Talk:Black Stone

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Stone article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 180 days

Template:Vital article

Black Stone has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geology GA‑class Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Black Stone is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Islam portal 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Saudi Arabia GA‑class High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia 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.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Wrong or fabricated references. Recommend to remove sentence

Section 'History and Tradition'

"However, the silver frame was placed on the Black Stone to secure the fragments, after the original stone was broken.[31][32]"

I have checked both references 31 and 32

31 Burke, John G. (1991). Cosmic Debris: Meteorites in History. University of California Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-520-07396-8.
32 Hassan, Ashraf (1991). Cenap Çakmak (ed.). Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 262. ISBN 978-1-61-069217-5.

the statement made is firstly not discussed in the 2 books referenced (Hassan Ashraf's book is available on google books check page 262). Furthermore such a statement does not represent a majority view of scholars even if it was mentioned in some source (wrong representation).

In the interest of an honest representation of the matter at hand I recommend deletion of this unfounded/unreferenced statement. Alernatively a new section should be written to discuss the scholarly views on the framing of the black stone plus maybe architectural aspects of the Kaaba and its embedded artefacts.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove

Hk2084! (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ University of Southern California. "The Prophet of Islam – His Biography". Archived from the original on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 3 December 2010.

Not done. @Hk2084!: There is no reason given to remove that image. It is relevant to the article section. If you are offended by it, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to learn how to configure your account to avoid seeing images like this. Wikipedia is not censored for your benefit. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the painting to be removed or replaced with the image showing only the black stone because this picture is unreliable as it has not been approved by qualified Islamic experts. If not approved, then it is misleading and has no substantial ground to it. The painting is not from a reliable source and so it is not verifiable. Moreover, Wikipedia states that information on their website should not be inconsistent. If you are describing the aspects of the culture and history of Islam to a certain user, the picture will contradict one of those aspects which once again reduces the reliability of the website. For example, if A has occurred then B should occur and so logically if A has not occurred then B too has not occurred. In this context, it means that if pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PEACE BE UPON HIM) are not allowed then Islamic culture does not have or approve of any such picture. But by showing this picture, you are stating that they might actually approve of it informally which is inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hk2084! (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs no approval from "qualified Islamic experts" and its presence does not imply any such approval. Wikipedia is not an Islamic site, and it is not subject to Islamic rules. The image is a depiction, from a source credited to a notable Muslim author, by an ancient artist who intended no disrespect, and it is appropriate to illustrate the section where it appears. Reliability of any ancient painting of any historical figure (because photography did not exist then) has no bearing on its value in the article.

You are also flat-out wrong to say that pictures of Muhammad "are not allowed." They may not be allowed for you, but this prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities, as stated in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q1. See also Q2 for information about why an image needn't be authoritative. Again, see WP:NOTCENSORED and the answer you were given previously about how to avoid seeing the image if it offends you. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sir I request to you kindly remove illustration 1315 from History section as its wrong to show such illustration and is against islam.This will lead to anger in islamic community. HomaAbb (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Black Stone Of Kaaba In Super Resulution 49000 MP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaba sharif black stone story

Male 103.115.134.212 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[uscmsa-1] University of Southern California. "The Prophet of Islam – His Biography". Archived from the original on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 3 December 2010.

[1]