This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more approriate lead-in? -- JimWae 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it sounds good, if it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate, and shouldn't be used. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of euphonic lyrics. -- Cyde Weys 07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The following is copied from Template_talk:Christianity. |
|
This equally applies here. Netscott 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This is definitely going to make it Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Really people. Calm down; it's just a word. joturn e r 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I have to wonder how 2 3 reverts in 90 70 minutes (with the only "explanation" being that others are lame & not cool & talking out of their ass) is keeping cool --
JimWae 06:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
How/why is it useful to say the article is a part of a series? Timothy Usher 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been discussed previously but what about a category that lists all articles that actually have the template on them? Like this? Netscott 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't use special functionalities of Wikipedia (such as What links here) on articles. It breaks on mirrors and goes against technical guidelines. What links here belongs to the maintenance section, not the encyclopedic content itself. -- Cyde↔Weys 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Part of a series of articles on"
That's very inaccurate. The entire category on Islam most certainly isn't a series of articles. What is so wrong about just saying related articles? At least then we're being accurate. -- Cyde↔Weys 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't intend to change the Islam template, but just for my future reference for other templates, can someone tell me where the actual template is? How can I physically edit it? I've looked everywhere; where is it? Thanks. P.S. If you want to delete this message once it has been answered then you may do so. I appreciate that it has no relevance to this talk page. ~~~~ Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.92.140 ( talk • contribs) . 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I'm noticing in editorial commentary on this template that there is conflict as to "consensus". At this point there is no consensus either "for" or "not for" User:Mystìc's significant change. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus for guidelines in this regard as well. Netscott 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
By your count, 47% is against your change, which is far from the "general agreement" required for consensus. Read WP:Consensus and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. — squell 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Women in Islam was linking to a disambiguation page, I changed it to link to Women in Muslim societies, as seems appropriate given the context (sociopolitical aspects). Equendil
I agree with the name change. Suleyman Habeeb 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is there so much blank space between the logo and the listed items? Timothy Usher 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"This user edits Islam-related pages."
this doesn't mean I'm muslim, or as previously "This member is a muslim"... Can anybody provide me with a clarification? Omernos 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Sufism really belongs as a "Branch of Islam", considering that both Sunnis and Shi'is study it. It's not a seperate sect but an Islamic discipline.
Shanu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk) 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Why dont we add:
part of the Abrahamic religions:
Judaism — Christianity — Islam
To the end of each template?
like this:
-- Striver 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object. If you use the cross for Christianity, and the Star of David for Judaism, then you MUST use the CRESCENT AND STAR ("Star_and_Crescent.svg") here, to represent Islam. You don't put a silhouette of the Vatican to represent Roman Catholicism--duh!
It doesn't look right. As other users have said, it reminds of the Taj Mahal. I think the most apropriate thing would be the Shahadah in caligraphy, like this: [2]. That is certainly a recognizable symbol.
-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps trying to add Uthman and Umar to the list of "major figures". This subject was already hotly debated earlier and settled. The addition of Umar and Uthman were done without previous discussion on the talk page, so I didn't feel the need to discuss it before restoring it to the form which was stable for months. If someone wants to add them, please discuss first. Abu Bakr and Ali are obviously more relevant than the rest, being the first caliph and the first Imam, respectively. Cuñado - Talk 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Abdel Hameed, please discuss your edits before making any major changes to the article. It will save contributors (including yourselves) time. Failing to do that, i'll be obliged to lock the article untill discussions and a consensus is reached. Cheers -- Szvest 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Ali is considered the first Imam only in Shia Islam. Sunni Islam considers Ali to be only a companion of the Prophet and the fourth Caliph of Islam. For Sunni Islam, Ali is no more important than Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. So much so that many Sunni scholars consider their importance in order of their caliphate. So for them, Abu Bakr is the most important, then comes Umar, then comes Uthman, and finally Ali. Nevertheless, the four most important persons of Islam other than Muhammad are the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs — User:yasirniazkhan 14:25, 04 September 2006 (UTC)
Question: will anyone object if i incorporate Umar and Uthman into the template per them being among the four well known khulaafah, as well as being a topic of controversy (esp. the former) amongst certain sects within muslim history? ITAQALLAH 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmansoor 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! It is time to change the template design into an even more appealing look.
