Template talk:Wives of Muhammad

message: I suggest that we change this template a little.  I think it should be wider and then we should organize the names by the time of their marriage to the prophet and put the years there.  It's easy for someone to figure out the alphabetical order but one would get more information from this if it showed when they were married and the order.  Or so I think gren 17:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template changes

message: Will someone explain the change from wives to consorts?  A consort is a broad term.  Abu Bakr was a consort of Muhammad's.  Is this vague for a reason?  It's not only female consorts it's only consorts typically called wives as I can see... so we should likely clarify all of this. gren グレン 04:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abu Bakr was a consort of Muhammad's" The word "consort" can be understood in the context of sexual relations. It is the context that determines the meaning of the word's usage. The context is clear in this case - Aby Bakr does not belong on the list of "Consorts of Muhammad." It's true that the word "consort" is vauge. The proper and appropriate word here is "harem." The explicit title is "Muhammad's harem." But since this has offended a number of editors (for whatever reason), the word euphamisticly non-explicit word "consort" is used. "Consort" is commonly used as a well-understood euphamism in the study of religions.  --Zeno of Elea 03:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A consort is a 'broad' term indeed, wink wink :o) seriously, it means "wives and concubines" in this context. No, harem would not be the proper term at all, since "Muhammad's harem" could include his grandmother, his aunts, and his cousins, basically all the women he is responsible for (as opposed to those he has both responsible for, and has sexual relations with). dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consorts 

message: I have temporarily protected this template from editing due to an ongoing revert war. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Sort out your squabbles here on the talk page (or perhaps on Template:WivesMuhammad/temp), and once you've reached consensus ask me or another admin to unprotect the page, or ask on Requests for page protection and unprotection. Revert warring gets Wikipedia nowhere. - Mark 14:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template protection 

message: I have unprotected this template. If the revert war picks up again instead of collaboration and consensus-reaching, then I will re-protect it. Please reach a sensible consensus and then leave the template alone. I recommend linking to an article which discusses the dispute as to whether these women really were 'sex slaves', where you can cite references for both sides of the academic debate. Revert warring gets Wikipedia nowhere. - Mark 09:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template unprotection 

