Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Because of their length, previous discussions on this page have been archived.

   If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] How to become a member?

What should I do in order to become a member of WikiProject Islam? Kkrystiantalk 13:09 (UTC+1) 22 Dec 2006

I think just by adding your name at the bottom of the list on the project page, you could be a member. But important thing is to contribute. -- ALM 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Muslim women

Please take a look at intolerance expressed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 19#category:Muslim women. Someone deleted this category and now they are refusing to restore it on a laughable pretext that there is no Category:Confucian women. Mukadderat 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim's Historiography

Salam. I found that we have problems in narration of historical events like life of prophet and companions and also history of caliphate because of weak historiography. I found this article Historiography of early Islam. But it doesn't include all of the issue for example the events of 2nd century. We can move this article to [[Historiography of Islam or make a new article Muslim's historiography. Then we can write about the category of Muslim historians, Muslim's viewpoint of history, the schools of historyhistory amang Muslims like Akhbari school and so on. What's your idea.--Sa.vakilian 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The issues in the historiography of early Islam are quite different from the issues relating to later Islam. The problem with early Islam is that nothing was written down for centuries (trickiness of oral transmission), the paucity of archaelogical evidence, and a relative lack of evidence from non-Arabic sources. With later Islam, there are surviving manuscripts OF the period, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, monuments, artifacts, etc. It's much less like doing a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.
I'm not sure that there would be any point to a historiography of ALL Islam -- there's no such academic specialty, and if it is to include all Muslims anywhere at any time, the scope of the article would be much too wide to be useful.
It might be a good idea to have more articles on, say, the teaching of history in Islamic seminaries, or the development of Western-style departments of history in Muslim-majority countries, that sort of thing. If the literature is available. We can't do original research.
The Akhbaris were a theological tendency within Shi'a Islam, not a school of history. At least according to everything I've read.
Muslim's historiography is a bad idea and an ungrammatical title. Zora 12:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me . We have two schools which have this name. One of them as you said a jurisprudencial tendency within Shi'a Islam [www.Akhbari.org] and the other one is the school of earliest historian from Ibi Mikhnaf and Ibn Eshaq to Tabari.[1]--Sa.vakilian 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We can make Islamic historiography and it's notable issue which has written some books about: Islamic Historiography , A History of Muslim Historiography--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 Gujarat violence

This article needs some reviewing and rewriting. It is overburdened with apologetic rhetoric for the Hindu-rioters side. Even the name is wrong- HRW and other major publications refer to the event as the "Gujarat Massacre". The name it is given isn't just politically correct, it is disinformative. Falcon2020 18:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An article name has to be NPOV. Massacre is emotive. Yes, it looks like some WP editors have tried hard to give the article a pro-Hindu slant, mainly by leaning heavily on Indian government statements. However, any attempts to NPOV the article have to be extremely judicious. Trying to turn the article into a diatribe against the BJP and the Hindutvadis would be just as bad as what's there now, and just lead to more wrangling. Zora 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose then that the Holocaust article needs a name change too. "The big anti-jewish violence thing" maybe. I'm kidding, of course. The most notable phrase used to describe the event in question is "The Gujarat Massacre". Even predominantly Hindu sources use that phrase. [2] Sure the word "massacre" is emotive, but even a neutral viewer of the event would be convinced the word is appropriate. I don't particularly care if the current title stays, but the content is unacceptably POV. We can easily find Hindu sources that strongly contradict the right-wing views thrust forward in the article.Falcon2020 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on your edits it is clear that you have absolutely zero knowledge here. I suggest some research first. This edit [3] is worthless since UPA govt is not the same as NDA govt and Gujarat govt is not the same as national govt.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My edits are supported by reputable sources. Your reverts, and that of others are returning to an article which censors the findings of neutral 3rd parties. That the government was complicit in the killing of over 2000 Muslims and the rape of several hundred Muslim women is an allegation put to paper by Amnesty, HRW, and even several Indian publications. I find it EXTREMELY disturbing that so many Indians seem to support that bit of Hindutva genocide that took place in 2002 and are covering for the people who perpetrated it. Falcon2020 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
So you have a partisan bias against Hindus.Orgs that inflate these death tolls and have repeatedly exaggerated the actions of the rioters have already had their biases exposed.The fact that YOU regard Indians as lower then them show your racist biases against Indians, and I suggest you keep your views to yourself. I find it extremely disturbing that YOU persist in putting extremist views on wikipedia articles and KEEP JUSTIFYING THEM based on things you know nothing about. Maybe you are just hate Hindus.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My sources include such notable Islamist racist organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian, and the BBC. What did I say that suggests I dislike Indians? On the matter of a massacre perpetrated by elements of the Indian government, I don't presume the Indian government to be a legit source. Baathist accounts of Saddam's atrocities aren't taken seriously, nor are Nazi accounts of the holocaust. What the Indian government has to say about Gujarat Massacre is irrelevant from an academic standpoint, particularly when India actively BARRED foreign investigators representing neutral parties from gathering evidence. So anyone who questions the BJP govt's accounts of the massacre is biased against Hindus? So I'm biased because I dared to cite Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Bullshit. Your allegations are laughable. Falcon2020 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
India is a democracy, unlike Iraq, so your comparison is like comparing USA with Soviet Union. Incidentally, India is also the only non-Muslim country where Muslims are legally permitted to practice Sharia law.The BJP government is not a reliable source in this context, but they were ousted from election (you know, those things that HRW hates because they happen in democracies). The stats are published by a different Indian government and are completely reliable. besides,there is no basis for the assertion that HRW, which is well known to have sympathizers among radical Islamists, is reliable at all.Nonetheless, their views are in the article and contextualized per NPOV. AI and HRW are, by all criteria on wikipedia, partisan sources. if you read The Guardian, their leftist bias is proven in the wikipedia article only. [personal attack deleted] Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of Muslims in India

