Jump to content

Talk:Khidr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SAW removed

[edit]

Use from SAW when talking on Muhammad constitutes a violation from neutral point of view policy, so I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.141.163 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

something seems missing here

[edit]
      Removing No Neutral terms used in article.

In the introduction of the article it says he taught every prophet in history except Muhammad, and Muhammad taught him instead. However the bulk of the article does not say anything about where this is said, and doesn't even mention him meeting Muhammad (only mentioning Muhammad saying something about him and him being at Muhammad's funeral.) It doesn't seem to mention his meetings with any prophets besides Moses either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.15.152 (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khidr

[edit]

Khidr is more common than Al-Khidr and it should be the name of the article. Google gives 33,100 results for "Al-Khidr" [1] and 358,000 results for "Khidr" [2]. To remove the unwanted results if we add "moses" to al-khidr we will get 23,000 results (including the frequency of khidr) [3] and if we add "moses" to khidr we will get 25,400 results (excluding the frequency of al-khidr) [4] ! Lets add "Dhul-Qarnayn" instead of moses, and see the results. al-khidr alongwith "Dhul-Qarnayn" (excluding the frequency of khidr) gives zero result [5] and khidr alongwith "Dhul-Qarnayn" (excluding the frequency of al-khidr) gives 2,760 results [6]. I'm not going further more to show how unpopular and uncommon is "al-khidr" as compared to "khidr", but even the results of khizr or khezr are more than al-khidr! [7] [8] [9]. It's better to have "Khidr" as the title of the article. --Wayiran (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find your arguments unconvincing. Google counts are notoriously unreliable, but in any case there are many more important factors to consider, such as the avoidance of ambiguity and the ease of navigation for people seeking other articles whose names contain or might contain the word "خضر" in some spelling. I also find your insistence on moving the article wihout seeking consensus to be irresponsible. It would be best if other editors could make their views known. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with "SamuelTheGhost" -- in general, the Arabic definite article is somewhat erratically transcribed into English and other languages, but in this particular case, the "al-" in "al-Khidr" helps it be understood as a personal name... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Google books and Google scholar, and Khidr is more commonly used in scholarly texts. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. The right question is: What structure of names, redirections and disambiguations will allow all wikipedia users to find their way with least trouble to the article they are looking for? The relevant facts are that we have an Arabic word just meaning "green". The Hans Wehr Arabic dictionary has the entry

الخضر‎ al-ķaḍir, al-ķiḍr a well-known legendary figure

(so implying that the legendary figure always has the definite article). Possible transliterations currently appear in the titles of wikipedia articles with these counts:

  • Khadr - 10
  • Khader - 9
  • Khadir - 3
  • Khidr - 3
  • Khider - 2
  • Khodor - 2
  • Khizr - 2
  • Khizar - 2

My conclusion is that the title of this article should be something longer; I notice for example that Green man of Islam is already there as a redirect. Then there should be a disambiguation page for Khadr/Khader/Khadir/Khidr/Khider/Khodor/Khizr/Khizar using one of those spellings, and redirects into it from all the other versions. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra

[edit]

Isn't the biblic name for "Khidr" Ezra? Because Khidr is synonymous to Uzair. Hassanfarooqi (talk)

File:Khizr.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Khizr.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gürdal Aksoy - highly fringe

[edit]

The inclusion of a very large section containing stream-of-thought associations based on the highly fringe ideas of Gürdal Aksoy is unnecessary for this article. Ogress smash! 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the inclusion of a very large section containing stream-of-thought associations based on the highly fringe ideas of Gürdal Aksoy is unnecessary for this article. Ogress smash! 00:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however some discussion should remain on this topic. TGdub (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a mess

[edit]

Why is there a sentence in the lede ....
"According to Dutch Orientalist Arent Jan Wensinck (1882–1939) the story of Khidr and Alexander the Great is connected with the Gilgamesh Epic"
.... with no prior mention of "the story of Khidr and Alexander the Great"?
This would be bad enough in the body of the article but in the lede it is ... really bad.

This is just one example of all kinds of problems with the article.


