Talk:Jinn

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jinn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jinn. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jinn at the Reference desk.

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Folklore High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

(most of this "Pre-RfC" procedure is following the advise of Bookku )

• Proposed rewrite of the article has been updated with most if not all of suggestions of TheEagle107

@VenusFeuerFalle, do you wish to contest any of the sources added in the Proposed rewrite?
What if any parts of the rewrite are you willing to accept? (I will be available to reply off and on May 6 and May 7.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your suggestions based on WP:OR, WP:NOTNP, and the lenghty quotes might even touch on copy right infringements. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement, since the prominence of jinn is already covered sufficiently in the article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR and CR expectations can be fair enough, so let us check. Earwig doesn't show major concern on CR side ( I can see just two sentences used from fgulen.com in Quote=parameter, that seems fair use to me). Pl. mention, if you find any thing more specific.

If you can be more specific which specific sentences are OR concerns can help better.

Bookku (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi: This is to keep users informed that User:TheEagle107 and another user have expressed interest in contesting relevance and WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE weight of content coming under section Jinn#Comparative_mythology. This is likely to further deepen the scope of ongoing discussion. This aspect and some aspects discussed at WP:NORN make me feel that some users at proposed RfC may discuss borderline WP:FRINGE aspects/concerns. So I suggest users to pre-study policies and guidelines relevant to WP:FTN too. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

and more recently revivalist preachers Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen,

CR might be on

Publicly expressed doubt of the existence of j̲inn was uncommon even among the Muʿtazila; and among the earlier philosophers, even al-Fārābī, tried to avoid the question with ambiguous definitions. Ibn Sīnā was an exception -- he flatly denied their reality. In contemporary Islam, only a "small minority" believe that jinn in the Quran should be interpreted allegorically rather than literally

since it sounds like lenghty quotes from the sources. Taking a greater look at the source I furthermore doubt that this (Hachette Livre | Hachette Livre is the world’s third-largest trade publisher | Hachette.com) is a reliable publisher.

I further want to point out that the importance of jinn-belief has been highlighted sufficiently already.

Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. It is generally accepted by the majority of Muslim scholars that jinn can possess individuals. This is considered to be part of the doctrines (aqidah) of the "people of the Sunnah" (ahl as-sunnah wal-jammah'a) in the tradition of Ash'ari

There is an example form the Zahiris, from the Hanbalites, and pointed at a consensus among Asharites in general that jinn are undeniable part of Islam. I do not see why there needs to be a more vague discussion about whether or not they are part of the creed or not or who may have denied them. The latter is problematic from a research view point as there is no sufficient analysis on who might have denied them. It is, for example, not clear if Maturidites consider jinn to be real or a merel psychological phenomena, as mentioned next in the section

"Māturīdī focuses on the dynamics between jinn and humans based on Quran 72:6. He states that seeking refuge among the jinn increases fear and anxiety, however, not because of the jinn, but due to the psychological dependence of the individual towards external powers"

it is furthermore not clear, how important the belief in jinn as external instead of internal things has been. In later Islamic theology, such as the writings of Ghazali, we see that "metaphors" have been considered "real", further blurring the lines between metaphor and reality, as mentioned in the Shaitan article: <blokquote>" Al-Ghazali (c. 1058 – 1111) reconciles the literal meaning (Ẓāhir) with Avicennan cosmology based on reason. According to the philosophers (falsafa), the word 'angel' refers to "celestial intellects" or "immaterial souls". Ghazali opined that devils might be of a similar nature, that is, that they are celestial immaterial objects influencing human minds."

Facing the complicated matter about the relationship between "reality" and "metaphor" in Islamic theological discourse, I think we should not overestimate the discussion about the reality of jinn. Jinn are an integral part of Islam, this is nowhere to be denied and the article as it is now, makes this clear. However, the nature of these jinn is up to debate. As also mentioned int he article, some consider 'jinn' to be a neutral term for angels. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a discussion facilitator I initiated WP:RSN#Hachette Livre to seek community inputs about reliability of the source. CR concern seemed for two sentences only so temporarily I re-paraphrased the sentences a little, since LPB have mentioned they may be on break and we do not know when they will join back.

