Talk:Islam in Algeria

Untitled

christians 1%? never seen an Algerian christian in my life, But if they number 1% then Areligious people would number 10%.--Agurzil 18:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Islamists loot and burn protestant church in Algeria

This Israeli site: [JP] writes:"Islamists loot and burn protestant church in Algeria"Agre22 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

radical?

@M.Bitton: does the source not make it clear that there are Ahmadi, Shia and Wahabbi minorities in Algeria? How exactly is the article not sticking to that? I think you need to be careful about describing 100s of millions of people as radical just because one source says so. There are plenty of sources that do not consider them to be radical.--Peaceworld 17:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: The word minority does not appear anywhere in the source which mentions a list of radical religious movements (including Ahmadism). I did not describe them as radicals, the source that you added did. As for your edit summary, you have to bear in mind that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. M.Bitton (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Yes I'm aware that Wikipedia cannot and should not be used as a source. That is exactly why I said in my edit summary that there many "sources in their respective articles" that clearly indicate that these are not radical groups, rather established religious faiths, world over. Yes the source described them as radical, but it was you who added it to the article. It was omitted from being mentioned here, for the obvious reason that it contradicts many established sources. The source need not mention the exact word "minority" for that word to be included on Wikipedia.--Peaceworld 18:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: Whether they are radicals or not is left to the source cited in this article. I added it because that's what the source (that you've chosen) is all about (extremism) and not doing so is called Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. The source needs to mention the exact word minority as it does for the Ibadis, otherwise it will be considered original research and removed as per WP:BURDEN. Keep in mind that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (see WP:UNDUE for more information). M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: No. If sources begin to use exact words everywhere, then that'd fall under copyright infringement. It suffices to use words that give the implied meaning, that these religious groups are a minority. The fact that they exist, with which you agree with, means logically that either they are a minority, or they are a majority. Which do you prefer? that is not original research, nor is it cherrypicking. As I have said, which you keep ignoring, these are not radical groups per dozens of reliable sources in their respective articles. Do you want me to go through a list of sources with you? Would that be clearer for you? Perhaps you should blank 95% of the entire article first per WP:BURDEN which is actually OR?--Peaceworld 19:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the source (a press article about extremism in Algeria) says:

The recent rise of a number of radical religious movements involving Ahmedism, Salafism, Shiism, Wahhabism, and takfiri ideology have raised concerns among officials in the Algerian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowments, which has decided to take action by strengthening the monitoring and control of places of worship and universities — that is, the places targeted by the radical Islamists for recruits

How would you summarize it in your own words while taking the context into account ? M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Why don't you answer the most basic questions first per this source? Do the Ahmadi Muslims exist? If so, are they a minority? If so, why is the original version of the article incorrect?--Peaceworld 20:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

June 2017

O.celebi Why are you introducing original research in the middle of a sourced sentence ? Your source which states (There are also Amerites (Sunnis of Turkish origin), Ibadists (neither Sunni nor Shia) in the M' Zab, and brotherhoods mostly in the south) is clearly a fringe nonsense, what makes you think your POV misrepresentation of it deserves to be in the lead ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I am more than happy to work together in order to improve all these articles. The question is, are you willing to? The part saying "most of whom live in the M'zab Valley region" was not written by me. Please do check the history section before accusing me. O.celebi (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on everything. It's a shame you have only been deleting sourced information. The majority of this article has no sources at all, yet, it seems, you have no problem with it.O.celebi (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No every sourced information deserves mentioning. Even though every Madhab is represented in Algeria, the only ones that are associated with it are the Maliki and the Ibadi (a fact backed by secondary and tertiary sources). I see no reason to give UNDUE weight to a rite that is barely mentioned in reliable sources. I reverted to the previous neutral version and added the Hanafi source where it belongs: in the practice section. I also removed the mosques images along with their wp:or captions and irrelevant foreign language (see MOS:FORLANG for more info). M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Islam

Why is the establishment of Sharia law in Algeria hard 154.230.141.79 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: North African History, AFH 4302

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mrg19g (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IslandersIslanders (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)