Talk:Abraham in Islam

message: I have to say that i find this edit by Ibrahim ebi a little POINTy poorly timed at this moment.  The previous version of the infobox clearly indicated the Islamic interest in the subject; the current version seems to go out of its way to claim that interest as nearly the only one.  Perhaps Ibrahim ebi would like to revert the BOLD action and discuss it here? Cheers, LindsayHello 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ooh i am not at all getting POINTY here i was just being bold in making the edit and update the contents but i think i should have drop the opinion of making the edit there at this moment. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Ibrahim.  I withdraw the POINTy statement, as on rechecking, i am reminded that it refers to purposefully disruptive editing, and i don't believe you were doing that; you were just bold.  This disagreement does not show signs of becoming ridiculous, as some on WP do, for which i am glad; as long as we can talk together.... Cheers, LindsayHello 04:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you too for withdrawing that statement. Actually on long run i was trying to make it like this one (Rashidun Caliphs here) as i did earlier for caliphs but i think i should restrict myself in making there move at this time. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the reverting edit summary that templates should not be specific to a single article. That said, I liked your design: perhaps it could be developed into a standard infobox for Muslim prophets, sages, et al., with fields appropriate to the traditions surrounding them. (I imagine many of the Saint template’s entries would still be relevant.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: People keep adding original research to this article.  This is against Wikipedia policy WP:OR.
A good example is this. An IP editor claims: "This is the scholarly view, while the view of the father, is the lay view. This is agreed upon by the highest scholars of Shias, Sunnis, & Quran".  But there is no evidence that it is a scholarly view.  There are no citations to published books or articles by scholars.  In fact, all the citations are to a religious primary source - the Koran.  This is called original research.
I propose to delete all paragraphs that either have:
*No citations, or
*Only citations to religious primary sources: the Koran, the Bible, hadiths, etc.
This will reduce the amount of original research in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that the article need to be cited with secondary sources there is a lot of work that need to be done with the article and there are a huge number of secondary sources but the thing is that the whole article need to be reviewed and cited with both sources. the current edits were argumentative as there are secondary sources favoring the current version as here here etc. but it takes a little time to cite the article with secondary sources. I have added some books recently. So i believe instead of removing the content we need to review the article and cite the article. Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding lists of books to the reference list only helps if you cite from the books.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm i am aware of that. There is a lot of work that need to be done. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us review the situation on 1 April.  If the article is still full of paragraphs whose only citations are to primary religious sources or are uncited, then I will prune as proposed.  If significant progress has been made by then, we can discuss what should be done with any paragraphs that you have been unable to find secondary sources for..--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ok --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sticking my nose in everyone's business here...am I to understand that until April 1st, then, the goal is to bring as many secondary and tertiary sources as possible for the purposes of replacing the primary sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal is that statements will be backed by secondary sources.  There is no requirement to remove the primary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: MezzoMezzo The idea is to provide as much secondary sources as possible as the article lacks secondary sources and relies mainly on primary sources.You can help cite the article. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to eliminate some of the original research in the article

message: Article should have consistency on using Abraham/Ibrahim. When talking from Islamic POV it should use the Ibrahim while Abraham is appropriate in other place. The lede opens with the name Ibrahim, while one infobox in the top uses Abraham followed by the honorofic -- which is clearly a Islamic POV. Abraham shall never precede alayhi s-salām, Ibrahim can. I'm undoing the undo on my change by  and adding a Abraham in parentheses. If editors still have disagreements, we can discuss here. --nafSadh did say 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham/Ibrahim consistency  

message: I have noticed biased edits by someone who disagrees with the Islamic POV of Abraham, in articles such as this. This article itself is about the Islamic POV of Abraham, so if anyone disagrees with it, then that person should keep it to himself or herself, and not vandalize this page, or other pages, to reflect his or her POV. Leo1pard (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the party, it is a constant battle to maintain a neutral, but Islam-based point of view.  Here is a better question, why is there a need for an "Abraham in Islam" article at all?  Why do Christians get to own the Abraham article?  A real encyclopedia would have all the facets of Abraham in one article.  Lipsquid (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably because it would get very bulky, with different viewpoints from different religions. There is a good deal of differences between the Islamic view of Abraham and others' views on him, and this can be the case with other Biblical figures mentioned in Islam. Leo1pard (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased edits by users who do not agree with the Islamic point-of-view 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abraham in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019040746/http://www3.kumc.edu:80/diversity/ethnic_relig/eid-al-adha.html to http://www3.kumc.edu/diversity/ethnic_relig/eid-al-adha.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This appears in the intro:
"Muslims believe that the prophet Abraham became the leader of the righteous in his time, and that it was through him that people of both the Arabian Peninsula (Adnanites in particular) and Israel came."
Does it mean that all people in a geographic area are descended from Abraham?Shtove (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it to specifically refer to Adnanite-Arabs and Israelites. Leo1pard (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: Several sections of this article where citations are missing, for example "The Great Fire," seem to be taken from a story for children called
“The History of Prophet Ibrahim” by Arowolo Oladimeji
https://www.academia.edu/10428457/THE_HISTORY_OF_PROPHET_IBRAHIM_WRITTEN_BY_IBRAHIM_OLADIMEJI_AROWOLO
This usage stretches the meaning of "traditions of Islam" rather far. Elsewhere on the web this material is now being quoted as authoritative, citing Wikipedia.
Cockeyed (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious source 

message: Your information is shown uder the question  who is father of Allah. Allah has no father he is the one and only please correct the question. 103.186.77.139 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question shown on google. 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Ibrahim and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Ibrahim until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  An anonymous username, not my real name 11:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ibrahim" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]