Talk:Muhammad/GA3

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

At this point in time, the article meets Quickfail criteria for GA Status: '''4.1 The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. ''' There have been 30 reverts/undos to this article since the beginning of March 2012. A Good article is: Stable - it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Veritycheck (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as such a narrow interpretation would invalidate virtually every GA in a hot-button topic area. The reverts have been mostly to reverse the image removal and honorific additions by single-purpose accounts.  There is no legitimate editorial "war" at this time. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also disagree. This GA reassessment is ill-conceived, and indicates a failure to understand the dynamics of contentious articles that have GA status. The history of reverts in the past 30 days consists predominantly of new editors making non-substantive changes (such as removing depictions of Muhammad, adding honorifics to Muhammad's name, or adding scriptural references) based on a personal religious viewpoint, in an effort to respect the subject as their religion demands, not as demanded by a secular encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between being persistently vandalized or having repeated nonconstructive edits made because of the extremely controversial nature of the article and the article actually having a lot of real changes made on a regular basis. To my knowledge, as has been mentioned, most of the "edit warring" has been Muslims coming here who are new to Wikipedia and don't understand why people insist on putting images of the Prophet there, or why there are not honorifics showing proper respect, and they don't make lasting changes. It's certainly much better maintained in this regard than most other Islam-related articles. Peter Deer (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also disagree; a diff from 1 March to now (when carefully read) shows little change, & in fact the article is rather stable. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Measuring stability is not as simple as counting the number of edits in a given time. An article is unstable when it is undergoing massive changes (which obviously makes it hard to review). Minor edits and vandalism reversions do not count. To delist an article for stability it must have undergone substantial change (Taiwan was recently delisted for this reason after a merge). Not seeing that here and would recommend Veritycheck withdraws this re-assessment. AIR corn (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Invalid rationale. There is no evidence of edit warring, only single edits being reverted and discussed. That is not Edit warring. See discussion below about the nature of reverts. The only actual warring I have seen has come from Veritycheck, who made two reverts in a short period to an old, outdated version of the lead section. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have only made a single revert (20:52, 10 May 2012‎) since coming to this article with a total of two additional unique edits to the page other than a format change. Please check your records. Thanks Veritycheck (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. First you reverted years of work to an outdated version of the lead, then you did it again. The article history speaks for itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Amatulic. These reversals are needless. And also the note says, “vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.” when considering de-listing an article from GA status, due to lack of "stability". Brendon is  here  16:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Amatulić, I have already urged you to check the revision history to verify the accuracy of your claim of repeated reverts on my part. I politely ask you, one last time, to do this once again with great care. The article history does not, in fact, corroborate your accusation. Consequently, I find it both offensive and misrepresentative. Another editor has in fact respectfully issued an apology to me for making a similar mistake concerning this. In order to support your claim, please provide the dates of repeated reverts you reference in your comment that states, “First you reverted years of work to an outdated version of the lead, then you did it again”. If you are unable to prove your allegation, I would appreciate you to recant it here. Let's resolve this without leaving any doubt.


 * The following is an edit summary including each and every of the 4 total edits I have made to the article. These are presented here for your benefit or any other interested party:


 * 20:30, 10 May 2012‎ Veritycheck (talk
 * First edit (unique) - used three NPOV sentences in total from the entirety of the Muhammad article that had last passed GAN. Additionally repositioned another sentence from the more recent article to rectify issues of repetition. Lastly, promoted a footnote comment from the bottom of the current version of the article (at the time of my edit) into the intro restoring Weight, Balance and NPOV. Before my edit, only a western perspective held by some scholars was presented concerning the founding of Islam. This is discussed in detail here.


 * 20:52, 10 May 2012‎ Veritycheck (talk
 * Second edit – a revert (my first and only)


 * 13:21, 12 May 2012‎ Veritycheck (talk
 * Third edit (unique) – my last contribution to the article, consisting of a cited single sentence. Contained nothing from any old outdated version.