About your OR concerns rlated to sentence about 'Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen' I shall let that be for LPB or RfC to address. Bookku (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, LPB has requested inputs on the OR issue at No original research/Noticeboard Bookku (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fetullah Gülen is not a scholar, but a sect-founder and falls outside of neutral view point in religious matters. Apart from the lack of reliablity by Gülen, he also lacks authority. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested update as highlighted in the sandbox seem to have 4 paragraphs, consisting 9 sentences around 12 inline refs and around 15 supportive refs in foot note by TheEagle107. Please count and confirm/ correct me as needed.

• VenusFeuerFalle /other participants let us know if numbering those sentences will help?
• @TheEagle107 Please confirm foot notes referred by you are just supportive foot notes or you wish to add some thing from there for RfC. Being clearer the better. Bookku (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: I just want to make it clear to other users who will try to resolve this dispute that there are three editors (Louis P. Boog, me and DivineReality) who are holding the same point of view, which is that belief in jinn is necessary in Islam, because jinns are mentioned in the Qur'an and authentic hadiths,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} while VenusFeuerFalle disagree or just have another point of view, which in my opinion is considered WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE. Therefore, VenusFeuerFalle opposes adding this to the lead of the article, and even cherry-picked that source, thus giving a false balance in coverage.TheEagle107 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before we discuss on the sources, I would like to get clean with the accusations towards me. @TheEagle107 has thrown a lot of accusations, from cherrypicking, to "playing the system" and I expect that the User backs it up. Such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. If Eagle wants to retreat their accusations, it is fine, but they need to make it clear and owes me an apology. Before, I refuse to spend time in debates concerning sources or citations. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle @Louis P. Boog Please refer to discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Hachette_Livre discussion indicates First publisher Intercultural Press a Nicholas Brealey Publishing Company along with a good review for the book hence WP:RSN discussion seem to suggest to consider "Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World" by Mark Sedgwick. as WP:RS. If you wish to contest it then you would need to go for RfC or else would need to accept the same as RS. Bookku (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle, @ Bookku I'll wait a few days for a reply and then add the sentence and citation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog Brief summary of inputs about 'Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen' at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR? (Link need to be updated as gets archived :"..Over all consensus seem to be forming OR is not much concern in this case; but side note suggestions seem to be importance of weighing content on other counts like supporting with whether it has been talked about by other scholars importance of Jinn to Islam in the interim centuries? foremost is whether substantially supported by secondary academic sources for the relevant content last but not least WP:DUE. .." Bookku (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is objecting to the calim that jinn are important. This is a strawman @Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 made up for themselves. It is something only they debate. In case the disote is still ongoing, I am still waiting for my answers above. If they cannot find them, it is, honestly, their fault, because they failed to respond to my inquiries and instead decided to lead discussions with themselves. I never said that jinn are not important in Islam, and it is hoently, no my job to explain to them what I said. I cannot force people to read properly and after dozens of replies ignoraing my original statement, I withdraw from their discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fyi: A pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at WP:NPOV/N, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion WT:ISLAM. Bookku (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Also a pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at WP:FTN. Bookku (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 Link for easy reference. Bookku (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog, @ TheEagle107

• In brief: wait for VFF to join back or 7 days since VFF not editing. After that we shall begin RfC formatting step, then RfC.
• I had intimated VFF at their user talk page also, about ongoing input request discussions regarding RS and OR concerns raised by VFF at respective notice boards namely WP:RSN#Hachette Livre, No original research/Noticeboard.
• But VFF do not seem to be active since May 11th, as such VFF and LPB both are used to taking some days editing gap (possibly for real life) and I feel it's best to respect each others editing gaps hence I suggest to wait for 7 days, if at all VFF wishes to get reviewed notice board discussion with one more opinion again. ( I can help VFF in requesting another experienced user for review if VFF requests me so)
  • Also note that notice board inputs are valuable guiding posts but last call is taken in RfCs.
• If you see the above discussions not moving ahead at notice board, and also not automatically archived after 7 days (since VFF not editing), then close by using collapsing template {{collapse top|Discussion closure join for further discussin at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC}} {{collapse bottom}}

I hope above helps. Last but not least let me appreciate all you three are reasonably co-operating with my suggestions as discussion facilitator with sincerity and patience. We shall collapse this subsection when we move to next step. Bookku (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 Taking into account inputs received from WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:OR/N see if you wish to consider any changes in the updates (under consideration (your sandbox) to bring for RfC.

