Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

This talk page or "board room" for The Muslim Guild has been categorized into various sections.

That means that Striver decided to reorganize it without asking anyone else. Zora 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• The "Old Discussion" section will be used for old archives.
• The "Member introductions" section will be used for member introductions.
• The "Articles" section refers to major articles we are currently working on or think need work.
• The "Stubs" section refers to Stubs we are currently working on or think need work.
• The "Templates" section refers to templates that we are currently working on or have concerns with.
• The "Portals" section refers to Portals that we are currently working on or have concerns with.
• The "Standards" section refers to any ideas on editing standards.
• The "Voting" section refers to voting issues relating to articles and/or administrators.
• The "User comments" section refers to comments on Wikipedia users.
• The "Other guilds" section refers to our joint efforts and concerns with other guilds.
• The "Misc and recent" section is for any other recent info not relating to articles or anything else above.

Please add new concerns to the bottom of each section.

Old Discussion

• Archive 1

Member introductions

• Member introductions

Welcome Letter

"Salam!" "Peace!"

Welcome to The Muslim Guild!

You can learn more about our mission and guiding principles at The Muslim Guild.
We hope that you will contribute to Islam-related articles.
Please feel free to contact any current Muslim Guild members if you have any questions.

Sincerely, The Muslim Guild

Articles

Here we can discuss articles in need of attention. Many such articles can be found in the Islam category as well as in the Islam stubs category. Please refer to the talk page for the various articles. Please cross out the articles that you and others are satisfied with.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles

Stubs

Several articles within the Islam stubs category need lots of work.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Islam --Striver 01:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

New stubs

{{Islam-bio-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} created!--Striver 08:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Template:Islam

Please continue to monitor the Islam template and make recommendations that make the template better. --User:JuanMuslim 17:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Muslim Beliefs

• I got tired of someone naging about puting shia stuff at the top, so i made a new template. Was a bit uppset from the mentioned, so i didnt consult you all first, sorry for that. What do you think of the template? Go to its talk page :) --Striver 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Muslim scholars

• Started working on this some time ago, but gave it up after somebody told me it was no good... --Striver 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Going to transfer most of the people here to Islamic scholars --Striver 17:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• This template is obsolete since i created List of Islamic scholars, can someone delet it? --Striver 14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Portals

Please remember to update the Islam Portal from time to time.--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Standards

Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)

Let's try to improve the standards mentioned in the following Manual of Style. Check out:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)

Please keep an eye on this as it is shared with other guilds. Certain guilds might make it very biased.

Please post suggestions for standardization issues to the talk page of the Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). --Juan Muslim 05:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting

The Muslim Guild does not endorse any particular voting decision.

Articles for deletion

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion

Regarding adminship

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship

Islam

Nominated as "Featured article"!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam

--Striver 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User comments

Any requests for comments on a fellow wiki editor you feel to raise? Positive or negative, its goes in this section.

Salman

Comment on main editor comment page:Salman

Striver

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Striver

Zora

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Zora

Ed Poor

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Ed Poor

Saduj al-Dahij

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/Saduj al-Dahij

OceanSplash

Comment on main editor comment page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User comments/OceanSplash

Palmiro

Recently on Jannah this user changed Allah to God and after I changed back he reverted my edit. I've told this user to stop using non-Islamic terms on Islamic articles in the past, but he continues nonetheless. I suggest checking his contributions and correcting any more alterations. freestylefrappe 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He was right, you were wrong. --Striver 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should use Allah in place of God. If the Quran is only true when read in Arabic, then Allah is the only true form of God for Muslims. freestylefrappe 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nygdan

This user's contribution to Bektashi, which I highly suspect is a copyvio, has started an edit war between a new user, Bektashi110 and several other users. On his user page he seems to assert that Shiia, Bektashi, and Alawi are not Muslims. This may be an acceptable pov, but this should be taken to account. freestylefrappe 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Other guilds

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Other guilds

Misc and recent (not relating to articles)

Archived discussions of this section

• Archive 1

Defaming Islam

Ya'll,

Take a look at this page: Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. I think it is highly biased.--Zereshk 03:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that article as defaming Islam. It makes it very clear that there are numerous POVs as to what actually happened, and credits the government of Iran with the hangings, not Islam as a whole. Zora 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read its talk page? --Striver 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A new user who could use help

There's a new user Angry Ayrab (talk · contribs) working on an article about an Islamic religious figure. He looks like he could use some help from experienced users. Cheers. Zocky 18:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Help?