You could visit these related Wikipedia pages in other languages to see the design I'm talking about:
And instead of the mosque drawing, why not use the Islamic crescent moon as the religion's symbol? (IconeIslam.png) After all, a mosque is only a mere temple to the Muslims, not officially the religion's symbol. (Wanna us guys to fix the template up before Ramadan; 9/24/06 :D)
PLUS! If you guys need to ask any questions with respect to Islam, I'm here, I mean you guys seem to be having problems putting down details about the religion according to your conversations here. — Qasamaan 12:50, 05 September 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't I know that there were controversies over the crescent moon? I thought it was a mere Islamic symbol, even if not officially recognized as the Star of David to Judaism, or the Crucifix to Christianity, does. - Qasamaan 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Or could I just change the background colors (same with the mosque) instead, or would that be a bad idea? - Qasamaan 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
But, if the crescent is not an Islamic symbol, as I just thought this mornin, then why are many countries (e.g. Algeria, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Singapore, Tunisia, etc) and a few non-Turkish groups using it? That is strange, isn't it? - Qasamaan 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that not all interwikis for this template are being put in place. So far, we only have three, and I learnt that there is a lot more out there in other languages. - Qasamaan 11:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Al-salamu alaykum. Listen, I already found the Hebrew interwiki for this template. You guys can help find the rest if you can. Thanks. - Qasamaan 12:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should add this branch in template. They are more important than Kharijite-- Sa.vakilian 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. We don't need to it. It's one of the branches of Islamic theology-- Sa.vakilian 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
When we click God in this template we go to Islamic concept of God, but there is a more complete article: Allah. I'd like to replace it. Also I think we can merge these two articles.-- Sa.vakilian 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't insist on my idea, but at least we should add too much about Allah from Hadith, Theology and Philosophy of Islam. Because this article just contains quotations from Qur'an. -- Sa.vakilian 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Please add something about jihad to the template, considering it's the most prevalent facet of Islam doing the rounds. Cerebral Warrior 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed a number of items that were repetitive or non-notable. Sunnah, Women in the Qur'an, and Salafism were removed. Salafism should be blatantly obvious, women in the Qur'an follows link to women in Islam, and Sunnah is not a text, law, or of much importance compared to the other entries. This template in particular tends to build up excess fat over time because people love to add to it. Cuñado - Talk 05:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
User Islami is bascially inserting non-islami views and he is not aware of the facts. Just keeps on removing the Households from the box. does he dont know while reciting the darood we also say "salawaat on Alehey."
Is anyone in favor of having the template locked by an administrator to prevent User:Islami's constant reverts to the template? Cuñado - Talk 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I requested comments on this because User:Islami and I have been reverting each other from October 10 to present (17 days). It comes from a dispute on what include in the section titled "Texts and Laws" on this template. For a long time it looked like this:
I cleaned it up and now I'm advocating showing it like this:
While Islami is reverting to this:
The main issue is:
The other issues related to the reverting are inconsequential. Islami was proposing to keep a link to his particular brand of Islam on the template. Cuñado - Talk 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why Criticism of Islam should not be in the template. Note that we already have "Anti-Islam sentiment" in the template, so why if Criticism of Islam not there too? So I created a section "Controversy" and placed Criticism of Islam there. Good luck in the defense. -- JohnsAr 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I made a link for the Portal of Islam. Why didnt anyone add it here before? I have done so now. Can someone also suggest a better image for the Portal Link? They can be seen here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Islam
-- JohnsAr 02:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Islami, i reverted your version to Cunado19's. The reason is that you have a habit of ignoring other editors edits, and blatantly remove text you do not agree with. See it as a procedural revert. You do not gain friends by behaving in this maner.
