Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.35.58.145 (talk) at 11:03, 2 January 2009 (Muhammad and Terrorism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


re: Images on the Arabic Wikipedia

I cannot find this discussion in the archives, so I'm copying it from history now. /X

FAQ images

Unfortunately the FAQ doesn't have its own talk page, so I'm raising this here.

User:Amatulic has twice reverted in a set of various provocative image links on this template for the purpose of illustrating that Wikipedia is not censored. That Wikipedia is not censored does not imply that prominently linking that which may be provocative is automatically okay. I believe this list of images should be removed from the FAQ again; relevant information is found on the linked WP:CENSOR, but there's no need to shove it into people's faces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with referring to examples of other images. My only quibble is that there are too many examples. A "such as... X, Y, and Z" seems sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the images in question are linked, rater than displayed, this complaint is wholly without merit, IMO. Being offended by linked images is just...silly. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all the pictures that contain any cartoon or shape of human, because its not accepted by Islam.

Islam does not allow pictures or cartoon of Muhammad or any persons so remove it for make this article acceped to the Muslims. Azraf (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined. This is not Islamopedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, dude you're not in charge of Wikipedia, this is a legitamite statement. Anyway to the original poster, it has been decided that on consensus, regretfully, that the pictures are allowed. Baseball Bugs, next time give evidence to back up you're view instead of saying "request declined". LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he should not, and I would not have either. It is the same, tired, stupid 'request' that gets posted here ever month or so. These demands are not being made in good faith, they are not here with any intent, ability, or desire to improve the Wikipedia. They are here to push an agenda, and are dealt with brusquely and appropriately. My preference would be to go even further, and simply revert the 'request' and not have to waste time with this. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I actually cut him too much slack. I will do as you suggest, next time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gigabyte or so of archived discussion where it has been made abundantly clear that we have no interest in changing our rules to suit religious thinking is more than enough evidence to support Baseball Bugs' view. As he says, this is not Islamopedia, and quite frankly, the opinion of Islam is completely irrelevant. Resolute 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs response was fine. I doubt that all those who make these requests come here in bad faith; I'm sure that there are many Muslims who just happen to stumble across this page, and voice their opinion without reading the templates which head this page. Baseball Bugs gave a succinct answer to a question that has driven many of those involved in this dispute to much worse actions. --Hojimachongtalk 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since when does Islam forbid pictures "of any persons"? That would come as a shock to Al Jazeera, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yathrib vs Medina

The article uses these two in various places. Perhaps it is more accurate to say 'Yathrib (now called Medina)' once and for all at it's first mention and then use 'Yathrib' afterwards. Thoughts ? MP (talkcontribs) 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

{{editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.

Done. MP (talkcontribs) 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and Terrorism

A new section should be added to discuss the theme of Muhammad and Terrorism. There are many academic sources and whilst the debate might be heated it should be addressed in Wikipedia. --82.35.58.145 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]