I've began Vali Muhammad Khan and the Uthman Qur'an. If anyone has anymore info, please add it. Both are quite short at the mo. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you require any information on such topic, please come to my page - I will surely try to do something. You have done nice articles on these two topics. I am an Indian of Hindu faith, and I find that wikipedia does not still have several pages about Indian muslims - after all, for more than a 1000 years, muslims have been a part of the Indian subcontinent. I will try to add the contents and stubs surely - but after my first wiki birthday on 24th March 2006. Happy editing. --Bhadani 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

Hello to all, I shall be here for next few weeks, and have a careful look at a number of relevant pages to modify, and remove if warranted, un-Encyclopedic information from such pages. I shall also do minor copyedits, wikification, clean-ups etc. --Bhadani 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Created 2 stubs today: Samarkand manuscript & Banya Bashi Mosque. I will create at least one stub almost daily relating to Islam until I continue here. Even thereafter, I shall continue to contribute to Islam-related matters. --Bhadani 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's great but most of us don't keep talking about it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me in the matter. I will silently work in future. --Bhadani 17:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bhadani 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah

There has been some discussion on the Ayatollah page about a recurrent posting summarizing an episode of the Simpsons. A few people have been removing the paragraph when it pops up, but perhaps the discussion of the appropriateness of this paragraph to this particular article would be improved if more voices were heard. I would invite editors to put it on their watchlist and make an objective decision about whether the paragraph adds to the usefulness of the Ayatollah article.--Counsel 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

systemic bias

If anyone is interested in discussing systemic bias reg. Islam on Wikipedia, please go here. Raphael1 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To all of my Brothers and Sisters

Dear Brothers and Sisters. First we are Muslims and the Shi’a or Sunni. We have to make sure that we protect the Islamic articles accurate from the point of view of Muslims. Some people are trying to say that Imam Hussain was killed instead of being martyred. I think that they are non-Muslims and because of that they do not understand the meaning of being killed and being martyred as far as their knowledge of Islam is concerned. I would like all of my brothers and sisters to contribute to Islamic article like Battle of Khaybar other Islamic articles that need to be more developed from the point of view of a Muslim. Thank You Salman

I agree with you on the subject about Imam Hussain r.a. But as you can see from every writig around you wikipedia has a no point of view policy. This doesnt mean that people can come and desacralize things that others hold holy but it means that articles and of course every single sentence in them must be non biased. Having said this I still think that on subjects like martyrdom no-one should say killed. A martyr is a martyr there is no POV here. Suleyman Habeeb 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes there is. Those of us who are non-Muslim do not accept the use of the term martyred. Zora 05:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, martyr is not pov, see chritianity articles. --Striver 10:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Assalamu Alaikum and Hello,

I propose that we, as a guild, concentrate on improving the Islam article until we're able to get it to featured status. BhaiSaab 06:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I have removed my name from here as " removing my name from here - as I found contents of several pages related to islam were not dynamic and choice was limited - I felt like working in a cage." However, I shall continue to contribute to islam related pages, that is sure. Thank you friends, bye bye. --Bhadani 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, within a day or two of my joining the guild, one editor de-motivated me by saying - we do not talk here, or something like that ... strange that people are not permitted to talk and discuss. --Bhadani 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I promise to give very soon Islam related stubs equal to the number of days I was associated with the Guild. I depart sadly, but I shall continue to work in this field. Thanks and Ameen. --Bhadani 17:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparent crusade against arabic/islamic articles in progress

An editor has recently taken it upon himself to begin a campaign to remove references to many arabic-titled articles (mostly connected with islamic subjects) from en.wikipedia, claiming they are "POV forks". In the course of this effort, he has recently added a "Translation" section to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) instructing editors to that effect. It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike, providing justification for their eventual deletion or merging (as subsidiary material, based on his contention that the abrahamic religions should be referred to in chronological order of their "founding", regardless of any claims that Islam predates Muhammad for example), as per Jibril (merged into Gabriel after a two-day "merge discussion period" during which no discussion took place; see Talk:Jibril) into articles with principally jewish or christian content. Other editors might like to comment on this development. — JEREMY 10:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Friends, please do not make quick judgements as Jeremy did. Writing like "Apparent crusade against arabic/islamic articles in progress" is not expected from a Muslim. I and Timothy have two different sets of argument, both ending up with the same conclusions. Please hear our argument first. I don't agree with Jeremy on "It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike" Please specify a place and we will discuss the matter in length. You can revert everything back whenever you want. Salam --Aminz 11:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy should stop this now. The article have been like that for years and he simply can't come around, ignore the discussion and then start moving articles around. This is blockable. Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Several of these articles (and many you've not gotten around to) haven't been touched in months. That's negligence, not consensus. Further, and I mean no offense by this, but it's often unclear if the text creators spoke English as a first language, or had any sense of literary style. It's not all a big POV war.Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they haven't been touched in months. Editors have worked on them since they were only a paragraph long and I was one of them. It is a big POV war because so far you have shown that you believe your edits are the best thing that ever happened to the articles and should be kept simply because of that. These articles weren't always articles you know. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please have a mediation page for this issue. Thanks --Aminz 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that mediation would be desirable - at least, more desirable than AE having me blocked. My hope is that we could get a healthy mix of editors involved, rather than only those from a particular Guild (incidentally, I would have joined the Muslim Guild some time ago, were it not explicitly segregated by confession, which I find inappropriate and immoral).Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed on talk page of the Qur'an article. It's not up to Timothy to go around doing it just because he found the discussion unecessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Again as I said, it is blockable, I never said I would block you. Please stop assuming bad faith and take it as a warning. Editors have been blocked for it before you know. You need to read the wikipedia policies on consensus, which you should have done before you started editing. It isn't up to you to arbitrarily make decisions. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you've no right to say the I "found the discussion unnecessary." In the case of Jibril, there was a grand total of one message on the talk page, and my tag didn't change anything in this regard. I've been happy to engage you and all other editors on talk pages at every turn. Check your ratio of mainspace:talk edits to mine. Compare your edit summaries to mine. Who deems reverts of disputed points "minor edits"? It is rich that you grasp at this line of criticism.Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, but there are other concerns and arguments as well. Maybe there is a moderate solution to this problem. How is it to have a mediation page for this significant issue where everybody can come and share their ideas? --Aminz 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of Jeremy's usage of the term crusade, I 100% Agree with him and Anonymous editor. Each of the different Arabic names tends to have it's own history apart from their English equivalents. It is partially for this reason that I also disagree with User:Aminz's efforts to alter every reference of Allah to be the English equivalent God. Both Aminz and Timothy Usher have tried to rationalize this change by saying that they are just translating Allah to God but I refute this argument due to the fact that Allah is already a very well established English language Arabic_transliteration of الله. Likewise this logic applies to nearly all other examples of established transliterated terms. Netscott 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

