Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Open tasks for the Islam Wikiproject

I propose to make something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran#To_do_list for this wikiproject. For example some issues like ‎Tawhid, Islamic concept of God and Allah need more works. So members can be aware by this way. Also members can be aware about POV articles, editorial wars and so on. --Sa.vakilian 15:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the Islam Open Tasks is a great idea for organizing Islam related articles. I think that the [section](also see the list of articles could be merged into the Islam Open Tasks.


Current Islam WikiProject tasks
Top priorities


Cleanup


Missing
  • Islamic historiography
  • Standard Qur'an
  • History of the Muslims in Latin America
Cleanup / Wikify


Merges


Discussion


Expansion


Vandalism
Open tasks for WikiProject Islam
[edit ]
Top priorities
[edit ]
Cleanup /
Wikify
[edit ]
Missing articles
[edit ]
Expansion
  • Islamic historiography
  • Standard Qur'an
  • History of the Muslims in Latin America
[edit ] Merges [edit ] Discussions [edit ] Maps, Pictures, Timelines etc.
[edit ] POV and disputed articles [edit ] Original or Unverified articles [edit ] Vandalism

Also we can use this tag in the talk pages of related articles.

Islam

This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Islam articles
Quality
Featured article FA 2
A 1
Good article GA 1
B 13
Start 17
Stub 16
Unassessed 4
Importance
Top 12
High 17
Mid 12
Low 10
Total: 54


what's the deal with WikiProject Islam? it seems a little inactive to me... it would be great if we could re-organise this wikiproject and start working more collaboratively, there are loads of articles we need to take a look at, as well as lots of other work to do. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Itaqallah. I'm all for that. This is the place to suggest ideas. I think most people don't bother to write their ideas here and just use the talk pages of the articles they are editting. I'm ready to hear your thoughts so that more people can be more active in the Project. MP (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
i'll come up with some suggestions in a moment, the wiki is totally lagging up atm. ok i was thinking about checking up on the project page and assessing what needs to be added/removed. definitely introduce some kind of to-do template as mentioned above, introduce a peer-review system for islam-related articles and outline specific quality-related criterion- linked in to this can be rate more islam-related articles while re-introducing the rating scale on the right. also maybe include Portal:Islam within our scope and assign editors for frequent updating of selected articles, DYK's etc. there are ideas from other very active wikiprojects like WP:INDIA which i think would be great to incorporate here. we have a number of editors already signed up to WP:ISLAM but many of them are not actively involved within the project, so in this sense we can try to involve current editors more in maintenance here and in helping possible wikiproject ideas flourish. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two similiar to-do template. One of them arrange horizentally and the other vertically. I think the first one occupy less room if we want to add many article in it.--Sa.vakilian 02:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Itaqallah, those are good suggestions. Perhaps we should start off by listing here what we want and how to incorporate those ideas in practice (see below). Then once we have the ideas, we can create a big table like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran with a smattering of other templates within. I like Sa.vakilian's idea of the horizontal to-do list template; it's a nice way of collecting information together. Just one thing: can we tone down the bright red and green (they're a bit strong on the eyes) ? :)

Suggestions for what we may want to include

Some of these are Itaqallah's ideas - please add to this list:

Project page related ideas

  • Goals and aims (at start of table).
  • Links to pages with frequent vandalism, indicating in particular those with very specific vandalism - this will probably be in the open tasks template.
  • A participants/members list, possibly with information on which members are assigned specific tasks.
    • Perhaps also divide member list up with "active" and "not-so-active" subheadings, the latter being for those editors who have ceased editing of late.
  • Include open-tasks template (alluded to in second bullet point) designed to be a quick reference for articles requiring various kinds of work (also fix up the color scheme).

Other WikiProject-associated ideas

  • Consider merge between WikiProject Islam and WikiProject The Muslim Guild per the inactivity of both (better to pool resources).
  • Introduce a WikiProject noticeboard where related or unrelated editors may bring articles/categories/images/whatever to our attention, can also accomodate relevant article related discussion (this discussion page I think should be mainly for addressing maintenance of the main project page as well as proposing WikiProject ideas). This differs with the open tasks template in that the template is a quick reference whereas the noticeboard is generally the place to report and discuss it.
    • Perhaps introduce related sub-pages such as a specific page to report and discuss vandalism, or a sub-page for requesting peer review or comments on Islam-related articles, and so on.