Now, even though i am Shi'a and Salafis openly state they want to kill Shi'as (more or less for sports), it hapens that i do see some merit in including Salafism in the template. One could argue that it has been around for as long as America has, and that it occupies the holies cities and the media. On the other hand, they are mostly just violant loudmouths that hapen to have a strong interntet precens due to petrodollars and is arguably not all that relevant to the religion compared with the milenia old Shi'a and Sufi traditions. What does other editors think? -- Striver 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I originally asked for a response as to why Salafism is more important than dozens of other Islamic movements and sects. See Divisions of Islam. Salafism is one of many. Cuñado - Talk 02:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I added some margin parameters in the styling of the template to prevent article text from bunching up against it. While an overall improvement, it seems to have caused a unfortunate side effect in at least one article, shoving the template below it off to the side. Can anybody with some CSS skills help me on that? -- Rschmertz 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To the folks who want to add other divisions of Islam... please change the section title from "Major branches" to something like "Branches of Islam" at the same time otherwise such additions are non-sensical. According to the divisions of Islam article there are only three major branches, Sunni, Shi'a and Sufism. thanks. ( → Netscott) 00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I created Template:Islam-mini for use were the big template is to much. -- Striver 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest removing the link to Dawah that was just added. There are thousands of pages that could potentially go on the template. Cuñado - Talk 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed from this version back to this version. The formatting changes made the text larger, the template wider, and the background whiter. I don't like the aesthetics of any of the changes. The content change from another editor was also poor. Cuñado - Talk 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we add this to the template? I wasn't sure where is the best place for it. -- Aminz 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Guys for God's sake , its very important for a gazallion reasons. Donot remove it . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 12:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding a link to the criticism page. Back in December, the Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam templates all had links to their specific criticism page, however Islam removed their citing the Judaism template as precedent. Ironically, someone wanted to include the Criticism of Christianity link on the Christianity template, and cited those as precedent. If this is going to be a matter of "Well the Jews don't have the link, so why should we" or "The Mormons have the link, so should the Muslims" etc, we should decided as a whole whether links to these criticism pages are appropriate for the parent religion templates. I believe that all religion templates should have a link to the parent criticism page (if one exists), and that is what I am proposing here. What do we think?- Andrew c 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only person seeing an WP:UNDUE weight issue of having a link to the Islam and slavery article on this template? ( → Netscott) 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing to why Sufism isn't listed. It is noted as one of the Divisions of Islam in that article, although I understand technically it's not really a seperate sect. Even though, it does seem to me to be an important part of Islam, not really a fringe thing or anything. Feer 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't an image of the cresent make more sense to include in the template than the current image? like Image:Crescent02.png for example?-- Sefringle 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for the (repeated) removal of Islam and animals from the Culture & Society section, other than an anthropocentric view. If architecture, children, art, and the like are included, animals definitely deserve to be there, in my opinion. The article could use some expansion, but is in a not too bad state, and adequately sourced, as far as I can judge. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 12:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Templates from other religions ( Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism ) are much bigger as compared to Islam. We need to expand this template and create more topics and sections. I've made the template wider and added some topics. Topics are available from: List of Islamic and Muslim related topics
To the right is the template which is a Work in Progress. Here are the changes that have been made as compared to the present template:
UPDATE: I have expanded many sections. We need expansion of beliefs and practices. After this a final trimming of the Controversy section will be done.
We need the template to be balanced. Please add more topics.
. ( → Netscott) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)"Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."
Stating that this template should be expanded just because other religion templates are bigger is a very weak argument. Arguments like "...but X is doing it too!" kind of remind me of my childhood days. Note also that, for instance, at the Judaism template there's a recurring discussion about actually reducing the size of the template, because people feel it is too big. After briefly reviewing the changes you've made, it seems your true goal is expanding the criticism and controvery sections. If this is the case, you can just go ahead and admit it. If you have arguments, anything can be discussed, no worries, no grudges. But I would recommend not making big changes without first establishing consensus here. And yes, that could take a few days at least. Feer 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Expansion should occur. Maybe we can start by adding the 5 pillers of Islam to the template proposal.-- Sefringle 02:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything specific you think needs to be added? Expanding the template just for the heck of it, "because Template:Judaism is big" isn't really a reason. -- Bluerain talk 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
None of the sects you added are actual 'divisions' of Islam. Music, economics and animals are not important enough to be on the template. 'Controversies & Criticisms', which is your main addition, already has an entire template to itself and I don't see the point of duplicating it here. Cut out all these and there isn't anything else remaining to expand the template for. -- Bluerain talk 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added Animals and Children to the template. There is no reason to believe that these topics are less important than other topics on the template. Further, there's no established importance 'threshhold'. If Women are included, its appropriate to include Children and Animals too. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The new template format done on April 15 by Bluerain here is harder to read. Now we have smaller text that makes me squint my eyes basically. I would like to revert to the old format. I like the older one better. I'm also opposed to the reduction in size done by Bluerain just now. The template is now smaller and harder to read. Any comments? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This template needs to add articles about comparative religon including Islam and Judaism, Christianity and Islam, etc.-- Sefringle 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't class women as on a level with animals and children please.
