Talk:Dhimmi
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dhimmi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on June 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dhimmi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dhimmi at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lwalker3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced claims of second-class status[edit]
I placed the unreliable source and citation needed tags on the claims of second class status in this argument months ago and since there has been no effort to add sources I am now leaning towards deletion. The only source provided is a link to a much less reputable wiki page, which is not a scholarly source. If you want to source what that page says you have to follow the sources from that page and link those. You cannot just cite an ideologically biased wiki page as definitive evidence on a historical topic. Those who wish to keep the references to supposed second-class status would do well to add a real source before it is deleted. Puma6374 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Edits by IP[edit]
This edit by IP[1] is problematic. It adds to the lead something that is not covered in the body. The lead is for summarizing, not adding new information. It also doesn't capture the nuance in the sources.
Finally, linking "non-Muslim" to kafir is controversial at best.VR talk 15:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021[edit]
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
RegentsPark, just like you found reliable sources for the word, "unbelievers" and linked that word to the Kafir article in the Jihad article (see here), I request you to do the same here, that is, link the first occurrence of the word, "non-Muslim" to the Kafir article. I am unable to read what your sources say in the Jihad article. Thank you very much. 2405:204:5197:8209:F40:6AB3:9CF9:4CF0 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone can do so. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5197:8209:f40:6ab3:9cf9:4cf0 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I could find this, this, this and this online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5197:8209:F40:6AB3:9CF9:4CF0 (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- RegentsPark used these sources in the Jihad article:-Peters, Rudolph; Cook, David (2014). "Jihād". The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001. ISBN 9780199739356. Archived from the original on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2017.Tyan, E. (1965). "D̲j̲ihād". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. J.; Heinrichs, W. P.; Lewis, B.; Pellat, Ch.; Schacht, J. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. 2. Leiden: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0189. ISBN 978-90-04-16121-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5197:8209:f40:6ab3:9cf9:4cf0 (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The term kafir and non-Muslims are not always interchangeable and many Muslims feel it is somewhat of a slur[2].VR talk 17:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- If I'm right, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not what Muslims feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.90.176 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The term kafir and non-Muslims are not always interchangeable and many Muslims feel it is somewhat of a slur[2].VR talk 17:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- RegentsPark used these sources in the Jihad article:-Peters, Rudolph; Cook, David (2014). "Jihād". The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001. ISBN 9780199739356. Archived from the original on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2017.Tyan, E. (1965). "D̲j̲ihād". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. J.; Heinrichs, W. P.; Lewis, B.; Pellat, Ch.; Schacht, J. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. 2. Leiden: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0189. ISBN 978-90-04-16121-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5197:8209:f40:6ab3:9cf9:4cf0 (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I could find this, this, this and this online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5197:8209:F40:6AB3:9CF9:4CF0 (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)- RegentsPark, it is now up to you to add the link or not (since you added it in the Jihad article). I give up.
Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC[edit]
Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. patsw (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)