MP (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, inserted some more ideas plus a section for ideas not directly related to front-page improvements. ITAQALLAH 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Asma Gull Hasan

This article is currently listed on AFD, and I think it could be improved and expanded substantially with a little work by someone familiar with the subject matter. Anyone here want to give it a go? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

sign up

How does somebody sign up Bazel 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One has merely to put a hex (#) followed by four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the memberlist to register in this Wikiproject. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Like this

Er... No... It should be typed like that:
# ~~~~
Ariedartin JECJY Talk 11:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomination Qur'an as a Good article

I want to nominate Qur'an as a Good article. Please write your idea in Talk:Qur'an#Good article.--Sa.vakilian 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Bu Ali Shah Qalandar

I found this article in the backlog of articles to be wikified and just did some basic editing on it. The subject of the article is a Sufi saint who lived in Panipat, India. Since then an anonmyous but obviously knowledgeable editor added a chunk of text disputing the original. I have transferred most of this to the talk page. It really needs sorting out by someone who is knowledgeable about Sufism and/or the history of Islam in that part of the world. If someone could take charge of that, I'd be grateful and pleased to delete the article from my watchlist. Thanks. Itsmejudith 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ArDr nom.

I've nominated Islam at the Article drive. Vote here to support it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Preparation for Article Improvement.

x-posting to the Islamic Wikiprojects. It looks like Islam is going to win the ARCAID on Sunday(and if you haven't voted yet, please do so), so, to coincide with it, I would like to request your help. This Sunday, take a book on Islam from your shelves (or borrow one from your library). It doesn't really matter what book. Then spend a few hours flipping through it and reference Islam. Either reference facts that are already on the article, or add new ones that you find. It doesn't matter how much information gets dumped on the article, we can always move it off into more appropriate articles. Just find a fact, and give a reference. If we all do that, Islam could reach FA by Christmas. Anyone with me on this? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Article in Need of cleanup by somebody with experience

Could somebody, hopefully with a bit of knowledge on the topic, take a look at Islam in Suriname? It was recently expanded significantly and it needs cleanup. Thanks. Fightindaman 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reforms under Islam (610-661)

This article is undergoing a lot of fierce deabte, most of it concerning the validity of certain sources. I'm an admin who's done a little helping out but I don't really know enough on the subject to get fully involved. Any new commentors would be desperatly welcome. --Robdurbar 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

religious tolerance.org is marvellous - I would say they are teh best NPOV people out there. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian

Are events related to Muslim, such as Palestinian related issues in the scope of this project? --Striver 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. There is, however a Arab-Israeli conflict Wikiproject somewhere. You can go there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Were is that? Further, how about other Muslim related issues? We need to specify the scope of this project. --Striver 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have always been under the assumption that, because this Wikiproject is called "Islam", it's scope is to improve Islamic articles. Muslim-related issues don't exist - either an article is related to Islam, or the fact that persons concerned are Muslim is irrelevant. For example, though Saudi Arabia is technically 100% Muslim, I would not consider it an article under our scope - it would be for the georgraphy Wikiprojects to deal with. However, the Muhammad cartoons controversy is under our scope because it was objected to because of Islam - although few of the participants were actually Muslim. If an article is not directly related to Islam, it is nothing to do with us, and will undoubtedly fall under someone else's scope. Wikiproject Arab-Israeli conflict is here Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, does that mean that we need WikiProject Muslims? --Striver 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, what articles do you want to create? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, i dont want to creat an article, i want a project for all the Muslim-ralated articles. Im am going to creat WikiProject Muslims unless i get a reason to not do it. --Striver 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
...because you don't know what articles it covers? Because you're creating yet another wikiproject taht no-one will join? Because you've got about 5 taskforces you ought to be getting on with? Because WikiProject Islam needs you to work on it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It will cover all, ALL, articles that are not under the scope of this project, but is related to Muslims, for example 9/11, stuff i Malaysia, Asra Q nomai and other *******, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on... Im sure people will join. I already spend 8-12 hours per day on my task forces and this project, that is more that the average users spends per month. --Striver 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
9/11 does not need its own wikiproject, as you found out when your 9/11 wikiproject was deleted. The others come under the scope of a geographic wikiproject. And my goodness, man, do you not have school/work? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any thing related to Muslim and Islam is and should be in scope of this project. We do not need to make new project for them. If somone does not want to take part in help related to some specific article then he can stay away. Dev920 pleeease do not create reasons for creating seperate project and let us work together on all the issue concerning to Islam/Muslims here. --- ALM 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I wasn't the one who wanted to create another wikiproject for non-existent articles. I suggested that Striver work on articles here before swanning off to start another pet project. This wikiproject is virtually dead - it needs to be kickstarted before any more of these blasted wikiprojects pop up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "No. There is, however a Arab-Israeli conflict Wikiproject somewhere. You can go there." Striver will work here on ALL the issue involving Islam as well as Muslims. And we all will like to work here together. No need to start new project hence do not give that kind of statements please. Let all of us work here please. --- ALM 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) When we created Guild then you are the one who speak against it. Now he wants to work here and you are against it too. Please do not do that. --- ALM 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Palestinian issue isn't anything to do with Islam. It's about a bunch of people quite annoyed because they got rather rudely shoved out of their own land - religion has nothing to do with it. I don't have a problem with Striver working here - in fact, if you read my messages above, I WANT him to stay here and work on his taskforces, not go gallivanting off to create another wikiproject. He's the one that wants to leave. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian issue has to do with Islam and Muslims. We all Muslims think so. We Muslims are an Ummah hence I never cared about Pakistan articles much and not contribute on them much. However, attack on Iraq is attack on my country, my land and a pain of Palestinian is my pain. Killing of some remote Muslim (who cannot speak my language and do not looks like me) is related to me and like killing of my real brother. I hate nationalism and have no love associated with any nation things. Hence everything related to us as Ummah should be discussed and worked in one project. That is the right place for that so let us do it here. Otherwise do not speak against us please when we create new projects or send email around because you give us reasons to do that. --- ALM 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note for Dev920: Please do not take my above post like if a Muslim will be wrong even then I supposed to take his side. It only means we are just like family members and do not believe in seperate countries or any other divisions (I wish there is no Pakistan). I will always try to take side of what is right (even if a Muslim say it otherwise). --- ALM 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because you feel bad for the Palestinians does not mean that Palestine comes under the Wikiproject's scope. Just because you, as a Muslim, identify with Palestinian Muslims does not mean that their conflict has anything whatsover to do with Islam. It doesn't. If you, individually, want to work on Palestinian articles because you consider them an important part of the ummah, ok, go ahead, but don't claim that their situation has anything to do with Islam. If the Palestinians had been Christian they would still have been thrown out of Israel. Please stop creating division between Wikipedians on the basis of religion - WikiProject Islam should be about Islamic articles, not causes that offend or hurt you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay! In that case I will support to create WikiProject Muslims. For me Islam-Muslim both are same and I really wish if here we can work on them peacefully.
  • smacks head* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, most of my user page text have been there because of some reaction to someone post. Without explaining that what text I added when. You can see earlier version of my User page which used to be much different. I am going to add another thing today another thing because I love yours they would still have been thrown out of Israel. --- ALM 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Go for it, mate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! already, well before your above post. --- ALM 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for an article: "The significance of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the Muslim World". Most Muslim people consider the Israeli-Palestinian issue to be of almost mythic significance, more so than issues affecting Muslims or non-Muslims elsewhere in the world. I don't think most Americans get how deeply the Muslim world feels about this particular story.An article about how and why Muslims take the Palestinian thing so seriously (disproportionately compared to everything else going on in the world) would be a noteworthy article. I don't think the Palestine or Israel article or related articles are mentionable here since they arent really about Islam. How Muslims view the issue is a separate topic and could be approached here. Shams2006 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moinuddin Chishti is a mess