Thanks for changing it, I ddn't realize it was simply an alphebetization issue. BTW you accidentally deleted my second comment, probably cos it was unclear, so I am adding it again next with a rewording to make it clear that it is a seperate point.
Given the sensitivity of these issues, and especially given criticisms that Wikipedia is US-centric, I don't think this template should include "criticism of Islam". There is no parallel on Template:Christianity or Template:Judaism, so the addition here seems to reflect the tide of anti-Islamic feeling, especially from the US. What is more, criticism of any subject, and these "Criticisms of X" articles are really out of place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not meant to be a collection of sociological essays or critiques.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.221.112 ( talk • contribs)
No need to be rude. I was making a legitimate criticism of the template with clear reasoning, not using this page as a forum at all. You said "Encyclopediac topics are not just praise," but criticism includes positive and negative, and neutral; so there is no way I expected the article to be only positive or only negative about Islam. And that's bizarre coming from someone who made the same point as I further up on this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.10.13 ( talk • contribs)
Nation of Islam should probably be added to this template somewhere; I just aren't completely sure where. -- Sefringle Talk 06:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding this to the template. It seems to be pretty important to the topic of Islam.-- Sefringle Talk 07:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I originally said, it's obvious that the people trying to raise this to prominence don't understand the idea and don't know its relevance. Non-Muslims in a majority Muslim nation are given complete religious freedom and are excluded from military service. In exchange for the exclusion, there is a small tax. This is not a terrible "fate" or a reason to fear the spread of Islam. The reasoning so far for inclusion has focused on this POV idea of spreading perceived negative information. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, of course I should have said "people of the Book" instead of religion, but I thought since we're all so familiar with Islam here that it goes without saying. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Dhimmi is very specific, the template already has Islam and other religions, as well as links to specific religions. And yes please remove animals. In general I would like to keep the template as small and concise as possible. Commonly used templates tend to get large over time as people add whatever they think is important. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we will convince each other based on our wit and personality alone, so I thought I would see what other sources consider in an overview of Islam. The first thing that came to mind was the BBC, which has an online program on "Religion and Ethics" featuring major world religions. See here for the index. At the bottom it has links to many things, including animals (yes the one that was mentioned earlier), and get this... Muslim boy bands. Unless I missed it somewhere, in the 88 links to articles, they don't consider Dhimmi as important as boy bands.
Seriously though, if you want to support keeping it in the template, please provide some neutral sources that consider it relevant in a general outline of Islam. I support the position of removing it because I think that is the most correct, the most fair, and the most NPOV. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we still have consensus on adding or removing Dhimmi ~ atif msg me - 06:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps those who oppose the inclusion of this link on the template should say why they wish it weren't here? Arrow740 06:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
<reset>I support mediation. Should I file for one? Bless sins 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
no consensus to adding the dhimmi link, hence retaining the "status quo" version. ~ atif Talk 07:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
as per the flowchart, the situation here is stuck at "Find a reasonable compromise", hence I suggest RfM at this point ~ atif Talk 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting way out of hand. Please stop edit warring or the template may become protected until you can work out your differences. - Andrew c [talk] 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this edit war has been going on for far too long. There has been no recent talk page discussion, but users still feel compelled to add and remove then add and remove the link over and over again. I have protected the page. Please work on a consensus while the page is protected. If you reach a consensus before the 10 days are up, contact me or another admin to unprotect early. If you do not a reach a consensus after the 10 days, and the edit war continues, the page will be protected again for longer. - Andrew c [talk] 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, quite a debate had been going on earlier in the Talk, but Dhimmi still continues to be added without consensus. As suggested by me and other editors, mediation seems like a better approach. thanks ~ atif Talk 06:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest someone file for mediation. The discussion of the issue happened a long time ago and certain people are determined to stick with their initial ideas regardless of what happens on the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on Islam and Modernity has been expanding, although it still needs some attention. Is it neglected because it's not of high quality, or is it not of high quality because it is neglected? Right now it is isolated in wikipedia. I think it is ready to see more viewers, and thus more editors. I also think that, maybe with a bit of work, it would be of high enough quality to be mentioned in this template. Other religions, including Christianity and Judaism, have a section on reform movements and modern interpretation. How do people feel about that? Yes? No? Not yet? 67.71.1.156 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please remove the line break between the <noinclude>{{pp-dispute}}</noinclude>
line and the rest of the template. This is causing the text of each article on which this template is used to be pushed down the page. Thanks –
