Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Discussion on keeping links to Partisan guilds

Links to partisan Guilds such as the Muslim Guild, Sunni Guild and Shia Guild should be removed. Guilds and other cabals have no place here anyhow, but if they're going to exist, we shouldn't be linking to them.Timothy Usher 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove anything until a consensus is developed. I want to ask other member to merge Muslim Gild and this forum. So wait please and do not delete anything. --- Faisal 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, those guilds are part of Wikiproject Islam. Unless you happen to get that changed, do not remove them. BhaiSaab talk 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it okay if I start a Non-Muslim Guild? Muslims welcome, naturally.Timothy Usher 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's ok. BhaiSaab talk 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is already very strong Gild using msn/messanger/etc by propoganda pushers. So why cannot we make one offical (instead of using back doors) on wikipedia. --- Faisal 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is? How can I join? Tell me how, so I can take a look and report back to you about what's going on.Timothy Usher 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Dos and Don'ts list

The "do not" list is nonsensical for the following reasons:

  • Do not see Islam as a target of arbitrary vilification or as a victim in need of arbitrary apologism. Islam is a subject which we are here to accurately document, not to attack or defend.

How can you order anyone to see anything in a special way? Sometimes Islam is a target of arbitrary vilification, which is mostly considered vandalism and reverted. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant not to do it, Raphael1. In other words, we're not here to attack it or to defend it. Neither of these related mentalities is ideal for creating an encyclopedia. This is supposed to be scholarship, not political activism.Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
How about "Do not treat..." - would that be clearer?Timothy Usher 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd consent to: Do not vilify Islam ... Raphael1 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not personally attack or single out editors as promoters or enemies of Islam.

There's no need to particularly remind the members of this WikiProject to WP:NPA. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is, if the membership of Muslim Guild is to be transferred here wholesale (as it shouldn't be).Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering this comment, there is an urgent need to remind the Muslim guild members about WP:NPA. Do not personally attack or single out editors as promoters or enemies of Islam. is precisely about the cited comment. Pecher Talk 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more about this comment[1], but the one you cite is equally illustrative. This is just the wrong way to approach Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground.Timothy Usher 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition, see below: "...there is no doubt that Islam is attacked in wikipedia. Hence need to be defended." That's yet another comment along the same lines by the same editor. Pecher Talk 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No personal attack has anything to do with being a member of any Wikiproject. Raphael1 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not use markers of sectarian identity, such as greeting other editors with "Salam, brother", appending (PBUH) to mentions of prophets, etc. This is divisive and alienating to editors from other backgrounds.

This is complete nonsense. If you feel alienated, because you are not a Muslim, call a doctor. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment once highlights the need to remind the guild members of WP:NPA at every step. Pecher Talk 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Call a doctor? You can't expect to be taken seriously when you run around urging us to consider others' feelings if you don't practice it yourself. Should I tell you to "call a doctor" about your fixation on the Jyllands-Posten cartoons or your singular empathy for a banned user?Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous. Nobody should ever feel alienated for not being a Muslim, Christ, Jew, Buddhist, ... It is insane to assume that anyone who reveals his religious belief is devisive. Raphael1 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not use this page or its subpages to solicit votes, reverts or similar assistance, or any other violations of wikipedia guidelines or policies.

Vote-stacking is frowned upon everywhere. Again, there's no need to particularly remind the members of this WikiProject. Besides one of the reasons to have Wikiprojects is to seek assistance, when you need help in a special topic area. Raphael1 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah some talk page commentary... this is good. Raphael1, rather than actually remove such wording, might there be a way that it could be edited to allay your concerns? Netscott 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As per personal attacks, Raphael1. I mention it because it's been a problem on Muslim Guild - if its membership is to be migrated here, I'm afraid we do need a reminder. Even if it's not to be, we don't wish to see this WikiProject follow the bad examples set at the Guild.Timothy Usher 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. As you can see, I reject all of them. Raphael1 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool post BROTHER Raphael1. Neutrality has nothing to do with someone beliefs and like/dislike. Even saying that I like/love something does make me non-neutral. Also there is no doubt that Islam is under attack in wikipedia. Hence it needs to be defended. If I write at my User page that I love Islam then it does not makes me non-neutral. We all love to something. Many love their countries. Will they all be non-neutral? A specific group wants to end Muslim-Guild and want this project become useless. This is the same group that is a suspect for the propaganda against Islam ---- Faisal 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, while it's true that the two are somewhat related, this talk isn't about the Muslim Guild if you hadn't noticed. Netscott 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you and me both think that Muslim-Guild and this project are related. Then I cannot see any harm in mentioning its name here. It is done always in all the article. For example in WP:RS article, you will often find that WP:V is mentioned so on... --- Faisal 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the vote-stacking and WP:NPA reminder, I'd like to note, that neither Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism nor Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buddhism contains such a section. I am sure that members of this project have engaged in that kind of activity, but I am as well sure that members of the other projects have too. Please explain, why only this project needs that advice? Raphael1 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"I am sure that members of this project have engaged in that kind of activity." I don't think that's the case. Do you have diffs? If it has been the case, I would support adding similar language to those pages. Tom Harrison Talk 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If they haven't, I wonder why you add that yesterday. Raphael1 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Tom's skepticism was directed most likely towards your allegation that members of the other projects you mentioned have engaged in those activities - he merely quoted the wrong clause of your statement. I took a look at these project pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism is utterly placid and uncontroversial - wouldn't you know it. Did you even look? I have to think not.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity's project page is fine, but there are a few inappropriate solicitations for assistance on the talk page. There is no open hostility of the sort that's all too often characterized member conduct at the Muslim Guild, singling out of purported enemies and the like. Again, did you even look?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism is a different story. The NPOV policy section provide useful guidelines which share some intent of the Do Not's referenced above, but the section Jewish vs. Christian perspectives (as per "vs." in the title) nurtures a communal sense of grieviance and appears to be rallying members to battle, and there are many solicitations on the talk page. That said, the tone is nowhere near as incivil as that found at the Muslim Guild, I saw no enemies lists, allegations on talk that other editors hate Judaism and are out to destroy it, etc. As you suggest, it might be worth someone's while to drop in and offer some helpful points, as was unsuccesfully attempted at the Muslim Guild, and see what kind of response they generate.Timothy Usher 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: see this section. This charge hasn't popped up since it this advice was offered and met with unanimous agreement. I'll fix some of the language on the project page in a bit.Timothy Usher 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Secularity