God in Islam is the same as God in Judaism. I and Timothy are not trying to rationalize this, we are trying to avoid misunderstandings of Islam. --Aminz 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Aminz, I no longer trust you having directly witnessed your inclination to edit with bad faith (despite your now appearingly disingenuous apology) and your falsely accusing me of bad faith editing as well. This demonstration (that I'm sure you were aware of your having been involved in that discussion) of Timothy Usher's rationalizing is further indication that I am right to not trust you. Netscott 08:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't trust me. Yes, I sinned when I broke my deal but I don't accept your further accusations. I made an error. I don't want to get into discussion of whether you made a mistake or not again. This is something we don't agree upon. But let me tell you something, I made an error and confessed it. But you are exposing it everywhere. If we all died and there was a God, then you should not expect God to cover your sins. --Aminz 08:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Who's talking about sinning? I'm talking about holding to your word and further not trying to save face in not holding to your word by trying to falsely demonize those with whom you've broken your word. This is not a disagreement, this is a truth which you refuse to acknowledge. Netscott 09:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, if I wanted to save face, would I have accepted that my fault was bigger than yours? If I wanted to save face, would I have apologized first? The reason that my first apology didn't seem sincere to you wasn't that I didn't want to be sincere. First of all, I don't have that feeling about the english words that I have about the persian words. I can not exactly control it. Sometimes, when I edit something over and over and go back and forth, I'll lose my control over how it will sound even more. Anyways, I don't know how this issue is going to be solved. My impression of seeing you reverting that edit was that you should not have done it but it is a possibility that my impression was completely wrong. Who knows. This is a truth which I can acknowledge. Anything more than this is personal disagreement. --Aminz 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Aminz, what is funny is that your own words betray you. I demonstrated your bad faith in editing and then you accused me of bad faith in editing. If we follow the simple logic that one demonstration of bad faith equals another (at the levels we're talking about here) then based upon your accusations we should be equal in our faults. This is not true because I have not demonstrated bad faith in our previous exchange which I clearly demonstrated to you. Therefore if you're talking about your fault being bigger than mine then you are wrong. Netscott 09:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused. You showed me my breaking of my deal. I accepted it and apologized. Then after that you said I have accepted your apology, I said that some particular revertion of yours is a breaking of the deal though my fault was bigger. Then you disagreed with me.

