Talk:Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen KNM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article is fully re-written. See the new article here: Kerala_Nadvathul_Mujahideen/Temp. Original one can be replaced by this article.
Why isn't anybody taking any action? Article has been re-written.
Shijaz 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Apart from copyediting, the article needs to be reorganised, given better sources, and made less PoV. --Phronima 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The topic is being revised. If you have any objections against KNM, please refrain from massive vandalism and include it under the criticism section. Also, due to massive vandalism, large chunks of information had to be deleted. It wolud be helpful if people engaged in meaningful improvement. Again, If YOU OPPOSE THE ACTIVITIES OF KNM, MAKE YOUR OWN ENTRY OR STOP VANDALISING Joeblckw (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
jb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeblckw (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've restored the smaller version. More content is not necessarily better, and most of the deleted material seemed to be little more than name-calling. If you want to describe the criticism, there is a section about it, but it's to describe notable criticism, not for your opinions. I disagree with Joeblckw that a separate article would be the way to deal with this - an article about a religious movement must include the criticisms, but this is not a place to berate them. Pseudomonas(talk) 08:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pseudomonas, thanks for the imput, but deleting entire topics all together is not the answer. What could be done however is to add the other view if there is any.
--Almalabaari (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
well almalabari, you need to delete topics that are not relevant. It may seem relevant to you but others see it as highly offensive and extremist. So the only way to deal with it is by making a summary and posting it on the criticism section. Also, when you have the wiki article of an institution, you usually refrain from giving external links of websites highly critical and conspiracy theorist in nature. You can do that however, provided you balance views and provide counterwebsites in addition to the official website of the institution.
Joeblckw (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And Pseudomonas yes, i agree, you need criticism of religious groups, but it needs to be decent and civilized. Thats why i have included the new section and hopefully people use it instead of destroying the whole article. Also I will be improving the article with proper references etc as it now looks like the work of a sixth grader!I hope people will help constructively and not push their views only Joeblckw (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The beauty of wikipedia is that while there is endless editing, there is no censorship. There was no name calling, but exposing the political motivations, and the links to Qaradawi's (who supports suicide bombers) was done with references. The only name calling here has been from Joeblckw. Constructive discussion is welcome. I must warn joeblckw for making accusations of extremism without proof. For that is what i am against, and this was the intention of showing the links to politicians and Qardawi.
--Almalabaari (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] this organization is the propogator pf wahhabism in Kerala
h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.248.99 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
