Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Archive 2

message: Any requests for comments on a fellow wiki editor you feel to raise? Positive or negative, its goes in this section.
Salman
:Comment on main editor comment page:Salman
Striver
:Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Striver
Zora
:Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Zora
Ed Poor
:Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Ed Poor
Saduj al-Dahij
:Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Saduj al-Dahij
OceanSplash
:Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/OceanSplash 
Palmiro
:Recently on Jannah this user changed Allah to God and after I changed back he reverted my edit. I've told this user to stop using non-Islamic terms on Islamic articles in the past, but he continues nonetheless. I suggest checking his contributions and correcting any more alterations. freestylefrappe 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was right, you were wrong. --Striver 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think we should use Allah in place of God. If the Quran is only true when read in Arabic, then Allah is the only true form of God for Muslims. freestylefrappe 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This user's contribution to Bektashi, which I highly suspect is a copyvio, has started an edit war between a new user, Bektashi110 and several other users. On his user page he seems to assert that Shiia, Bektashi, and Alawi are not Muslims. This may be an acceptable pov, but this should be taken to account. freestylefrappe 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comments 

message: Ya'll,
Take a look at this page: Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. I think it is highly biased.--Zereshk 03:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that article as defaming Islam. It makes it very clear that there are numerous POVs as to what actually happened, and credits the government of Iran with the hangings, not Islam as a whole. Zora 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read its talk page? --Striver 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defaming Islam

message: There's a new user  working on an article about an Islamic religious figure. He looks like he could use some help from experienced users. Cheers. Zocky 18:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new user who could use help 

message: I've began Vali Muhammad Khan and the Uthman Qur'an.If anyone has anymore info, please add it.Both are quite short at the mo. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever you require any information on such topic, please come to my page - I will surely try to do something. You have done nice articles on these two topics. I am an Indian of Hindu faith, and I find that wikipedia does not still have several pages about Indian muslims - after all, for more than a 1000 years, muslims have been a part of the Indian subcontinent. I will try to add the contents and stubs surely - but after my first wiki birthday on 24th March 2006. Happy editing. --Bhadani 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help?

message: Hello to all, I shall be here for next few weeks, and have a careful look at a number of relevant pages to modify, and remove if warranted, un-Encyclopedic information from such pages. I shall also do minor copyedits, wikification, clean-ups etc. --Bhadani 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created 2 stubs today: Samarkand manuscript & Banya Bashi Mosque. I will create at least one stub almost daily relating to Islam until I continue here. Even thereafter, I shall continue to contribute toIslam-related matters. --Bhadani 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's great but most of us don't keep talking about it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for guiding me in the matter. I will silently work in future. --Bhadani 17:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Bhadani 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons

message: There has been some discussion on the Ayatollah page about a recurrent posting summarizing an episode of the Simpsons.A few people have been removing the paragraph when it pops up, but perhaps the discussion of the appropriateness of this paragraph to this particular article would be improved if more voices were heard.I would invite editors to put it on their watchlist and make an objective decision about whether the paragraph adds to the usefulness of the Ayatollah article.--Counsel 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayatollah 

message: If anyone is interested in discussing systemic bias reg. Islam on Wikipedia,
please go here. Raphael1 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  systemic bias 

message: Dear Brothers and Sisters. First we are Muslims and the Shi’a or Sunni. We have to make sure that we protect the Islamic articles accurate from the point of view of Muslims. Some people are trying to say that Imam Hussain was killed instead of being martyred. I think that they are non-Muslims and because of that they do not understand the meaning of being killed and being martyred as far as their knowledge of Islam is concerned. I would like all of my brothers and sisters to contribute to Islamic article like Battle of Khaybar other Islamic articles that need to be more developed from the point of view of a Muslim. Thank You Salman
I agree with you on the subject about Imam Hussain r.a. But as you can see from every writig around you wikipedia has a no point of view policy. This doesnt mean that people can come and desacralize things that others hold holy but it means that articles and of course every single sentence in them must be non biased. Having said this I still think that on subjects like martyrdom no-one should say killed. A martyr is a martyr there is no POV here. Suleyman Habeeb 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes there is. Those of us who are non-Muslim do not accept the use of the term martyred. Zora 05:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, martyr is not pov, see chritianity articles. --Striver 10:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all of my Brothers and Sisters 

message: I have removed my name from here as " removing my name from here - as I found contents of several pages related to islam were not dynamic and choice was limited - I felt like working in a cage." However, I shall continue to contribute to islam related pages, that is sure. Thank you friends, bye bye. --Bhadani 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, within a day or two of my joining the guild, one editor de-motivated me by saying - we do not talk here, or something like that ... strange that people are not permitted to talk and discuss. --Bhadani 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I promise to give very soon Islam related stubs equal to the number of days I was associated with the Guild. I depart sadly, but I shall continue to work in this field. Thanks and Ameen. --Bhadani 17:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: There has been some vandilism occuring on the portals. Please keep an eye on them. BhaiSaab 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the vandilism on both the Sunni and Shi'a portals. BhaiSaab 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal Vandalism 