Let us know if you need some more time for preparation or you are ready for RfC formatting stage? Bookku (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, give me some time to add my suggestions.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEagle107 Why don't you also create your own sand box and then discuss with LPB and then here at RfC. Bookku (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry for further delay, I got over 18 notifications last time I logged in and was still busy, so I couldn't do much but minor stuff at break. Now, I am mostly done, but now the notifications tell me that the discussion on the Board is closed. If everyone is fine by that, I would start at the point of the results of the discussion. We don't need to make a big fuzz about it in my opinion, when this discussion gets strict to the point. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ TheEagle107 and VenusFeuerFalle; this seem to be second instance, within four days, of POV template tagging and the revert. I also do not know nuances about POV template hence I shall refer the same to WP:NPOVN for inputs. Mean while I urge patience to both sides to avoid reverts since any way we are in process of sorting out through discussion. I also urge to provide neutral summary of various parts of disagreements so we can proceed towards RfC formatting step. Bookku (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When the template should be used can be read here: Template:POV. Per " In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Wikipedia Users are required to remove these templates. I cannot follow your request on a summary of the dispute, since I do not sense a dispute. @TheEagle107 makes edits and objections already adressed and clarified but choose to ignore these. Especially after their most recent comments

  "You can say Jinn are the “demons of Islam”. A Qur'ānic chapter (72) is named after them. Please note also that there is not a single source in the whole article that says that jinn are mythical creatures. Anyone who objects to that must show me the source along with the text."

  and

  " For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see Essentials of the Islamic Faith."

  there is good reason to assume that @TheEagle107 is not here to build an encyclopedia but to further personal religions views. I am also waiting for over 3 weeks not for them to adress the points I raised, instead, the User added new discussions or talked about ther personal opinions. For my part, I decided to go with Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users, until the User complays with the proper protocol of the talkpage usage. And edits not confirming to Wikipedia guidlines will be, of course, still reverted. Ignorance does not provide someone with a greencard. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. RfC format suggestion request has been made at WT:RFC. Bookku (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @Louis P. Book (referred to as LPB), @TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.

The dispute on the Article The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given.

The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised. Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.

At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895) I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by Fetullah Gülen (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711). Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse. While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Wikipedia entry, also advocate of Islamism as seen here: Abul A'la Maududi). Religious authorities are not reliable sources (WP:RNPOV and WP:PARTISAN), even if the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between Religious studies and Theology.

Afterwards, I undid their edits, and exlained with each step why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568) A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996)

For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,

Talkpage The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the Shaitan article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users)

Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.

Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead. He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia), which could lead to an immediate ban (WP:HUSH) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to gaming the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

Summary Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them. Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value. I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle, @TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.
My suggested edits to the Jinn article are posted in blue of "{{talkquote|" in this sandbox post. The basic idea is encapsilated in the sentence I'm trying to add to the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.^[1](p33)

While it is unlikely that many people would suggest Jinn are a major part of Islam, the suggested edits (using some research by TheEagle107) only include

• a few sentences to the Jinn#Exegesis section (which I would rename Belief) summarized in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244 as 3 points

1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.[1](p33)

2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included among two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam). (The point here being that Maududi has/had a huge following and readership);
3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. (The significance here is that belief in the apostasy of Nasr Abu Zayd in his country (Egypt) was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him). (He lamented that "it took one week for my name [Nasr Abu Zayd] to be cursed all over Egypt. Even in my village they were saying I was teaching heresies to the students...")^[2]

• and one long sentence in the Prevalence of belief section.

To help resolve the dispute I (with the help of Bookku) hashed it out on the talk page, apealed to took the issue to

• Third_opinion answered by User:StereoFolic
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Archive 244)
• A discussion at No_original_research/Noticeboard --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below is VenusFeuerFalle's Discussion Summary from above chopped up with replies by myself to make the point and counterpoints easier to read.

There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @Louis P. Book (referred to as LPB),

(He is mispelling my name -- it's Boog not Book.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEagle107 (referred to as Eagle), and @Bookku.

The dispute on the Article The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given. The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised.

Actually I rewrote my edit, addressing your complaint that "the lead is a summary of the body off text." I shortened the edit of the lede and put the extra in "the body of text". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.

A misquote???.

Here is what the author said: [listing answers to the question "why write a book" on the jinn?]:
"... secondly, although belief in jinn is not one of the five pillars of Islam, one can't be Muslim if he/she doesn't have faith in their existence because they are mentioned in the Qur'an and the prophetic tradition."

