Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Islam: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:32, 18 December 2006 editShams2006 (talk | contribs)60 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:36, 17 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,141,441 edits →Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
Because of their length, previous discussions on this page have been archived.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
If further archiving is needed, see ].
| algo = old(60d)

| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive %(counter)d
'''Previous discussions:'''
| counter = 12
:* <small>] Apr 2005 — June 2006</small>
| maxarchivesize = 250K
:* <small>] — Sept 2006</small>
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
==Open tasks for the Islam Wikiproject==
| minthreadsleft = 4
I propose to make something like ] for this wikiproject. For example some issues like ], ] and ] need more works. So members can be aware by this way. Also members can be aware about POV articles, editorial wars and so on. --] 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 ](also see the ] could be merged into the Islam Open Tasks.
{{talk header|wp=yes|WT:ISLAM}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{Islam Open Tasks2}}
{{Islam Open Tasks}}

Also we can use this tag in the talk pages of related articles.
{{WikiProject Islam}} {{WikiProject Islam}}
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-02-23/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =23|month=February|year=2009}}
{{todo}}


== Issue regarding summary of the ] to ] ==
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 60px;">{{Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Islam articles by quality statistics}}</div>



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. ] 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. ] ] 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::<s>i'll come up with some suggestions in a moment, the wiki is totally lagging up atm.</s> 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 ] within our scope and assign editors for frequent updating of selected articles, DYK's etc. there are ideas from other very active wikiprojects like ] which i think would be great to incorporate here. we have a number of editors already signed up to ] 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. ] 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.--] 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 ] 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===


Referring to editors here regarding this issue I have with another editor adding an entire paragraph about the ] to ]. Here is what I've said on another admin's discussion page, and what Dogcatmousebird has said in their defence:
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.
] ] 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:ok, inserted some more ideas plus a section for ideas not directly related to front-page improvements. ] 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


"I've been in a dispute concerning the page An-Najm, where the user mentioned (new account, about 4 days old) seems to be stern on mentioning Satanic Verses in the page, despite having little to no relation to the chapter itself. I reverted the user the first time, to which he removed my revert with no explanation. Then I reverted him a second time, to which he decided to add an entire section about it, justifying the addition as "a key factual and historical narrative directly tied to the revelation and interpretation of Surah An-Najm", which is simply untrue. Muslims who have memorized and recited this chapter have no idea concerning this incident since this has nothing to do with the chapter, and is a separate incident that does not need to be mentioned on the page due to its irrelevancy.
==]==
I'm leaving it to your judgement since you're an administrator here, since I disagree with the addition and it even seems to be POV pushing, considering the lack of defense of such an addition, blatant false statements, and the 'summary' appearing to be a blatant copy+paste from the main article. Thank you." - Atcovi
This article is currently listed on ], 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? -]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


"I want to add two things:
== sign up ==
The first time I reverted your change without an explanation was an accident, I'm new
Second thing is I want to clarify the use of the term "factual". In my edit message, I mean everything I added to the post is factual. The account and dispute exists.
Any non-biased observer, informed on the subject, can see the obvious relevance this topic has to the Surah, and the obvious bias in attempting to suppress it." - Dogcatmousebird


Leaving this for this community so they can deal with it however way they want to. Thanks. —] ] - ] 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
How does somebody sign up ] 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:One has merely to put a hex (#) followed by four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of the memberlist to register in this Wikiproject. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


