Talk:Splitting of the moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Splitting of the moon has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Did this really happen ? Any chinese , byzantine , indian records of the event other than the hadith ? 132.170.5.91 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have heard something to that effect, but i have not investiagated it. --Striver 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Images

One of the GA criteria is "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images". There are no images. Can a suitable picture of the event or at least the Prophet be included.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Redtigerxyz, I know that a nineteenth century miniature painted at the Rajput (Hindu) court of Kotah shows the splitting of the moon with all its details. But I don't know how to get a photo of it(do you know?). I'll try to add the information you requested as soon as possible. --Aminz (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Search the net if you can find a free pic??--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redtigerxyz, I searched a lot for a relevant pic but couldn't find any. The GA criteria says the pictures should be added when it is possible to find them. I don't think it is possible to do that in this case. --Aminz (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I found a pic eventually. Hope it looks good. --Aminz (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No issues about img. But the comment below must be answered satisfactorily.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After the recent changes to the lead, I think the article now summarizes all the viewpoints more vividly. --Aminz (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, per discussion below, the comment below has been satisfactorily answered I think. Cheers, --Aminz 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What point might this article be making?

It's apparent that there are at least two divergent views of what the Splitting of the Moon means. However this article presents many historical viewpoints without summarizing in any way intelligible to a non-Muslim, nor, possibly, in a way which presents the division in Muslim opinion clearly.

It seems that in an effort to be politically correct and uncontroversial, the article lacks substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.67.7 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have now summarized the notable viewpoints in the lead. [1] where the divisions are clearly specified. --Aminz (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is improved over the previous draft. It's relatively easy now for someone who's not familiar with the issues to understand. Moreover, it presents major and minor opinions in a way that's very nicely balanced.

24.6.67.7 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 24.6.67.7. --Aminz 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

Aminz... considering that there is quite a substantial backlog on WP:GAN, i am happy to review this article if you're okay with that (perhaps WP:ISLAM could have a reviewing department in the future? i don't know). i would say that a few improvements are needed here and there but i hope to elaborate in greater detail soon. ITAQALLAH 13:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Itaqallah. Much appreciate it. I am looking forward your comments. --Aminz 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Needs a thorough copy-edit ensure clarity of expression (I would recommend inviting other editors to help in this regard). This especially applies to the lead. Specific examples of where the prose could be improved include: "... is a miracle attributed to have been performed by Muhammad in the Muslim tradition." → "is a miracle attributed to Muhammad in the Muslim tradition"; "According to Denis Gril, although according to the Qur'an, Muhammad did prophesied but he was not granted to perform miracles in their traditional sense" - the sentence is a bit difficult to understand; Some individuals like Rumi, Jami, etc. are not sufficiently introduced - a casual reader may not know who they are; "Western Academic view" → "Western academic view". It would also be nice to incorporate Arabic scripts and transliterations where relevant, such as providing the Arabic script of shaqq al-qamar in the opening parenthesis, or giving the Arabic rendering for the "occasion for revelation" (better described as the context of revelation) - asbāb an-nuzūl. Also, as said before, a general copyedit would be helpful for this article
2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Verified using reliable sources, no original research seems to be present.
3. Broad in coverage?: Not sure about this one. There is a wide presentation of views - but one thing strikes me as missing. It is alluded that the authenticity was accepted by most Muslim scholars. Then the prose covers the view of "dissent" commentaries. What is the view of the traditionists who assumedly accepted its authenticity and didn't provide alternative interpretations? How did they comment on this incident? Some coverage in that regard, from the likes of an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, Ibn Kathir or another prominent commentator may help in ensuring the presentation is broad and balanced. It might also help to clarify what kind of rationalists/philosphers are being referred to - as numerous kinds of groups existed with varying degrees of acceptance of Aristotelian dialectic discourse.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. No problems here.
5. Article stability? Pass.
6. Images?: Pass. Given the nature of the topic, images may not be so freely available.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Itaqallah very much for the review. I'll try to address the points you raised as soon as possible. Best, --Aminz (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Itaqallah. Would you please let me know how the article looks like as of today. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
it looks a lot better now, thanks to all for having improved the article. i think it meets all criteria, but there is one specific improvement needed before i pass it: the quality of cites 1, 2 and 22 are below par. on first glance iqna.ir doesn't appear to be a reliable source (i could be wrong), but i'm sure imamreza.net isn't a reliable source. Harun Yahya is a popular writer (as opposed to scholar), but he generally isn't viewed as a reliable source on Islam-related articles and his comments here appear to be more speculation than anything. i would recommend the removal of the Harun Yahya material for now until stronger sources can be found which corroborate on this point; and similarly if a third party reliable source (or, at the very least, an invested reliable source) can't be found for the assertion that Muslims link the narrated events with the existing rilles, then i would suggest that part of the caption is also removed until one is found. regards, ITAQALLAH 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
i have looked around, and a report that Muslims in the UK linked the Apollo finding of rilles to the narrated splitting of the moon can be found in "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" by Hasan Balyuzi (1976) George Ronald Publisher (orig. published by Univ. Michigan) on page 2, so this cite may be incorporated. ITAQALLAH 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the reference. Actually I added ref 1 and 2 as a result of a desperate attempt to find a picture for the article. I don't necessarily feel good about the image too. should we keep it? I'll made its text hidden for now.
I agree with you regarding Harun Yahya. I'll remove it.
Thanks again very much for the review. --Aminz (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
you could probably use the above-mentioned cite with the image, it seems good enough to verify the claim that Muslims actually attempted to make a link. as the two issues regarding sourcing have currently been resolved, and as there are no further issues concerning coverage or general prose, i have passed the article. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your review again. Thanks for the reference. I'll add it. BTW, where do you think the image is appropriate: In the intro or under "In later Islam"?--Aminz (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
putting in the section may be more appropriate, i think it might be possible to find a PD drawing of the moon-split. you'll also want to discuss the caption contents in the main prose as well. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I'll make the changes soon. --Aminz (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, p.96 of "Muslim Travellers: Pilgrimage, Migration, and the Religious Imagination" By Dale F. Eickelman, James P. Piscatori, University of California Press, has a drawing of moon being split. I think the picture should be usable but I can not get access to it (books.google.com does not have that page.) --Aminz (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
that's interesting, and would make a good lead image. there must be a PD image of this incident lying around somewhere... ITAQALLAH 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty is that the book is checked out from my library and books.google.com doesn't have that page :( --Aminz (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

