Talk:Islam

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea.-Shahab (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a very sensible idea for a page that is as heavily edited as this one. I heartily approve. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The bots should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish in the lead

Currently, the lead states:

The word Islam is a homograph, having multiple meanings, and a triliteral of the word salaam, which directly translates as peace. Other meanings include submission, or the total surrender of oneself to God (see Islam (term)). When the two root words are put together, the word 'Islam' gives the meaning 'Peace acquired by submission to the will of God'.

This is all nonsense, and the link cited is broken:[1] It would suffice to state (though probably not in the lead) that Islam literally means "submission," as is adequately explained in the section Islam#Etymology and meaning.98.203.142.17 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken links may be checked via the wayback machine and so may not necessarily be useless. Regards-Shahab (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Size of images

The images should be as small as possible in this article. Thanks!--AYousefzai (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment

This is the place of a now deleted series of comments by a proselytizing user, so understand the following few comments in this context. I removed them on the grounds that they clearly violated WP:FORUM and as the article describing policy on talk pages suggests, perhaps that user would be better suited to his own blog. Supertouch (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Notice - I don’t see any suggestions for improvements to the Islam article in this thread. Possible talk page violation in regards to WP:FORUM, but I will wait for other users input. --大輔 泉 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Without a doubt the above three sections by User:Nasireddin are inappropriate for the article as they are primarily unreferenced - the references presented are from primary sources - and are written in style that best be described as pontificating. On a talk page these comments by this user are taking up space unnecessarily and could very be in violation of the policy you mentioned WP:FORUM. I was biting my tongue unless that user moved these comments to the article itself. Supertouch (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and you should just remove it.--AYousefzai (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Picture On the Top of the Title

The picture which is on the top of the "Islam" title is the Arabic word of God. It will be better if that piccture was a Moon, which is the symbol of Islam. Becausethe religion pages in Wikipedia has their symbols but Islam has Arabic writing. Religion shouldn't have a language, if we want to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.232.67 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

great going dude

how u doing evry bdy yo man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.17.106 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

and the prophet mohammed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizafall (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

hi, i would like you to add the denominations salafi (otherwise called wahhabi) and quran-only (otherwise called quranists) please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.213.251 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam is now the largest religion in the world

Could someone update the article to reflect as of 2009 Islam is now the number 1 religion in the world. As reported by fox news and AP Sunday, March 30, 2008 the Vatican confirms. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html

Thanks Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elextrixman (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean what you think it means. Islam (with all its sects/denominations) is greater than Catholicism, a sect/denomination of greater Christianity. The comparison doesn't very much make sense. --Ari (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Since when is Roman Catholicism a religion? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 06:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Islam in America

Why is there nothing on Islam in America? I have access to journals at my school containing information about it. How can I add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rommette (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually a better place to add information would be in the Islam in the United States article. Regards-Shahab (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisment

Every time I logged in more and more controversial topics (but nonetheless important for any religion) are removed and replaced with want-to-believe POV versions if at all. maybe cap the amount of religious sympathizers editing the articles? Shiftadot (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) note - don't delete this edit , this is very constructive and related to the article. Shiftadot (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I mean it.

It would help if you would provide examples as to what is the POV material you are referring to that has been inserted-Shahab (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"maybe cap the amount of religious sympathizers editing the articles?" first of all, no, this article is not run by Islamic “Sympathisers“ - perhaps you should go take a look at this article?. And as Shahab said, please provide some examples of this so called bias? And please don't use the whole "Islam is a (Insert personal opinion here) religion", thanks, that's your POV. --大輔 泉 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

hey misortie, maybe you should stop backseat moderating and acting like you're the king of the world, and start having good faith in fellow contributors? your edit summary "please do not post again" clearly shows how much of a pompous snob you are. why do i even bother? stop abusing your rollback privileges. all editors are equal. Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)