:Disputes related to specific articles are usually handled on the corresponding talkpage (]). Also, make sure you familarized yourself with the guidlines for proper conduct before engaging in a dispute (]).
Like this
* ] #] 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) :with best regards ] (]) 15:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks VenusFeuerFalle for your response. I attempted to open the way for a discussion by reverting the user's changes and notifying the user politely to explain their motives behind the addition (and that I was going to start the discussion the following morning to explain why the user's additions are irrelevant), but the user is adamant on keeping their changes and reverted my edit, saying that "" and attempting to guess my intentions behind my reverts of their edits. Evidently from this edit summary and their reversion of your non-controversial edit, it seems that the user is not interested in consensus but their own interpretation of what iss "relevant" or "helpful".
::I quite frankly do not have time to engage in such "Misplaced Pages battles", and would rather focus my attention to completing the Quranic recitations of all 114 chapters (which I am over half-way done). If someone else would like to deal with this user's additions, then they can do so. It would be exhausting to try and get this to the point where I can report this user for violating the 3RR rule anyhow. Thanks! —] ] - ] 03:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::EDIT: Actually, after reviewing the history page of ], it is evident that the consensus is to not mention the incident directly on the page due to low merit (see ). After reviewing this, I've left my perspective on the matter on the talk page. For the time being, I've removed the user's additions and will have to go to the noticeboard if the user persists on adding changes without the needed consensus. —] ] - ] 19:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
:Er... No... It should be typed like that:


For the interested. ] (]) 06:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:<nowiki># ~~~~</nowiki>


== Mustansari ==
:''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Shia expertise would be welcome at ] please, as I and another editor are having trouble finding reliable sources about it. Thanks for any help with this. ] (]) 10:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nomination Qur'an as a Good article==
I want to nominate ] as a ]. Please write your idea in ].--] 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== Article ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ''']]''' 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== New page ==
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. ] 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


] - an Israeli academic who is cited repeatedly on most of the Misplaced Pages pages about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. So we need a page that gives some background on his qualifications, opinions, etc. Unfortunately most interviews etc. are in Hebrew, but I have made a stub. ] (]) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== ArDr nom. ==


== ] ==
I've nominated Islam at the Article drive. Vote ] to support it. ] (]l) 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Being heavily edited by an editor who I believe is adding material that doesn't belong, eg about coins, etc. ] ] 09:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
== Preparation for Article Improvement. ==


== Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon ==
''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 ]. 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, ] could reach FA by Christmas. Anyone with me on this? ] (]) 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Him)
== Article in Need of cleanup by somebody with experience ==
Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Misplaced Pages Page


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


I hope this message finds you well. My name is , and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Misplaced Pages page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Kaaba).
==]==
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. --] 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


These images, located under the 'History' tab, are '''highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam'''. The specific images in question are:
== religioustolerance dot org ==


'''1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595.'''
I came across to this organization, ]. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Misplaced Pages article).


'''2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba.'''
Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at ] for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the ] guideline. I've left a ] at ] asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.


These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Misplaced Pages fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Misplaced Pages page immediately, without any delay or further explanation.
Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Misplaced Pages since links in Misplaced Pages are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on ] for more on this).


We understand that Misplaced Pages requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. '''In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings.'''
You can see all the links by going to this page. I encourage you to look at Misplaced Pages's ] guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at ] 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 ], links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").


Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide.
Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --] 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:religious tolerance.org is marvellous - I would say they are teh best NPOV people out there. ] (]) 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


'''Addressing Misplaced Pages's FAQ:'''
==Palestinian ==
Are events related to Muslim, such as Palestinian related issues in the scope of this project? --] 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:No. There is, however a Arab-Israeli conflict Wikiproject somewhere. You can go there. ] (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. --] 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 ] (Have a nice day!) 18:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


'''1.Misplaced Pages is not censored:''' While Misplaced Pages aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users.
Ok, does that mean that we need ]? --] 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:Why, what articles do you want to create? ] (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 ] unless i get a reason to not do it. --] 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? ] (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. --] 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? ] (Have a nice day!) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''2.Historical accuracy:''' The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Misplaced Pages. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value.
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. ] '''pleeease''' do not create reasons for creating seperate project and let us work together on all the issue concerning to Islam/Muslims here. --- ] 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. ] (Have a nice day!) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''3.Offense to Muslims:''' Misplaced Pages recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Misplaced Pages perpetuate disrespect and harm.
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'''. --- ] 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. --- ] 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. ] (Have a nice day!) 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''4.Preventing idolatry:''' The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Misplaced Pages violates this fundamental religious principle.
Palestinian issue has to do with Islam and Muslims. We all Muslims think so. We Muslims are an ] 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 ] 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. --- ] 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''5.Comparison to other figures:''' While Misplaced Pages may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable.
Note for ]: 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). --- ] 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. ] (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Okay! In that case I will support to create ]. For me Islam-Muslim both are same and I really wish if here we can work on them peacefully.
:::*smacks head* ] (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'''. --- ] 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Go for it, mate. ] (Have a nice day!) 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Done! already, well before your above post. --- ] 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''6.Separate link for images:''' Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Misplaced Pages is inherently offensive and harmful.
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. ] 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense.


