This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.
The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.
The original paragraph 2 contains the same assertion, but should be replaced with this content due to preference of an original source and higher quality of content. --STTill (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed invalid decline of this request and tangential discussion
The assertion in the FAQ is fundamentally flawed because it contradicts the intent of the article. Muhammad is the objective source of the absolute and final moral standards in Islam. The historic context is thus irrelevant for the relevance of the portrayal of his moral behavior. --STTill (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Still Not done: This point is already adequately covered in the section/paragraph concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Even though I don't agree, I suggest a replacement with paragraph 2 since my text uses an original source. STTill (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Another reason to invalidate the initial denial of my request. --STTill (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am slowly beginning to understand what's going on here. The discussion has already been re-opened by an IP user; I will go ahead and put the initial denial of the request and this tangential discussion in a collapsed box so that it doesn't affect further consideration of this request. I will also recuse myself from reviewing the actual request since I have been involved. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
To continue this discussion:
There is no "preference of an original source" on Wikipedia: See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which is essentially what you're proposing to use. Furthermore I fail to see how a quotation from a Hadith is relevant, or why it would need to replace a perfectly good paragraph that says something completely different.
Furthermore, asserting in the article that this quotation fits with the legal description of child sexual abuse constitutes original research, which is not allowed here. You would need to find a reliable source that makes this connection; otherwise this interpretation doesn't belong in this article.
For these reasons, I am marking this edit request as Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY is in fact supporting my request. The very nature of an Hadith is perfectly satisfying the requirement for reliable sources regarding subjects of Islam:
"... a saying or an act or tacit approval or disapproval ascribed either validly or invalidly to the Islamic prophet Muhammad"
"Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence."
I clearly do not violate WP:NOR because I solely recite reliable sources in the articles context and reliable sources have "published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article".
It should be clear and obvious that the quality of content and references in the existing paragraph #2 is inferior to my requested change of content. --STTill (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Aisha section, nowhere exists your assertion that "this description is in accordance with the legal and moral definition of Child sexual abuse in the vast majority of modern societies." That is original research. It is your personal opinion. You have not provided any reliable source backing up this assertion. You have not provided any reliable source that makes a connection between child sexual abuse and Muhammad. Without any backing for that assertion, there is no value added in quoting a primary source, particularly when this article is about criticism, not Islamic jurisprudence. For the fourth time, NNot done, for glaringly obvious reasons as previously stated. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." EastTN (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)