message: Zeno, your last edit summary "this POV pushing by users who are obviously Muslims trying to cover up Muhammad's misdeeds (POV pushing) has gone on for long enough" suggests again that it's you who is POV pushing. Just about all women were treated badly in our terms in 600 CE by all communities, not just Muslims; in fact, it might be true to say that all wives were sex slaves. And men were treated badly too: you seem to be applying our standards of morality and civil liberties, which is completely inappropriate.
Anyway the issue of who he was married to is unknowable. The majority scholarly opinion is that these women were his wives, and this is a template, so there's no need here to include every single POV. The details are discussed in the individual articles. Please stop reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's reasonable to say that woman was all treated badly "in 600 CE by all communities", but I guess that is not what we are discussing anyway. What I would like to know is what sources do you have that says that the majority scholarly opinion is that all these woman was his wives and not just slaves in cases such as Maria al-Qibtiyya? If it can be made clear that the vast majority of the sources that we have, says that they where all wives then it might be reasonable, to have the version that we have now. I haven't seen any evidence that show that until now though. All I've seen evidence that makes it clear that it's disputed. And if there is a genuine dispute then we have to find some kind af "middle way" and aviod to choose a side in the discussion, according to NPOV as I understand it. And regarding your edit summary: another thing is that I don't think there is a problem to have a template with red links. (We got plenty of them in the Danish wikipedia!). It encurage people to start writing these articles, and having an inaccurate template is worse in any case. -- Karl Meier 19:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell it's majority opinion among  Muslim scholars that she's a wife. Islam Online concurs and they tend to be a rather typical ISNAish voice, but obviously not gospel.  I would suggest that if Maria is deemed to not be a wife then she should be removed as this is the wives templates and talk of concubines whom would be less important not being mothers of the ummah and all could go somewhere else.  I think how it is now makes a good point... it's surely the majority Muslim view of today and there could be a page linked to discuss the whole debate -- if we could produce a decent page on the issue that isn't just bible.ca.  Zeno, stop doing that kind of thing.  It does not make you easier to work with.  Not only does an editor's faith not matter but you try to blanket one position as being a Muslim's position or not.  Please show a modicum of courtesy in these matters. gren グレン 20:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, it is not just the opinion of the majority of modern day, Muslim, "scholars" of Islam on the internet, that matters. The opinions of non-Muslims are also relevant. Secondly, just because a POV is SUPPOSEDLY supported by the majority of some specific modern-day religious group, DOES NOT mean that only that POV can be included in Wikipedia. To do so is nothing more or less than POV pushing. Thirdly, no one has provided any evidence that the "majority of Muslim scholars" support the apologetic POV that is being pushed here (a link to "IslamOnline.net" is NOT proof of about "majorities of scholars." The POV pushers on this Template refuse to compromise in any way and refuse to reason in a logical fashion, the only source they have cited is "IslamOnline.net." Due to this refusal, by certain editors, to cooperate and adhere to the NPOV policy, and due to the ceaseless revert war that has been going on for two months now, there is no choice but to escelate this content dispute to Request for Arbitration. -- Zeno of Elea 20:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zeno: The ArbCom doesn't accept cases regarding individual articles and their PoV issues. It's all about individual users and their (questionable) behavior there. However, you can list the template on "request for comment" to attract a wider audience. -- Karl Meier 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Karl, yes I understand the complexity which is why I said above I wasn't really sure.  I just talked about her removal as a kind of... what are the alternatives... and some aren't good.  It seems that I agree with what you say in principle, although I'm sure there will probably be manifest differences.  I'm just curious... is her being a wife a denial that she ever was a slave / prisoner of war?  They aren't mutually exclusive, no? gren グレン 22:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Zeno, once again you don't listen to my full point.  I was not giving us the answer sent down from heaven... I was giving a point and my thoughts.  I am aware the Islamic community is not the only viewpoint but they are obviously important in this matter.  Secondly I only cited the Islam Online thing to show that they cited concensus on her being a wife, of course that would have to be researched and all.  The logic here on both sides is inductive and therefore the other side will see it as flawed, it's just how things go. gren グレン 00:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  gren, I have refuted your assertions and your response is not a rebuttal to my refutation - as a matter of fact, you have just contradicted the very claims that you are trying to defend. -- Zeno of Elea 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Gren: I thought that maybe you could suggest a title then? I and Zeno has suggested a lot of different titles to make it as NPoV as possible, and to avoid choosing a position between these PoVs. However, they have all just been reverted by Irishpunktom and his mysterious "friends", without much discussion. Maybe it would be better, and maybe it would make it possible to end this conflict, if you could come up with some sort of suggestion that is NPoV? At this point I would appriciate it. Regarding your above question, no I don't think that "her being a wife is a denial that she ever was a slave / prisoner of war". She could have been a slave and then he could have married her later. However, the question is if he ever did that, or if she remained only a slave? There are as it has already been pointed out, respected sources that contradict each other regarding this issue, so we can't choose a side between these positions, if we are to follow NPoV. That is the whole essence of this issue. -- Karl Meier 09:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Should we have a poll here to determine who supports which version? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand I don't think it's acceptable for you to insist on a PoV version of this template, without addressing our concerns here on the talkpage, and it doesn't matter if you are the "majority" or not. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we are supposed to write things according to NPoV nomatter what. And again there is an unanswered question for you, that you haven't responded to: Where is your evidence that the Wives version is supported by the vast majority of sources that is available, so that we can ignore the other PoV and still be fairly neutral? We have provided several respected sources that says that she was only a slave. What sources and what evidence have you provided us with? I'd expect that the other side of this discussion would defend their position with arguments and  sources, and not (as it is the case now) with unexplained reverts. -- Karl Meier 08:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  SlimVirgin, just because you and a number of Muslim editors happen to be a large group trying to push an extremist POV into a neglected template does not qualify your activties as legitimate. Your POV pushing revert were is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You and your supporters have refused to deal with this matter in a civil manner, refusing to reach a compromise or consensus despite several attempts on my part and on Karl Meier's part. In an article with only a total of 4 total editors who are engaging in discussion and not just revert warring, a syndicate of 2 extremist POV pushing editors does not constitute any sort of consensus or legitimacy. I am obliged to undo the POV pushing reverts that you are supporting and I will continue to do so. If you have a problem with this, then perhaps you should file a Request of Arbitration. And if you and others do not cease and desist from "wives-only" POV pushing facilitated by a revert war, then something will have to be done. You clearly are not willing to allow any other POV to be represented here, and you seem to be under the delusion that 2 people vs 2 people constitutes a conensus according to Wikipedia rules and that having rigged polls in a little known template will lend legitimacy to organized POV pushing.    -- Zeno of Elea 07:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Zeno's above comment. We have made a reasonable case and provided sources that make it clear the wives-only version is indeed PoV, and ignore important information that is available from respected sources. I also believe we have been flexible and have suggested many alternatives and compromises. Yesterday I requested that the opposite side of the discussion, should suggest some sort of compromise that is NPoV. But there is no response yet to these reasonable requests and suggestions, and it seems evident that the editors on the other side of this discussion have made up their minds that they are the majority, and that they can force their PoV into the template by making endless reverts, without any discussion. -- Karl Meier 08:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Women in 600 CE