wanna include this theory about moon splitting? ~atif Talk 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I couldn't find the author of that article. It seems to also support the view of Harun Yahya. I think we should be able to mention these recent minority views (also the one about the rilles on the moon) in a short paragraph (compared to the space that we have given to famous commentators of the Qur'an) in the section "Later Islam". But I'd like to know what Itaqallah thinks. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you guys can make this a FA. Everyone needs to read it! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added moon splitting image

did a quick artwork on a Graphics software, tried to make it as factually correct as possible based on Sahih Bukhari ~atif Talk 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is wonderful!!!! Is this your work?? --Aminz (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So exciting! Thanks very much Atif!!!! I hope the original background image was not copyrighted :P --Aminz (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the background image (original) is a small part of the image from the site and changed a lot, should it be an issue? ~atif Talk 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be okay to me. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added section about alleged NASA evidence

Not that I believe that NASA found evidence that the Moon split, which is claimed by some muslims, but this belief is out there so needs to be documented, if only so that a chance to question it can be given, hence my inclusion of a quote refuting it with scientific reasons. (Note I did think about mentioning poor Neil, but my understanding of mainstream Islamic beliefs on that matter referred to something else, so I thought a mention of him might be a bit too off topic and so omitted it. --Stickings90 (talk) - 13:56 03-06-2008 —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated this section after someone took exception that I did not point out that it was not something accepted by mainstream Islam and deleted it. I have now modified it to point that out, Apologies for causing offence, and I am only to happy to point out that this is only a minority view in Islam and not part of the mainstream.

I had encountered this belief on at least two internet forums, neither of which is related to Islam, and so I thought this belief needed some documentation.

If anyone else is still unhappy, instead of deleting it, could you please beef up my attempt at a disclaimer.

Stickings90 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia. Unless this is sourced to reputable published reliable sources, it can not be added to the article. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you consider a published reliable source? I have come across this on internet forums, so it needs to be documented somehow, but I am happy to make it clear that this is fringe and not part of mainstream Islam Stickings90 (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)