I think what is causing the confusion is that I was changing all the articles one by one. I got stuck on one of the articles and compromised with you (not that I was convinced that your position is correct). Then I moved on to other articles. I considered my deal to be only on that particular article. I believe saying "God (Allah)" is better than "Allah" alone but the best is "God" based on some reasons. This is the story in my view. --Aminz 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's just it, you didn't compromise but merely delayed the edit you really wanted to make while hoping for me to lose interest in the subject whereupon you'd come back and fix the article. Even before you left that extremely telling message on User:Jeremygbyrne's talk page you immediately demonstrated your bad faith by reverting to the same style of editing that we conflicted upon on the very next thing you edited afterwards. Other than for bad faith reasons why else would you do that? This is why I started reverting your similarly natured subsequent edits wholesale. Netscott 10:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I compromised on that article, and at that moment I didn't want to change God (Allah) to God later, though I wasn't happy of the compromise. I was later tempted to do that. One reason that I accepted the compromise was that I myself had already used the form God (Arabic: Allah) on "Ali" article {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali&diff=prev&oldid=50701607] and we were in revert war. But I didn't think that my compromise is supposed to include all articles, that is, I was not convinced by no means that we should use God(Allah) everywhere. I accepted that on that particular article we use God (Allah). That was why I continued to edit other articles. After you reverted my edits on another article, I immediately changed it to God (Allah). The reason I broke my compromise was because I saw Jeremy doesn't wants God(Allah) to be there and I was tempted to break my deal which was wrong and I apologized for it. --Aminz 20:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is well-established, Netscott, but as a misunderstanding, as in, "Muslims worship Allah rather than God." The latest rumor is that Allah is the Moon God [1], [2], [3], [4] (there are many more where these came from.)Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Timothy Usher, at this point I feel as though you are on a false campaign in this regard and with it you are fueling (perhaps inadvertently) an editor that you refer to as impulsive and chaotic. Does Wikipedia need this? I think not. Does it not seem more logical to utilize Wikipedia as it is intended, to give readers the opportunity to properly educate themselves to know what Allah actually represents and means? Such a campaign appears destined to introduce further confusion in the minds of those wanting to learn about the Islamic concept of Allah as God. Netscott 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, yes, Timothy refered to me as impulsive and chaotic and had not God covered my other sins, all would have known that I am much worst. The honor is in the hands of God alone. --Aminz 09:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Netscott, for your vote of support. (I admit to using "crusade" to attract attention in order to counter to the unreasonable haste with which Timothy was acting — I don't actually think he wants to drive the infidel from the holy land.) I think the answer lies somewhere between your position and Aminz's, in that it's important people don't get the idea that Allah is somehow a different god from G*d or God (the Father, that is — let's leave christology aside for the moment, as it introduces its own set of difficulties into the discussion), but it's also very important our readers can find an article entitled "Allah" when they come to wikipedia (as they can when they go to every other major general encyclopedia in english, on- or offline). Otherwise, wikipedia is going to come off looking bizarre, out of touch and anti-islamic (no matter how loudly Timothy might proclaim the unbiased universality of his viewpoint). The optimal solution is pretty much the status quo, with more interlinking/cross-referencing of relevant articles to minimise the sense of ghettoisation Timothy says he's concerned about. What we don't need is impulsiveness and unilateralism (whether it's one or a small group of editors who take it on themselves to engage in it). It is far better that nothing changes than that changes are made which alienate large numbers of editors. — JEREMY 06:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I appreciate your conciliatory words. Though I collaborated with IPT to write Infidel, I don't trouble myself with such concepts.

I've no intention of deleting or merging Allah - as it stood, it was mainly about the Arabic word, which is easily important enough to merit its own article. All I'd done is move passages about the Islamic concept of God to, well, Islamic concept of God. Most of these were duplicated (with minor changes since the copy/paste) anyhow. Having it in one place means we won't have competing versions, and preserves topicality. I've treated the Islamic concept of God with great respect (not in the least because it's my concept of God as well).Timothy Usher 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal Vandalism

There has been some vandilism occuring on the portals. Please keep an eye on them. BhaiSaab 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandilism on both the Sunni and Shi'a portals. BhaiSaab 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Article needing attention

While on random article patrol, I found Shah Nimatullah, which needs attention from somebody knowledgable on the subject. Zocky | picture popups 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This guild needs a NPOV name

I'm concerned that this guild acts as a rallying call toward muslims to change articles toward their POV rather than an aim to create balanced articles. This is demonstrated by the fact that the vast proportion of members are muslims. I don't think a 'muslim guild' is appropriate for wikipedia as it is inherently (as its name indicates) POV and seems to only serve the purpose of raising awareness among muslims on wikipedia toward a supposed need to steer articles toward 'muslim POV'. This is unfair and should not be tolerated.

I'll admit 'Muslim POV' is varied but there is definately a case for Muslims sharing POV and we shouldn't be party to the act of steering articles toward any POV, thus this guild should have a name that is neutral. JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Perhaps it should be merged back into Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. I don't understand why they're two separate entities anyway. joturner 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to add that my original comments were perhaps a little overzealous. I think these guilds are a necessary part of wikipedia, I just caution that any attempts to steer articles toward POV should be avoided and that should be embodied in the name of the guild. JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Guild for Muslim topics, The Muslim topics Guild or The interested in Muslim topics Guild or something along those lines? Otherwise just follow User:Joturner's idea above. Netscott 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The current title is at least honest. Note how membership is broken down by confession, with Muslims coming first. For my part, despite my significant involvement with Islam-related articles, I would never consider joining this group It's deeply inappropriate to organize or to segregate editors by religion. It's also deeply inappropriate that the guild act as a unit, as it has in a current RfA, to promote its members. This cabal should be recognized for what it is and abolished.Timothy Usher 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Here is a question for you. [5].