'''Examples of Content Removal from Misplaced Pages'''
== Moinuddin Chishti is a mess ==


'''1.John Seigenthaler Misplaced Pages Hoax (2005):''' A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Misplaced Pages and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Misplaced Pages's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading.
Can someone have a look at ]? 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.


'''2.Essjay Controversy (2007):''' Contributions from a prominent Misplaced Pages editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Misplaced Pages actively removes content undermining its reliability.
Thanks. --] 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
'''3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012):''' Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Misplaced Pages's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform.


'''4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015):''' Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Misplaced Pages's proactive stance against harmful content.
== Collaboration ==
Relevant Policies


'''Misplaced Pages's Policy on Images:'''
Why don't we organize a fortnightly ], like many wikiprojects do? ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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? ] 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


According to your guidelines, '''"images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user."''' The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users.
<!-- straw poll to guage opinion about having a periodic wikiproject collaboration -->
'''Periodic WikiProject Islam collaboration''':


'''Misplaced Pages's Policy on Offensive Material:'''
'''For'''
# ] 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
# 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. ] (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''1.According to Misplaced Pages:''' Offensive material, while Misplaced Pages aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm.
'''Against'''


'''2.Neutral Point of View:''' As outlined in Misplaced Pages's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.
==FYI==
A new section is started in the MOS: ] join!. --] 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. --] 09:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


'''3.Speedy Deletion Policy:''' This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Misplaced Pages (Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline.
==OR==
Somebody is , can you people take a look, it does not seems like he cares what i am telling him. --] 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Please view the , its not good if i am the only one arguing such an obvious point. --] 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


'''4.Content Integrity Maintenance:''' Content that undermines Misplaced Pages's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Misplaced Pages:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect.


'''5.Adherence to Neutrality:''' Misplaced Pages has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well.
==Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal==
I would appreciate some comments on , more info on its talk page. --] 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


'''Handling of Other Sensitive Topics:'''
== Need your opinions ==
I think we are near to a compromise here ]. That is changing it name to ]. Can you please give your opinion too before I can make that important article-move. Thanking in anticipation. --- ] 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? ] (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. --- ] 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. ] (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. --- ] 16:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


'''1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:''' Misplaced Pages handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives.
I still need few more votes there before I move it ]. Anyone interested in it please give you comments. --- ] 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


'''2.Abortion:''' Misplaced Pages presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic.
== ] ==
I have nominated ] 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. --- ] 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


'''3.Censorship and Internet Freedom:''' Misplaced Pages respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices.
== Question regarding assessments ==


In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward.
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 ], 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. ] 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:responded on talk page. ] 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter.
== Request for assistance at ] ==


Sincerely,
Hello there all. I would like to solicit the assistance and expertise of project members at the recently-created and contentious ] 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({{user|7 day}}) 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.--]<font color="#DAA520"> | </font>] 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Yasha Ullah Afghan ] (]) 05:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
==Ghazw==
] might need attention. --] 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


:No per ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== ] ==
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 ], 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. ] 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Could someone take a look at ] please? One of those niche articles where I know what's wrong but can only explain it to an editor in a domain-general way, which I don't feel will help. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] is finally renamed ==
:{{ping|Remsense}} Quranic cosmology is an affected title, maybe move to ]...a less arcance title? ] (]) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
] article is finally renamed to ] 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. -- ] 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not entirely following. ] is vocabulary with a specific meaning. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


==]== == ] and ] ==
Interesting article. --] 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. --- ] 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? --] 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


