Talk:Prophets and messengers in Islam
|WikiProject Islam||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Major concerns about this article
The vast majority of footnotes here are taken directly from the Quran. Wikipedia members are not (by and large) qualified to perform authoritative Quranic exegesis, and such runs afoul of WP:OR. I submit that this article needs to be cut back to just those portions citing academic/scholarly discussion of the concepts, as opposed to one Quran reader's selection of those passages proving various points. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I share your concerns. I first tagged the article on RC patrol a few weeks ago and it seems as though it is nothing but synthesis and original research (although it's well written and an interesting read). There are effectively zero footnotes from secondary sources (citing the index of a secondary source doesn't count). There's one tertiary source, but it's not explicitly about the topic of this article. Do you think the OR problem is bad enough the article should go to AfD? I'm leaning in that direction but I wanted to wait to see if the article got improved over a few weeks of existence. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Harmonize content and merge
I'd propose a coherent merge of parts of this article with the main Prophets of Islam article. This article can be used instead to focus on the theological differences between Prophets and Messengers in Islam. There is a discussion on the same at the other Talk Page. Shaad lko (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The article about messengers in Islam is titled Apostle (Islam). I think we should be using the word "apostle" here too, and this article should be renamed to Prophets and apostles in Islam. Khestwol (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment
|Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"|
|I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)|
When the article mentions Jesus, I think that the link should send the user to Jesus in Islam instead of just Jesus because this article is Islamic related, right? Mohamed Boutaleb (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. The same goes for Moses in Islam, Noah in Islam, and others. But that is the least of the problems with this article. The list of issues shown at the top of the article are more immediate concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that this article was both in Category:Islam and Category:Prophets of Islam. This seems redundant. Perhaps remove it from Islam, since the other category is already in it?
Although I understand why editors have put the link to this article at the top of those infoboxes, it’s not a proper use of the
|honorific_prefix= parameter and the link is already included in the Islamic prophets template on each page. The ideal solution would probably be some merger of the infobox with that template so that the unifying link to this article did appear at the top, but that would be a much more complicated job.
I also plan to declutter a bit, just leaving the Arabic version of the name in the
|name= parameter as information about other versions of the name (e.g. Abraham vs. ʾIbrāhīm) are provided in the article itself.
- On reflection I’ve decided it makes more sense to put the Arabic & English names in the
|name=parameter and use the
|native_name=parameter more literally. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggesting article merging or deletion
Although this particular article seems comprehensive to be warranted like an encyclopedic entry, the lack of citations is an issue. I also notice there is no similar counterpart article in reference to Judaism, Christianity or the Old / New Testament (or "bible") (these three religions being similar and sometimes categorized as counterparts or cohesive evolutions in terms of religious history) with the same information "list of characters and names mentioned...". These are my points regarding deletion.
My point regarding merging is perhaps the article can be merged with any or all of these:
All of these have, you guessed it, a lack of proper and adequate references. Deleting the four may not serve the purpose of forwarding adequate and insightful information, but perhaps merging what seems to be similar articles would be a move towards progress. I'm surprised these articles have lasted so long with those tags requesting additional citations / corrections (see tag dates) since they were started. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)