Also, Timothy, please first make the definition of the terms you are using precise. --Aminz 09:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me+Aiden hardly constitute a Guild.

My comments are clear, and need no further definition.Timothy Usher 09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the guild merged back into Wikiproject Islam as well. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

different kind of censorship?

I am sure many of you remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy image dispute. Now it seems the self-proclaimed free speech proponents censor critique on their own blocking habits: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_May_2006 Raphael1 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It goes even further: Now administrators even removed [6][7][8] the review of their censorship after only 9 hours of discussion. Raphael1 08:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is abit of a nobrainer, as if you agreed with censorship of muhammed cartoons, why are you questioning censorship elsewhere? Do you think Islam tolerates critical views of muhammed? No they censor them or as history has shown make death threats. I think whta these wikipedia users have done is very mild in comparison, it's certainly not a declaration of the opinions of the majority of freespeech proponents. It's incredibably hypocritical of you to criticise other peopl ewhen they censor your views in the discussion of the censorship of other people views. JHJPDJKDKHI! 13:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed the cartoons for a long time. Instead I prefer the linkimage compromise, where the cartoons are just moved one click away. I do not regard this as censorship, since everybody can see the cartoons if they please, while at the same time showing respect to readers, who feel insulted by them. In contrast my critique has been removed entirely by administrators as well as the discussion about the removal. Raphael1 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

File:IslamicBarnstar.png

The Islamic Barnstar Award

I just created this image to help recognize any editor who has made exceptional contributions to Islam-related articles. --JuanMuslim ^1m 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars are wikipedian, and must not have a religion. I've nominated this image for deletion.Timothy Usher 07:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars are entirely unofficial, and therefore their form is wholly up to the editors who chose to give them out. I have seen plenty of personal barnstar-type awards which are entirely (and entirely appropriately) POV. — JEREMY 07:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I know individuals like User:Cyde have been making strenous efforts to "neutralize" userboxes and also to subst them (with T2 reasoning). Part of the reason these individuals are doing this is that they want to inhibit the ability of editors to form cabals with such userboxes. I suspect that these same individuals will soon argue for the removal of this type of barnstar when to their way of thinking it is possible to use it for doing the same type of thing. Netscott 08:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is worse than partisan userboxes, as it's coordinated rather than self-placed. This is exactly what's wrong with this Barnstar, and this Guild. Wikipedia's not supposed to be "Muslim" or "Islamic," and editors aren't supposed to try to make it so. Rather, we're to be a reputable scholarly source. It's inappropriate, off-topic and counterproductive to congratulate editors for being "Islamic."Timothy Usher 08:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Partisan awards naturally serve to divide rather than unite, and this barnstar is obviously counter-productive in building bridges among editors with different beliefs. Pecher ^Talk 09:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This barnstar is no different to the many devoted to specific categories. It isn't an award for "being a good Muslim" or even "being a good Muslim editor"; it's "to help recognize any editor who has made exceptional contributions to Islam-related articles". (Note the "any editor" part). Personally, I think barnstars are naff as hell — but I recognise that others find them useful, and it's not like we're talking "This editor thinks Trinitarian Christology is a Surrealist Joke" userboxen or something. — JEREMY 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You may vote to keep or delete the image at the Vote to keep or delete page. --JuanMuslim ^1m 09:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will copy our discussion to the Voting talk page, so that others will get an accurate idea about our current discussion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This image was nominated for possible deletion on May 27, 2006 but survived deletion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your advertisement on this blatanly partisan talk page, it did.Timothy Usher 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reservations about this talk page aside Timothy Usher let's try to assume good faith and see that the image is neutral in itself. If such wasn't the case I doubt you would have issued this barnstar yourself to a number of notable non-muslim editors involved with topics of an Islamic nature. Netscott 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The image itself is fine, and several editors deserved the barnstar, having toiled far harder, and for a more principled cause, then some of those who'd received it the first time around. It's the overall atmosphere to which I object. This page should be abolished, [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians]] should be abolished, "Salam, brother" (to fellow "Muslims" only) should be abolished, "I LOVE ISLAM!" on userpages should be abolished, and everything else along those lines, as per T2+++.Timothy Usher 10:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, may I ask why should the category be abolished? There are categories of wikipedians who believe in other religions? I'm curious if you make these remarks at other religions pages too? I know that all you want is to contribute in the way you believe best but some of your words do not seem like that. I cannot see what's wrong about saying ¨salam¨ to another wikipedian. salam. Suleyman Habeeb 11:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to SirIsaacBrock those who have received that barnstar belong to "a small group of anti-Semites". He has repeated the statement several times, for instance at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps you would be interested to have a word in it. // Liftarn

If you're unhappy about a certain user's behavior, you may report it on WP:AN/I, but do not spam talk pages to rally support, please. Pecher ^Talk 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Muqtada al-Sadir and the sadrist party in Iraq