I wish I didn't feel the need to post a thread like this, but over the past year-plus the articles ] and ] have each undergone dramatic renovations by a single user, with the word count of the latter in particular ballooning further past what we generally consider to be ideal for our most nuanced articles. I cannot help but feel like much of their hard work has not been resulted in improvements for we what we intend to be well-rounded encyclopedia articles for an international English-speaking readership. I cannot be of proper assistance, but I hope someone who could be can take a look and discern what might have to be reworked or returned to its previous state for two of our most important articles. Thanks. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Can anybody clean this article up? ==


:Currently I still have a few articles in mind I work on when I have time, but I would try to read over the articles in a while in sha'allah. ] (]) 19:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Can anybody clean this article up: ]? I've put a {{tl|prod}} tag on it, because it's basically unreadable in its current state. That is, if it's even a notable term. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== New Taskforce: ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
I have added this new task force: ]. Please join in and lets improve the articles relating to ]. On another note, is it acceptable to create a shortcut for the main article? I created ] which goes to ]. Did I do the right thing? Can we add this shortcut now to the ] page? thanks. --] 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ''']]''' 18:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see no problem with the initiative. --] 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. --] 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. --] 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?--] 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Whenever i find a article related to scholars, i add it ]. 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 ]. Now, when and if enough people join, we can start ], 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 ] 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 ] templates and other quirks that each article should try to have. Is that a good answer? --] 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. --] 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. ] 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
:i concur. ] 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:
::#] is a main article, which has many sub-sections.
::#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 Misplaced Pages have the right to be improved. I dare you to say ] is an article that does not have the right to be improved. That statement will make a lot of people laugh actually.--] 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 ], but it makes it clear in the lead section that NPOV refers only to the main namespace. ] (Have a nice day!) 08:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Actually you're wrong. It's not about me not liking negative articles. Misplaced Pages 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. ] 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
::::What do you think the ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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:
:::::#Let the Criticism of Islam taskforce remain as it is, OR
:::::#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)
:::::#A new project or page will somehow be created like Wikiproject:Islam.
::::The end objective is the same: to improve articles on ]. 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? --] 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. ] 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


== Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025! ==
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/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Criticism_of_Islam_task_force ] 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear Wikimedian,
I've been watching the discussion for some time, but I can't help but point out ] that questions the existence of such articles in the first place. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
:That is an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline. And i disagree with the essay. --] 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 ]. 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. --] 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


We’re happy to announce the launch of ], an annual international campaign dedicated to celebrating and preserving Islamic cultures and history through the power of Misplaced Pages. As an active contributor to the Local Misplaced Pages, you are specially invited to participate in the launch.
==Sura==
Guys, look at --] 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
:Interesting that someone would spend that amount of time on that small issue. I'll respond to their ].--] 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


This year’s campaign will be launched for you to join us write, edit, and improve articles that showcase the richness and diversity of Islamic traditions, history, and culture.
== new logo ==


* Topic: ]
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 ]). 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. ] 09:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* When: Jan 19, 2025
: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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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? --] 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Time: 16:00 Universal Time UTC and runs throughout Ramadan (starting February 25, 2025).
::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. ] 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88420056597?pwd=NdrpqIhrwAVPeWB8FNb258n7qngqqo.1
:::If other projects dont do it, it doesnt mean we shouldnt. The new logo has the W in it to tie it to Misplaced Pages. Thats a better logo than just the mosque. If you see from this 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. --] 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Zoom meeting hosted by ]
::::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. ] 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.--] 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. --- ] 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 ']' is not a legitimate argument. you need to express a reason for instituting change and consensus to enact it. currently, you are providing neither. ] 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
:In that case, Misplaced Pages 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? --] 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. ] 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.--] 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. --] 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


To get started, visit the ] for details, resources, and guidelines: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025.
== Long list of members should be moved to the bottom ==


Add ], and organized Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 in your local language.
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? --] 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Whether you’re a first-time editor or an experienced Wikipedian, your contributions matter. Together, we can ensure Islamic cultures and traditions are well-represented and accessible to all.
: leave it as it is. --- ] 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.--] 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Feel free to invite your community and friends too. Kindly reach out if you have any questions or need support as you prepare to participate.
== ] ==


Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a success!
This list belongs to WikiProject Islam:
*]
They were former Muslims. People who come 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 ] says too) most of them are former Muslims and so they have a strong connection to Islam even after their apostasy.--] 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