"one can't be a Muslim" certainly sounds like a religious obligation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895)

accused you of "bias"? My talk page post did say I wanted to know "why a short piece of information from a scholarly source indicating the popular belief in Shaitan being a jinn should be deleted" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) ... sounds more like a question than an accusation.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

An example of one of his explanations, (in reference to [Nasr Abu Zayd], the professor threatened with death for blaspheme, cited by me as evidence that belief in Jinn can be important):
"noone cares if some dude went to exile for denial, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper...." --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by Fetullah Gülen (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711).

Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse.

Not sure which particular edit he's referring to but one he reverted here was of an edit I made following a Dispute_resolution_on the noticeboard session done by User:Robert McClenon here which ended with Robert McClenon stating:

Closed due to lack of response by one editor [i.e. VFF]. The filing editor [me, LPB] has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly.

VFF deleted my bold edits. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Wikipedia entry, also advocate of Islamism as seen here: Abul A'la Maududi).

Yes, Maududi is an Islamist but last time I checked that did not exclude him from being an important figure in contemporary Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious authorities are not reliable sources (WP:RNPOV and WP:PARTISAN), even if the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between Religious studies and Theology.

Both of the "religious authorities" I want to briefly mention in the article (Fetullah Gülen and Abul A'la Maududi) are religious scholars. Maududi has written a multi-volume commentary on the Quran. Religious authorities are not WP:RN on the doctrine or history of a religion, But I put it to you that they are reliable authorities on their own interpretation of religious doctrine when clearly stated. And when they have a large following, their interpretation is notable. Yes, you will have a hard time finding academic scholars of Islam commenting on all aspects of the doctrines of Gülen and Maududi (such as doctrine on Jinn), but the fact stands that they are notable and they have spoken (Maududi especially) on Jinn. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwards, I undid their edits, and exlained with each step why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568)

(The link is to a revert by Davemck, not you, with an edit summary of "renumber duplicate parm", whatever that means.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemck,

1) Pl. can help understand what your edit is about. Is it general copy edit or content update?

2) The other user above seems claimed your edit as theirs, hopefully you have only user account but your clarification may help your self.

Bookku (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was a copy edit that fixed a typo: VFF had added a {{multiple image}} template (here) with these parms:

image1= width1= alt1= caption1=

image2= width1= alt2= caption2=

resulting in a "duplicate parm" error for width1=. My fix was to change the obvious typo to width2=.

(I have only this one user account.)

Davemck (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the confusion: that url above is a diff that spans 7 edits: 6 by VFF and 1 by me. The diff software shows only the last editor (me), making it look like I did all 7 edits; but I did only the width1= edit.

Davemck (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I have already advised to @VenusFeuerFalle about importance of citing only the specific relevant difs. I hope they take care here after. Bookku (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,

This is not a dispute about "identification of jinn with satans". It's about adding information about how "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith".

As for "blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satan", where the hell have there any cites of blogs arguing "for the identification of jinn with satans" in this article?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and omitting other positions also prevailing in Islamic tradition as also mentioned in secondary literature).

Talkpage The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the Shaitan article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users)

Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.

TheEagle107 hasn't made an edit since June 2 but I should note that what he does suggest at the link above is adding to the lead:

that "The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the Qur'an,^[3][4] and one of its chapters is even named after them.^[5]" Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that talks about the jinn.^[6]

How is this "inappropriate"?? It's backed by secondary sources, would not take up that much space in the lede, and is not stating that Jinn are "essential". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead.

It is a bit frustrating that on the one hand questions to VFF are answered like this:

I think I answers all your objections in my edit summaries. When you want to discuss the issue, please include my reasons and object to those. I do not intent to go forth and back.

On the other hand VFF is patiently "waiting for responses to my objections" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia), which could lead to an immediate ban (WP:HUSH) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to gaming the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

Summary Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them.