Gurch 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more approriate lead-in? -- JimWae 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it sounds good, if it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate, and shouldn't be used. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of euphonic lyrics. -- Cyde Weys 07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The following is copied from Template_talk:Christianity. |
|
This equally applies here. Netscott 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This is definitely going to make it Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Really people. Calm down; it's just a word. joturn e r 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I have to wonder how 2 3 reverts in 90 70 minutes (with the only "explanation" being that others are lame & not cool & talking out of their ass) is keeping cool --
JimWae 06:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
How/why is it useful to say the article is a part of a series? Timothy Usher 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been discussed previously but what about a category that lists all articles that actually have the template on them? Like this? Netscott 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't use special functionalities of Wikipedia (such as What links here) on articles. It breaks on mirrors and goes against technical guidelines. What links here belongs to the maintenance section, not the encyclopedic content itself. -- Cyde↔Weys 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Part of a series of articles on"
That's very inaccurate. The entire category on Islam most certainly isn't a series of articles. What is so wrong about just saying related articles? At least then we're being accurate. -- Cyde↔Weys 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't intend to change the Islam template, but just for my future reference for other templates, can someone tell me where the actual template is? How can I physically edit it? I've looked everywhere; where is it? Thanks. P.S. If you want to delete this message once it has been answered then you may do so. I appreciate that it has no relevance to this talk page. ~~~~ Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.92.140 ( talk • contribs) . 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I'm noticing in editorial commentary on this template that there is conflict as to "consensus". At this point there is no consensus either "for" or "not for" User:Mystìc's significant change. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus for guidelines in this regard as well. Netscott 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
By your count, 47% is against your change, which is far from the "general agreement" required for consensus. Read WP:Consensus and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. — squell 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Women in Islam was linking to a disambiguation page, I changed it to link to Women in Muslim societies, as seems appropriate given the context (sociopolitical aspects). Equendil
I agree with the name change. Suleyman Habeeb 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is there so much blank space between the logo and the listed items? Timothy Usher 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"This user edits Islam-related pages."
this doesn't mean I'm muslim, or as previously "This member is a muslim"... Can anybody provide me with a clarification? Omernos 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Sufism really belongs as a "Branch of Islam", considering that both Sunnis and Shi'is study it. It's not a seperate sect but an Islamic discipline.
Shanu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk) 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Why dont we add:
part of the Abrahamic religions:
Judaism — Christianity — Islam
To the end of each template?
like this:
-- Striver 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object. If you use the cross for Christianity, and the Star of David for Judaism, then you MUST use the CRESCENT AND STAR ("Star_and_Crescent.svg") here, to represent Islam. You don't put a silhouette of the Vatican to represent Roman Catholicism--duh!
It doesn't look right. As other users have said, it reminds of the Taj Mahal. I think the most apropriate thing would be the Shahadah in caligraphy, like this: [2]. That is certainly a recognizable symbol.
-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps trying to add Uthman and Umar to the list of "major figures". This subject was already hotly debated earlier and settled. The addition of Umar and Uthman were done without previous discussion on the talk page, so I didn't feel the need to discuss it before restoring it to the form which was stable for months. If someone wants to add them, please discuss first. Abu Bakr and Ali are obviously more relevant than the rest, being the first caliph and the first Imam, respectively. Cuñado - Talk 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Abdel Hameed, please discuss your edits before making any major changes to the article. It will save contributors (including yourselves) time. Failing to do that, i'll be obliged to lock the article untill discussions and a consensus is reached. Cheers -- Szvest 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Ali is considered the first Imam only in Shia Islam. Sunni Islam considers Ali to be only a companion of the Prophet and the fourth Caliph of Islam. For Sunni Islam, Ali is no more important than Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. So much so that many Sunni scholars consider their importance in order of their caliphate. So for them, Abu Bakr is the most important, then comes Umar, then comes Uthman, and finally Ali. Nevertheless, the four most important persons of Islam other than Muhammad are the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs — User:yasirniazkhan 14:25, 04 September 2006 (UTC)
Question: will anyone object if i incorporate Umar and Uthman into the template per them being among the four well known khulaafah, as well as being a topic of controversy (esp. the former) amongst certain sects within muslim history? ITAQALLAH 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmansoor 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! It is time to change the template design into an even more appealing look.