Re anon's recent edit, "In academia, secular assumption is made." Precisely. If this encyclopedia is ever to be a reliable source, it must adhere to academic standards of excellence.Timothy Usher 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? If so then I agree with you. That should be reverted back. --- Faisal 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was talking about. It's good to see some agreement on these very basic points about why we're here.Timothy Usher 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Why you think that it imply secularity? The wording of the original text was better. I cannot find any reason for that change done by the unregister-user. --- Faisal 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
p.s. that's the user that blanked the Guild talk page.Timothy Usher 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify this point here, secularity is not in fact what Wikipedia operates under but rather neutral point of view. That said I think it is safe to say that neutral point of view tends to rather be in accord with secularity. Netscott 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition to your valid observation about the nature of neutrality as it's commonly used - we shouldn't be neutral betwen neutrality and non-neutrality - WP:NPOV mandates the neutral presentation of the points of view forwarded by reliable sources, where such sources are overwhelmingly secular.Timothy Usher 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes to WikiProject Islam

Timothy Usher - your recent unilateral changes do not reflect any sort of consensus here. Encouraging others to abide by Wikipedia policy is fine, but when you start making additional rules such as "do not greet others with salam" you need to make sure that everyone is willing to abide by such rules. I, for one, will certainly continue to greet other Muslims with a "salam" if I wish to do so. BhaiSaab talk 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-sectarian encyclopedia. Your recent contributions lead me to believe that this is a big problem for you. If you're here to practice your religion, you've come to the wrong place.Timothy Usher 00:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You're saying I have no right to say "salam" to other Muslims? Ridiculous. If I decide to use talkspace to say "salam", that does not effect Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Sarcasm: Your recent contributions lead me to believe that Islam is a big problem for you. BhaiSaab talk 00:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, I hope you don't mind that I tweaked your wording just slightly. If you think the change is inappropriate, I won't try to revert, but as I put in the edit summary, the Muslim guild is open to everyone. They make it clear on their front page. I can't speak for the other two guilds (Sunni and Shia) because they don't interest me. You are probably exactly right about those two, but my edit had more to do with fairness of including specifically "The Muslim Guild" with reference to the part of your edit that says "the above guilds". Thanks, --FairNBalanced 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't mind at all. I was trying for compromise language, and I think your edit was an improvement. Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Your change is fine, FNB. It'd be better, however, were they not linked at all.Timothy Usher 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the idea behind the prohibition of statements like "salam, brother". Nevertheless, I'd like to think I could say hello in any language I want. I don't see WikiProject Japan prohibiting konichiwas for fear it will exclude those who aren't Japanese. I don't see WikiProject Germany outlawing guten tags. And where are the members of WikiProject Judaism banning shaloms? The idea is somewhat reasonable in theory, but completely absurd in practice. joturner 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely, Joturner. - Merzbow 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Were we truly prohibiting said usage, I'd agree. But as a practical matter, we're only advising against it. And yes, I could see how it might be more than a little alienating for a non-Jewish editor to see everyone around him saying "Shalom" to one another (not that I've ever seen this). I've already brought WikiProject Judaism into compliance on a few issues, and the reception with which I was greeted, while hardly warm, leads me to believe that the problems may not be serious enough to warrant such advice. Perhaps we can remove them if and when the atmosphere improves.Timothy Usher 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is what the WikiProject Islam used to look like before Timothy began making changes [2] .--JuanMuslim 1m 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning about the Muslim, Sunni, and Shia Guilds

Editors should consider carefully before joining the above guilds. They encourage the division of Wikipedians by religion, and have a history of involvement in vote-solicitaiton efforts. Rightly or wrongly, a member may be seen as a partisan who is here to advance a sectarian viewpoint, rather than as an objective contributor with a valuable perspective.