Did these people include anyone besides yourself? (There was another unrelated issue -- Comparative mythology -- that I edited here after a RfC here seemed to come to a conclusion. I was wrong, and part of my edit was reverted by User:Aquillion.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value. I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that you are an editor like the other users involved in the dispute, and not some authority to decide who will be given "one last chance". We would all like to spend my time on other things. As for "canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry", feel free to investigate me. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You doing WP:CANVASS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoe_Roe&diff=1232209761&oldid=1232066712 (again) is a reason to report you. So yes, there is a difference between editors being wronged and editors who ignore input. However, Eagle is first, so do not worry. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For uninitiated: My role here has been largely of good faith discussion facilitator similar to spirit in village pump proposal (under discussion), largely to help involved users to focus on content aspects.
• @VenusFeuerFalle As I replied you at User talk:VenusFeuerFalle#Request to refactor, I had requested everyone of you a neutral summary of content dispute, Whereas what you seem have produced is a surprising WP:wall of text of personalized complaint -seems like breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF, avoidable and uncalled for at this juncture when healthy discussions taking place for RfCs- which at the most should have been discussed at respective user talk page then ANI.
  • For example See at Talk:Borg (drink) user @BanjoZebra provided such a neutral summary - so appreciable and helpful for other users to take a call.
• @Louis P. Boog

1) Quoting other user while rebutting point by point is quite okay; same time one is not supposed to change original post of other user, and leave it as is, so I suggest, though it (VFF post) is a WP:Wall of text you place it back (restore) as it was -let your format of answering as is there is no issue in format of your answering as far as I understand.

My mistake. My plan was to leave the original VenusFeuerFalle (VFF) post unedited and copied and pasted it below as Reply to VFF summary so as to avoid violating the prohibition on changing someone else's original post. I see I messed up a couple of times, I've tried to fix it. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) It's true that VFF seem to have been prejudiced from disagreements from other articles and unhappy about requests for updates in this article too and that should have been handled at user talk page, anyways they have posted here and you replied.

• If I am in your place I will try to find who is last active admin at WP:ANI request them on their user talk page to review whatever has been this personalized stuff has been and guide and also if possible to collapse this wall of text section, if possible. Bookku (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Here is my notice to VFF. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bookku , Reporting back. No success in interesting admins after several attempts. None said they thought there was nothing wrong with VFF's rant, but either they made no reply to my appeal (here, here, here), or they suggested I take it to ANI (here), which I did and they had no response. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because most of them were not even admins? Maybe because you need follow protocol when you want things to workout??? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they from the admin list and no one complained about violating protocol. Thank you for your concern though. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have had different priorities. Basically all of you involved users wish to have good quality content in the article, then I would suggest attempt to develop this article to WP:Feature article level that will help you getting better guidance and attention from more experienced users all the way. Bookku (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?

Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition^[1] or faith,^[2] "completely accepted" in official Islam;^[3] prominently featured in folklore,^[4] but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,^[5] who "worked out" the consequences implied by their existence -- legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.^[3]

13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is the first question in this series, for more info pl see discussion facilitator's brief in discussion sub-section. 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Fyi: Intimated the RfC request at project talk pages namely:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, WT:ISLAM, WP:NPOVN, WP:FTN, WT:MYTH, WT:ARAB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages

• Since editors are open for improvement in the sentences, reasonable discussion precedes any vote is preferred.13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestions/ comments which help improve sentence, coverage or RfC question are welcome.13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Above is break for easy editing and navigation

Sources need to have page numbers to make it easy to verify. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis P. Boog requesting your attention Bookku (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven No page number in Olomi, Ali A. (2021). The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. which is from google books, but 1) cite includes chapter and 2) link takes readers to the page.

Have not been able to find article in Encyclopaedia of Islam to find page number. Brill, the publisher of EI, is "temporarily unavailable" in The Wikipedia Library (it was last time I check also). If you have another source for EI available to WP editors I will be happy to check. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, it is usual to not give a page number in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, because they are usually organized alphabetically and the entry name is enough.

@Louis P. Boog, you have the option to use {{cite encyclopedia}} for such citations if you want. I think this URL: https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0191.xml or doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0191 will be useful for that Brill encyclopedia. Part of the text is displayed, while the rest is WP:PAYWALLED, but it proves that the encyclopedia exists and has relevant contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains why I had an issue its under Djinn, not jinn. ALso it does not prove the cite supports the text. Can you quote the part that does? Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my suggestion LPB made page number requests at resource exchange. So far WP:REREQ answers 1, 2 hopefully LPB will update those in RfC question sentences by tomorrow.

I suppose, but, your basic question seems bit different ".. its under Djinn, not jinn. .." can be answered by @Louis P. Boog.