You could visit these related Wikipedia pages in other languages to see the design I'm talking about:
And instead of the mosque drawing, why not use the Islamic crescent moon as the religion's symbol? (IconeIslam.png) After all, a mosque is only a mere temple to the Muslims, not officially the religion's symbol. (Wanna us guys to fix the template up before Ramadan; 9/24/06 :D)
PLUS! If you guys need to ask any questions with respect to Islam, I'm here, I mean you guys seem to be having problems putting down details about the religion according to your conversations here. — Qasamaan 12:50, 05 September 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't I know that there were controversies over the crescent moon? I thought it was a mere Islamic symbol, even if not officially recognized as the Star of David to Judaism, or the Crucifix to Christianity, does. - Qasamaan 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Or could I just change the background colors (same with the mosque) instead, or would that be a bad idea? - Qasamaan 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
But, if the crescent is not an Islamic symbol, as I just thought this mornin, then why are many countries (e.g. Algeria, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Singapore, Tunisia, etc) and a few non-Turkish groups using it? That is strange, isn't it? - Qasamaan 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that not all interwikis for this template are being put in place. So far, we only have three, and I learnt that there is a lot more out there in other languages. - Qasamaan 11:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Al-salamu alaykum. Listen, I already found the Hebrew interwiki for this template. You guys can help find the rest if you can. Thanks. - Qasamaan 12:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should add this branch in template. They are more important than Kharijite-- Sa.vakilian 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. We don't need to it. It's one of the branches of Islamic theology-- Sa.vakilian 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
When we click God in this template we go to Islamic concept of God, but there is a more complete article: Allah. I'd like to replace it. Also I think we can merge these two articles.-- Sa.vakilian 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't insist on my idea, but at least we should add too much about Allah from Hadith, Theology and Philosophy of Islam. Because this article just contains quotations from Qur'an. -- Sa.vakilian 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Please add something about jihad to the template, considering it's the most prevalent facet of Islam doing the rounds. Cerebral Warrior 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed a number of items that were repetitive or non-notable. Sunnah, Women in the Qur'an, and Salafism were removed. Salafism should be blatantly obvious, women in the Qur'an follows link to women in Islam, and Sunnah is not a text, law, or of much importance compared to the other entries. This template in particular tends to build up excess fat over time because people love to add to it. Cuñado - Talk 05:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
User Islami is bascially inserting non-islami views and he is not aware of the facts. Just keeps on removing the Households from the box. does he dont know while reciting the darood we also say "salawaat on Alehey."
Is anyone in favor of having the template locked by an administrator to prevent User:Islami's constant reverts to the template? Cuñado - Talk 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I requested comments on this because User:Islami and I have been reverting each other from October 10 to present (17 days). It comes from a dispute on what include in the section titled "Texts and Laws" on this template. For a long time it looked like this:
I cleaned it up and now I'm advocating showing it like this:
While Islami is reverting to this:
The main issue is:
The other issues related to the reverting are inconsequential. Islami was proposing to keep a link to his particular brand of Islam on the template. Cuñado - Talk 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why Criticism of Islam should not be in the template. Note that we already have "Anti-Islam sentiment" in the template, so why if Criticism of Islam not there too? So I created a section "Controversy" and placed Criticism of Islam there. Good luck in the defense. -- JohnsAr 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I made a link for the Portal of Islam. Why didnt anyone add it here before? I have done so now. Can someone also suggest a better image for the Portal Link? They can be seen here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Islam
-- JohnsAr 02:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Islami, i reverted your version to Cunado19's. The reason is that you have a habit of ignoring other editors edits, and blatantly remove text you do not agree with. See it as a procedural revert. You do not gain friends by behaving in this maner.