Seriously? What is the purpose of this message? This sounds like an unwarranted smear campaign against the projects. joturner 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This language was added as a compromise between removing and retaining the links. I didn't write it, but I certainly endorse it. Perhaps the addition of some diffs might be appropriate?Timothy Usher 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You would rather have them removed entirely because of your exaggerated claims about them. BhaiSaab talk 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what you might be saying is, it could use some diffs to illustrate why and verify that the language is necessary. Come to think of it, some references for the "do nots" might also be useful. What do you think?Timothy Usher 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What is "diffs"? BhaiSaab talk 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Diff is short for "difference", i.e., an edit.Timothy Usher 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether you present diffs or not, I don't think anyone cares to follow the "do nots" as long as they remain within the limits set by Wikipedia policy. You should discuss the changes you want to make to these pages before you make them, as you've been told elsewhere. BhaiSaab talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger with the Muslim Guild?

Discussion about the possible merger of the WikiProject Islam with the Muslim Guild is located here. --JuanMuslim 1m 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong opposeTimothy Usher 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose even to discussing it here. The issue is being discussed elsewhere, and sneaky attempts to force a merger through a back door will not be tolerated. Pecher Talk 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting new category

Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad, not quite sure what to make of it. While it does seem legitimate, I wonder if such a category is in fact needed? Netscott 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than what the .... BhaiSaab talk 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is also here, and is longer. Dev920 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Condescending?

The project page is ridiculous. Telling people they should restrict or totally eliminate expressions of religious sentiment on their userpage? Who invented the rule against greeting people with 'salaam'? Who feels such a greeting is 'divisive'? If this kind of request were made to a Jewish individual in regards to 'shalom', charges of anti-semetism would be coming down in hailstorms. The Dos and Do Nots are limited to protecting alleged 'enemies of islam'? What about not singling out editors for being allgedly pro-islamic/islamists? Who wrote these guidelines? I've made some edits to them so they no longer seem to be talking down to just Muslims. Compare the current version to what preceded it, and see if it's an improvement. His Excellency... 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Who wrote these guidelines?" As a new user, you may not yet have noticed that the page's edit history is available by clicking on the "history" tab near the top of the page. Tom Harrison Talk 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher did most, if not all, of that. BhaiSaab talk 23:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

There is currently a discussion going on as to whether the Islamic terrorist section I added to Islam here[3] belongs in the article or not, or indeed whether any mention of Islamic terrorism should be made. Your thoughts and input would be appreciated here. Dev920 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies NetScott, I didn't realise the same rule applied here as it does in the muslim guild. Dev920 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's no hard and fast rule, but when I came to this page looking for this notice I didn't immediately find it and had to actually do a diff... it seemed logical to move it for that reason alone. If you disagree with my move by all means revert back to the position it had. Netscott 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, wouldn't dream of it. That why I apologised. I shall avoid the same in future. Thanks. :DDev920 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already an Islamic extremist terrorism page. You could add an "Islamic terrorism" link in the 'see also' category. I don't think it's appropriate to put a section on terrorism in the Islam article itself. His Excellency... 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the idea was that, like WP:SS says, to link the daughter article to the mother article, by giving an overview of the spunoff article. What I added was the lead section of Islamic extremist terrorism, and provided a for more, see main page Islamic extremist terrorism. That I thought was fair. Dev920 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I do think it would be better to not have that section in the "Islam" article. It would be appropriate in the Islamism article though. His Excellency... 19:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I please ask why? Why should Islamic terrorism not be in an article about Islam? Why? It is bewildering me that people are writing flat out that it is not "suitable" or "does not belong" and they aren't explaining why. Dev920 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Presenting it on the main page of the top-level article skews the presentation, giving terrorism undue weight, and making it look like it's somehow intrinsic to Islam. It also introduces a recentcy bias (if that's a word). With 1500 years of history, we have to be careful not to over-emphasize the last hundred years. Tom Harrison Talk 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Going to have to concur with Tom Harrison's view here. "Recent bias" is a bit like recentism. Netscott 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's the word, thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the fact that 100 years of terrorism hardly seems recent, Ghazw seems to imply that Islamic terrorism in some form existed well before its current development. What do you think? Dev920 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly 'recent' is not a bright line. As for Ghazw and terrorism, "The degree of resemblance between the two phenomena is a contentious issue." I'm not sure it has any more to do with Islam than piracy has to do with Christianity. Tom Harrison Talk 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ghazw, like terrorism, is only a way of waging jihad. Singling out just one form of jihad on the main article on Islam is hardly warranted. Pecher Talk 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is if wrongly interpreted lesser jihad is actually terrorism. (Osama Bin laden claiming his terrorism is jihad, etc.) Dev920 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User Pages

While there should be (probably is?) a page that suggests how to properly maintain a user page, I don't think the Project Islam page should be such a forum. The purpose of the Wikiproject Islam page is (duh)to improve the quality of Islam-related articles. It was never meant to regulate the behavior of users outside of their direct participation in editing articles.

