Talk:Baligh

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there a specific age concerning children who are Baligh in Islam? --Fantastic4boy 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits[edit]

I have improved and illaborated this redirect as an article with several reliable sources but User:Eostrix and User:LSGH have reverted it to previous redirect (here and here). I request to review the matter. Previously before redirect in 2014, the state of the article was this and my recent final change was this. 116.58.201.8 (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at recent changes, and what caused me to revert was: [1], which I saw as adding non-English text. There is also the matter of article creations by non-confirmed editors. However, on reviewing here I can't find a discussion of a merge, appears to be an undiscussed merge of short stub, the topic appears notable and is referenced. Therefore, I shall restore 116.58.201.8's version. I have also notified of this change at the talk page of the former redirect: Talk:Islamic sexual jurisprudence#Baligh.--Eostrix (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this at recent changes, and I reverted to Eostrix's version. I am not aware of any previous discussion about merging this stub into the larger article. But the content of the article has been left untouched for almost seven years now, and the amount of text that it contains was considered too small to be even given an article of its own. The newer version of the article appears to be much longer than how it used to be. However, I have yet to read those references and might look into possible copyright issues there. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig is clear of copyvios: [2]. I do NPP too, but I think I should let someone else review as I reinstated 116.58.201.8's text so I am involved.--Eostrix (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use more precise citations, and it's not clear to me that Baligh is the best title of the various terms suggested based on the provided sources, but as far as notability is concerned I think it passes muster. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baligh is used in Islamic sexual jurisprudence (prior to 116.58.201.8's edits, so I guess it has local consensus on that page.--Eostrix (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But does it mean that it has to be expanded with material from elsewhere? It may look relevant to that page since it is much longer and contains more subtopics. The copyvio tool appears to scan something other than the contents of the materials in question. I do not know how to efficiently search for possibly copied phrases or sentences if there are too many pages there. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When this comes to a conclusion, would someone mind acting on and closing this edit request? If this is kept, I think it's a reasonable addition (whatever the article's ultimate title is) to be

Done, and if not, closing it as

Not done. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an references to puberty[edit]

Puberty is not explicitly revered to in any of these verses 6:152; 12:22; 17:34; 18:82: 22:5; 28:14; 40:67: 46:15 Coming of age, maturity etc,

Only 24:58 and 59 appear to have a majority of translations which mentions puberty Yesihavereadit (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]