Talk:Muhammad

This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 8 December 2007 and demoted on 19 February 2008. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

This article used to be a good article. It was promoted on 19 February 2008 and demoted on 8 February 2021. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Vocabulary

The article uses expressions like coalition broke up and went home and The Medinians were considered victors. Neither of these are Simple English, and they are not essential vocabulary to the article. The words "advised", "revelations" (and so on) should also be expressed differently.

Amandajm (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Section about images

I added a section about images. It looks like the statement "Nowadays, Muslims are forbidden to draw him" is probably false. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to research more, right now, but there seem to be different positions, even in the Islamic world. --Eptalon (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have time to research more,Delete it Kazher45 (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find such articles on wiki commons Kazher45 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something about Charlie Hebdo should be added here. And the other massacres, riots etc. that have been connected with images of Mohammed.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding images to the article

Both the English, and the German version of the article have illustrations that show Muhammad. These are taken from medieval sources. Big question would be if we can find a few images (showing Muhammad) which could be added to the article, and which would be unproblematic? - Since this is a good article atm, I have nor added any; I also lack the resp. knowledge on what poses a problem, since this is not my religion...--Eptalon (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Space for objects

That is the second time I've had to remove needless clutter. It would be nice to get some explanations given in the change summaries. There is no room on the page for an infobox and two sidebar-style naviagational boxes. Stuff just gets pushed down the page, especially on smaller resolutions. We certainly don't need two navigational boxes. The new one contains more than 30 red links, and only six blue. Of those blue links, all except one are also found on the other template, and that one link is given prominently at the top of a section in the article's text. An infobox could be useful, but it's going to need trimming. Osiris (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Image in the infobox

While this article obviously should have a picture of Muhammad, on Enwiki his face is not shown "above the fold". Their infobox picture is a beautiful piece of calligraphy engraved on a mosque door, and further down there is a calligraphic drawing of his name. Wouldn't either of those be valid for the top of this page, with the current image moved further down? That would still be WP:NOTCENSORED, but not causing unnecessary offence either. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I note the image has been removed from the infobox. diff, I will not be reverting this as I am aware that muslims consider images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be extremely offensive. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Per en:WP:NOTCENSORED, it doesn't matter if something offends a group of people as Wikipedia is not censored. However, consensus on enwiki is to not include a depiction of Muhammad at the top of the article, but lower down. --IWI (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review...

In my opinion, for this article to stay at/get to Good Article level, the following needs fixing:

• Most of what is present in this article will be doctrine, and there won't be much discussion. It should be easy to find references.
• Given the whole size of the article, I would expect the lede/intro to be bigger (about 2-3x what it is now). If I only read the lede, I should have a fairly good understanding of the rest of the article
• Many sections are too small, they should either be extended, or grouped into bigger sections
• At least to me, a link in the title of a section looks odd, is there another way to solve this?
• It looks like Muhammad had 12 wives; each of them is listed by name in a section, with a few sentences. Problem I see there: So far there's too little text in these sections (for my liking); so: either add text, or convert the whole "wives" section into a number of paragraphs. Also, we have articles for only 2 of the 12 wives. If they are important enough, every wife of his should get her own article; I am not a Muslim, and don't know the story, so I can't help there.
• Rename the section "wives" to "marriages"?

As it stands now, the article also lacks coherence. the EnWP article on Muhammad is a good article, it looks noticeably more complete. If you told your friend about SEWP, and told them that good articles show what it is possible to produce in Simple English, and then he/she saw this article, what would he/she think? These are of course just comments. --Eptalon (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, there are also many unsourced statements, with some whole sections unsourced. --IWI (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Article demoted...

Hello all, I just demoted the article to the status of regular article. This doesn't mean that it can't be a good article in the future, it just means that it will go through the regular process again.--Eptalon (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Eptalon, totally agree. Needs lots of work. I will have the article added on my students assignments sheet. --Tarawneh (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

W.P. Contribution in other languages

If there is something you find useful for others to read (which I believe it is especially necessary in the context of the Shari'a or Qur'an), put it in simple language. Using the WP simple english, makes your job easier. Translate it into other languages ​​using google translater and check the accuracy of your translation with reverse translation.

This is how I do it and I recommend it to everyone. If you do this for your native language or any other language you can use, you'll do a much better job, but it works over 90% even in languages ​​you don't know. Minor expression errors can be corrected by native users of the language.Ben Bilal (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section exists just for polemics

The legacy section on the article for Muhammad as the founder of the fastest growing and second largest religion should say more than that Muslims are violent towards people who depict him. This reflects intent to insult Muslims and Islam. 2A02:C7C:3269:E800:D560:762:D33D:8D5B (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as you probably know, anyone can change Wikipedia, and as you see above, the article likely is in a bad state, and needs a lot of work. As to the section you mention: both the en:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and the incident which led to the death of several of Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists (en:Charlie Hebdo shooting) were in the media, and received a lot of coverage. Note that Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine: it gets its audience from drawing cartoons on current events. Eptalon (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)