The lede makes the claim,
"The name "Khidr" is taken colloquially (and sometimes within more scholarly literature) to mean "the Green One" or "the Verdant One" in Arabic; however, this definition is only a popular etymology with no linguistic connection between Khidr and al-akhdar, the Arabic word for green.[6]"
This needs some explanation as the consonant root for khidr and green (al-akhdar),are the same خضر
So what is the cite provided to back up this claim? A book in Turkish with no link. (Gürdal Aksoy, Dersim Alevi Kürt Mitolojisi, Raa Haqda Dinsel Figürler, Istanbul, 2006, ) i.e. no way at all for English speakers to verify it.
The lede goes on to state: "Another opinion refers to a short or Arabized form of Hasisatra (Atra-Hasis).[7] Hasisatra is the nickname of the "Sumerian Noah" Utnapishtim."
What is the arabized form of Atra-Hasis? Goodness knows Atra-Hasis doesn't share the same roots at khidr.

The Khidr#Historical_background section is a long, solid mass of text with no subsections. It starts out:
"The most compelling modern hypothesis on Khidr's prototype compares him with the Ugaritic god Kothar-wa-Khasis.[14] Both figures possess wisdom and secret knowledge. According to the Quran, "Khidr" (although not named directly) has a special wisdom and esoteric knowledge (hikmah and ilm al-ladun)."
Who are the Ugarit? Nothing provided.
What's the source? The same Turkish book with no link.

Agreed. It's as if they're trying to make this figure into some sort of ur-hero that has spanned the entire (or at least the western and middle-eastern) globe. The template for all others. "Got a famous hero? He's Khidr!". 173.95.56.66 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[edit]

The main problem is that a quick search of "khidr" in google books finds nothing about Gigemesh or "Sumerian Noah" Utnapishtim. Authors writing about khidr mention the Quran and Islam. So at the very most it would seem the non-Islamic connection would merit a short mention in the lede and a less than the hundreds and hundreds of words currently in the body. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

[edit]

This article appears to contain original research. In fact it appears to be almost entirely comprised of a re-formatted essay of some sort and not an encyclopedia entry at all. The material is far too long simply edit in place, suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGdub (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the complaint so I'll try and clean it up, time permitting. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More questions

[edit]

I started to try and clean up but not sure how to proceed.

Example: Here is a section from the article:

Al-Khiḍr in "The History of al-Tabari"

In his chapter "The Tale of al-Khiḍr and His History; and the History of Moses and His Servant Joshua," al-Tabari describes several versions of the traditional story surrounding al-Khiḍr. ...

Who is al-Tabari? What is the "The History of al-Tabari"? A history of the life of some guy named al-Tabari?

  • al-Tabari is Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari "a prominent and influential Persian[1] scholar, historian and exegete of the Qur'an from Tabaristan, modern Mazandaran in Iran". no link was given in the article that I could find.
  • So what is "The History of al-Tabari"? Apparently a multi-volume work, written by al-Tabari, of ... histories? religious works? folklore? all of the above? apparently, judging from this.

So having spent a fair amount of time I have essentially rewritten one sentence. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The culprit seems to be an editor with no homepage named Tarasyani. I left an exasperated note on his talk page --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I culprit? What is fault or crime? All text is not my work... I try only to give some new and correct information about origins of the myth! May be little bit academic, but it can be change by collaboration. --Tarasyani (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument with Tarasyani (pasted from his talk page)

[edit]

Tarasyani, you must familiarize yourself with wikipedia rules and ways of writing. This is an encyclopedia not a forum for academic trivia. Please read up on how an article is written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

BoogaLouie (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoogaLouie, nobody try to familiarize himself here. See again main text, did you see my name there? I give only new and correct information about Khidr. When I begon to write here last year, there are popular trivia on this page. But I changed it and added scientific data. Instead of insulting, you must also participate to organize the page. --Tarasyani (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of a mass of text you added (+7,516 in length). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for discursive ramblings on your thoughts of how
"The mythological mentality is not only about the world and terrestrial facts, it tells also stories about the celestial beings and their adventures. Thus at the same time the most of the myths firstly signifies the astrological movements. The Alexander romance and the story of the Moses and "Khidr" have some astrological representations. ..."
Instead you should introduce what you are talking about, making it clear to the general public, giving a summary. How is the "Alexander romance" connected with Khidr? Explain. Not over the course of several paragraphs, but the first time you mention it.
Adding scientific data (or citations at any rate) is good but not enough. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


