the market between stalls created across the time where they bought x but showing what was seen before they bought x 3) A drawing created without visual reference to the market at all at a later date showing PersonA in the market between stalls.

In all three situations even though the contents of the images could be identical the third one is different for captioning purposes. It could very reasonably be called "PersonA buying x in the market" Because it is an image illustrating that event. SPACKlick (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And that demonstrates exactly why you are wrong. The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. The caption "PersonA buying x in the market is simply wrong. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, how can you claim The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. when the three pictures show the same scene and differ only in how and when they were created. In all 3

PersonA (who I note you choose to assume is a woman) is standing between stalls in a market. The Difference is that 3) is not trying to depict a realistic moment seen by the artist but trying to illustrate a later description of that event. 3) is an illustration of PersonA in the market. 3) is an Illustration of PersonA in the market buying x. 3) is not an illustration of the transaction where PersonA bought x I'd agree. SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Boy, if there was a degree in wikilawyering you would pass out with honours. In my local street market 99% of the customers are women. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't trust you further than I can throw you. I entered the following search terms into archive.org's digitisation of the book:
intercalation - result, page 14
Isaiah - page 22, no mention of God or the Prophet
Caesar - nil return
Sede - ditto
Peroz - ditto
Gadir Humm - ditto
Musaliyma - ditto
Bihafrid - ditto
al - Muqanna - ditto
al - Hallag - ditto
Mihrgan - ditto
Faridun - ditto
autumnal equinox - ditto
Eli - ditto
Buhtnasar - ditto
Abraham - page 186
Jesus - 9 hits - no mention of baptism

So to coin a phrase, who is wasting whose time? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the only link that needs to be given here is WP:CONSENSUS. Your opinion on this matter appears to be in the minority...a minority of one, no less. That settles the matter. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So are you saying that WP:NPOV and WP:V can be overridden by an alleged consensus? SPACKlick has said that s/he is not saying that the picture is of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation and Wiqi55 has cited experts who say it is not. Add in myself, and it seems the person who is in a minority of one is yourself. I'm surprised to see your name - I thought you had been banned for tendentious editing. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Deliberate misrepresentation on your part as usual. --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The point remains; you position is in a minority. As pending changes (see WP:PEND are now live, any edit you make to the article will not be visible to the reader unless approved by an actual editor. So, that would seem to be the end of it. I have also reverted your pasting of old Arbcom data regarding myself to this talk page. As article talk pages are for discussion of article content and not editors, it was most inappropriate. Do not re-add it, or steps will be taken to either protect this page from anon IP editing as well or block your address, whichever is easier. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Three against none is a consensus. You're a topic - banned editor claiming sysop powers. Knock it off. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There are other editors participating in this thread that you're leaving out, and the two you name-drop do not seem to be as zealous about the change as you come across as. This is largely academic, now that pending changes have been turned on. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not so zealous, but they're certainly not opposed. Since all the other editors are autoconfirmed, why should pending changes affect it? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It prevents the sole editor warrior (i.e. you) from further disruption of the article. If one of those actual editors wishes to propose changes, we'll certainly listen. I think this tangent has run its course. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
They already have. Here's Wiqi55 above:

The image is being used here in the same context that reliable sources have described as sectarian (i.e., illustrating a neutral text about calendars ... we are not supposed to give preference for one source and ignore others. In this case reliable sources differ on caption and pertinence. This article must reflect these differences to meet WP:NPOV.

SPACKlick has taken this to ANI, invoking your name, and editors are laughing at him/her. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"...and editors are laughing at him/her" More deliberate misrepresentation from you. Do you ever get tired of this? --NeilN talk to me 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

This point "The Islamic calendar is now used primarily for religious purposes, and for official dating of public events and documents in Muslim countries.[61] Because of its nature as a purely lunar calendar, it cannot be used for agricultural purposes and historically Islamic communities have used other calendars for this purpose" should be in the introduction, and not just in the USES section way down at the end of the article. This seems to me to be an essential point that a western reader would want to know about the Islamic Calander. Could someone editing this article please add something like that to the introduction of the article. Thanks. 24.94.25.67 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Sandy

Recent change to Islamic calendar#Pre-Islamic calendar section

Per WP:TPO, closing section regarding edits by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am reverting [7] a recent edit [8] to the Islamic calendar#Pre-Islamic calendar section. The edit summary states "Better wording". However, the change is not a mere wording change:

  • From 24 Safar to 1 Rabi'I
  • From 9 May to 16 May

Unfortunately, I recall seeing these changes made previously by another London area unregistered user. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've sourced the reversion. It should be noted that Hamidullah uses the Gregorian calendar, so there is a discrepancy between his dates and the way they are quoted in Wikipedia which, per the Manual of Style, converts them to Julian. 213.123.194.188 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Why should we follow Hamidullah's chronology? There are also the chronological schemes of Shamsi and Fazlur Rehman Shaikh which were recently discussed in detail on Talk:Hijra_(Islam) which place all events one month later. This level of detail about the 'true' date of the Hijra does not belong here. AstroLynx (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the reference given http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/islamicreview/1969/02feb/islamicreview_196902.pdf, page 10, does not seem to support the changes listed above. Please specify (copy/paste will work) showing where that page directly supports the changes. I suspect the editor (now using a different London area IP address) may be using WP:OR to support this change. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sock has been blocked. --NeilN talk to me 11:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how original research comes into it. Hamidullah fixes 1 Muharram at 18 March, and using WP:CALC we arrive at 16 May for 1 Rabi'I. That date Joe inserted, 24 Safar, is original research, however. He is allowing two weeks for the journey from Mecca to Medina, a distance of 210 miles. Camels may be slow, but they're not that slow. AstroLynx is being disingenuous. Shamsi does not put the events one month later as he claims - he puts them four months later. As for why we shouldn't use his chronology, we need look no further than the Qu'ran. Everyone is agreed that Nasi was in operation at the time. The Prophet declares that the number of months in the year is twelve, and anything else is an error. He then prohibited the Nasi. So what is Nasi? Nasi is the Jewish official who decided when to add a thirteenth month. The Arab name for the little month that the Egyptians have between the twelfth and first months of their calendar is Nasi. So any argument which implies that in Semitic languages the word Nasi means anything other than "thirteenth month" is doomed to failure. 77.101.164.227 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing whether Nasi means intercalary month or something else. The question is: how many months had been intercalated between 1 AH and 10 AH when Muhammad abolished this practice. Most scholars (Chauvin de Perceval, Fazlur Rehman Shaikh and others) who have researched this believe that there had been three; Hamidullah is the only scholar who believed that there had been four. I made a mistake by including Shamsi's name in my earlier posting, he in fact believed that there had been none. I propose that we should first reach consensus on the Talk: Hijra (Islam) page on this matter before we start changing dates here. AstroLynx (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Another sock blocked. Astrolynx, in case you aren't aware, this is banned user Vote (X) for Change --NeilN talk to me 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, yes I was aware that this was yet another alias of Vote (X) for Change. We have now crossed paths so often that his edits are almost instantly recognized. What should I do in the future: revert and ignore? AstroLynx (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@AstroLynx: Yes, per WP:BANREVERT. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Converting a date to Julian is not original research

AstroLynx is complaining that where a source gives a date for Muhammad's birth, Monday 12 Rabi'I in the year of the Elephant, (which it equates to 8 June AD 570 without specifying which calendar), converting that date to Julian is original research. In fact it is easily done with the Fourmilab date converter, whose accuracy is not in question.

The sources are:

  • Razwy - birth date 12 Rabi al - Awal in the year of the Elephant, AD 570.
  • Haykal - states the consensus is Muhammad was born AD 570, the month being Rabi'I and the date the twelfth.
  • Salabi - confirms the year of the Elephant was AD 570 and on p. 82 states the consensus is Muhammad was born AD 570, the month being Rabi'I, the date the twelfth and the day Monday.

Feeding 2 July AD 570 (Julian) into Fourmilab gives Monday 11 Rabi II BH 54. This is the reformed date. The unreformed date is 12 Rabi'I BH 52, a difference of 23 months. Intercalation was abolished in 632, so if there are 23 intercalations in 62 years we are done. There are seven intercalations in nineteen years (21 in 57 years) and two in five years, so the date is confirmed. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There is another source: Muhammad and the People of the Book, Sahaja Carimokam [9], which says the year of the Elephant is traditionally ascribed to 570 CE, although there is an argument here that that is wrong. This does not concern us, since the year of birth, AD 570, is confirmed, even though that might not have been the year of the Elephant. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Reason for prohibition of intercalation of months

Does anyone have a good explanation as to why this was forbidden by Mohammed? Was it to reduce the importance of the Kalammas?