For the ] 08:36, 17 January 2025 (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. ] 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:ZI Jony@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:ZI_Jony/Wiki_Loves_Ramadan/List&oldid=28116466 -->

Latest revision as of 08:36, 17 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Islam and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIslam
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
WikiProject Islam was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 23 February 2009.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-10-08


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Issue regarding summary of the Satanic Verses to An-Najm

Referring to editors here regarding this issue I have with another editor adding an entire paragraph about the Satanic Verses to An-Najm. Here is what I've said on another admin's discussion page, and what Dogcatmousebird has said in their defence:

"I've been in a dispute concerning the page An-Najm, where the user mentioned (new account, about 4 days old) seems to be stern on mentioning Satanic Verses in the page, despite having little to no relation to the chapter itself. I reverted the user the first time, to which he removed my revert with no explanation. Then I reverted him a second time, to which he decided to add an entire section about it, justifying the addition as "a key factual and historical narrative directly tied to the revelation and interpretation of Surah An-Najm", which is simply untrue. Muslims who have memorized and recited this chapter have no idea concerning this incident since this has nothing to do with the chapter, and is a separate incident that does not need to be mentioned on the page due to its irrelevancy. I'm leaving it to your judgement since you're an administrator here, since I disagree with the addition and it even seems to be POV pushing, considering the lack of defense of such an addition, blatant false statements, and the 'summary' appearing to be a blatant copy+paste from the main article. Thank you." - Atcovi

"I want to add two things: The first time I reverted your change without an explanation was an accident, I'm new Second thing is I want to clarify the use of the term "factual". In my edit message, I mean everything I added to the post is factual. The account and dispute exists. Any non-biased observer, informed on the subject, can see the obvious relevance this topic has to the Surah, and the obvious bias in attempting to suppress it." - Dogcatmousebird

Leaving this for this community so they can deal with it however way they want to. Thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputes related to specific articles are usually handled on the corresponding talkpage (WP:EDITWAR). Also, make sure you familarized yourself with the guidlines for proper conduct before engaging in a dispute (WP:TALK).
with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks VenusFeuerFalle for your response. I attempted to open the way for a discussion by reverting the user's changes and notifying the user politely to explain their motives behind the addition (and that I was going to start the discussion the following morning to explain why the user's additions are irrelevant), but the user is adamant on keeping their changes and reverted my edit, saying that "it doesn't matter how many people revert it, this is factual and relevant information" and attempting to guess my intentions behind my reverts of their edits. Evidently from this edit summary and their reversion of your non-controversial edit, it seems that the user is not interested in consensus but their own interpretation of what iss "relevant" or "helpful".
I quite frankly do not have time to engage in such "Misplaced Pages battles", and would rather focus my attention to completing the Quranic recitations of all 114 chapters (which I am over half-way done). If someone else would like to deal with this user's additions, then they can do so. It would be exhausting to try and get this to the point where I can report this user for violating the 3RR rule anyhow. Thanks! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
EDIT: Actually, after reviewing the history page of An-Najm, it is evident that the consensus is to not mention the incident directly on the page due to low merit (see here). After reviewing this, I've left my perspective on the matter on the talk page. For the time being, I've removed the user's additions and will have to go to the noticeboard if the user persists on adding changes without the needed consensus. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WikiShia.net

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mustansari

Shia expertise would be welcome at Mustansari please, as I and another editor are having trouble finding reliable sources about it. Thanks for any help with this. Wikishovel (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

New page

Assaf Moghadam - an Israeli academic who is cited repeatedly on most of the Misplaced Pages pages about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. So we need a page that gives some background on his qualifications, opinions, etc. Unfortunately most interviews etc. are in Hebrew, but I have made a stub. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Political aspects of Islam

Being heavily edited by an editor who I believe is adding material that doesn't belong, eg about coins, etc. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon

Him)

Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Misplaced Pages Page

Dear Misplaced Pages Team,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is , and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Misplaced Pages page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Kaaba).

These images, located under the 'History' tab, are highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam. The specific images in question are:

1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595.

2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba.