Can someone have a look at Moinuddin Chishti? I have a great love and respect for that man. I don't think I'm the right guy to go in and try to clean it up -- I think it would start an edit war. BUt I hope someone will have a look and take a shot at cleanup.

Thanks. --Nemonoman 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration

Why don't we organize a fortnightly collaboration, like many wikiprojects do? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

that is a great idea Nielswik, maybe we could conduct a quick straw poll to see what other people think about it? ITAQALLAH 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Periodic WikiProject Islam collaboration:

For

  1. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. On condition there is a strict guideline for people to refer to (no block quotes of the Qu'ran, no overboard attempts to explain away bad points etc.) when writing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Against

FYI

A new section is started in the MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites join!. --Striver 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to again encourage everyone to notice this initiative, we need many voices for this to be effective. --Striver 09:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OR

Somebody is OR'ing that saffya was a concubine, can you people take a look, it does not seems like he cares what i am telling him. --Striver 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please view the edit history, its not good if i am the only one arguing such an obvious point. --Striver 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal

I would appreciate some comments on this, more info on its talk page. --Striver 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your opinions

I think we are near to a compromise here Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression). That is changing it name to Holiest sites in Islam. Can you please give your opinion too before I can make that important article-move. Thanking in anticipation. --- ALM 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are simply renaming an article that every Muslim editor agrees should not exist. Do you want me to nominate for deletion? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been nominated three times for deletion already. All Muslims voted to delete and most of Jews voted to keep. The results in all the time is more delete vote and less keep vote but no consensus. This might be a better way to get rid of its POV filled name. I will extend the article by including Mecca and Medina in it. --- ALM 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that. That's why I am offering, as a non-Muslim, to nominate it again, to demonstrate it isn't just Sunni muslims who want to get rid of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
All Shia Striver, BhaiSaab, Aminz and others already said in previous AFDs in loud voices that look we are Shia and it is also not our point of view. Even then that group do not listen. No Shia had voted to keep. I think it will be useless thing to nominate it fourth time. --- ALM 16:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I still need few more votes there before I move it Holiest sites in Islam. Anyone interested in it please give you comments. --- ALM 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org

I have nominated Answering-Islam.org for deletion. I have given my reasons there please read them and see the website too. You can then choose keep and delete according to your wishes. --- ALM 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding assessments