message: I am sure many of you remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy image dispute.
Now it seems the self-proclaimed free speech proponents censor critique on their own blocking habits: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_May_2006 Raphael1 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not removed the cartoons for a long time. Instead I prefer the linkimage compromise, where the cartoons are just moved one click away. I do not regard this as censorship, since everybody can see the cartoons if they please, while at the same time showing respect to readers, who feel insulted by them. In contrast my critique has been removed entirely by administrators as well as the discussion about the removal. Raphael1 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  different kind of censorship? 

message: I just created this image to help recognize any editor who has made exceptional contributions to Islam-related articles. --JuanMuslim  1m 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barnstars are wikipedian, and must not have a religion.I've nominated this image for deletion.Timothy Usher 07:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barnstars are entirely unofficial, and therefore their form is wholly up to the editors who chose to give them out. I have seen plenty of personal barnstar-type awards which are entirely (and entirely appropriately) POV. — JEREMY 07:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I know individuals like User:Cyde have been making strenous efforts to "neutralize" userboxes and also to subst them (with T2 reasoning). Part of the reason these individuals are doing this is that they want to inhibit the ability of editors to form cabals with such userboxes. I suspect that these same individuals will soon argue for the removal of this type of barnstar when to their way of thinking it is possible to use it for doing the same type of thing. Netscott 08:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Partisan awards naturally serve to divide rather than unite, and this barnstar is obviously counter-productive in building bridges among editors with different beliefs. Pecher Talk 09:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This barnstar is no different to the many devoted to specific categories. It isn't an award for "being a good Muslim" or even "being a good Muslim editor"; it's "to help recognize any editor who has made exceptional contributions to Islam-related articles". (Note the "any editor" part). Personally, I think barnstars are naff as hell — but I recognise that others find them useful, and it's not like we're talking "This editor thinks Trinitarian Christology is a Surrealist Joke" userboxen or something. — JEREMY 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may vote to keep or delete the image at the Vote to keep or delete page. --JuanMuslim  1m 09:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will copy our discussion to the Voting talk page, so that others will get an accurate idea about our current discussion. --JuanMuslim  1m 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image was nominated for possible deletion on May 27, 2006 but survived deletion. --JuanMuslim  1m 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks to your advertisement on this blatanly partisan talk page, it did.Timothy Usher 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your reservations about this talk page aside Timothy Usher let's try to assume good faith and see that the image is neutral in itself. If such wasn't the case I doubt you would have issued this barnstar yourself to a number of notable non-muslim editors involved with topics of an Islamic nature. Netscott 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image itself is fine, and several editors deserved the barnstar, having toiled far harder, and for a more principled cause, then some of those who'd received it the first time around.It's the overall atmosphere to which I object.This page should be abolished, Category:Muslim Wikipedians should be abolished, "Salam, brother" (to fellow "Muslims" only) should be abolished, "I LOVE ISLAM!" on userpages should be abolished, and everything else along those lines, as per T2+++.Timothy Usher 10:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Timothy, may I ask why should the category be abolished? There are categories of wikipedians who believe in other religions? I'm curious if you make these remarks at other religions pages too? I know that all you want is to contribute in the way you believe best but some of your words do not seem like that. I cannot see what's wrong about saying ¨salam¨ to another wikipedian. salam. Suleyman Habeeb 11:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're unhappy about a certain user's behavior, you may report it on WP:AN/I, but do not spam talk pages to rally support, please. Pecher Talk 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic Barnstar Award (image for deletion) 

message: I've added a new Islam related articals that were missing. Sadrist Movement please add more info on this as it is a stub really.Hypnosadist 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muqtada al-Sadir and the sadrist party in Iraq

message: Folks, there is already a place to call attention to an article.It's called an RfC (Request for comment).However, it differs from spam posts to this page in two ways: 1) you'll be asking for other editors' attention, not their assistance 2) you'll be addressing the community as a whole, not just the "Muslim Guild".
Whosever sincerely wishes only for editors to take a look at an article and make up their own minds, and truly doesn't mean to address his post only to members of a particular religion, will use the established RfC process.Those who, having been apprised of the process, post to this Guild anyhow, do so, it must be assumed, precisely because their intentions would not be served by the legitimate goals of an RfC.Timothy Usher 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guild is not closed to anyone, so there's no problem posting here.  BhaiSaab  talk 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RfC]]

