This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chooserr (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 1 November 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:48, 1 November 2005 by Chooserr (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Muhammad received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
|
I missed some serious distortions of the summary
Somewhere in all the vandalism and revert wars, pious hands were editing the summary. I just now noticed that it had become extremely POV -- and incoherent in places, probably as a result of multiple, overlapping edits. I revised the summary. It may not be the consensus version that stayed stable for so long, but I can't find the point at which the POV edits started. Zora 07:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
User: Chaosfeary
Hello:
How are you planning on verifying this claim:
- After her death he married Aisha, who was nine years old when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her to consummate the marriage. Later, he married Hafsa.
—Gaff 01:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why this material should not be added:
- It is pov: this statement is highly disputed in academic and historian circles. To say it the way it is written by chaosfeary is pov.
- It is already mentioned in the Aisha article. The Muhammad article only provides an overview of his marriage and relations. The rest of the material is in the article of the main person that is being regarded.
- Also Chaosfeary, you have violated the 3rr, which means that you can be blocked from editing, so please do not do this and instead use the talk page first. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why this material should not be added:
- He has been blocked for 24 hours.Voice of All 02:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Link formating
Hi Reddi (JDR). Nice effort on the external links, however I think for clarity the links should be kept in non bibliographic style. Also most of the links are not specific articles, but rather websites, so article citation style is not necessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- The information (author, publisher, etc., ...) adds clarity to what the link is .... JDR 21:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, however that is not the link style. That is newspaper linking style or other specific article citations. See Jesus article for examples. Such extra info only obscures the links themselves. Informative links do not need publisher, author, etc. However, if this was for "further reading" resources or article reference then that can be used. . Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please continue discussion if you have any concerns. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Jesus article need to be raised to a higher standard ... the deficient in one article does not mean that other should suffer too. The exact formating could be changed ... but the content should stay. The info add clarity and helps the reader ... it also comments about the site and the ISBN (if applicable). AND external links/articles are damn well a hodgepod of 'other references' and 'further reading' ... otherwise why are they there? Sincerely, JDR 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- But nowhere in the guidelines does it state that external links should follow this format. All other articles in wikipedia do not follow this format. The info added beside each link is so much that is obscures the meaning. External links are meant as a quick reference, not bibliographic essay citation like for a newspaper article. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't state that the external links should follow this format ... but as a defualt 'other references' and 'further reading', it should provide the info to add clarity of the link and help wikipedia attain a higher standard. The link isn't obscured ... the link itself is on the title .... and the bibliographic citation help the reader on who wrote the article (an article in the general sense). JDR 21:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- But the further reading and other references already have that format. External links should not have such a format for any article. Just the link and, in some cases, a brief description. Of course most of the external links on wiki articles are to entire websites and not specific articles. If need be, the external link can be accessed for publisher, date and author information. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- 1st there is no further reading ... the external articles provide this function .... 2nd ... the reference definitely mus have this format ....
- also ... the external article links should have such a format for all article, primarily to raise the standard of Wikipeida.
- As to the "external link can be accessed" thing, that is not necessarily true .... as the links may disappear ... and the only way to refind it is to have the bibliographic info ... this has happened to me before (and it would have been easier to refind the swords link in this article if so ...) JDR 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reddi, the ref is already in this format, but referencing the external links with author, date, publisher, editor, etc. will not help raise standards, simply because it makes the links hard to read and hard to see. A basic list format is the standard for external links. It would be greatly appreciated if this article was also kept at that standard. I think a proposed change like this to all wikipedia articles' external links should be discussed with the wider wiki community rather than just on this article. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Out of all the pages I have edited ... this is the 1st time someone has complained that this "will not help raise standards".
- The external links are essential as a "futher reading" (the majority of the articles are biographies). If yo uwant to propose that all wikipedia articles' external links shouldhave this foirmat ... do it ... but this article should use this fromat in the external articles ... or the headers should change to a "futher reading" as that is what the links are .... JDR 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., I changed the header to "==Further reading and external articles==")
- Lol. :) Well even if it's a first, these are there as external links, not further reading simply because they are online pages. Also please don't start with this page to make a point about this being done to external links, start at the village pump or propose your ideas to the greater wiki community. To the regular editors, this will seem very odd and, I'm afraid, not standard raising. The header change doesn't help either because the links are primarily that which are websites, not books. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- 1st ... This is not the "start" of this nor is this "making a point".... I have been around for some time doing this ...
- 2nd ... links are websites of books and essays. This is a standard way to link to them ...
- Sincerely, JDR 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
How about you add the ones that are specifically of books to further reading and change back all the ones that link to encyclopedia's, etc. ? --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
A long bibliography about each link is not helpful to the user and will not attract readers who will think it is nothing but a long list of references, much like one's used in an essay. Reddi, how about you wait till others have expressed some opinion also on this topic? Until then, I think that pending consensus, these edits should be reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
A question which might be offensive
I was looking through a dictionary a while back and came across the term muhamadog or something like that, but it ended in "dog" and I wanted to know if it's a valid term or one with a derogatory meaning... Chooserr
Category: