Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Archive 1

message: Klonimus's edit summary Mirv you arent even a member, why are you so involved? made me realize that manuals of style for different subsets of editors on the same topic is a really, really bad idea. Sure, it seems fine when only one group has it, but if others took a cue and wrote up their own style manuals, we would end up with endless sterile edit wars should the Salafists decide that use of honorifics is mandatory, or the Shiites that the name of Yazid should always be followed by "(laanat on him)" or whatever. One style manual for Islam-related articles, developed with input from all interested editors, is what we need. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be the link for the neutral article for the needed standards. --Juan Muslim 13:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, laanat on him! (relax, having fun *smile*) --Striver 01:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) it wasn't purely hypothetical (though it was a joke); I've seen one or two examples of inexperienced editors doing almost exactly that. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: *The Prophet or The Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — appropriate action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad"; in first references to Muhammad in an article in which confusion with other Muhammads is plausible, render Muhammad, or possibly "the Islamic prophet Muhammad".
:Disagree. Just using "prophet" as a descriptor does not imply that the individual is speaking truth, just that he/she is "prophesying". Unless you're going to remove "prophet" from Wikipedia entirely, leave uncapped usages in Islamic articles. Zora 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree, because there are millions of Muhammads. --Juan Muslim 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: disagree, as per above. --Striver 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the policy as stated; acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet (unqualified: implicitly, a truthful prophet) is a point-of-view, and one that, as a Christian, I cannot share.  Now, *I* could live with an article calling Muhammad a false prophet, but I rather think we all agree that that would fail NPOV — thus, the argument cuts both ways!  The context in which he is accepted as a prophet must be given in order to call him such (see, for instance, Ezekiel, who is called "a prophet in the Hebrew Bible").  For the record, I would oppose any attempt to permit references to Jesus Christ as "the Lord" in Wikipedia articles.  See Names and titles of Jesus for a good example of how this should be handled.  Wooster 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I presume you'll soon express opposition to Moses being considered a prophet in his article. Also, the use of the word "saint" in "Saint Thomas, etc. Bernard Lewis uses the phrase "Prophet Muhammad", as does secular programs like those on PBS. I see nothing POV in saying "The prophet Muhammad". His Excellency... 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I propose that every article that has mention of Muhammad be allowed and even encouraged to mention his prophethood by qualification, i.e Islamic prophet X, Muslim prophet X. This is important for the first mention of him in any article as important contextual information in reference to him. I forsee the argument that oh everyone one knows who he is, that's bung and an assumption. I have no objection to dissuading honorifics but I think it is being carried too far by some editors to expunge the a very relevant word in relation to him even when it is used not as a honorific but as a contextual and informative descriptor. Take a peep at [:Portal:Saints] and notice the usage of Saint and Pope across the page on various articles. I beleive it is POV pushing to remove the word Prophet from before Muhammad when being designated a prophet doesn't imply a fact merely a claim to divine guidance. Anyrate I will limit my press for appropriate contextual mention being allowable.--Tigeroo 14:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Muhammad 

message: There are some standardization issues that are discussed in the Islam WikiProject. Such as when should the Islam template be placed on an Islam related article? Much of what is found on the Islam WikiProject article should be incorporated into the Manual of Style. --Juan Muslim 07:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam]] 

message: Can we have a talk about it? I want it on the articles it links to. --Striver 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Muslim Beliefs]] 

message: I propose this format:
*Sura 4.35 translated by Shakir
::And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware 
--Striver 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran ref

message: Since the family trees of every person is so well documented and relevant to ahadith, i propose that we try to fill in the family tree of everyone, using the Family tree of Ali ibn Abu Talib as strandard. 
It starts with grandfather/mother, then father/mother, brother/sister and the self. Then wives. Children are indented under the mother, since the father can have several wives. Each new wive/family  also gets a extra line-feed.
--Striver 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree 

message: I propose that we add the  at the top of every Sahaba, or at least at the top of every non-prominent sahaba. the template displays this text:
This category contains articles about the sahaba of Muhammad.
Then also add Category:Sahaba under it so as to list them here
--Striver 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't look correct; I've had a recent dispute/discussion (which almost turned nasty) with another user about this (I wanted a correct version and he didn't want anything like that at all) and in the end I created the template . It was agreed that placing this at the end of every article about a sahaba would be the best compromise. The category, of course, should be at the end. MP   (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sahaba 

message: Teachers:
*????
*????
Students:
*????
It will repeat the information in the article, but will be of great help for those that want to see the line of teachers and whom he taught without wanting to go through his biography. It will also encourage people to add those facts, if they are missing.
It will also let one to follow the line uppwards or downwards the line of students, for those intrested in doing so.
If no student and/or teacher exist, or if it is assumed that the list is incomplete, i propose to add sometheing like:
Teachers:
*????
*
Students:
*(none known)
My first implementation of this standard is here: Ibn_Kathir.
--Striver 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, look at this! I could advocate using that on the more prominent scholars! --Striver 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic line 

message: There is a proposal to move the article now entitled Islamist terrorism to "Islamic terrorism". I have argued that terrorism cannot be described as "Islamic" and that if the article is moved it should go to something like "Terrorism committed by Islamic extremists". If anyone is interested, there is a vote section on the article's Talk page. --Lee Hunter 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islamist terrorism" moving to "Islamic terrorism"

message: Guys, this talk page is geting crowded, can i re-arrange it into proper sub-pages, so we can have more order? --Striver 10:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.Starwarp2k2 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just dump it all in an archive page. Cuñado  - Talk 17:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved most of it into the appropriate sub-sections. --Striver 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wa undone withouth talk, i reverted it and moved everything to its proper section, no info is lost.--Striver 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You say the major change was "undone without talk", but I would hardly call the drastic sub-page change "with talk". Above we have you suggesting (and one other person agreeing) that you put everything in subpages. Then you have Cunado19 (and, sure, I'll add myself) going for the archive solution (which is how archives are almost always done; see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page). However, I'm not going to expend much energy arguing this; it's not worth it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the subpages are easier. If many people object to it, I don't mind it being changed.Starwarp2k2 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If the consensus appears to suggest that Striver's reorganization was a good idea, I'll respect that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... it looks like we are split... how about trying it out for a week and get a feel for it? It does have some benefits... --Striver 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, but there are too many sub-pages now. How about combining them into only 4 sub-pages? Cuñado  - Talk 19:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you others? I feel that its better to keep the topics separated, for example, arguements regarding "martyr" are not relavant to those regarding "prophet".--Striver 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranging

message: Why is this nonsense, Striver? Perhaps there's no reason for this to be on this talk page, but I don't understand why it's nonsense. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it singles out Islam, Christian editors friviously add honorifics, going so far as adding it to the article name iself: Blessed Virgin Mary, Martyrs of Córdoba, Saint James the Great.  Can you belive the reactions of having Saint bin Laden the Great or some more correct equivalent? I see no reason to start the whole talk page by singleing out the Islam related articles. --Striver 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Islam-related_articles%29&diff=69498966&oldid=69498730 Nonsense?]

message: For Sheikhs, Imams, Ayatollah, Ruhollah etc. Use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy) as a start, its prior example to allow Ayatollah to be used if he has earned the title, to quote "General guideline is then to use the ecclesiastical title the person was best known, or was highest"--Tigeroo 11:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy) --Striver 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Conventions of Clergy

message: People may want to comment here about the transliteration of Shi'a Islam. Cuñado  - Talk 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a Islam 

message: This is not a reliable source. It should only be allowed under the conditions of Partisan and religious sources and Extremist sources. It should not be consitered scholarly. --Sefringle 03:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamonline.net

message: The website is also acknowleged as a reliable source, as it can seen here . The website is associated with Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research and publication of this website in print form by notable printing house, makes www.understanding-islam.com a realiable source. 
www.understanding-islam.com is available in print form from  , , , , , and .
  
Version 1
:Binding: Paperback 
:Publisher: Authorhouse
:Date Published: 2001
:
Version 2
:TITLE: Understanding Islam: Answers on the Web (Understanding Islam, Answers on the Web)
:by Moiz, Amjad
:
:Publisher: Lightning Source Inc
:Publish Date: October, 2001
:Binding: Taschenbuch 
:List Price: USD 26.95 
Also, publications, which are written and published with association to Al-Mawrid are also accepted as reliable secondary source. Kindly see here .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthspreader (talk • contribs) 
This most certianly is not a reliable source. The comment that says it is should be removed.--Sefringle 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  understanding-islam.com 

message: Should we add the  template to the top of this page?--Sefringle 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets wait before we can get consensus: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here," --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline

message: Discussion of Sources does not belong in this article. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says clearly: "This Manual of Style makes the encyclopedia easy to read by establishing principles for its format. ". Specifying what kind of sources to use in Islam related articles is not related in anyway to an article's format or how easy it is to read. I have therefore deleted this unneeded section, not to mention it is a source of unnecessary contention. There is no need of any special guidelines for Sources on Islam related articles, when we already have WP:RS to tell us what makes a reliable source and what doesnt.  --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. - Merzbow 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of very general points about some sources that everyone can agree on, like the Qur'an/hadith. I see no need to discuss any individual sources beyond that. - Merzbow 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, if there are any specified sources, they must be agreed upon by everyone (which is impossible in the light of the subject, as we can see above in some discussions). If there are any sources which are not agreed upon, it depends on a case by case basis and we have to go by WP:RS. But because there are countless number of sources to list, verify and agree on so that will be an impossible venture in itself. Basically we have to go by RS, which is the best solution. If anyone wants to list some sources that are agreed upon by everyone, you can do so on the project page, but not in this manual as its for formatting purposes only. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Sources 

message: Please add your comments on this topic in the Citing Quran sub-project discussion page. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing the Quran 

message: So, what should we choose as standard?
*Adopting Islam
*Became Muslim
*Embraced Islam
*Reverted to Islam
Any other alternatives? From a Muslim pov, "Reverted to Islam" is to be prefered. --Striver 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer "Embraced Islam" or "Converted to Islam". But, why are you asking? - Qasamaan 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest "Professed Islam", "Professing Islam", etc. While "Adopting Islam" is OK, it does not necessarily indicate dual inward and outward adoption. "Became Muslim" is not accurate to Muslims, because of the belief that one is born Muslim and then may embrace, adopt, accept, convert to or profess another religion. "Embraced Islam" is a weak term in the sense that one may embrace ones enemies. "Reverted to Islam" is fine if one has been something else, and is considered as such, having been born Muslim and then come back, but that does not necessarily communicate with believers of other religions. 
For me, "Profess Islam" is an accurate term for use by both believers and non-believers. It relates to the utterance of the Shahadah which is the simple and profound declaration of faith, the core of which is the kalima "There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the messenger of God." (retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kalima")18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Muslims believe everyone is born a Muslim at birth, so therefore one who converts to Islam is really "reverting". Or so I've read. - Merzbow 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adopting Islam

message: Can we establish consensus for the essay before adding it into the MoS. Even then it will only be an essay and not policy (or even a guideline). → AA (talk • contribs) — 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What essay are we talking about here?Vice regent 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images essay 

message: I've partially rewritten the criteria part of the Islam cat. subsection. I couldn't quite write the first criterion in the way that I wanted to, but I think readers will know what I mean. Feel free to change it. MP (talk•contribs) 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam cat. update 

message: I went ahead and tweaked the page, to say that External links should go below the "References" section.  I'm assuming that this was just a typo?  If we need further backup, please check WP:LAYOUT. --Elonka 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page format

message: We should definately allow PBUH to be used. It is respectful and shows that we accept others' religions --Danny 17 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. PBUH is something that should be used in religious texts, but not in English-language encyclopedias.  If you can show me a modern history book or encyclopedia that uses PBUH, I'll reconsider, but until then, we should avoid its use. --Elonka 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. BUT we should not penalise users who do place PBUH etc in articles - merely explain that whilst we respect their religion it is not the right context. This is usually the case but I saw some cases where editors were verbally abused for inserting PBUH - although this was before I joined so can't recall the links! --Danny 17 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you on that.  If a user does use it, we should assume good faith and just gently and politely direct them otherwise, per WP:BITE.  And no need for examples, I've seen the anti-Islam crowd at work, and I agree that a confrontational attitude is not helpful.  The better route is to shower new users with abundant amounts of Wikilove. :) --Elonka 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PBUH

message: I changed the "Terrorism" section to a broader description that is meant to summarize existing guidelines, as so:
Controversial terminology
The use of charged terms such as cult, sect, extremist, terrorist, freedom fighter, fundamentalist, and myth can be contentious.  The Wikipedia Manual of Style describes them as "words to avoid", since they can bias an article's point of view.  See WP:WTA for further information.
I'm not surprised this was reverted the first try (it is a MOS after all) but I still think it's a positive change. 70.15.116.59 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadening "terrorism" section 

message: I suggest that there has to be a wikipedia guideline that discourages users from insulting Islamic symbols, examples of insults done by editors are here and here (Imad marie (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. It is generally picked up on quite quickly by the community as provocative trolling or incivility. The editor behind the second diff you cite was blocked indefinitely for continuing exactly this kind of disruption. ITAQALLAH 12:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulting Islamic symbols 

message: On the basis of the consensus over using religious sources(here) I added a new section to the manual of style.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good start. But I'm not sure some agree that centuries-old sources can still be considered secondary; I'd like to see Itsmejudith's opinion on this. - Merzbow (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest discussing about this issue here.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious sources

message: There is a great inconsistency between the use of the these two transliterations: "Shia" and "Shi'a". I believe that this guideline should specify which form should be used in all articles. Eklipse (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia or Shi'a 

message: Someone removed the images from Husayn ibn Ali and Ja'far al-Sadiq. Another anonymous editor made [this comment on a talk page. This guideline makes no comment on the legitimacy of excluding images in articles on Islamic prophets or imams, but it seems inconsistent with WP's goal of neutrality to enshrine a particular religious belief in editorial policy. I propose the addition to the Images section of this guideline a comment to that effect. Any thoughts? Bongomatic 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  I think certainly "islamic law" can be disregarded, what might be more of a concern is how representative the pictures really are.  If it's uncommon to illustrate these people, does it make sense to have an illustration so prominent?  (Look at the article on Muhammad for example, where the illustrations of him are small and further down in the article, not featured in a sidebar at the top.)  Questions to consider are how well-known are the illustrations used, and how important are they?  I actually think the pictures should probably be deleted, since their licensing explanation "The author may have died 100 years ago." is questionable.  The website they appear to be taken from doesn't indicate as far as I can see where the illustrations came from. Шизомби (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I guess I wasn't so concerned about these particular articles, but making sure that there was appropriate guidance for editors generally. Your point about the prevalence of depiction does seem relevant to that. Bongomatic 00:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in articles on Islamic prophets, etc. 

message: I've been involved with two articles Hazrat Babajan and  Hazrat Tajuddin Baba and it has just occurred to me that there may be a standard practice -- perhaps even an MOS guideline -- about using "Hazrat" in the titles of these articles. I've looked at what I think are the appropriate MOS sections and haven't found a specific guideline, however. Can I get an opinion on best practice, please? Thanks. --nemonoman (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems to me that in general honorifics should be removed, moreso in this case as this tends to be a term of specific respect rather than an official title, but even if it were for some reason you'll notice that even kings are not called "King Such-And-Such" but rather "Such-And-Such I". My interpretation is to rename, but undoubtedly there are individuals to whom that would not apply (same with "Aqa" or "Effendi" where it is often considered part of the person's actual name, example Shoghi Effendi.) And apologies for not responding to this sooner! Peter Deer (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Hazrat" in title names 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC which could affect this MOS

message: This entire sub-section was added on 21 February 2009 (15 months!) in this edit . Seem to have been an arbitrary change by an IP in Beirut  with 11 edits (contribs), on one day, that has not edited since. All changes to this page are supposed to be with concensus. Looks like someone has sneaked their POV into the Manual of Style! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious sources sub section 

message: The policy (before I boldly edited it) said that Allah inside quotes should be maintained, however, I'm interpreting that to mean only when the original quote is in English. So, if I'm translating some quote out of Arabic and into English, using the word "God" is acceptable, right? Evercat (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proper noun  are usually not translated between languages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.56 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like English speakers use El when they refer to the Hebrew God, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.10.2 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As in the theology of Islam there is no such word as god, the correct word would be Allah.I tried to correct is by replacing Allah at the place of god. But some one did not approve it. Please do take the initiative to correct it as it reflects the Millions of Muslim's ideology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.53 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above is incorrect. The word for god in Arabic is "ilah". Furthermore this is important because "Allah" is a name, and if it reverts to God, that is fine. I say this simply because otherwise: Jesus should be written as "Easa", Abraham as "Ibrahim", Isaac as "Ishaque", Ishmael as "Ismail" and so on and so forth. Similarly, when refering to the Old Testament, we'd need to start using "El". Whatever the convention is, lets follow it the whole way through. Baalthazaq (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  God / Allah in quotes 

message: There seems to be some pages with Ahadith and some with Hadith so which one should be used?  92.28.140.63 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Ahadith is the plural, Hadith is singular, so we could just use both, but the problem arises from the fact that Arabic turns plural in different grammatical situations. For example in Arabic grammar you'd say "How many apple do you have" with apple being singular. So I can see this being extremely problematic consistency wise, especially if we have many Arabic contributors. Any suggestions for resolutions? Baalthazaq (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahadith/Hadith 

message: In a recent vote there was insufficient consensus to change the name of the page about the Koran to have an English spelling. However, what was shown was that there was no support for the use of the transliteration Qurʾān (the characters there are modified letter right half-ring, in place of hamza; and a-macron) or any approximation of it using apostrophes. Instead there was an even split between the British English spelling Koran and the un-adorned version of the transliteration "Quran". Given the results of that vote it seems that the advice here should be to use "Quran" (no apostrophe, hamza, or macron). Note WP:ENGLISH says that a native word should always be used in preference to a transliteration.
:I participated in that conversation and while there was no overt support for the inclusion of the apostrophe it was really more a side issue and was not discussed much, the bulk of that argument circulated around whether Koran was more appropriate (the majority found that it was not) I would think that for the time-being unless and until it is decided that Quran is more appropriate than Qur'an (the current form) that the Manual of Style should reflect that. Of course, there's no reason not to seek consensus on that issue as well. Peter Deer (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen Qur'an so conventionally used, anytime I see Quran I see it as a typo. I think we should go by what academic sources use.VR talk 09:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of name of Koran