I have created State of Muslims in India to present the current state (social, economic, & political etc.) of Muslims in India. Like any wikipedia article that is big in size and include subsections, it was natural to include a new one, different in scope to Islam in India and involving important statistics about Muslims in India. It was sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Muslims in India without any clear justification, rather trying to show it as POV fork or giving rise to new articles like State of Hindus in Bangladesh, which seems perfectly ok to present the current state of some community (not religion in general) anywhere. Please have a look at it and contribut to it and check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Muslims in India. Thanks --Shacs 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who keeps removing Hizb ut-Tahrir from the POV disputes section or why?

Could somebody explain? Aaliyah Stevens 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

not sure... i have restored it though. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles tagged as needing expert attention

Hisbah (business accountability), Islam in Denmark, Sai Baba of Shirdi and Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Pages Require Some Care

  • I see that the article Quran and miracles has been recently deleted for a rewrite. However, no apparent progress has been achieved, except so many (recent) reverts. I also find the "low-importance" rating of the page quite unfair, but do not know how to rate it -I am new to wiki-.
  • A related page Islamic view of miracles is subject to much more reverts, and its sources are argued by the member Sefringle as "a clear bias and certianly does have a goal: to further the goals/conversions of Islam through the internet". So maybe it is better to delete this page (or rewrite it).
  • Also, the article Criticism of Islam seems to experience a methodical change of neutral words with the biased ones. For example, I think there is a difference in the meaning of "Critics point to the quran ..., for containing attacks, and for advocating hate against people of other religions" and "They claim/argue..." in terms of neutrality (Durdane 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] From whom you can ask

Sometime we(Wikipedians) have a question in a field which related to Islam and we don't know from whom we can ask it. I think most of us are experts in some issues and we can make a page and write there in which issues we are knowledgeable. So I propose making this page:From whom you can ask . --Sa.vakilian 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request - please delete when dealt with Jazakallah

[edit] Repeated vandalism by User:Proabivouac

User:Proabivouac has repeatedly vandalised the Islam in China page, constantly reverting the sourced and referenced demographic figures from the bbc website and the 1938 china year book.

He has been warned 6 times of his repeated violation, and has a track record of antimuslim posting, repeatedly destroying muslim articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Proabivouac

see

He has suggested various dates were innacurate, yet instead of asking for a correction he has deleted on no less that 6 occasions the sourced and referenced dates of

  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/china_4.shtml
  • There are in China 48,104,241 Mohammedan followers and 42,371 mosques, largely in Sinkiang, Chinghai, Manchuria, Kansu, Yunnan, Shensi, Hopei, and Honan. "Ferm, Vergilius (ed.). An Encyclopedia of Religion; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1976), pg. 145. [1st pub. in 1945 by Philosophical Library. 1976 reprint is unrevised.]


In addition, he has reverted the article more than 3 times engaging in revert war. I understand this is against wikipedia policy

[edit] Request for additional help

I have just created Al-Nizamiyya of Baghdad, branching off the older Nizamiyya article - but since Western/English sources have little to say on Baghdad's "Golden Age" university, I thought I might for some help from the WProject. Much thanks, Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

I recently found out that the above page is the first page which appears on a google search of the name Jesus. It is currently only a good article, and has been somewhat criticized for being possibly NPOV. I don't think that's good for an article which is, in a sense, this important to both wikipedia and internet reference users as well. That is why I nominated it for the Article Improvement Drive. If any of you would like to assist in improving this article please indicate your support at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is there a list of new Islam-related articles? Khoikhoi 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Unknown-importance Islam-related articles and Category:Unassessed Islam-related articles. When the {{WikiProject Islam}} templete is added to an artilce, it automaticly is added to these lists.--Sefringle 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
i don't think there is a generated list of the latest Islam-related articles, unfortunately.. ITAQALLAH 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe someone here can take care of this

Someone nominated Good loan for speedy deletion and I declined to delete it and placed it on PROD instead. If someone can write a decent, sourced article at Qard al Hassan (or is it Qard el Hassan?) I think this could be redirected instead of deleted. I don't care if it is a stub, it just needs to have a source and be at the correct namespace. I'd do it myself but other than the name, the fact that it is interest free, and it is allowable under Sharia I know nothing about this.--Isotope23 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

or redirect to Islamic banking? there's also a subsect in that article on good loans, though i don't know if it mentions everything requiring mention. i'll look into finding some more sources though.. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that at least would be a good placeholder redirect for the time being. I'll go ahead and do that and if someone wants to write a better article to redirect to (or expand at Islamic banking that works too.--Isotope23 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal RFC

I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waqfuna

Waqfuna.com is a website in Arabic that discusses the Islamic concept of Waqf. The short WP article on it is currently up for deletion; however, neither the nominator or I have the language abilities to evalutate whether it should have an article. Could someone stop by and offer an opinion on this? JChap2007 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

a quick ghit scan suggests it isn't notable enough, there doesn't seem to be much diversity in independant referrals. you'd imagine that foreign language websites would have to be 'extra-notable' (or extra-important) to feature on en, whereas usually it'd be better placed on ar.wiki. from what i could gauge (and my arabic really isn't the best), it seems like an Islamic financing website, concentrating on helping develop grassroots businesses. it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB atm. ITAQALLAH 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we have a section on the main page for "good Article" review?

E.G. I have submitted Caliphate as one of the Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates as per policy WP:GA, but it needs somebody to review it to achieve that status, I'm sure there are many others like it. The guide for reviewing is: Wikipedia:What_is_a_good_article , anybody can review it, so someone please do so. Aaliyah Stevens 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it a very good idea. :) --- ALM 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
you should submit it to our peer review department, which can also encompass a GA review. i'll take a look at it though, and leave some comments on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for comment on disruptive user KazakhPol

Salams. I've been asked and firmly believe in dealing with a very biased, uncivil, and disruptive user KazakhPol on an RFC page here: [4]. Please could you all review and add your comments, this user seems to be on a crusade to label as many Islamic groups, and all opposition to central asian governments as terrorists, using the narrative voice as if it is a fact, despite wikipedias policy to avoid this word. He has also created 3 seperate very long articles on terrorism in Kazakhstan, even though there hasn't been a single terrorist incident in the country, but the government is full of hot air about it, to justify it's repression. Aaliyah Stevens 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up - Arif

Someone of the "deletionist" school has just nominated Arif for deletion without even bothering to read the article, on the pretext that "there should be no articles about given names". If he had actually read the article he might see there is much valuable encyclopedic information about Sufi historians. When I followed the link to the deletion page, it turns out it is only part of a list of about 30 articles all nominated on the same page with one up-or-down vote, meaning the nominator did not even bother looking at anything past the fact that it is the category of "given names". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latino_Muslims

Vote Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latino_Muslims--JuanMuslim  1m 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
this should be on the wikiproject's delsort. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I am unaware of what the difference between Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslims and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is. It seems like the exact same thing as WikiProject Islam is. Because of that, I suggest that we move whatever is relevant in WikiProject Muslims here.--Sefringle 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In favor of the merge

(just vote- no comments please)

  1. --Sefringle 05:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Sa.vakilian 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I agree with merging. --Matt57 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 13:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. User:Warlordjohncarter John Carter 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposed to the merge

(just vote- no comments please)

  • Keep or make into a task force. --Striver - talk 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

We can make a new tak force.--Sa.vakilian 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i suggest we simply take WikiProject Muslims to WP:MFD because WikiProject Islam already covers both Islam and Muslim -related topics. ITAQALLAH 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this include the 9/11 Attacks and the Crusades in its cope? --Striver - talk 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
crusades, yes. 9/11.. not sure.. ITAQALLAH 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any sort of objection to creating a task force dealing with Muslim (or Islamic) culture, but the current WikiProject Muslims is more than a little vague as to its scope. Suggest either deleting project or clarifying goals and making it a better defined task force. Although I am not active in the Islam Project, I could do so myself if the rest of you gave me some fairly clear ideas as to what changes to make in it. John Carter 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Anti-Islam Sentiment

Input would be appreciated on the use of this template on BLP-related articles. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tahazzabt

An editor proposed for deletion the article Tahazzabt a few days ago. I was unable to find any online sources for it beyond what seems to be a discussion forum. I thought I would post a notice here in case the article is about an actual concept and is verifiable. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New category: Islamist terrorism

I know many of you were wanting this category so I created it now: Category:Islamist terrorism - I'm guessing people will rush and try to get it deleted - guess the time it will take for the category to be elected for deletion and you may win a car. --Matt57 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple changes to the category in order to include all articles related to Islamist terrorism, and not just a list of terrorist attacks. but since I want to win that car, I'll guess 3 days. He he.--Sefringle 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
hehe, thanks, if no one will claim the car within 3 days, the offer will be withdrawn, so hurry up people, nominate it for deletion already. Well, it looks good now, thanks for the other additions. Yes, when I saw a Plane hijacking video by Islamic militants, I searched it in Wikipedia and was surprised how there was no quick prominent way of telling that it was Islamist terrorism.--Matt57 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery issues

There are serious problems with the following articles if people could help:

[edit] Husham Al-Husainy

Last month I moved the article about the DNC Imam controversy to Husham Al-Husainy, an Iraqi Imam in Dearborn. I'm wondering if anyone who knows much about him could add to the article. Also, its marked NPOV, I think because the Schlussel quote is slanderous and a bit long. I'm a bit torn how to fix it, and am wondering if anyone could take a look, so we can remove NPOV. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Antimuslim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Antimuslim

  • Please keep your eyes open for this troll Zazaban 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll do better, he'll be indefinitely blocked shortly. (→Netscott) 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Land and Holy Land (Biblical)

Please comment here on a proposed merger or restructuring of these two articles. They currently contain a large amount of common content. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslims

I noted the merge tag on the main article above, and on this project's main page. Personally, based on the minimal data on the project page above, I think that this proposal would probably work best as a subproject of Islam, maybe as a Islamic (or Moslem) Culture task force. John Carter 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

please participate in the discussion above here [5]--Sefringle 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
what is there to merge? wouldn't it be more prudent to just delete the other wikiproject? ITAQALLAH 22:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea probably. --Sefringle 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Jerusalem

Some input from members of WikiProject Islam is requested in regards to a peer review for the Jerusalem article:

[edit] Jerusalem

I have been working on this article for the past three months and I'm hoping to put this up for featured article status sometime in the near future. Essentially, I'm looking for a critique of the article and suggestions for things that might need to be rectified prior to submitting it for a featured article candidacy.

  • I was a bit worried about the length of the article, but I personally feel it is okay since much of the kilobyte-age comes from the large number of sources rather than from over-the-top text. However, if you disagree, please do offer up suggestions for shortening the article.
  • Because I know the Jerusalem article is (somewhat) controversial, I want to make sure any issues with neutrality (especially in regards to the capital issue) are squared away before making a final submittal. I believe I did a good job, but perhaps something is subtly biased that I did not notice.
  • A good look at the prose would be great. I just finished writing the last section, so I haven't gotten the chance to do a thorough proofread; I'll proceed to do that this week while this peer review takes place, but by all means chip in.
  • I want to ensure the facts are correct. I have never been to Jerusalem, so my writing comes exclusively from extensive research. If something looks factually incorrect, please fix it or make a note of it (although please use caution if the change will conflict with a source). If a source was misinterpreted, please please fix it or make a note of it.
  • I want to ensure foreign-language words are used and/or translated properly, since I'm not knowledgeable in Hebrew or Arabic.
  • I'm not sure what to say about local, city, or municipal government in Jerusalem. I may have to keep it short, but if anyone can think of any ideas, that would be great.