I notice that at least one of the groups which has recently been incorporated as a task force engaged in assessments, while the parent project still does not. Would the project be interested in changing the banner to one resembling that of WikiProject Military history, which can list the quality and importance of an article as well as whichever subgroup is applicable. I would welcome any response. Oh, and I am marking this page, but I mark a lot of pages, and may not see that there is a response. If the response is yes, and I don't respond within a day or two, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

responded on talk page. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I arrogantly changed the banner to include options to resemble that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, including little banners on the bottom for the individual task forces and other related projects. If there are any problems, please feel free to revert to the earlier versions. Badbilltucker 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
excellent, very good indeed :) thank you very much! sorry about having changed the name from 'Islam' to 'Islam-related' in the cats, i saw that you realised halfway through making the new categories. ITAQALLAH 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance at Native Americans and Islam

Hello there all. I would like to solicit the assistance and expertise of project members at the recently-created and contentious Native Americans and Islam article, which (IMO) presently suffers from a good deal of misinformation, slanted POV and highly dubious 'historical' data. Which is a pity, since there should be a valid article topic in this, but like a few other articles and templates initiated by its creator(7 day (talk • contribs)) needs considerable work to address POV and OR concerns. Anyone with the time or inclination would be welcome to help out on this and related articles, regards.--cjllw | TALK 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghazw

Ghazw might need attention. --Striver 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam is finally renamed

The third holiest site in Islam article is finally renamed to Holiest sites in Islam which is a good News for most of Muslims. Now, please someone include Mecca (kaaba) and Majid-e-Nabvi (medina) in it. Also we need to change the introduction and convert it into one that matches the new title better. Please spend sometime on it. I will also try to do it. -- ALM 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar

Interesting article. --Striver 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the Sudden Jihad Syndrome notion. It is too dangerous and we all should have vaccination against it. --- ALM 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i might accidentally kill all infidels in my city if i don't take that vaccination. You know were i can get it? --Striver 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody clean this article up?

Can anybody clean this article up: Mushahada? I've put a {{prod}} tag on it, because it's basically unreadable in its current state. That is, if it's even a notable term. -Patstuarttalk|edits 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New Taskforce: Taskforce: Criticism of Islam