"...your user page is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life."

On what WP rule or guideline is that based? If it isn't founded in a WP rule at all, do we have a consensus on making that kind of statement here? Given this statement appears in the Wikiproject Islam page, I think it's obvious to which group the statement is aimed at. Have similar statements been addressed categorically to followers of religions other than Islam?

As is, the project page here is coming too close to lecturing how people express themselves on a personal level. It's condescending and offensive. When you consider the "do's" and "don'ts" list as it previously was, the project page was blatantly offensive. I suggest we work on correcting this. His Excellency... 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE The above poster is in fact User:Amibidhrohi

"On what WP rule or guideline is that based?" - WP:USER, as linked.

Amibidhrohi, I fully agree with the notice not to attack Islam, indeed, this was present in my original language. We are here to approach subjects neutrally. If you'd like to add "or attack someone else's" to the userpage guidelines, that'd be great.

As for other WikiProjects, this is getting kind of stale, seeing as I've taken a lot of flak from one of them for making policy changes, and I've not seen you there. You just assume that I'm only concerned about this project without checking, just as Raphael1 above assumed the same problems were present in other projects without bothering to look.Timothy Usher 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

With WP:USER guidelines, I don't really see a need for additional guidelines here on the project page. Netscott 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Reminders of policy exist in all kinds of places on Wikipedia (for example user talk space), wherever they're on-topic. All the religion project pages, for example, recap WP:NPOV as it relates to their subjects. We're not duplicated WP:USER in full, only the portion most relevant to this project. There are also links to reliable sources and a few other policies/guidelines.Timothy Usher 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, I would suggest that you help develop the WP:USER guidelines to be more in accord with your views concerning that subject. Netscott 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It already is, it's just that it's not consistently enforced; nor are we enforcing it here.Timothy Usher 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No one's enforcing guidelines. Seriously despite the fact that you're going to attack my argument as "wikilawyering", guidelines are just that guidelines not policy, as such there's no specific enforcing of them. Netscott 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, people do, just not consistently. I am currently involved in a high-profile dispute where WP:RS is (finally!) being forcibly applied. Do you dispute that the advice is good?Timothy Usher 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're aware that almost all policies started out as guidelines. Essentially policies are guidelines that have matured. To better comprehend how to interpret guideline pages please see Wikipedia namespace # Rules, policies,guidelines. Netscott 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose a compromise: Make mention of user pages and add a link to WP:USER from the project page suggesting that project members are strongly encouraged to abide by that. Netscott 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with rewording - for example, user pages shouldn't be used to besmirch other people's way of life either, as we've recently discusssed, and toning it down a little - but it should still be made clear what we are advising.Timothy Usher 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian language