You are, of course, welcome to assist in other areas as well. Thanks in advance for any help you may provide. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of more citations from the Holy Scriptures? WikiNew 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe additional citations from religious texts would be useful? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Looks great overall; I have a few POV issues, but I'm sure these are just oversights, and I certainly do not make any accusations as to your opinions or anything like that; we must work together to make these sorts of things as objective as possible, and it's a tough business. I just have a few minor stylistic questions. Rather than go in and mess with your wording myself, I thought I should let you work on your own project.
    1. "and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among different sects of Christians." -- different from what? would this be better as "some sects" or "various sects"?
    2. "while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City" I think I get what you mean - "areas where there is a Palestinian majority" rather than "the majority of areas which are Palestinian/ majority of Palestinian areas" - but this is a bit ambiguous as it reads now.
    3. The section on The Temple Periods ends by saying that for over 18 centuries Jerusalem was not the capital of any independent state; I like this. It's accurate, it's dramatic, and it's an interesting historical fact. But I think that as this could be taken as a political (i.e. POV biased) statement, it should perhaps be balanced by a brief description of the fact that no independent state called Palestine has ever existed and/or of the Greco-Roman origins of the word.
    4. The last few sentences of the State of Israel section in the history also seems to be a bit tilted. Perhaps a slight expansion would be pertinent on the problems with the city being split, and the causes of the Six-Day War. As it stands right now, I feel it reads as though Israel's capture of East Jerusalem was entirely selfish and vicious, and that its rule/sovereignty over the united city is somehow unfair or unjust.
    5. A more explicit mention of the Three Hills (Mount of Olives, Mount Zion, and Temple Mount) and Three Valleys might be good in the geography section.
    6. In the Capital section, "only two members of the United Nations — Costa Rica and El Salvador — have their embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem...and several consulates within the city itself." Are these consulates of Costa Rica and Ecuador, or consulates of other nations? Seems unclear from the wording.

Thanks for your hard work. I truly do apologize for introducing POV issues into this, but I think a few minor changes here and there would be good to ensure the objectivity of the article's message. LordAmeth 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll get back to you on a couple of these points, but it may be best for you to address a few yourself because I don't see the ambiguity with some of them, particularly with your second point. I added the number of consulates in regards to your second point, but I didn't specifically mention that those consulates did not include Costa Rica and El Salvador (since it wouldn't make sense for a country to have an embassy and a consulate in the same city). I fixed the first point, but take issue with doing something about the third point (because mentioning Palestine rather superfluously might sound like a subtle desire for a nation-state by the name of Palestine). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've eliminated the ambiguity I had perceived in the "majority areas" phrase. As for the thing about Jerusalem not being the capital for 18 centuries, all I'm saying is that inclusion of this fact could be interpreted as an argument against the legitimacy of Jewish/Israeli claims on it as their capital. By explaining that there has never been an independent state called Palestine, you discount their claims on it as well, balancing the POV. That's my thought. LordAmeth 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would shorten the religious significance section. The sub pages should be sufficient for most of what is there. That would help with the length issue. I might also link to category: neighborhoods of Jerusalem somewhere. --יהושועEric 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the point regarding shortening the Religious Significance section. In comparison to the five articles on the religious significance of Jerusalem, the section is quite short, only touching upon the most basic facts about the significance of the city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm thinking that perhaps the History section could be cut down, but Jerusalem does indeed have a very long history; the summary in the Jerusalem article is much shorter than the full piece at History of Jerusalem. However, I encourage you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to cut down on the length. At some later date, I'll calculate how much readable prose is in the article (so we can compare the article with WP:LENGTH), but I'm rather confident there won't be a tremendous issues since there are a heck of a lot of sources that do not count toward the readable prose total. For comparison, this is 63kB of prose. As long as this article is less than 50-55kB of prose (WP:LENGTH actually says less than 60kB), any objection based on length alone would not be warranted. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see the deletion discussion for List of people who went to heaven alive

This article's name isn't the best (replacement suggestions are welcome), but the concept of ascension into heaven is important in a number of religions. Islamic thought on this should be well-represented in the article. I've tried to add information from Islamic sources, but I'm not familiar with them and I don't want to make mistakes about the nature of Islamic beliefs and scholarship on the subject. Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the most to say about the subject, and each should be well-represented in the article. There is currently a move to delete the article, and some editors seem to be calling the belief in ascension without death a "joke". It seems to me that the best response to that is to improve the article and show the concept is not treated as a joke by those who take religious questions seriously. Please take a look at the article and the deletion discussion and consider contributing to both.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

Noroton 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Islam_309f.html"