I've added a new Islam related articals that were missing. Sadrist Movement please add more info on this as it is a stub really.Hypnosadist 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Certain Users

I'd like to point out certain users to the rest of the Muslim Guild: Karl_Meier, CltFn, and Oceansplash. They happen to think along the lines of "Islamists are taking over Wikipedia" and make, in my opinion, as many Anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim edits as possible. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, watch out, im taking over! ... lol. --Striver 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

/me is still waiting for the opening of Striverpedia. heh Netscott 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this type of list making is highly frowned upon here on Wikipedia and there are histories involving blocking surrounding previous cases. Netscott 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of Raphael's experiences with listmaking. Any of the above users are free to come here and say that I'm wrong all they like. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not merely referring to User:Raphael1 but also previous cases. Netscott 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, your post is really inappropriate, and is construable as a personal attack.Timothy Usher 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the comment was a personal attack, per se, but I agree with Timothy it should not have been made. If you want to talk to the editors you mentioned about their edits, that's fine, but calling them out like this and putting words in their mouths ("Islamists are taking over Wikipedia") is nothing short of tactless. joturner 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't put any words in their mouth - you should see some of their recent edits. See this one, for example. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Im sure BhaiSaab didnt mean to break any rule, but my experience is that it usualy has a bad ending when one starts to list people against their wish. Im not saying that it shouldnt be done, only that it usualy has a bad ending. --Striver 13:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, if you aim to correct Oceansplash's impression that Muslim editors act as a pack against unbelievers, posting a message on "The Muslim Guild" of the sort you have - I also note the "User Comment" section above - is pretty much the last way to do it. Just what action do you expect "the rest of the Muslim guild" to take, now that you've "point[ed] out certain users" to them?

Joturner and Striver's comments are much better-considered in this regard. If you don't wish others to believe you act as a pack, don't do it.

We could start by abolishing this blatantly partisan page, which promotes exactly this mentality. Don't divide editors into "Muslims" and "Non-Muslims". Don't greet fellow "Muslims" with "Salam, brother" while other wikipedians are only "certain users." Don't write spiels about how "I Love Islam" on one's user page while denouncing other editors as "anti-Muslim," as another guild member has recently done. I could go on, but you probably already see my point. These sorts of behaviors, and the very existence of this page, and frankly the subsequent behavior of the editor Oceansplash was tactlessly denouncing, lend credence to the paranoia expressed by the referenced remark, and will compel otherwise disinterested parties to view you with mistrust.Timothy Usher 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, this guild is made up both non-Muslims and Muslims. One of its aims is "To ensure that Islam-related articles offer a neutral, unbiased point of view free from all POV whether secular or nonsecular" and I think the users I pointed out above compromise that aim. If this guild were to "act as a pack" it certainly wouldn't only be the Muslims. I have nothing to do with dividing editors into Muslims and Non-Muslims; I'm all for merging this guild back into WikiProject Islam, as I've said before. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

May I ask again what action you expect "the rest of the Muslim guild" to take, now that you've "point[ed] out certain users" to them?Timothy Usher 09:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect any action. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what was the point?

Just today, Karl Meier, whom you'd singled out above, has been harrassed by two members of this very Guild. Though these members are responsible for their own actions, your post contributed to the environment in which this harrassment took place.Timothy Usher 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

While far from condoning this list this last part added by User:Timothy Usher about User:Karl Meier relative to User:Irishpunktom is in fact something that had been going on for quite some time (well before this list was posted). Netscott 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said "two", not counting IPT, who doesn't seem to have been logged on when the stuff went down today. We have every reason to believe that AE and Faisal have read this post, and that it may have influenced their decisions in this regard.Timothy Usher 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really if you follow the history of that page you'll note that a number of editors have done reverts outside of User:Irishpunktom himself, including User:Raphael1 and User:Striver all one would need do is look at the history and see what's been occurring there and edit accordingly (relative to a perception of Irishpunktom's wishes from following his own reverts) regardless of this list. Netscott 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even User:Anonymous editor has previously reverted Irishpunktom's page. Netscott 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And Faisal?Timothy Usher 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're hingeing such a statement on the act of one editor? Sorry, not inclined to see the direct correlation, certainly a possibility but I tend to keep watch on editor's talk pages (and subsequently their user page) whom I tend to "edit with" and I find this to be a more plausible explanation for what occurred in this case. But regardless this is a minor point as in reality this list should have never been posted... period. Netscott 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I grant that it may have happened anyhow, but only because of the very same environment which I'm criticizing here. BhaiSaab’s post didn’t occur in a vacuum. He'd been given every reason to believe that his comment would be viewed as acceptable to the target audience.