I have added this new task force: Taskforce:Criticism of Islam. Please join in and lets improve the articles relating to Criticism of Islam. On another note, is it acceptable to create a shortcut for the main article? I created WP:COFI which goes to Criticism of Islam. Did I do the right thing? Can we add this shortcut now to the Criticism of Islam page? thanks. --Matt57 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the initiative. --Striver 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that relieves me. I'm curious to know how these task forces can be used to make articles better. --Matt57 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if some other people to not agree with me. Lets just hope the task force is kept "clean", more than one project page have been deleted since some people in them have not behaved. And that workforce is dealing with sensitive issues, so lets keep it sensitive and nobody should complain. In fact, if it develops nicely, i might consider joining it. --Striver 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for joining. How do we work this thing? I saw some of the WP Islam taskforces and they're doing nothing -no activity. How is it done then?--Matt57 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Whenever i find a article related to scholars, i add it here. In that way, ill have a global view of all articles. Then i can also see what articles need attention, and when would be appropriate to try to bolster one of them to a higher status. Also, by tagging all scholars, i make sure that they are in that section, and that they are all accounted for, and making sure none is forgotten or duplicated. Now, this information can be used for many things. Except for the general overview of the quality of each article and its importance in relation to this project, i also get a nice list per century, something i had great use of while creating this. Now, when and if enough people join, we can start collaboration, deciding to focus on a special article for a given time in order to raise it status. When that is done, we can have an internal peer review of superior quality, since all experts are presumably gathered in the task force. After that, one could launch a proper peer review and raise it to GA or better status. Also, one could write Standardization templates and other quirks that each article should try to have. Is that a good answer? --Striver 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats a great answer, thanks a lot. Its enough for me to work on. You among your friends are the most positive and cooperating editor. I hope others will follow your example. --Matt57 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The taskforce states it is meant to promote pushing articles on criticisms of islam to 'good' standing. 'Criticism' is a negative view on a subject, and to form a group that deals only with criticism articles is to push a POV. Criticism articles should be dealt in the same space that any other article on Islam is dealt with. This taskforce should be deleted immediately. Shams2006 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i concur. ITAQALLAH 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not a push of POV. For example if the defense of the criticism is stronger then your "POV" argument fails. Here are the logical steps for this situation:
  1. Criticism of Islam is a main article, which has many sub-sections.
  2. There's nothing wrong with creating a collaborative effort to improve all these articles.
Plus you are completely wrong in saying "Negative articles on Islam do not have the same right to be improved than other Islam articles, just as positive articles praising Islam would be out of place here." - all articles in Wikipedia have the right to be improved. I dare you to say Criticism of Islam is an article that does not have the right to be improved. That statement will make a lot of people laugh actually.--Matt57 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because you don't like the negative articles on Islam does not mean that they don't have the same right to be improved as other Islamic articles. The eventual endgame is that every article will be FA status, and that includes Critical articles on Islam. I see no reason why one taskforce among seven must be shut down because you don't like it. Incidentally, I do not know if you have ever read WP:NPOV, but it makes it clear in the lead section that NPOV refers only to the main namespace. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually you're wrong. It's not about me not liking negative articles. Wikipedia isnt supposed to host articles that promote or condemn topics. Negative articles on Islam do not have the same right to be improved than other Islam articles, just as positive articles praising Islam would be out of place here. Would you be okay if Muslims here created a taskforce for articles and content praising and promoting Islam? You wouldnt. Shams2006 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you think the List of Muslims exists for? To a non-biased person they look nuetral, but it can be said for them as well that these lists are made to portray a positive look on Islam and thus a POV, right? List of Muslim Scholars, Scientists and all those sub-lists that exist there - no one is stopping you for example to form a taskforce to improve all Islam-related lists. No one said anything about the taskforce to improve Leaders and politicians of Islam, which already exists and that group of articles puts Islam in a positive light, correct? Thats ok. You can form any task force to improve any article on Wikipedia. Needless to say every article has the same right as any other. See there are a number of options you guys who are opposing this taskforce can choose:
  1. Let the Criticism of Islam taskforce remain as it is, OR
  2. Let the material spill out on the Project's main page (I dont think anyone will like that but I can do that if need be)
  3. A new project or page will somehow be created like Wikiproject:Islam.
The end objective is the same: to improve articles on Criticism of Islam. Its up to you guys what option you want to choose, but - there is nothing that can prevent the forming of a collaborative effort in some form, that will focus on the Criticism of Islam sections. Does anyone want to take this to the Mediation Committee etc to get this resolved? --Matt57 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a silly comparison. To a perfectly neutral reader the purpose of your project is obvious, they need only read your own words. What you are doing is creating a taskforce to promote articles that push a negative view of Islam. That articles may suggest a view is unavoidable, and I guess a lot of articles here push a negative view too. There is no taskforce to push a positive view of Islam though, and there shouldnt be a negative one either. Shams2006 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've decided I needed to tag this page as being considered for deletion. Its function is to be a meeting place for POV pushing against Islam. People, please participate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Criticism_of_Islam_task_force Shams2006 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion for some time, but I can't help but point out something in Wikipedia's policies that questions the existence of such articles in the first place. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 15:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline. And i disagree with the essay. --Striver 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That page (essay) says Criticism should be in the same page as the main article. If all the Criticism of Islam was put on Islam's main page, the article would be too long. I think clearly a split has to be made. If we can have a section on Criticism, why cant we have a whole article? Thats my question. They discourage Criticism articles but we have a whole list of those including Criticism of Coca-Cola. I dont see why they should be opposed. There's no other good way. Besides Criticism sections usually always have rebuttals in them to make them NPOV. Its just the title of the page that is not, but the reader understands that. --Matt57 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sura

Guys, look at this--Striver 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that someone would spend that amount of time on that small issue. I'll respond to their talk page.--Matt57 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to believe this is a non-issue. I think I need some explanation. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

