User talk:Pepperbeast/Archives/2024 1

CS1 error on Lu Xun Literary Prize

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lu Xun Literary Prize, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Divorce in Islam

Greetings. I see from your user page that you are interested in the anthropology of religion. I am too, and also in cognitive science of religion (CSR).

In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divorce_in_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1190769371 you said in the summary: "true, but doesn't need to be inserted into the lede". I inserted it because I thought (and still think) it made the text better. Even if true, not needing to be inserted is not a reason for reverting it once it has been inserted.

IMHO, without that info, readers unfamiliar with Islamic law will likely think that this is a one man one woman situation, as it normally is in English speaking countries, and indeed, most countries. So it is unclear, or even misleading to have "the husband" and "the wife" as if there is always only one wife per husband, as in most countries.

I see that after reverting my edit, you made another edit, changing it to "a wife" and "a husband". The intention is good, and it goes some way to achieve what my edit did, but it is IMHO not a satisfactory substitute, because the reader who is unfamiliar with Islamic law will still likely assume that there only one wife allowed in Islam. These readers need to have that misconception dispelled IMHO.

Readers, such as myself, who *do* know (or have heard) that a Muslim man may have more than wife at one will be distracted by the absence of any reference to this, and likely will pause, wondering whether the law has been changed, or he or she was mistaken about this. Or, as I did, he or she may wonder whether the article is about a particular subset of Muslims, perhaps in a particular sect, or those in the US (who are presumably bound by US bigamy laws), who are *not* allowed to have more than wife (if that is the case - good question, that). Polar Apposite (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC]

I suggest you read WP:LEDE. The lede summarises the article body. It's not the place to introduce new information. PepperBeast (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I read it long ago. It says:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

A "concise overview of the article's topic" would, IMHO include clarification that Islamic marriage often is a case of polygyny. The latter "establishes context", and is one of the "basic facts" of the topic (and therefore, although new information, is permissible). Polar Apposite (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have replied to myself by mistake. It was intended to be a reply to you. Polar Apposite (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It keeps not being indented. Polar Apposite (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast My replies to you have not gotten indented like I expected, hence the ping. Please reply to my 21 December 2023 reply to your comment. Polar Apposite (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC(

I still don't agree. There is literally nothing else about polygamy in the article, and it has no effect on Islamic divorces. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the irregular indentation. I don't know why that happened. Nevertheless, I think my points can be seen fairly clearly, and I would appreciate it if you responded to them in detail. "I still don't agree" is not much of an argument.

I already explained why the fact that there is nothing in the article about polygamy is not a problem in this case, so you are just repeating yourself.

Of course polygamy has an effect on Islamic divorce. This is no place for joking. Polar Apposite (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Quoting you, "readers unfamiliar with Islamic law will likely think that this is a one man one woman situation". In terms of divorce law, it is. A wife can divorce a husband. A husband can divorce a wife. There's no group version.

And "Readers, such as myself, who *do* know (or have heard) that a Muslim man may have more than wife at one will be distracted by the absence of any reference to this". This is just silly. You don't need everything re-explained in every article in order not to be "distracted". The article already has links to Marriage in Islam. PepperBeast (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Liffey Swim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chalkie White.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know you removed material while adding at Ram Mandir?

Doug Weller talk 14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be thinking of this edit, not by me, but right before me. PepperBeast (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirayana system

Bengali-Assamese script

You've removed the infobox [1] why? It is present in other similar articles - Latin script. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't get this either. While Devanagri is the script of the union, you kept Gurmukhi and Meitei, which are official in a few states only? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, basically, I kept any scripts for which I could find any evidence for any official status. All that I could find with any official status at all were Devanagari (nationally for Hindi and some states for other languages), Gujarati, and Meitei. I basically checked every Indian state's official language legislation. I removed the infobox because it's about about 85% nonsense. I'd actually prefer to remove the article entirely, but an AFD got no consensus, so I settled for removing all of the downright nonsense. I may still suggest a merge to to Languages with legal status in India. PepperBeast (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd support Official scripts of the Republic of India to Languages with legal status in India merge. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, what do you think of my proposal, below? Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Writing systems of South Asia

I noticed you've been doing some great work recently cleaning up some fluff and nonsense having to do with various topics, most of them South Asian—great job by the way—but I think some of the content you removed from Official scripts of the Republic of India can conceivably be merged into an article titled Writing systems of South Asia or even South Asian writing (or similar). A page titled Writing systems of India exists but only as a redirect to Brahmic scripts; this is not correct, as many scripts used presently (e.g. Nastaliq, Latin) and historically (Indus Valley Script) do not belong to the Brahmic family of languages. Overall I think you're correct that the article Official scripts of the Republic of India is poorly conceived, but in investigating the coverage of it and related topics during the AfD discussion, I realized there is surprisingly not really any article that talks about writing in South Asia as a whole, independent from a script/language (family) (e.g. Indus Valley Script, Brahmic scripts) or a historical or modern-day culture or polity (e.g. Official scripts of the Republic of India itself). Thus, as I imagine it, the article would serve to house not just a list of languages ordered by script family, but also a section on the history of writing in South Asia—surprisingly, as best as I can tell, there's no Wikipedia article that really covers this as distinct from other topics (please correct me if I'm wrong)— or other topics that take a broad view of writing on the subcontinent (e.g. sociocultural or religious dimensions).

There is ample precedent for such an article, e.g. Writing systems of Southeast Asia, Writing systems of Africa, Writing systems of Formosan languages.

Similarly, the template {{Officially used writing systems in India}} could be reworked in a similar way into {{South Asian scripts}} or something (although IMO the case for the template isn't as strong as for the article, since {{Infobox Writing system}} arguably serves; to be discussed).

What do you think of this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion: I don't see a problem with this. You can create it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)