It's time to stop designating editors as "Muslim" or "non-Muslim", much less as "anti-Muslim". This Guild and this page (again, see the section entitled "User Comments" above) is a big part of the problem. So is the misuse of user space as seen on IPT's (before the removal of the attack) and especially Faisal's user page. It's an ongoing atmosphere of sectarian hostility and division which should end, starting, if not yesterday, then right here, right now.Timothy Usher 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the issue here Timothy and yet you continue to bring this up. The Muslim / non-Muslim designation is perhaps there to help guide those editors who want a Muslim perspective on an issue (and therefore want to find a Muslim editor). Perhaps it's there to demonstrate that this guild / Wikiproject does not just consist of Muslims and that it's a joint effort of people of different religions. It's not compulsory for people, Muslim or non-Muslim, to indicate their religion as there is a "not telling" section and users don't theoretically have to put their name anywhere on the page. And what's wrong with Ibrahimfaisal's page? So he's proud of his religion. So what? Jwrosenzweig is a proud Christian (and a bureaucrat). No big deal. Essjay, also a bureaucrat, is gay and a liberal Christian, and doesn't care if the whole world knows. Power to him. Raul654 is proud of his academic work, while Ilyanep is willing to share his accomplishments from his first fourteen years of life. Both bureaucrats; both no problem. Timothy, they are all people despite their roles on Wikipedia and they should be free to say whatever they want on their userpages as long as they're not attacking anyone or creating a conflict. It's always nice to know that there are actually people behind those usernames. joturner 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles That Need To Be Seriously Looked At

I've noticed a rather extreme and deliberate effort by a group of editors (and a few administrators) to promote a negative image of Islam. Several articles are weighed down with highly partisan sources from known Islamophobes, without any effort to maintain neutrality by balancing perspectives with opposing ones. Articles relating to Islam and Muslims, directly or indirectly, have been systematically subject to these group attacks. I'd advise people to look at the following articles for now and participate in editing to bring them into balance. Feel free to add more articles to this list:

• Criticism of Islam
• Hamas (with regards to the context in which Hamas formed, ie the occupation and refugee crisis)
• Dhimmi
• Islam and anti-Semitism
• Zionism
• Islamophobia
• Islam in the United States

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs) .

It should be noted that all editors should maintain the spirit of NPOV. I am merely urging people to use their knowlege of Islam, and of subject matters where Islam or Muslims are involved, to make articles reflect an academically and intellectually credible quality. In my opinion, the articles right now are loaded with information deliberately placed to present Muslims and Islam in the most negative possible light. This request isn't just directed towards Muslims, but to anyone interested in making articles on these subjects truly neutral in their portrayal of the matter. Amibidhrohi 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems the only result so far is a blind revert to your version with the edit summary, "Amibidrohi's version is better". I suppose that's what you call a neutral point of view?

You wrote "To bring about that balance, more Muslim participation is necessary" below[9]. Only now do you say, "This request isn't just directed towards Muslims..." I believed you the first time.Timothy Usher 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I've restored the preceding post because I think it germane to the discussion we've been having above.

Amibidrohi is calling Muslim Guild members to rally together to combat editors which he claims are "extreme[ly] and deliberate[ly]...promot[ing] a negative view of Islam," and characterizing their edits as "group attacks." But what could be the point of this post, other than to organize just such a "group attack"?Timothy Usher 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, please read WP:AGF. Amibidhrohi 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my question: what can be the the point of your post, if not to organize collective Guild action to promote a certain point of view?Timothy Usher 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Only that a few here see to it that those articles present a truly NPOV. I don't have the time to do all the work myself. I've noticed that in most articles pertaining to Islam, there are more Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind, than Muslim. I merely hope to see things kept within balance. To bring about that balance, more Muslim participation is necessary. Once again, please read WP:AGF. Amibidhrohi 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, Amibidhrohi. I often see what seems to be a tendency for Timothy to fail to assume good faith in Muslim editors. For some reason, Timothy, you seem to have this impression that Muslims want to take over Wikipedia, promoting a heavily biased point-of-view and asserting some sort of Muslim superiority. That's obviously not true. Muslim Wikipedians, on the whole, have the same goal as Wikipedians on the whole: building a comprehensive, unbiased encyclopedia. Getting input and ideas from people of all backgrounds is the only way that goal is going to be achieved. It appears as though Amibidhrohi is just trying to get some Muslim input on articles where there so far has been little. joturner 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it seems that Timothy's always hoping he can try and prevent more editors from fixing the messes he's made on articles. And he has always had a very large problem with assuming good faith ever since he started editing here. There are too many discussions which show that. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Any more falsehoods you'd like to share with us today?Timothy Usher 02:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, anymore incivility you want to share with us today? (A request: [10] your response to the request: [11]) 70.132.40.180 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

a.n.o.n.y.m, be careful, Timothy Usher has anti semitism feeling against anon-editors in wikipedia and apparently you are somehow an Anonymous Editor. If he accused you of vandalism, don't bother to reason with him. It will not work. Instead you may want to change your username. That might work 70.132.58.150 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "Muslim Wikipedians", but about this Guild.