Amibidhrohi/His excellency, might you be willing to rewrite the "sectarian language" section to be more neutral, rather than just remove it? Maybe there's a better way we can say this.Timothy Usher 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't tell a Jew to stop saying 'shalom'. I won't tell a Muslim to avoid saying salaam. WP:Civil is already there, and I think it expresses all that everyone would need to know on how to address others. Telling Muslims here to leave their Islam at the door might itself be a violation of civility (assuming the word still has meaning outside of how WP defines it). Above, several nonmuslims have made it clear that they take no offense to Muslims greeting each others with Salaam. BTW, Arabic-speaking Christian use salaam too, so it's not necessarily 'sectarian language'. Anyway, given this is a project to which alot of people signed on to, consensus should be met before making any changes. I suggest we keep things as they are now, until consensus says different. It's neutral, it reminds everyone of their responsibility. His Excellency... 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"BTW, Arabic-speaking Christian use salaam too, so it's not necessarily 'sectarian language'." - good point in theory, but kind of silly considering actual practice on Wikipedia. I've never seen this used in anyway but as a marker of religious solidarity - which, yes, does exclude members of other religions, whether one is conscious of this or not. By suggesting that users refrain from it, we can raise consciousness about this point. I fail to understand why you think the promotion of division - deliberate or not - is desirable here.Timothy Usher 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to consider the fact that the 'salaam' greeting is a fundemental obligation for Muslims, as it is for Jews to say "shalom". It's based on the Hadiths, probably the Qur'an too. Telling a Muslim he shouldn't use the greeting is offensive to him/her, and discriminatory. You're essentially saying "leave your Islam at the door".Walk up to a Jew and tell him to stop saying 'Shalom' to fellow Jews, and see what response you get. What's seen as incivility in the real world is incivility here as well. Until there's a WP:Pretend You're an Athiest, there's no justification for such a request here. His Excellency... 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's silly, Amibidhrohi/His excellency. I know many Muslims and Jews who are perfectly fine with "hello"; this does not constitue apostasy. While no one's asking that we pretend not to have a religion - I have one, too - Wikipedia is not the right forum for its practice.Timothy Usher 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If they're fine with 'hello', let them say hello. We don't need to walk up to them and suggest we have the right to regulate their personal greetings. You can put this up for RFC if you want. His Excellency... 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like His Excellency's version a lot better. BhaiSaab talk 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We're not, or shouldn't be, suggesting that we have that right. We should be giving people tips about how to create an environment where members of all faiths feel welcome, not just one. Frankly, it's starting to seem that this is precisely what some wish to avoid. I scarcely need to remind the both of you that there already exists such an environment for those who prefer it, over at the Muslim Guild.Timothy Usher 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome at the Muslim Guild. BhaiSaab talk 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That is, as a matter of historical fact, simply untrue.Timothy Usher 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Who have we excluded? You said in your edit summary "stop trying to funnel users to the Muslim Guild." I'm not trying to funnel anyone - you're trying to keep them away. Let people make their own decision. BhaiSaab talk 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the point BhaiSaab raises is the elephant in the room. To my knowlege, nothing that's been either explicitly said or implied has ever been posted here to suggest non-Muslims are unwelcome. In fact, those people who do seem to be Muslim here have been bending over backward to not state what's seemingly obvious. You've used your lawyering to attack Faisal's user page. You've gone to admins to have BhaiSaab blocked.You had me blocked, and then pleaded to at least two admins to have my block extended. You've told Muslims to stop saying "salaam". You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here. I'll pretend to assume good faith to the extent of being an idiot, and assume for the sake of arguement that all of that was because you believe in strong enforcement of WP rules. Then "FairAndBalanced" posts a picture on his user page, of a pig with "Allah" photoshopped onto it, in violation of several WP rules, and what do you do? You protest his block. You defend him. What's true for your treatment of people, more importantly, is true in your approach towards articles. WP:RS means alot when content speaks positively of Islam or anything related, but the standards don't seem too important when the content sounds like an indictment. Why the inconsistency? The elephant in the room is not that Muslims have made non-muslims uncomfortable being part of this project, it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period.His Excellency... 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Amibidhrohi/His excellency, you've raised a number of points in your post. Allow me, for now, to respond to just a few.

"...it's that you're working to make Muslims uncomfortable on Wikipedia, period."

Your statement assumes that Muslims cannot be comfortable on Wikipedia unless they are allowed to be openly religious at every turn. Indeed, your post assumes that non-secularity is an inherent component of Islam.

This debate was also seen on Islamism, where several editors were saying the article was not neutral, not because it made Islam look bad, but because it suggested that Islam might rightly allow a secular sphere. Their position was that Islam was a way of life which must encompass all aspects of society, including political organization, and presumably Wikipedia. Islamists were the only “true Muslims”, whereas to advocate a seperation between religion and state was apostasy.

“You've told Muslims that if they came to practice their faith, they don't belong here.”

Indeed I have, and would say the same for any religion. Practice of religion is fine. But not in the halls of academia, and not on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about self-expression. It is about building a respectable scholarly encyclopedia.

In the west, we have a secular sphere. It took centuries to establish this, and to establish the fundamental secularity of scholarship. Most Christians, and an overwhelming number of Jews, accept this as the natural state of affairs. Among Muslims, it is still very much a debate.

The most widely misinterpreted policy is WP:NPOV. This does not mean finding a middle ground between the opinions of editors to the talk page, which would constitute original research, but in fair presentation of the opinions of reliable sources. Reliable sources are overwhelmingly secular. For the purposes of this discussion, we can call this the western secular point of view.

Many Muslim editors, as per the mission statement of the Guild, earnestly believe that this itself inherently discriminates against Muslim points of view. I concur that it does.

I quote from the Muslim Guild mission statement: “We seek to encourage a totally unbiased view about Islam, neither secular nor nonsecular”, “To ensure that Islam-related articles offer a neutral, unbiased point of view free from all POV whether secular or nonsecular.”

The most natural reading of these statements is that we aim to find a middle ground between the western secular point of view and Islamic points of view.

What you’ve failed to appreciate is that this equally discriminates against Christian points of view, or any religious point of view. The only reason it’s being perceived as anti-Muslim is because it is mainly (though not exclusively) editors who openly identify as Muslims who are challenging the traditional modes of Western scholarship.

The Muhammad “founder debate” is especially illustrative in this regard. Editors asked that we compromise between a realistic analysis and one which presumes the truth of Islam. From a secular perspective - more to the point, from the perspective of reliable sources - the notion that Muhammad did not found Islam, as the term is used in English, rests upon pure fantasy. It is neither required nor desirable to compromise between reality and fantasy, indeed WP policy prohibits it.