Now, even though i am Shi'a and Salafis openly state they want to kill Shi'as (more or less for sports), it hapens that i do see some merit in including Salafism in the template. One could argue that it has been around for as long as America has, and that it occupies the holies cities and the media. On the other hand, they are mostly just violant loudmouths that hapen to have a strong interntet precens due to petrodollars and is arguably not all that relevant to the religion compared with the milenia old Shi'a and Sufi traditions. What does other editors think? -- Striver 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I originally asked for a response as to why Salafism is more important than dozens of other Islamic movements and sects. See Divisions of Islam. Salafism is one of many. Cuñado - Talk 02:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I added some margin parameters in the styling of the template to prevent article text from bunching up against it. While an overall improvement, it seems to have caused a unfortunate side effect in at least one article, shoving the template below it off to the side. Can anybody with some CSS skills help me on that? -- Rschmertz 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To the folks who want to add other divisions of Islam... please change the section title from "Major branches" to something like "Branches of Islam" at the same time otherwise such additions are non-sensical. According to the divisions of Islam article there are only three major branches, Sunni, Shi'a and Sufism. thanks. ( → Netscott) 00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I created Template:Islam-mini for use were the big template is to much. -- Striver 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest removing the link to Dawah that was just added. There are thousands of pages that could potentially go on the template. Cuñado - Talk 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed from this version back to this version. The formatting changes made the text larger, the template wider, and the background whiter. I don't like the aesthetics of any of the changes. The content change from another editor was also poor. Cuñado - Talk 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we add this to the template? I wasn't sure where is the best place for it. -- Aminz 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Guys for God's sake , its very important for a gazallion reasons. Donot remove it . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 12:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding a link to the criticism page. Back in December, the Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam templates all had links to their specific criticism page, however Islam removed their citing the Judaism template as precedent. Ironically, someone wanted to include the Criticism of Christianity link on the Christianity template, and cited those as precedent. If this is going to be a matter of "Well the Jews don't have the link, so why should we" or "The Mormons have the link, so should the Muslims" etc, we should decided as a whole whether links to these criticism pages are appropriate for the parent religion templates. I believe that all religion templates should have a link to the parent criticism page (if one exists), and that is what I am proposing here. What do we think?- Andrew c 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only person seeing an WP:UNDUE weight issue of having a link to the Islam and slavery article on this template? ( → Netscott) 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing to why Sufism isn't listed. It is noted as one of the Divisions of Islam in that article, although I understand technically it's not really a seperate sect. Even though, it does seem to me to be an important part of Islam, not really a fringe thing or anything. Feer 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't an image of the cresent make more sense to include in the template than the current image? like Image:Crescent02.png for example?-- Sefringle 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for the (repeated) removal of Islam and animals from the Culture & Society section, other than an anthropocentric view. If architecture, children, art, and the like are included, animals definitely deserve to be there, in my opinion. The article could use some expansion, but is in a not too bad state, and adequately sourced, as far as I can judge. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 12:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Templates from other religions ( Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism ) are much bigger as compared to Islam. We need to expand this template and create more topics and sections. I've made the template wider and added some topics. Topics are available from: List of Islamic and Muslim related topics
To the right is the template which is a Work in Progress. Here are the changes that have been made as compared to the present template:
UPDATE: I have expanded many sections. We need expansion of beliefs and practices. After this a final trimming of the Controversy section will be done.
We need the template to be balanced. Please add more topics.
. ( → Netscott) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)"Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."
Stating that this template should be expanded just because other religion templates are bigger is a very weak argument. Arguments like "...but X is doing it too!" kind of remind me of my childhood days. Note also that, for instance, at the Judaism template there's a recurring discussion about actually reducing the size of the template, because people feel it is too big. After briefly reviewing the changes you've made, it seems your true goal is expanding the criticism and controvery sections. If this is the case, you can just go ahead and admit it. If you have arguments, anything can be discussed, no worries, no grudges. But I would recommend not making big changes without first establishing consensus here. And yes, that could take a few days at least. Feer 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Expansion should occur. Maybe we can start by adding the 5 pillers of Islam to the template proposal.-- Sefringle 02:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything specific you think needs to be added? Expanding the template just for the heck of it, "because Template:Judaism is big" isn't really a reason. -- Bluerain talk 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
None of the sects you added are actual 'divisions' of Islam. Music, economics and animals are not important enough to be on the template. 'Controversies & Criticisms', which is your main addition, already has an entire template to itself and I don't see the point of duplicating it here. Cut out all these and there isn't anything else remaining to expand the template for. -- Bluerain talk 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added Animals and Children to the template. There is no reason to believe that these topics are less important than other topics on the template. Further, there's no established importance 'threshhold'. If Women are included, its appropriate to include Children and Animals too. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The new template format done on April 15 by Bluerain here is harder to read. Now we have smaller text that makes me squint my eyes basically. I would like to revert to the old format. I like the older one better. I'm also opposed to the reduction in size done by Bluerain just now. The template is now smaller and harder to read. Any comments? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This template needs to add articles about comparative religon including Islam and Judaism, Christianity and Islam, etc.-- Sefringle 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't class women as on a level with animals and children please.