Btw, I raised a help question "Requesting help in ascertaining, What is "official Islam"? to the authors D.B. MacDonald and H. Massé" at humanities ref desk. Let us see if what info may come up from ref desk. Bookku (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have read the whole source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course, You also can verify by Following this Brill link for Wikipedians provided by WP:REREQ volunteer . I have included quote at at humanities ref desk Do you want me to copypaste the quote here too? or quote can be included the in the sentence ref itself, you suggest Bookku (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs re-working as it looks like an almost verbatim copy and paste. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, do you have any – maybe we could call them "non-policy" concerns about this? Because I notice that above you expressed concern that the source doesn't verify the text, and down here, not even six hours later, you're saying that you think the source verifies the text so well that it's a possible WP:COPYPASTA problem.

Back-to-back opposite claims feels like someone throwing up every objection he can think of, in the hope that one of his objections will be agreed with and he'll be able to keep the text out. Would you mind telling us what your actual, underlying concerns are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I did not I expressed concern then the answer to that came back as what looks like a copy vio. They can just re-write this and that concern is also addressed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since sentence formation is changed and also juxtaposed with other authors it may have been bit close but technically not a serious issue I suppose. Anyways as discussed my concern about term "official Islam" seem to need change; below I have presented alternate suggestion. Purpose of RfC is not just support / oppose but suggesting improvements. may be you can provide your valuable inputs how it can be improved further. Bookku (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing thanks. Louis P. Boog (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bookku , Slatersteven, WhatamIdoing, I've added a quote from Encyclopaedia of Islam provided by Reference Desk Humanities (What is "official Islam"? ~ Encyclopaedia of Islam, July 27) to proposed version of Jinn article. As well as changed text from

'"completely accepted" in official Islam', to

'"completely accepted" in "official" or mainstream Islam'--Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk Humanities also found the page number of a cited sentence in book The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an --21:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment about "Official Islam":

The term "Official Islam", certainly used by RS, still seems to be too contextual and finding alternate wording may be better. But what do authors D.B. MacDonald, H. Massé. Title: Ḏj̲inn. Encyclopaedia of Islam mean by the term "Official Islam"?

Bookku (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant dictionary meanings of word "Official" as 'adjective' from google search: formal, ritualistic, authoritative. Link to some weak matches from thesaurus.com. Bookku (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis P. Boog, we will keep discussion on word 'official' in this sub-thread. I think may be, 'authoritative Islam' will be better term.

After going through google scholar I realized some new generation academics like Richard McGregor are not comfortable with “popular versus official” Islam categorization may be since calling any practice of Islam un-official can be contentious. Secondly, in recent academics, seems, wording 'official Islam' is used much more for the versions/ schools/ practices supported by respective regimes of respective countries. Bookku (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggesting another version for sentence:

Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition[1] or faith,[2] "completely accepted" in mainstream Islam;[3] significantly featured in folklore,[4] but also considered "quite solemnly" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[5] who "figured out" the implicit repercussions expected through existence of Jinn -- their legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.

Bookku (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pl. suggest further improvements / alternatives to above Bookku (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bookku (talk) Have to disagree with your new version above. Firstly You can't paraphrase text and then put it in quotes. A quote has to use the same text. by definition copies the words quoted. you may change the wording to avoid copyright infringement, but surely quoting a few key words and phrases -- "official", "worked out", "quite seriously" -- cannot be a violation of copyright! (Also, in English usage and this context, "quite solemnly" (which implies some ceremonial feature) is not really the same as a good paraphrasing of "quite seriously".) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed word official in sub-thread above. I think you have a point in 'Firstly You can't paraphrase text and then put it in quotes'. a) may be you can think about changes in wording that is not in quotes. b) Whether fully accepted in authoritative Islam, very seriously, figured out can be equally effective without quote. Certainly my primary concern is distancing from CR issues, otherwise I don't have any objection as such. Bookku (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC is being rescinded (temporarily withdrawn per WP:RFCEND by editor who started the RfC) after discussion at WT:RFC and shall be restarted after their some Wiki-break by Louis P. Boog in more simpler format to facilitate improved user participation. Bookku (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Islam section. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Stone Jinn", is an object containing the spirit of a Jinn, there has to be a reference in this article about an actual Stone Jinn.

18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Truffle457 (talk) Truffle457 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 I'm doing my best to prove the "stone jinn" Truffle457 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do that with reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

early arab believe that the jinn emerged out of a gemstone and not a lamp. Truffle457 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's great. But, again, we depend on reliable sources to say that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]