Consider the very first words of Jesus . “Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE — 29-36 AD/CE)” from the most typical Christian point of view, this is inaccurate on several counts. First, the traditional dates are 1BC-33AD. But putting that aside, there is a deeper problem: most Christians believe that three days after his death, he was literally resurrected, walked out of his tomb, and appered to his followers in the flesh, wounds and all. By this logic, the dates should read, “Jesus (1BC-33AD, 33AD-present)...” Of course, we’d then offer a compromise whereby both views are presented equally; what torturous mess would result from this, we can only speculate.

Trouble is that, as with Islam predating Muhammad, there is no reliable source which attests to Jesus’ resurection. There are of course reliable sources which document that Christians believe it so, but that’s it. Thus the secular view wins (although there is a range given here, as the cited reliable sources disagree), while the Christian view is demoted. I cannot recall any Christian taking issue with this, and I’d be very surprised to see it seriously advocated. It is generally accepted that scholars say what they say, and, where we disagree on religious grounds, we are free to ignore them (“Inteliigent design” is a notable exception, and it’s not fared well in the court of public opinion.)

What I have been advocating, then, is not intended as an attack on Islam per se, much less as an attack on Muslim editors, though I appreciate and have spoken to why you might interpret it as such. It is rather the defense of the premises and outlook of Western scholarship, without which Wikipedia would never have been created. It is the defense of modernity and of reason, without which Wikipedia would be inconceivable.

I hope that clears things up a little.Timothy Usher 09:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but I know of few other words to accurately describe your demeanor here. If you're sincere in what you're saying, that you're here to 'secularize' Wikipedia, I expect you'll have no trouble going to the Christianity page and editing to make it clear that Jesus could not have been born to a virgin. I expect you'll find sources that will support the notion that Mary was impregnated by some man.If the likes of Spencer and Ali Sina can be cited here, I'm sure far more credible and critical sources can be used to bring the same level of criticisms to the Christianity pages. Also, I expect you'll add all mention of all the apocryphal material that suggests Jesus wasn't killed on a cross. I expect you spend as much time there as you spent here, illuminating all the critical study that suggests that the 'miracles' of the Jesus story were in fact borrowed from pre-Christian pagan religions. You won't. Word word other than hypocrite makes excuses for someone as offensive as "fairnbalanced", but goes on the attack over personal comments on a userpage? YOU're the one who inserted and repeatedly re-inserted the phrase "do not solicit".. How many times did you go to Percher, Moche, and Tom soliciting their support on Islamic pages? You're the one endlessly complaining about WP standards and application of RS. How many times have you reverted texts in articles to bring back original research that was totally uncited, nevermind the reliability of the nonexistant citations? His Excellency... 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Absurd. You make groundless assumptions based upon what you imagine my hidden intentions to be. In fact, I defended language on Christianity which suggests exactly that, and have supported a frank discussion of the Nicean council and suppression of heresies. Such ignorant and personalized commentary, demonstrates that your new username could greatly benefit from a new demeanor.Timothy Usher 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack ??

I never able to specify the names of people I feel pushing propoganda in wikipedia . How can someone else do that? Rules are same for all of us or at least should be same for all of us. Why it not a personal attack (without quoting any evidence) against many people.

Does Faisal attempt a neutral point of view? Does BhaiSaab? Does Amibidhrohi? Does JuanMuslim (username, hello?) Does Striver? Does Raphael1? Does Farhansher? Does Autoshade? Does Mystic? These are just a few of the editors we see around these articles who don't bother with the faintest pretense of neutrality, and my understanding has been that we're required to accept it as an alternative point of view. It's pretty silly to make allowances for Middle Eastern religious fanaticism while not tolerating the juvenalia of western right-wing discourse. Were there a policy that editors had to be reasonable, or be hauled before ANI, someone should have let me know, as it'd have saved me and several more scholarly editors than myself (most notably Pecher, the single most valuable contributor to this space by a longshot) a whole lot of trouble.Timothy Usher 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) [4]
Even if it is a personal attack, I will not like to report Timothy right now (unlike he did with me). However, if he continue doing so then we will report him. --- Faisal 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a post a response to that comment. [5] BhaiSaab talk 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I wanted to past Timothy allegations here is that most of the other users (whose names are mentioned above) could be aware of this post. --- Faisal 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Category up for deletion: Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad

Someone came up with this brilliant idea for a category. Needless to say, it's up for deletion. [6]His Excellency... 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

More vote solicitation? Pecher Talk 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename needed

Muslim Jew. Brief reasons on talk. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird topic. The word "jew" is interesting. Is it a racial term or a religious one? If a Jewish person who converts to Islam is a "Muslim Jew", would we consider Jeraldo Rivera (hispanic jewish convert) a jewish non-jew? His Excellency... 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is Jews for Jesus. Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's Participation here, and in articles dealing with Islam

The edits Timothy Usher has been making to the project page here are deliberately insulting and condescending, as I've pointed out earlier on this page. I think we need to consider his work here, and in articles related to Islam, in light of his expressed views regarding Muslims and Islam:

"PBUHing Muhammad is also the PBUHing of the beheading of the Banu Qurayza (did someone mention Abu Ghraib? Did someone mention Zarqawi?), the taking of captives for "wives" (one immediately after her husband was slain), the imposition of serfdom upon the Jews of Khaybar, etc. I oppose the slaughter and enslavement of innocent people, and I oppose PBUHing anyone who's done it. Jimbo Wales (PBUH) seems more appropriate to me.Timothy Usher 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

"It's not my view, but that of Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq and the Hadith. All the data comes from devout admirers of Muhammad, who considered his actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious.Timothy Usher 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

"You insist on taking the least nuanced, most condemnational interpretation possible, and one that doesn't show an adequarte understanding of American discourse. You've been Karl Meiering this guy. We're in a war, you know. We were attacked. I understand this is itself a simplistic statement, but it's a simplicity a very large number of people would sign onto.Timothy Usher 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

I haven't seen Timothy Usher or his collaborators edit Al Qaeda or pages about other related terrorist group. Their involvment is limited to pages relating to Islam and Muslims in general. When Timothy says "we're in a war", a war against whom, I have to ask. Given his editing patterns and his style of rhetoric, given his habit of lawyering and harassing Muslims here, of reporting them to admins for every 3RR block (when those who share his mindset commit much graver offenses he demands that they be shown 'love and consideration')given his selective regard and disregard of WP policy, I'd say he thinks this 'war' of his is against Muslims. I'd be okay with him thinking that, but the truth is that he and others like him are bringing that 'war' into Wikipedia. His Excellency... 16:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, I'm not sure what your posting above is supposed to achieve apart from adding another personal attack to your already impressive list and perhaps earning you another block. Pecher Talk 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your remarks are needlessly hostile. Timothy Usher has added some advice to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. I think whoever followed it would edit more effectively, and we would all end up with better articles. Some think otherwise. They do not like the advice and want to disregard it, and not even include it on the page. Well, fine, consensus rules. I have been trying to move away from editing articles related to Islam. I do not belong to this project, do not wish to, and would clearly be unwelcome by many other members if I did. I think things could be better, but if you are content with the status quo, I am not going to try to force change upon you. I will enforce the rules, and those rules require civility of everyone, including you; given your past behavior and recent blocks, I am not inclined to give you any more warnings. Tom Harrison Talk 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Without getting into this editing war and ideological battle which has been raging for so long now, I will say that I think that Timothy Usher is starting to cross the line from being forthright to being plain rude, and I think he needs to address that. I fail to see, however, why exactly reporting people for breaking 3RR is wrong. As for favouritism, it is not Timothy Usher that repeatedly spams fellowminded users in an attempt to mass vote things in his favour. Dev920 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with this posting relative to it specifically being "out in the open" relative one individual User:Timothy Usher. This posting does reak of the stench of a personal attack and that is not to be condoned. This is not the forum to be discussing such things. An RfC or mediation is more in order. Netscott 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend mediation too, if it weren't for the fact there just seem to be too many people to mediate between. The posts here, on the Muslim Guild, and on many Islam related pages, form a war between up to ten different users. I'm not sure if all of them could be mediated between adequately. Dev920 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I considered the possibility of it being taken in as a personal attack. This particular bit of information however is relevant to this particular page. Above, we've discussed how his 'advice' would be offensive to Muslim editors here. Saying that much was more formality than anything else, Timothy Usher has a history of using the most biting terminologies to his target audience (Netscott's done a fine job documenting this on his talk page). He knows precisely what he's saying, and the effects those statements make are the desired one. Nevertheless, out of formalilty, I went through the trouble of vocalizing how particularly offensive it is to tell Muslims that they are to refrain from saying "salaam" to each other. I went through the trouble of pointing out why Timothy telling another Muslim 'if you came here to practice your religion, you shouldnt be on Wikipedia' is wrong. I reminded him of WP:Consensus, other WP rules that he has a talent for lecturing others about, but has difficulty following them himself. He has repeatedly edited the product page, adding in his demands as to how Muslims behave in Wikipedia. It is perfectly fair that someone point out his actual sentiment towards Muslims here. It is fair to point out that what he's demanding is not WP policy, nor the intent of the general Wikipedia community. In that context, it is also fair to point out his own statements that show him to be a devout and practicing bigot. His Excellency... 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Bigot"? I've had strong words with Timothy Usher relative to what's being discussed here, but I haven't specifically called him names... as I've just said H.E. on your talk page, a number of your points are valid (I should know) but I honestly don't see this as the proper venue for such discussions particularly if one is referring to another editor as a "bigot". I hate to say this... but I suspect you'll be blocked again shortly. Netscott 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've told Timothy on his talk page to please stop changing the Wikiproject Islam page because there are several editors here who do not approve of his changes, yet he still continues to do so. BhaiSaab talk 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Timothy Usher put those dos and donts up on the 6th of June, and EVERYONE, not just you and him, but Faisal, Pecher, and others, have been warring over it since. You have both written impolite edit summaries - I think this is a case where a compromise CAN be made, but everyone needs to talk to each other rather than slinging mud. Dev920 18:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Awwam ibn Khuwaylid