And I do not assume bad faith:

I accept that Amibidrohi sincerely believes that "Jewish and Christian editors have axes to grind" and are engaged in "a rather extreme and deliberate effort...to promote a negative image of Islam." I accept that he sincerely believes that "more Muslim participation is necessary" to "present a truly NPOV". And I accept that he sincerely believes that it's okay to use this page to rally Guild members to act collectively to further this cause.Timothy Usher 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, thanks for posting those articles. I think that there should be notice board assocated with Muslim Guild where people can post the articles need to view. Similar to the Pakistan notice board. So should be create such a notice board at the Muslim Guild page. --- Faisal 13:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Its here. Can someone move this discussion there? --Striver 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A separate page dealing with articles that need to be reviewed and edited if necessary. Amibidhrohi 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This page already exists on...

WP:RfC

Folks, there is already a place to call attention to an article. It's called an RfC (Request for comment). However, it differs from spam posts to this page in two ways: 1) you'll be asking for other editors' attention, not their assistance 2) you'll be addressing the community as a whole, not just the "Muslim Guild".

Whosever sincerely wishes only for editors to take a look at an article and make up their own minds, and truly doesn't mean to address his post only to members of a particular religion, will use the established RfC process. Those who, having been apprised of the process, post to this Guild anyhow, do so, it must be assumed, precisely because their intentions would not be served by the legitimate goals of an RfC.Timothy Usher 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This guild is not closed to anyone, so there's no problem posting here. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM, etc.

The only functions I've seen for this Guild thusfar are:

• To evade the spam policy by gathering like-minded editors in one place, such that we can generically advertise[12], [13] to them all while claiming that it is "technically" not spam, while accomplishing its goals; to wit: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."
• To personally attack non-Muslim or "anti-Muslim" editors, as per BhaiSaab and Amibidhrohi's recent posts[14], [15], , the "Crusade" section, and most of all the execrable "User comments" section further above.
• To make sure that members know who is a "Muslim" and who is not, as per the front page.

This is un-wikipedian, inherently and intentionally divisive, and wrong.Timothy Usher 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I've gone on assuming good faith on your part to the point of being naive. You repeatedly bring up my name in every post you make,and on various talk pages, dispite the fact that I've consistently refused to name editors whom I feel are guilty of the extreme POV-pushing that created this problem in the first place. I've made no personal attacks against anyone, and yet you have repeatedly accused me of trying to incite an 'attack'. If a particular user is guilty of personal attacks, his error is his own. In no way has personal attacks been encouraged by this guild,nor POV-pushing, and in no way should the error of a member be exploited by the likes of you to reflect guilt on the part of an entire group. Now back off. Amibidhrohi 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A call to WP:AGF is usually the last resort of an editor who has nothing else to say. I assume that you, Amibidhrohi, plead guilty to charges of spamming and personal attacks. Pecher ^Talk 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other groups too for other nations, for example For Pakistan related stuff, For indian related stuff and this list is tooooo big. We Muslims are also a nation. Hence there is no harm to have similar project for us. Why you are so much only against this project? Why you do not go on numerous other projects sites made on the similar lines and speak against them. Why we cannot have similar project like all other nations have? As you know there is a group that is producing hate against Muslims in articles and that group is working very closely. If one member of that group makes a change other support him. For example look at Dhimmi, talk:Muhammad article. We need to end this propoganda against Islam. Secondly, we also need to create new articles related to Islam. Creating new articles is not a task of single person, hence it is good to have some support/collaboration. --- Faisal 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam devoted to just that: improving Islam-related articles. Any more ideas as to why this guild should exist? Pecher ^Talk 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Membership policy

I think that we should have membership policy and membership should not be open for everyone. Hence if a User wants to join the group then other User should vote (based on his contributions), whether he should be allowed to be a member or not. He should be member only in case of consensus (75-80% support votes) of the current members. Similarly the voting procedure may disqualify a current member. The reason I want to have this policy is that, if many people who are part of propaganda against Islam join the group then it might become ineffective. --- Faisal 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Okay I take my suggestion back. Let "them" join too. --- Faisal 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose it, let them join, who care. This is not a exclusive club, this is somewhere where people intrested in Islam-topics can gathere, no mater who they are. --Striver 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Faisal. Spies are all around here scheming against this guild. Pecher ^Talk 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, we need to remeber that we dont own this, this is not "our" guild, this is a project page to co-operate when editing Islam articles. *If* there are any "spies", the worst think they could do is to create a atmospher of fear. Let him be, focus on the mission: To creat better wikipedia articles. --Striver 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver here. Amibidhrohi 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we expect there should be some who have propaganda against Islam but interestingly there are some who have Anti Semitism feeling against anon-editors in wikipedia. 70.132.40.180 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)