Talk:W. Montgomery Watt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:William Montgomery Watt)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Islam / Muslim scholars  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force.

Quote farm[edit]

PLEASE no more making the quote farm. LIke in this article.Opiner 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Quotes[edit]

In what way do quotes, taken from cited published works written by the subject of the page, violate WP:NPOV?

NPOV requires that all views about the subject of the page be represented equally/neutrally, in which case the quote by Martin Forward surely falls foul of this rule. This page is about William Montgomery Watt, his life and his views. His views are most clearly expressed through what he has said and published, previously manifested in quotes from works which he had published, and this therefore does not violate NPOV: it is not propaganda.

As the page currently stands (with no quotes by WMW), his views are discussed only in the most general of ways, which renders the article near-useless.

I agree. --Striver 18:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are exclusively pro-Muhammad, pro-Islam, anti-US. Even Watt observed that the Quran contains inhumane punishments, etc. We should have some of that to achieve balance. Arrow740 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with your analysis of the existing quotes, by all means expand what is there to give a more broad spectrum of his beliefs. Rlfb 22:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Striver 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had rather hoped this was a closed issue. These are WMWs views and therefore there is no neutrality dispute, and yes, it is perfectly acceptable to have quotes (or "views") on the page, as per the scholar groundwork. I don't regard those quotes as being particularly islamophilic. Rlfb 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I have here a list of his 30 books, with publication dates. Does anyone have an opinion on whether all the books should be listed, or otherwise? As far as I know, this information isn't widely available elsewhere. We may also think about adding significant articles in journals...

Second, I don't have anything in this list which corresponds to "Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets". The only book I can find of that name was written by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. Has it been wrongly attributed? Rlfb 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


It states that William Montgomery Watt did not believe that the Qur'an was infallible, but I think it should at least be quoted in full (or at least with the appropriate qualification) For example it says in the source:

"I therefore do not believe that either the Bible or the Qur’an is infallibly true in the sense that all their commands are valid for all time. The commands given in both books were true and valid for the societies to which the revelations were primarily addressed; but when the form of society changes in important respects some commands cease to be appropriate, though many others continue to be valid."

Which is much different than saying "is not infallible" with no qualification, as it does in the article. Quoting it as the article does alters the meaning entirely. I'd like perspectives on this. Peter Deer (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)