Hi, The article Awwam ibn Khuwaylid was just prodded, I de-prodded it - but it is very very thin at the moment. Can someone take 10 minutes and write a decent stub making his notability clear. Many thanks. Megapixie 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another Category

Perhaps fellow editors could have a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_17#Category:Modern_victims_of_Islamic_decapitation. Thanks. Netscott 12:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi up for deletion

Something that should be interesting. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi His Excellency... 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Been closed... another misuse of AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

I have noticed that there are many article about bible figures that specifically deal with the Islamic view point. Some of them are named by a transliteration of the Islamic name (Nuh, Lut, Ibrahim) and others are in the form of Islamic views of.. (Islamic view of Jesus and Qur'anic account of Solomon). And some just redirect to the regular article that may or may not have a section on the Islamic perspective. As an outsider I find the inconsistency a bit annoying. I would prefer that all of them are in the form "Islamic views of..." for a few reason. First it makes it clearer that it is talking about the same person, Second it focus the article to the Islamic view and does not need to repeat anything said in the main article, third transliteration from another language (granted all the names are not originally English - they have turn into English i.e. the main article is Moses not Moshe (Hebrew) or Musa) should be avoid if possible. In any event, I think it is important to have a consistent approach whatever that may be. Jon513 21:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Request Assistance

WikiProject Central Asia has just been founded, and there are several topics about Islam in Central Asia that aren't covered very well or at all in Wikipedia. If anyone here has expertise (or interest in learning more), the following articles could use creation (from list of Asia-related topics): Islam - Central Asia, Ismaili Sects - Central Asia, Islam - Mongolia. Aelfthrytha 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for help: Baidawi

Baidawi is a copy of an article in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, added as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. I know nothing about the topic but it probably has several POV problems, including one of historical context. Please don't delete the article though. David Brooks 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that bad ?

In the 'Do's and Dont's' section, the first point says:

Seek to bring the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam up to standards with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism.

but I don't think those projects are much better than Wikiproject Islam. For a start, their project pages are not that great. At least we have clear aims and a comprehensive (but not complete) manual of style. MP (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming

Some duplicate categories are up at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and this project is an obvious stakeholder which should have input developing a consensus. There is also a container category problem.

The first two should obviously be combined but the name should be chosen by consensus. The second seems to me to be two potentially separate categories that could possibly have better names. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sura

Hi. Just wanted to let people know about the creation of this infobox. I think it needs some work and figured this is the best way to get the word out. gren グレン 08:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Rewriting "Dos and Do Nots"

I've re-written that section so it's more cordial. Please comment on suggestions for that section if anything's left out. His Excellency... 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly friendlier than the previous version. Looks good. MP (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

New section on 'things to do'

I've just created a new section in the project page highlighting a handful of important things that need to be done. Feel free to add more. MP (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?

I apologise if this is in the wrong place but there is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Sources written by authors under pseudonyms

Are books written by authors under pseudonyms permissible as 'reliable sources'? Many sources in Islamic articles are written by authors whose backgrounds are hidden. Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and Bat Ye'or are all pseudonyms of the actual writers. His Excellency... 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fatwa

There have recently been a spade of well-intentioned but probably rather unencyclopedic edits to Fatwa by a new contributor. Someone who knows something about the subject should have a look at it, I think. Sandstein 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Islam WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

786

Please forgive my ignorance in this matter. Is it true that "All Arabic copies of the Koran have the mysterious figure 786 imprinted on them"? That's claimed in this edit, which I reverted already once. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good revert. 786 doesn't mean anything, and alot of what was added into the article was nonsense. It's not true that 'every quran' has 786 escribed on it. There are some people who believe 786 is a numerical representation of "Bismillahir Rahman Nirrahim", but this is hardly notable, and is not founded on such reasons as cited here. This belief is explicitly founded in Rashad Khalifa's persuit of a 'numerical miracle' in the Quran, not unlike the "Bible code" people tried to decipher in the past. Ami Bidhrohi 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim 1m 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New semi-related article: Arab lobby in the United States

While it is only peripherally related to Islam, I figured I might as well announce it here. I recently wrote a new article on the Arab lobby in the United States. The article needs more contributors and/or suggestions for improvement. --Ben Houston 01:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Older Women's Muslim Community

Apologies if this is not the right place to ask. This article: OWMC was prod'd, deleted, restored and is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OWMC. Can anyone here throw any light on its authenticity? -- I@n 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hijri calendar

Salam Alaikom I'm memberof the french wikipedia and i want to make a dynamic hijri calendar. I've made a search here but i didn't find anything. On the french wikipedia there is this model [7]] which uses this model also [8] Do you have any idea how to make it into an english syntax.

Question about Umma

I see the Muslim community spelled in most articles like this: "Umma" but the Wiki page umma is about something else and Ummah is the Muslim community. Could you guys consider fixing this? It seems like the Muslim "Umma" is the bigger topic. Elizmr 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.