What is the present year number in the Islamic calendar? 1379? A sentence in the text like the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was 1378 (or what?) in the Islamic might be good.

Of course, when does the Islamic calendar change years? Certainly this changes in respect to the Gregorian calendar as the Islamic months process in relation to the Gregorian. So maybe a page that said 2000 in the Gregorian was 1378 in the Islamic until Sept. (or whenever) and was 5709 (or whatever) in Hebrew until .... etc. with other calendars. Anyone know what these years are?

The present year (beginning in 2001 AD) is 1422. This is larger than 1378, because the year always has just 12 lunar months and so is about 11 days shorter than the Gregorian Calendar year.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) Revision as of 15:51, 25 February 2002 UTC

Is there an English word meaning "an interval of twelve lunar months"?

When a Mussulman states his age, does he use solar years, or dozens of lunar months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.249.146 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2002 ( UTC)

It's called a lunar year.

I'd say it depends on the location of the person, but most Muslims state their age in solar years. It really depends on whether the government and institutions of the country they live in require ages to be stated relative to an Islamic or Gregorian calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.226.56 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2002 (UTC)

Lunar years in some calendars (lunisolar calendars) can be 13 or even 14 months long. --NealMcB 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

MOnday January 9, 2006 coincides with the 9th day of Dhul-HIja (the 12th month) of 1426 of the Islamic calendar. www.moonsighting.com is a good website for islamic calendars and you may also find softwares that does conversion to Julian years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.199.102 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I'd say it depends on the location of the person, but most Muslims state their age in solar years. It really depends on whether the government and institutions of the country they live in require ages to be stated relative to an Islamic or Gregorian calendar.
Which countries or institutions ask for Islamic ages? Under what circumstances do people celebrate their own Islamic birthdays? --NealMcB 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard of anyone reporting their age in lunar years, but I may be wrong. The birthday of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), however, is usually noted by the Islamic calendar date. Although he was born (most likely) on 20 April 570 CE, but Muslims who decide to celebrate his birthday celebrate it as 12 Rabi' al-Awwal which does not actually correspond with 20 April 570 CE. joturner 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The Islamic Calendar is used mainly for recording events, such as Imam Hussein's (as) martyrdom or the Prophet Muhammad's (as) Birthday. Only places like Saudi Arabia uses the Islamic Calendar as their main calendar. So Muslims living in America, or in Iran, or in Europe, etc. would use the Calendar that their resident country uses. Mainly. Armyrifle 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would intercalation be necessary? There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.75.198 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Intercalation is necessary to keep the months from circling around the year, as they do in the familiar Islamic calendar. With seven intercalated months evenly spaced over 19 years, the synodic lunar and tropical solar cycles line up with just a two-hour discrepancy. Intercalation keeps months and their holidays within particular seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faris Malik (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 January 2016‎

Languages for the days of the week

This section has gotten completely out of hand. The names of the days are listed in so many languages, many of which have very little relevance to the Islamic calendar. This section should be limited to the names in Arabic and English only, just like it is for the months. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The chart really belongs on the page Names of the days of the week.--Akhooha (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I too would support such a change. AstroLynx (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
In view of the fact that virtually all the different language versions of this page include the days of the week in their languages, and even way back in 2009 the extraneousness of Urdu days of the week was brought up (Talk:Islamic_calendar#Days_of_the_week_in_Urdu.3F), I think we should just go ahead and do some major surgery, paring the section down to just English and Arabic, as Abjiklɐm has suggested. Leaving it as it is is just an invitation for even more languages to be added in the future. --Akhooha (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Abjiklɐm!! The page looks much better now without all those irrelevant multilingual entries.Akhooha (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic calendar. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew correspondence

starting from Tishri it gives you Safar-l-Awwal [now Muharram] and Al-Thani lay on fall/autumn. Safar derivative is Safra' that means yellow(ness) [of leaves]. then two Rabi's on rainy partition [Kislev/ Tevet]. then Jumada twins fall on winter. Jamada/ Injimad means Freeze also. then we have Rajab & Sha'aban and Ramadan that falls on hot Sivan [Ramadan meaning]. finally it ends on Elul (pilgrimage) Tabascofernandez (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic calendar. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_calendar/Archive_4&oldid=1049995035"