Thanks for changing it, I ddn't realize it was simply an alphebetization issue. BTW you accidentally deleted my second comment, probably cos it was unclear, so I am adding it again next with a rewording to make it clear that it is a seperate point.
Given the sensitivity of these issues, and especially given criticisms that Wikipedia is US-centric, I don't think this template should include "criticism of Islam". There is no parallel on Template:Christianity or Template:Judaism, so the addition here seems to reflect the tide of anti-Islamic feeling, especially from the US. What is more, criticism of any subject, and these "Criticisms of X" articles are really out of place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not meant to be a collection of sociological essays or critiques.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.221.112 ( talk • contribs)
No need to be rude. I was making a legitimate criticism of the template with clear reasoning, not using this page as a forum at all. You said "Encyclopediac topics are not just praise," but criticism includes positive and negative, and neutral; so there is no way I expected the article to be only positive or only negative about Islam. And that's bizarre coming from someone who made the same point as I further up on this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.10.13 ( talk • contribs)
Nation of Islam should probably be added to this template somewhere; I just aren't completely sure where. -- Sefringle Talk 06:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding this to the template. It seems to be pretty important to the topic of Islam.-- Sefringle Talk 07:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I originally said, it's obvious that the people trying to raise this to prominence don't understand the idea and don't know its relevance. Non-Muslims in a majority Muslim nation are given complete religious freedom and are excluded from military service. In exchange for the exclusion, there is a small tax. This is not a terrible "fate" or a reason to fear the spread of Islam. The reasoning so far for inclusion has focused on this POV idea of spreading perceived negative information. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, of course I should have said "people of the Book" instead of religion, but I thought since we're all so familiar with Islam here that it goes without saying. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Dhimmi is very specific, the template already has Islam and other religions, as well as links to specific religions. And yes please remove animals. In general I would like to keep the template as small and concise as possible. Commonly used templates tend to get large over time as people add whatever they think is important. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we will convince each other based on our wit and personality alone, so I thought I would see what other sources consider in an overview of Islam. The first thing that came to mind was the BBC, which has an online program on "Religion and Ethics" featuring major world religions. See here for the index. At the bottom it has links to many things, including animals (yes the one that was mentioned earlier), and get this... Muslim boy bands. Unless I missed it somewhere, in the 88 links to articles, they don't consider Dhimmi as important as boy bands.
Seriously though, if you want to support keeping it in the template, please provide some neutral sources that consider it relevant in a general outline of Islam. I support the position of removing it because I think that is the most correct, the most fair, and the most NPOV. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we still have consensus on adding or removing Dhimmi ~ atif msg me - 06:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps those who oppose the inclusion of this link on the template should say why they wish it weren't here? Arrow740 06:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
<reset>I support mediation. Should I file for one? Bless sins 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
no consensus to adding the dhimmi link, hence retaining the "status quo" version. ~ atif Talk 07:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
as per the flowchart, the situation here is stuck at "Find a reasonable compromise", hence I suggest RfM at this point ~ atif Talk 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting way out of hand. Please stop edit warring or the template may become protected until you can work out your differences. - Andrew c [talk] 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this edit war has been going on for far too long. There has been no recent talk page discussion, but users still feel compelled to add and remove then add and remove the link over and over again. I have protected the page. Please work on a consensus while the page is protected. If you reach a consensus before the 10 days are up, contact me or another admin to unprotect early. If you do not a reach a consensus after the 10 days, and the edit war continues, the page will be protected again for longer. - Andrew c [talk] 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, quite a debate had been going on earlier in the Talk, but Dhimmi still continues to be added without consensus. As suggested by me and other editors, mediation seems like a better approach. thanks ~ atif Talk 06:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest someone file for mediation. The discussion of the issue happened a long time ago and certain people are determined to stick with their initial ideas regardless of what happens on the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on Islam and Modernity has been expanding, although it still needs some attention. Is it neglected because it's not of high quality, or is it not of high quality because it is neglected? Right now it is isolated in wikipedia. I think it is ready to see more viewers, and thus more editors. I also think that, maybe with a bit of work, it would be of high enough quality to be mentioned in this template. Other religions, including Christianity and Judaism, have a section on reform movements and modern interpretation. How do people feel about that? Yes? No? Not yet? 67.71.1.156 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please remove the line break between the <noinclude>{{pp-dispute}}</noinclude>
line and the rest of the template. This is causing the text of each article on which this template is used to be pushed down the page. Thanks –
Gurch 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)