BoogaLouie, it's very clear, I think! Although this is not a childish competition for me, I can explain it! Of course! But it will be long again and someone can say "it's also too much"! Another one can call it as "an academic trivia" like you. Therefore it's not necessary! Secondly; I don't have to explain every motif or element of the myth. There are many wiki articles and people look at them too. For example Alexander romance... If you read it, you can find this clue there: "Philologists, studying ancient Christian legends about Alexander the Great, have come to conclude that the Qur'an's stories about Dhul-Qarnayn closely parallel certain legends about Alexander the Great found in ancient Hellenistic and Christian writings". Some Quran interpreters think that Moses is actually Alexander the Great. Because the story about him (in Quran) is like Alexander Romance and it is interesting point that Quran tells the stories of Moses and the D'hul-Qarnayn one after the other. Some scholars think that Alexander's cook is no one than Khidr. By an article nobody can tell or explain everything about the topic. Tarasyani--Tarasyani (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Helpsome, I wrote clearly that the new hypothesis is not of Bilal Aksoy. My basic references are some books of Gurdal Aksoy and his opinion. Because he thinks that Khidr is originally from Ugaritic culture... Although I repeated it again and again, you changed the information without any logical reason. I don't know what do you want to do? Is this a bad joke? Tarasyani---Tarasyani (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the same thing on your talk page. And then my talk page. And now here. I answered you but you just ignore it and write the same questions on two other pages. Here is my reply repeated: What you did was alter text to make it appear that one person's opinion is a universal opinion. You added no references. You have been asked numerous times to use talk pages before making controversial edits and you seem to ignore them. Please stop being disruptive. Helpsome (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Helpsome, What you say, actually is not an answer. Give me correct answer please? Although he is not Bilal Aksoy, you changed text and put his name there. Why? You say that "you added no references"! It's really absurd! Because there are too much references. Enough English references too! But there are some important information about the topic at Turkish books or articles and you don't find them at English references. Therefore I've used some Turkish references too. You don't read Turkish, I know. But you write wrong name there, although I say again and again, it's wrong name. I see here also some Orientalism... If his name was a Western name, than may be good for you to accept the opinion... What is universal? And I say; please stop being disruptive. Because my reference is Gurdal Aksoy's book there. Look at reference no. 35: Gürdal Aksoy 2006: 215-93!!!!! Tarasyani--Tarasyani (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing "absurd". If you want to change referenced information, you better have references of your own. You offer nothing to substantiate your claims and instead just delete information and ignore consensus. Use the talk page and stop being disruptive. At this point, multiple editors have said this to you. Please take note. Helpsome (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section about messiness and what to do about it

[edit]

Hey @BoogaLouie:, I told you I would eventually get around to this. Anyway, how do you want to go about this? There is a template at the top of the article already listing several problems. Should we begin tagging for citation, POV, incomplete citations and other within the body of the article itself? Regarding totally uncited stuff, we could leave a period of maybe two months or so and if nothing is found, then delete. Regarding improper citation, I don't have any suggestion at the moment. For POV pushing, adjusting things should be easier.
I generally have found it best to take it slow this these kind of things, but let's brainstorm. Where should we go from here in fixing the article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mezzo, I think the problem is more under control now. The lede isn't too bad and some obvious changes have been made, mostly by TGdub, I also did a little, (despite edit warring by Tarasyani w/helpsome, see here).
AFAICT the main issue is undue weight. If Bilal Aksoy has a theory that hasn't made it into an English language sources, why not give it a sentence or two. But six feet of text? no.
Part of the problem is what one editor called the "stream of consciousness" style of writing. (See what you think of this. I personally hate deleting stuff that might have some germ of usefulness, but to dig into it and salvage a concise, "due weight" summary suitable for the article is a lot of work. I'm way behind what I already promised myself to fix up and will be out of town for a week starting next week as well.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references now... I think that it's more than enough. But I can add more... Tarasyani--Tarasyani (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove the template. Because this page is changed since September 2014. Reorganized and added more references... Tarasyani--Tarasyani (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek

[edit]

Are there any traditions that equate al-Khidr with Melchizedek that could be added to this article entry?Barney Hill (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Khidr. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khidr. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khidr. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many references in the lead

[edit]

The article has way too many citations in the lead. I think that's not okay per MOS. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khidr&oldid=1204886075"