message: I think that we should have membership policy and membership should not be open for everyone. Hence if a User wants to join the group then other User should vote (based on his contributions), whether he should be allowed to be a member or not. He should be member only in case of consensus (75-80% support votes) of the current members. Similarly the voting procedure may disqualify a current member. The reason I want to have this policy is that, if many people who are part of propaganda against Islam join the group then it might become ineffective. --- Faisal 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose it, let them join, who care. This is not a exclusive club, this is somewhere where people intrested in Islam-topics can gathere, no mater who they are. --Striver 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Faisal. Spies are all around here scheming against this guild. Pecher Talk 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, we need to remeber that we dont own this, this is not "our" guild, this is a project page to co-operate when editing Islam articles. *If* there are any "spies", the worst think they could do is to create a atmospher of fear. Let him be, focus on the mission: To creat better wikipedia articles. --Striver 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Striver here. Amibidhrohi 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, agree with Striver.Timothy Usher 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those who are anti-semitism are as bad Users as "the group" working for Islam propoganda. ---- Faisal 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WTF is up with that comment ??Mr 70.132.66.114, your diatribe there is quite offensive! I mean, you didn't even call me a vandal!Just Usher and Pgk? Playing favorites?You, you, you... exclusionist!!Luckily I don't get hurt feelings that easily ;)Enjoy your day, my cute little 70.132.66.114 Love, --FairNBalanced 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice to see you here, FairNBalanced!Anon was closer to the mark when he said I had "Anti Semitism feeling against anon-editors in wikipedia",  I don't mind being attacked per se, but it's important to get these nuances straight.Timothy Usher 06:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL --FairNBalanced 06:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership policy 

message: Please have a look at the history of Timothy Usher's talk page and Pgk's talk page. I was only making the title of a section neutral. It was Timothy Usher who first accused me of vandalism ("ALONG WITH THE JUSTIFICATION THAT I AM AN ANONYMOUS EDITOR") and recently referred to me as a troll. Now he is playing the role of an innocent person and others are ridiculing me. 70.231.238.22 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I am not a vandal and Timothy Usher and Pgk are making false accusations 

message: Mr. Timothy Usher, if you agree that your behavior could have been better, your judgment was quick and ask Pgk to unprotect your talk page, everything between us will be resolved. It is a good contract. Put yourself in my shoes and you will realize that you were offensive towards me even if it was not intended. 70.231.233.118 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Mr. Timothy Usher 

message: Very non-neutral title. I hate bad titles. 70.231.233.118 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Guide ??? 

message: It seems like I will leave Wikipedia soon. It has been my pleasure to work with you. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1 Raphael1 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1]] 

message: *BhaiSaab
*Netscott 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow, isn't it somewhat a matter of principle that membership should be voluntary?We can't just sign up users for another project.Also, several members of this Guild are currently under ArbCom scrutiny, one of whom will almost certainly be banned, and I can think of at least two more which appear to be going down the same road.At least two are currently blocked (for example, the one who proposed the merger.)In all cases this is due to precisely the attitudes and behaviors which has brought this Guild into disrepute, as is amply illustrated by the discussion above.It strikes me as very unwise to prolong this history by merging it with a legitimate project.I urge you to reconsider your support.Timothy Usher 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't know who are under scrutiny, but we have enough evidence to put "some" other people under scrutiny if one feels it is necessary. Just to make it fair, or just to reduce the number of people watching here! The choice is yours --Aminz 08:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that supposed to mean?Timothy Usher 08:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Timothy, I didn't refer to you for sure. See, on one hand I should abide by the wikipedia rules and on the other hand I need to express myself. Hey Timothy, tomorrow, there is a football match between Iran and Mexico, and I hope Iran wins ;)--Aminz 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.It's good to hear I'm not in anyone sights.Go Iran!Timothy Usher 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think anybody has any evidence against you even though some may not like you. But that's because you have "big" goals. --Aminz 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the Merger

message: *Fair N Balanced - per my username, I'd like to see more of all sides of the argument before choosing a position --FairNBalanced 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote is a little confusing. If you vote against the merger, wouldn't you require a separate vote then for the deletion of "The Muslim Guild" (in favor of just keeping "The Wikipedia Islam Project"?Even if the deletion occurred rather than the merger, what would stop "The Wikipedia Islam Project" from becoming essentially "The Muslim Guild, part 2" ? --FairNBalanced 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstain/Undecided

message: Man, i just hate when people tranliterate this way. Is it just me? I really, really do NOT care for how the "underlying" arabic looks like, i want plain english text to read. Sure, it must be accuratly tranliterated, but i dont care for how the Arabic looks like! --Striver 13:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic transliterations

