Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Citing hadith

Hadith ref[edit]

I propose that we try to link all hadith links in this format:

"random text" ^{Sahih Muslim 3.299, 3.343}.

"random text" ^{Sahih Muslim 3.299, Sahih Bukhari 3.343}.

Motives: One can easly the what the ref is, it gives a internal link to the article explaining the relevance of the source, it gives a separate external source to the hadith and since its smaller than the other text, it will be easly recognized and ignored for those un-intrested. Comments? --Striver 02:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes the page look too busy, even with the superscripting. Why not just use the standard Wikipedia footnotes? Turnstep 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the claim, it is of imense importance to see from where the source is, even more so than usual. If you are reading about the Gulf War, it might be enough to see that it has a source to any mainstream media, but in this case any source wont do. If you belong to one denomination, you wont accept sources from some other denomination, and also, the sources in you own denomination differ in credibility, Sahih Bukhari is much more credible that Abu Dawud in Sunni eyes. If you look around, you will see that in most Muslim sites they give the complete referens on the spot, not in some footnote. The whole narratin stand or falls with the credibility of the source, and therefore needs to be judged on the spot. I would guess that most Muslims agree with what i said... :) --Striver 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing one of the other points of this project: to make the page accessible and comprehesible to people who know little to nothing about Islam. A page full of competing texts is not the way to accomplish this. For example this page (Mut'ah_of_Hajj) would be totally incomprehensible to non-Muslims: the quotes appear apropos of nothing, and no hint is given as to the meaning and significance of the superscripted text. Turnstep 03:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do raise a valid objection!

I myself belived that they could quickly educate themself on the matter by investigating the links, however that might not the best aproach... What about adding a text explaining the matter in the beggning of the article, something like:

Sources are given in this format: ^{Sahih Muslim n.nnn}.

Would that work? --Striver 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly better! :) I'll contribute more when I have some time. Turnstep 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure cooperating with you :) --Striver 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]