new logo

what do people think? i would prefer an alternative logo, and really it should have been proposed on the talk page before being implemented. there have been a plethora of disputes in the past about the validity and suitability of using a crescent as the symbol here (for examples see the archived discussions on Template talk:Islam). it does seem that such usage was not accepted. i really like the mosque image and its variations that we have been using to date, and see no reason for it to be changed. ITAQALLAH 09:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue was divided. Some people wanted the crescent and some the mosque. The new logo was better though. From wikipedia's own page on the crescent "Though the crescent was originally a secular symbol of authority for Muslim rulers, it is now often used to symbolize the Islamic faith.". See? Most people associate the crescent easily with Islam, they're not aware of the Ottoman empire thing. Also see Template_talk:Islam/Archive_1#Crescent_Moon_Symbol where a reader shows that somewhere else after 5000 votes, people agreed to use the crescent as a symbol of ISlam. I think the crescent should be used but ok you say people havent liked the use of the crescent. The 'W' looked nice in the crescent to relate it to Wikipedia. I dont think the W can be put together with the mosque as well as he was able to put it together with the crescent, or can it? --Matt57 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
it's not necessary to have a "W" in it. other wikiprojects don't employ it. i don't see any reason for a change to occur, the mosque images are very nice. ITAQALLAH 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If other projects dont do it, it doesnt mean we shouldnt. The new logo has the W in it to tie it to Wikipedia. Thats a better logo than just the mosque. If you see from this link of 8000 votes, 35% of people (the largest vote) voted for "The crescent moon - it is a recognized symbol of the faith". Only 7% voted for the mosque. I think we should go by this vote. Clearly there will be people who will want the mosque and calligraphy, but we should go by what most people want - and thats the crescent. It doesnt matter if the crescent wasnt used before, has been used ever since or was used by the Ottoman empire etc, etc - the vote says the crescent is prefered by the largest percentage of people and we should go by that. Right now there's a mosque and according to the vote, only 7% of people are in favour of it. --Matt57 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
by default, 65% disagreed with use of the crescent. who cares about such polls? what matters here is the consensus of the editors involved in the wikiproject. the archived discussions show plenty of contention against using the crescent to symbolise Islam in templates as well as well as elsewhere on the wiki. there's no need to repeat here the dozens of debates there have been. if you look through the archives, you'll see that the community decided upon using the mosque, which is why all of the related templates use it now and have been for quite some time. i don't think the top banner itself actually needs an image right now, and if it does, it should be consistent with the current template images we are using. ITAQALLAH 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont see any evidence that majority of the people voted for the mosque. The 8000 people vote poll is enough to say that the preference would be reflected over here as well. If you want, we can carry out some voting to decide what the people here want.--Matt57 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I will like not to use cresent which has nothing to do with Islam. It matters what member of this project say instead of some other people. Hence we will like to do here what majority member will say. --- ALM 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset-i) internet polls carry little credibility and no worth. try responding to what i wrote: the community decided upon using the mosque images and has been using it for a significant period of time without any contention. numbers of 'votes' is not a legitimate argument. you need to express a reason for instituting change and consensus to enact it. currently, you are providing neither. ITAQALLAH 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Wikipedia polls would also have little credibility since this is the Internet too. I asked for you for evidence that the community voted for the mosque. Can I see evidence for that consensus? --Matt57 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
read through the whole of archive 2 of the template talk. everybody pretty much agreed to use a mosque image, to which they had a mosque painting competition, and the mosque rendering by User:Cunado was accepted. there was then an attempt to change the Islam template image to a different style of mosque rendering, though there was no consensus on that. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No Crescent. I don't care for what non-wikipedians vote, i as a wikipedian do not want a crescent as a symbol of this project. In fact, i find it somewhat repulsing since it carries association of Christians lies of "moon God", and it is really not helpful that some are trying to persuade me to use it. This is not an article, no need to use divisive and controversial symbols.--Striver 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He made a real nice logo and you two rejected it completely. That's sad. I would go ahead and take a poll on the list of members right now to decide democratically what people want, but I dont have time for that so I'll let it pass. There's more important stuff to do. --Matt57 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it was really good looking, and i do agree it's sad and a waste. But rather that then having a controversial symbol that is divisive.--Striver 03:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
did you not read the link i provided? Wikipedia is not a democracy. ITAQALLAH 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I meant! What else happens in AFD's? Articles which get all "Deletes" get deleted. All Keeps, get Kept. Why is that? Thats called voting, isnt it? In ANY case - whatever happens in AFD's, thats the same process I meant to suggest for choosing the Logo. --Matt57 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And like I said there are more important things to do that decide on this logo, so dont worry, your logo will stay, for now. --Matt57 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
AfDs are discussions and then opinions (i.e. keep/delete because) based on that discussion. sometimes the nomination is extremely obvious, in which case when no discussion is necessary. number of 'votes' is not the deciding factor, legitimacy of arguments are. a recent example of this in action was the Ali Sina afd. more people apparently 'voted' keep, yet demonstrably provided no legitimate arguments. ITAQALLAH 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

<IR> Whatever it is, like I said, in almost all cases all Keeps get kept and all Deletes get Deleted. Ali Sina was an exception because the Deletes and Keeps were EQUAL (not more or less; one vote more or less is not significant), and the Admin used their own judgement to make the decision. FURTHER if Wikipedia is not Voting, then what is this? Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. People are voting for articles to be nominated for this and it actually says "Remember to update the vote counter when you place your vote!". See that? Vote counter. If Wikipedia is not a democracy, why are people voting here?