message: Just to get away from the controversial issues for a while... what do you think about ordering this template by date of marriage?  It seems to make more sense to me since alphabetizing wives serves no real purpose.  gren グレン 02:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, ordering by date makes sense. Zora 03:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That makes a lot of sense, Gren. Thanks for doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Have you thought of possibly ordering the red links?  Academic and dawa sites don't typically differ on the order they were married or taken as slaves or whatever it is.  You know it is possible to take the time to find out how your red links would fit in to the list and put them in order.  Diplomacy fails -- time to enter the fray. gren グレン 08:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would indeed be nice to have the names by date, but it's not a good idea if we have to remove names and make then make it much more inaccurate. Also, I suggest that we should find a compromise to the current dispute before we make more changes. I asked you for a suggestion regarding a compromise, but you didn't give me any answer. You only response to my request for a compromise has been to revert to the previous POV version of the template, and that doesn't really help the situation here. -- Karl Meier 08:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is my hope that you will take the initiative to find the date and sources for those you wish to add.  Your edits all certain around your POV and you do nothing else to help wikipedia.  Even if I was involved in the number of controversies that you were at least I would have thousands of edits unambiguously NPOV helping out this encyclopedia.  You cannot even take the effort to find the dates and order your additions.  I am not trying to change the terms of your revert war.  I found the dates for the version that was up and I ordered it.  Take some initiative and find the dates for your additions and order them.  Then we can have the same debate from above continue but at least it will be ordered and I can see that is some kind of step forward.  My problem is that you can't see anything outside of this POV debate.  My edits had nothing to do with the debate and as a user who presumably gives a damn about this encyclopedia you could find the dates and make your version ordered.  From what I can tell you would just append Rehana bint Zaid followed by Jamilah to the list we already have.  This really wasn't meant to be part of the dispute... and if, as you say, it would be nice to have names and dates then add them.  Either version will presumably have them at the end so why not add them now.  It's completely independent from your debates and your apparent laziness is what caused me to revert.  Attempts at compromising have failed repeatedly so I am going to let you continue bickering -- but reverting the only constructive edit to the templates in quite some time borders on irksome. gren グレン 08:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: I simply dont have the time to deal with these Muslim fundamentalist Nazis and their idioticly allied non-Muslim editors (e.g. Zora, SlimVirgin). I have better things to do with my time. Let them push their POV on Wikipedia. There is no way to stop this hoard of POV pushers on Islam related articles. It is clear, in this case ,that the NPOV party is vastly outnumbered. So what sense does it make to try to fight all these Ramadan-crazed narcasistic fundamentalists who cannot accept a single blemish of their horrid religion? I've had it with this. You can call these women "wives of muhammad" all you want; the intelligent  man will quickly realize that they were enslaved victims of a deranged rapist psychopath. You POV pushing degenerates want to call them wives and nothing but. Go right ahead. I give up in the face of your relentless POV pushing. Congradulations. -- Zeno of Elea 09:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno, please don't just label and calls names like that.  But, while I surely don't agree that you are NPOV and the others aren't I think there is a certain amount of ambiguity and you have done some good.  The terms of this argument was originally you changing the title from "Wives of the Prophet Muhammad".  Now the most "apologist" title this template will receive is "Wives of Muhammad" with Maria being disputed.  While you may believe this is still POV you have helped in this regard I think, and I think it's important that the dispute on Maria be noted.  I obviously don't agree with you on every issues but you do bring up good claims and have helped new material sceptical of the Islamic and apologetic versions of things onto wikipedia.  I don't agree with a lot of what you said and almost find it insulting but I don't know if it's something you should just give up on.  You have brought up good points and I appreciate that. gren グレン 10:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno of Elea a Bigot?  Surely not!  Whining now like a spolied child, its pathetic. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: Karl, you don't just come back after a month and change it. The results of our last discussion was you leaving discussion and Zeno calling the Muslim editors fundamentalist Nazis and then leaving the project for a while — not exactly the actions of those with the upper hand in the discussion.  