message: I found the following publication contains references to many publications of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi:
Professor Paul H. Robinson, Final report of the Maldivian penal law & sentencing codification project, Volume 2, Official Commentary, Criminal Law Research Group, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Commissioned by the Office of the Attorney General of the Maldives and the United Nations Development Programme, January 2006. 
Does that qualify publications of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on Renaissance, a monthly Islamic Journal, which sometimes publishes part of his books and happens to be an e-journal as well, for secondary source. SaadSaleem 10:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello SaadSaleem, any secondary source included in given articles on Wikipedia should definitely mention the source along with the text that is being referenced. This should be done in addition to providing<ref> links. Hope that helps. :-) (→Netscott) 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reply but I mean, are writings of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on eJournal Renaissance acceptable as secondary sources on Wikipedia? SaadSaleem 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally they would be but in whatever article that you're going to include references to such writings you must also clearly indicate the source for that view relative to those writings. So instead of writing something like, "Muhammad was the final prophet for all of mankind." in a given article you'd write, "According to the writings of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on Renaissance.com.pk , 'Muhammad was the final prophet for all of mankind.'. Do you follow? (→Netscott) 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding a source? 

message: It came to my mind that if there is an article, Muhammad as a warrior, why can't we write more articles on Prophet Muhammad such as Muhammad as a father, Muhammad as a husband, Muhammad as a diplomat, Muhammad as a religious teacher, and Muhammad as a social reformer. The main problem with Islam is that we have so much information (especially hadith), which can be right, wrong, or incomplete, that people don't miss even a single chance to defame Islam. So I thought, to balance it out, we need to show the other side of the picture as well. As one of our friendmentioned that for Muhammad as a diplomat, events can include constitution of medinah, treaty of hudaybiyyah, 'aqabah pledges, oath at the tree, letters and envoys sent to the various world leaders of persia, byzantine (envoy to heraculus), abyssinia (negotiating with the negus of abyssinia in assigning a temporary place of refuge for muslims), making peace between the rivalling tribes of aws and khazraj (some specific incidences are notable), journey to meet the leaders of ta'if and so on..... The only problem is that we need to have good citable secondary sources that we can put so that we don't run into problem afterwards. The working versions can be put on someone's User subpage and then once we are confident enough, the article will be uploaded to the encyclopedia. --SaadSaleem 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A working proposal for "Muhammad as a diplomat". --SaadSaleem 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: How about joining my latest creation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic names? --Striver 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Project

message: Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim  1m 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Barnstar Award (Barnstar Proposals Page) 

message: The second mission is surprising. There is written "To ensure that Islam-related articles offer a neutral, unbiased point of view free from all POV whether secular or nonsecular". 
First I remind you I don't speak about fact. I speak about opinion.Is there anything beyond secular and nonsecular.We can write and we should write Islamic viewpoint in Islamic discourse and Secular viewpoint in secular discourse .--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, you should write an article from as many viewpoints as possible, which includes both the Islamic and the secular (curious opposites, think about it!) viewpoint. Not to create pro-secular nor pro-Islamic articles. In Islam-related articles belongs the criticism of secular thinkers about the agressive character of Islam and in secular articles may be posted the concerns imams have spoken. Regards, Torero 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence was included at a time when another WikiProject Islam group (SIEEG?) existed that worked to make Islam-related articles to their particular view point, that is nonsecular, which was biased. But we, The Muslm Guild, wanted to emphasize that we were most interested in seeing accurate information about Islam on Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim  1m 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surprising sentence

message: Is it ok if i rename this to WikiProject Muslims? --Striver 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, what about all the other guilds? Do you plan to rename all of those, too? IE WikiProject Sunni Muslims, etc. And, if we're called WikiProject Muslims, perhaps, we should simply merge with WikiProject Islam? --JuanMuslim  1m 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, i plan to expand them. Have you seen who many the chrisians have? Scholars, Hadith and Salaf are all huge fields. We could use one for the Qur'an, but i have not felt any need for it. I did not creat them for fun. --Striver 09:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, but there are 100s of Christian Wikipedians, and few Muslims. Almost all of the Islam subWikiprojects you created just sit there.--JuanMuslim  1m 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i agree that they need more members. That would be beneficial for the articles. I could be due to the fact that there are more chritians here on wikipedia. --Striver 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rename

message: Hello everyone. I am speaking at the Oct. 28, 2006 "Message International" forum Islam and America in Queens, New York, at York College; the forum is scheduled between 5 and 9 pm. If you would like to attend for free, please leave a message on my talk page. For Muslim Wikipedians in the NYC area, it might be a nice chance to meet face to face. You can visit the Islam and America website for more information about this event. BYT 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, i would come, but unfortunatly, i am on another continent :(--Striver 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't live in new york. --JuanMuslim  1m 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's meet in person