And the way you are all against the Crescent, it seems you must be against the Crescent signs in all flags of Muslim countries as well. Is that true? Do you wish the Crescent wasn't there? --Matt57 04:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best that we be candid here. You are not Muslim and clearly you are here to promote criticism of Islam. That is all fair since the purpose of this group is Islam related topics without a single for or against bias. I do not understand though why you are so invested in what image symbol is used to represent "Islam" here. The crescent moon is not an Islamic symbol, but a symbol adopted on the flags of some countries that happen to be Muslim in majority. I am against using the crescent because it is not a symbol of religion, but of cultural origination. If we use the moon as a symbol here, we're saying to the reader that we're amongst the dumb people who mistake that symbol as being one of religious importance. You already know this so why don't you get it? People editing on Wikipedia are expected to demonstrate they know things better and that knowledge should represent itself in their works. Lot of ignorant people (some nonmuslims and even some muslims) think the moon is religiously significant for Muslims and so brighter people here think its wiser to avoid that error in understanding altogether by not adopting the crescent moon as a symbol for "Islam" here, but use something else.That's the right way to go. Majority rule doesn't determine everything on Wikipedia, and it certainly doesn't rule what goes into content. Even if the majority of people think Bush is stupid (even americans are waking up now) we can't go to "Bush" and edit it to say "Bush is the stupid president of the United States". Believe me, I wish it were that way. Shams2006 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Suppose you all had the power to go back in time when the design of the flag was being chosen for each Muslim country. Would you reject the Crescent? Thats what I'm asking.--Matt57 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
actually, there were more keep "votes" than delete. try reading WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy again. 'votes' are not to be used in place of solid arguments and discussion, and generally they amount to little worth. most of the times, they end up stifling discussion. they are used, at times, to gauge opinion (when it is the easiest way to do so), but do not substitute consensus, nor are their results binding (i.e. they don't force through changes, as you're trying to do here). ITAQALLAH 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said there was only ONE more Keep than Deletes (17/18) - to a sane admin, that means "no consensus", in which the admin either can leave the article there or they can apply their own judgement, the latter is what they did. In case of electing articles for Improvement Drives, I showed you that votes is the ONLY thing that matters. Their policy is clearly inconsistent. Right? I showed you atleast ONE incident where only Voting was the thing that decided the action taken on an article (which is Improvement Drive in this case). So for example if a voting drive was made to elect a logo, that would not be inconsistent with what Wikipedia already does. ALSO, polls are not totally against policy. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. --Matt57 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
if you were aware of AfD process, you'd know that "no consensus" means default keep. the policy is not inconsistent, you perceive it as inconsistent as you are failing to understand what i and the links i provided have explained. i don't believe i have to repeatedly clarify the matter for you. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep arguing with you in this case. The issue is closed. Like I said, there are more important things right now than the logo. --Matt57 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You said it is close then it is close? Okay boss! As the majority is saying it will not be changed. --- ALM 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Long list of members should be moved to the bottom

The long list of members should be moved to the very bottom of the project page. Its more important to focus on the tasks at hand than have that long list come in the way. Important stuff should be moved to the top. Comments? --Matt57 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

leave it as it is. --- ALM 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? Its just a list of (mostly) sleeping people. The list of members is less important than the actual project related tasks.--Matt57 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of former Muslims

This list belongs to WikiProject Islam:

They were former Muslims. People who 4come to Wikiproject Islam are members who are going to be working on people who are Muslims, and some members will want to work on people who were Muslims. Why is it such a big problem that this list has been taken out first by ItaqAllah and now by Striver? Whatsup? They are connected to Islam - right? They were former Muslims. Also, (as the Category:Critics of Islam says too) most of them are former Muslims and so they have a strong connection to Islam even after their apostasy.--Matt57 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point I would ask you create a Wikiproject Bashing Islam, and take your "Criticism of Islam" project there as well. This is an interesting list. Several of the names listed don't mention that the subject (eg Barak Obama, Begum S.) actually ever believed in Islam, to suggest they're converts from Islam to Christianity is misinformation unless some source exists to prove that. Shams2006 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether that list is 100% accurate or not, is irrelevant to this discussion. The point of this discussion is to prove that the List of former Muslims does not belong on the project's page under the Lists section.--Matt57 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I will give you all 1 day to agree to let this list remain on the front page, otherwise I'll take this up for a Mediation committee thing. Read my reasons above for why this list belongs to the Project page. The days of the one-sidedness of this project's page are over and I will make sure that this is a page that is welcome alike to readers of all types of backgrounds. --Matt57 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Bro, i suggest we do take it for mediation. It would be interesting to see how it turns up.--Striver 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Matt, we don't work to any deadline here. and you're not in a position to issue ultimatums. why not go through the dispute resolution process first instead of wasting the mediation cabal's time? (i.e. try WP:RfC before medcab). as for the rest of that rather unfounded rhetoric you've repeating over the last few days, please give it a rest. ITAQALLAH 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine I will take this for mediation and DR - whatever the process is. See you all there. --Matt57 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but i think that will be the least painful way of solving this issue, since i doubt it will be solved here. After all, that is the reason it was set up for to begin with. Matt57, don't take me wrong, but i feel you are going in feeling that you are every bodies enemy. And if you keep doing that, it just may turn up to be true. I try to be friendly with you personally, but i don't need to agree with you on everything. Peace. --Striver 11:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You're more friendly and accomodating than your friends Itaq and Shams, for example. My only mission for now is to make the project a place where muslims and non-muslims can equally participate. Right now this is a one sided dominated project page. That is obvious. I dont care whose enemy I am. I'm doing the right thing, thats what matters, for example that list belongs here. Sefringle is pretty impartial, but even he said "The only reason I can see for why this is nominated for deletition is because it shows that people actually do leave islam, and the fact that there are former muslims seems to bother muslims.". See my point. Itaq will then start saying I'm just making up conspiracy theories and stuff, when it is clearly evident. First they want to delete the list. Then they take it out of the Project page. Well guess what, it will stay in, not only in Wikipedia but also in the project's page. Is my mission to form a brigade of some type? Its not. It is to make the project page more nuetral for now. --Matt57 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Matt, please calm down and read WP:AGF. "My only mission for now is to make the project a place where muslims and non-muslims can equally participate. Right now this is a one sided dominated project page" non-Muslims have always been free to participate. you are totally oblivious to the history of this wikiproject, else you wouldn't be making such claims. i wouldn't say Sefringle is impartial at all. you've been dishing out accusations ever since you came to WP, these current events just give you an excuse for them as well as the circumventing of WP:AGF almost every time you post. i explained my previous removal, yet you dismiss this and opt to assume bad faith, irrespective of the fact that you don't know whether or not i actually endorse its removal from this page. the more you cry wolf, the less people will pay attention. ITAQALLAH 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not listening to your allegations of not AGF and conspiracy theories. They are false. As to Striver pointing out I'm making enemies, I should remind you guys that it was you who took out the List of former Muslims from the project's main page. Who is making enemies here then? By the way Itaq, in response to the list being "small" so you took all of it out, that caused me to expand on the List and make that list of books critical of Islam which I hope you liked. Feel free to make improvements on that list. I'm not going to continue arguing here. I'll see you guys at the dispute resolution. By the way, how do you put in your customized signature every time? Do you have to copy paste that code every time, or is it still a single click and if so, how? --Matt57 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
the fact is that a lot of your accusations are total hogwash, and based on false premises. take this one for example you wrote on my talk page like yesterday: "... and this is just the beginning to make the Wikiproject Islam more NPOV. It used to be the Muslim guild, so I understand it was maintained and used by only Muslim members before." that is absolutely false- it never was the Muslim guild, the Muslim guild was a completely different wikiproject altogether. WikiProject Islam for the most part of its history has been used and maintained largely by non-Muslims. please ensure that you read up properly on your wiki-history before shooting from the hip with accusations and dictating to others what goes and what doesn't. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What Itaqallah just said is correct, this has until very recently a with mostly non-Muslim members. In any case, Itaqallah, is it really such a big deal? If he want "list of former Muslims", why not let him have it? --Striver 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
that's the bemusing thing.. i never actually opposed its inclusion. he simply assumed that because i had removed the entire lists, i was deliberately doing so to remove the former Muslims list. he compounds this with the fact i put up that list (and similar ones) up for afd in order to accuse me of having malicious intent, though there seemed to be significant opinion against having these kinds of lists in the previous nom (which is why i went for re-nom, the previous nom included all related lists). and i still don't object to its inclusion. what i do however object to is the unjustified bad faith which has been shown here. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
by the way striver, the WikiProject Islam template has been improved so basically it can mention if an article is part of a specific task force, see Talk:Sahih Bukhari. if that's the case, maybe we can use the WikiProject Islam for the rest of the articles too. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
lol! regarding the template, it sounds good, if we first fix one thing: An article can have different importance to different topics. I might be if low importance to Islam in general, but of core/top importance to a specific task force... if that can be fixed, then i'm all for merging all template... even though i created some of then *sob sob* :( --Striver 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaq, bad faith? The list was there since a long time. You never removed it before. Is it coincidence that you wanted to get it deleted and when it didnt, you took them all out? Its alright though. It doesnt matter if that was good faith or bad or orange or red. All I care is that the list will stay (and maybe other stuff will also get added). So you guys wanna add the list back? If not let me know and I'll do the needful. --Matt57 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I mean by saying the nature of this project will change. Anything to do with Islam can now be on the project page. An example is, the link Faith Freedom International may be put under the project's main page under requests for expansion. Or Parvin Darabi may be put under the same section. Not only can these be put under "POV and disputed articles"m but anywhere else. Remember, anything that has a strong relation with Islam, critical or non-critical can be put up there. This is just to let you know what can be upcoming in the project's page. If I see any opposition, I will take it to dispute resolution. The List of former Muslims was a test and you guys showed that there are chances I'll be visiting the DR. Itaq says I practice bad faith, but he practiced bad action when he removed the List of former Muslims. So do you guys understand what I'm trying to do? This is not a Islam bashing mission as Shams will point out. Its NPOV. --Matt57 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"If I see any opposition, I will take it to dispute resolution." you obviously haven't read the first stage of dispute resolution. this shows how unwilling you are to engage in collaborative editing, preferring to kick up a lot of fuss over nothing. "Itaq says I practice bad faith, but he practiced bad action when he removed the List of former Muslims" grow up, you're simply harrassing people with this paranoid behaviour, and i suggest you stop. "Remember, anything that has a strong relation with Islam, critical or non-critical can be put up there"- the real "test" will be to see if you are able to help improve the core Islam related topics which require a lot more attention than the articles of extremely trivial importance that you are currently working on. ITAQALLAH 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Which articles are of "extremely trivial" importance that I'm working on? Please provide the titles.--Matt57 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Islam_Archive_3_a6e1.html"