So, I presumed we had a least a consensus to disagree, which does not mean you come back after a month.  I don't know your reasoning but if you want to bring up debate bring up debate, don't just change it without even giving an edit summary.  Really, you should know better. gren グレン 09:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To think that you are your posse of Muslims apologists have the upper hand here is laughable. -- Zeno of Elea 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno when the opposition leaves one side typically gains the upper hand.  I have not been part of these discussions and have only reverted twice in a long time because the first time the editors ignored changes not related to the dispute to better this template, and now because Karl starts reverting after a month of no conversation.  You just dont' do that. They aren't my posse so please, act like a respectable editor Zeno and join the process. gren グレン 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Trying to hijack the template to indulge your fantasy..." Trying to indugle your fantasy? What kind of speech is that? Is that a personal attack? It's certainly a  false accusation. Do you call that professionalism? If someone points out that the Islamic literature describes Muhammad having female slaves captured during war, then that person is "trying to indulge in fantacies?" I don't have any fantacies about a camel "prophet" in the desert raping prisoners of war. However, in light of the fact that there are a billion Muslims who take this as  the panultimate model of behaviour, the issue of Muhammad's "wives" is an important issue. It is you who is trying to hijack this template, with your apologetic lying and censorship and your vile and false accusations. You claim that only one name on the list is a slave, when in fact 3 of the names on the list are clearly indicated as slaves. Just because an article has not been started on every name does give you the right to delete names from the list. These names are listed in the Sira, and therefore they will be listed here - whether or not someone has yet started an article on them. And the fact that "wives" is an apologetic lie being spread by you and your Muslim apologetic posse does not mean that someone who opposes you is indulging in fantacies about raping prisoners of war, as Muhammad did. To exclusively use the word "wives" when it is perfectly clear that the original sources say that not all of them were wives, is just apologetic POV pushing. We have been over this many times, and have tried to compromise in many ways, but due the fanatic apologetics going on here, the apologists will not compromise. They should therefore be forcably removed from here. Do not accuse me of "bigotry" and "indulging in sexual fantacies" again, Zora. I've had enough of  your personal attacks, and this is the last time that I'm going to ask you to behave in a civil manner. -- Zeno of Elea 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno, there is no need to make this an accusation of a personal attack.  Zora made no reference to youur indulging in sexual fantasies.  What she said, in flowery language, was call you misguided and wrong (fantasy) the stated your opinion which is that he had slave girls who were ready to be married and then she said such opinions which she believes goes against scholarly aptitude were bigotry, which is the only thing remotely personal about it.  So stop, calling everything a personal attack is useless. If you want to worry about personal attacks then first cleanup your own behavior before addressing issues such as this that don't clearly fit the policy. gren グレン 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have been over this a thousnd times. It is beyond any doubt that a dispute exists over Muhammad's "female slaves." You, as a "misguided and wrong (fantasy)" person, believe that these slaves "were ready to be married." This is your POV and nothing more. No one is trying to exclude your POV from the template, all that is being asked is that the opposing (non-apologetic) side of the dispute be fairly represented here. As for you "cleaing up behaviour," you can only point to one instance where I engaged in personal attacks, and I have throughly explained that situation. You should clean up your own behaviour by reviewing WP:NPOV. -- Zeno of Elea 08:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno, referring to people as "Muslim fundamentalist Nazis" and "idiotically allied" "posse of Muslim apologists" is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl's revert 

message: Zeno and Karl
if you are disputing the status of some of these women as wives, discuss it here, and if appropriate (eg: sourced) we can work to add an asterisk to their names.  My reading of the talk page is that this was settled by massive consensus over a month ago.  Reopening the issue by throwing a tantrum isn't going to improve the template.
To everyone: if I see more insults start to fly, I'm going to start banning the insulters for disruption.  Consider this your only warning.  Nandesuka 13:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from uninvolved admin 

message: In the marriage years, the wives who outlive Muhammad, are listed as '-the end'. Is there some good reason why it should not say either the year or '- his death'? Hoping someone is still watching this page.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  -the end ?