These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Misplaced Pages fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Misplaced Pages page immediately, without any delay or further explanation.

We understand that Misplaced Pages requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings.

Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide.

Addressing Misplaced Pages's FAQ:

1.Misplaced Pages is not censored: While Misplaced Pages aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users.

2.Historical accuracy: The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Misplaced Pages. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value.

3.Offense to Muslims: Misplaced Pages recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Misplaced Pages perpetuate disrespect and harm.

4.Preventing idolatry: The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Misplaced Pages violates this fundamental religious principle.

5.Comparison to other figures: While Misplaced Pages may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable.

6.Separate link for images: Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Misplaced Pages is inherently offensive and harmful. We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense.

Examples of Content Removal from Misplaced Pages

1.John Seigenthaler Misplaced Pages Hoax (2005): A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Misplaced Pages and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Misplaced Pages's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading.

2.Essjay Controversy (2007): Contributions from a prominent Misplaced Pages editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Misplaced Pages actively removes content undermining its reliability. 3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012): Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Misplaced Pages's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform.

4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015): Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Misplaced Pages's proactive stance against harmful content. Relevant Policies

Misplaced Pages's Policy on Images:

According to your guidelines, "images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user." The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users.

Misplaced Pages's Policy on Offensive Material:

1.According to Misplaced Pages: Offensive material, while Misplaced Pages aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm.

2.Neutral Point of View: As outlined in Misplaced Pages's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

3.Speedy Deletion Policy: This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Misplaced Pages (Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline.

4.Content Integrity Maintenance: Content that undermines Misplaced Pages's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Misplaced Pages:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect.

5.Adherence to Neutrality: Misplaced Pages has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well.

Handling of Other Sensitive Topics:

1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Misplaced Pages handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives.

2.Abortion: Misplaced Pages presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic.

3.Censorship and Internet Freedom: Misplaced Pages respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices.

In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward.

Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter.

Sincerely,

Yasha Ullah Afghan 202.47.33.85 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No per WP:NOTCENSORED. — Czello 07:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Quranic cosmology

Could someone take a look at Quranic cosmology please? One of those niche articles where I know what's wrong but can only explain it to an editor in a domain-general way, which I don't feel will help. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Quranic cosmology is an affected title, maybe move to Quranic cosmos...a less arcance title? Tiny Particle (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not entirely following. Cosmology is vocabulary with a specific meaning. Remsense ‥ 论 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Badr

Battle of Badr has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Sharia and Quran

I wish I didn't feel the need to post a thread like this, but over the past year-plus the articles Quran and Sharia have each undergone dramatic renovations by a single user, with the word count of the latter in particular ballooning further past what we generally consider to be ideal for our most nuanced articles. I cannot help but feel like much of their hard work has not been resulted in improvements for we what we intend to be well-rounded encyclopedia articles for an international English-speaking readership. I cannot be of proper assistance, but I hope someone who could be can take a look and discern what might have to be reworked or returned to its previous state for two of our most important articles. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 12:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Currently I still have a few articles in mind I work on when I have time, but I would try to read over the articles in a while in sha'allah. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mufti Abdul Razzaq#Requested move 25 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mufti Abdul Razzaq#Requested move 25 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Houthi movement#Requested move 12 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi movement#Requested move 12 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 18:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!

Dear Wikimedian,

We’re happy to announce the launch of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, an annual international campaign dedicated to celebrating and preserving Islamic cultures and history through the power of Misplaced Pages. As an active contributor to the Local Misplaced Pages, you are specially invited to participate in the launch.

This year’s campaign will be launched for you to join us write, edit, and improve articles that showcase the richness and diversity of Islamic traditions, history, and culture.

To get started, visit the campaign page for details, resources, and guidelines: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025.

Add your community here, and organized Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 in your local language.

Whether you’re a first-time editor or an experienced Wikipedian, your contributions matter. Together, we can ensure Islamic cultures and traditions are well-represented and accessible to all.

Feel free to invite your community and friends too. Kindly reach out if you have any questions or need support as you prepare to participate.

Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a success!

For the International Team 08:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam: Difference between revisions Add topic