 * 14:28, 12 May 2012‎ Veritycheck (talk
 * Fourth edit - Delisting


 * Awaiting your reply first and foremost. Regards, Veritycheck (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * this diff was your first revert, using the edit summary Restored part of the intro to that originally used when this article last passed GA. It is irrelevant that this was your first edit, that doesn't make it somehow a non-revert. Even the words you chose in your edit summary ("restored") were characteristic of a revert. After I restored the status quo, you did not follow WP:BRD (another sign of edit-warring) but chose instead to restore that outdated prior version yet again. Please keep in mind that none of this in any way is meant to imply that your efforts were done in bad faith, and if that's how you took it I do indeed apologize, but reverts are reverts no matter how you try to cast them. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your evaluation is not my own. My first edit was unique. It did contain two sentences, which were well thought-out from the last GAN. This made up a portion of the edit but was not the extent of it. If you look at both edits as I have posted below, the one from four years ago juxtaposed with the one I made, you will see that it is no simple revert; they are not identical. I built upon a prior foundation using what was already in place and then formed an original edit. I see editing as something more than the addition of new material. It's also paying attention to nuance and keeping what is valuable, verifiable and presenting it in an NPOV package. This is what I mean by “crafting”. Like a good wine, no? My edit sought to use the best of the past; incorporating current facts from the most recent article and then developing it further. The content of my edit had most definitely evolved from the 4 year old edit. Perhaps you thought it merely a revert to an old outdated version. If you did, you may have overlooked my own additions, and those parts of the original intro I chose to leave out. The two edits are not the same. Take a closer look. Compare and contrast.


 * From the original 4 year-old GAN
 * Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (Arabic: أبو القاسم محمّد, Transliteration: Abu l-Qāsim Muḥammad;[2] IPA: [mʊħɑmmæd̪]; Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)[3][4][5] (ca. 570 Mecca – June 8 632 Medina),[6] was the central human figure of the world religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as the messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), the last and the greatest in a series of prophets of Islam. Muslims consider him the restorer of the original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah and other prophets of Isam.[7][8][9] He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, restorer of faith and an agent of divine action.[10]


 * My first edit that you consider a revert
 * Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (Arabic: أبو القاسم محمّد, Transliteration: Abu l-Qāsim Muḥammad;[2] IPA: [mʊħɑmmæd̪]; Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)[3][4][5] (ca. 570 Mecca – June 8 632 Medina),[6] was the central human figure of the world religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims and Bahá'ís as the messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), the last and the greatest in a series of prophets of Islam.[7] He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, restorer of faith and an agent of divine action.[8] Although Western scholars regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam, Muslims believe that monotheistic faith was not created by a human but was revealed by God.[9][10]


 * Breakdown of the contents of my edit:
 * 2 elements - restored two sentences from the original
 * 1 element - rejected from the original. This was not included in my edit – regarding other named prophets
 * 2 elements - added two new elements not found in the original edit, namely the perspective of Bahais  - taken from the current article, and then added the NPOV BALANCE WEIGHT - sentence addressing both Western/Islamic perspectives on the founding of Islam also not present in the original GAN.


 * The edit was unique having combined both new and older facets. If you didn’t like it, I would have been happy to discuss what exactly you took issue with and listened to your feedback. I invited you to do so. However, you chose to respond by throwing around bad faith accusations of edit-warring, disruption, and repeated reverts of years of good work. Additionally, abrasive comments found both here and in Revision History from you such as, "Ridiculous", or "Do you even know what", were not respectful even if you disagreed with me. They are uncalled for, untrue and undeservedly harsh; whether you were aware of it or not. Nevertheless, I have remained civil and extended you the benefit of the doubt, not answering in kind - until perhaps now. I've been transparent and have laid everything out here. Whatever the case, further discussion seems pointless. You’re welcome to your opinion. I’ll keep mine. It’s on the record and I am content with that. Lastly, I don't believe this discussion is any longer appropriate here. This will be my last response on this. This is a GAR Talk-Page. Back to good faith. I'm moving on. Veritycheck (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One can always improve a GA with edits made in good-faith (that's what wikipedia is all about), to somehow imply that the edits that don't conform with views of some editors, are just not okay, would be a mistake. The edit summary of this really doesn't reek of any improvement.
 * A hasty of this article as a GA (before the discussion is resolved) is not what we need right now. We're here to improve Wikipedia in whatever little way we can, right? So, why not just do that instead of squandering time in needless repeated reassessments of Good-articles? I personally think it's as good an article as most.  Brendon is  here  09:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I thank the other editors who have expressed their opinions so far. Having experience in controversial topics such as this one and having participated in other GA reassessments myself, I do not come to the table empty handed or ill-informed.


 * As a consensus can change over time, so in fact do articles that were once WP:GA. Another editor rightly pointed out, nothing is written in stone. This is precisely one reason for vigilance. The article on Muhammad has changed substantially since it was last reviewed some 4 years ago, see July 5, 2008. Sections that were deemed WP:NPOV have shifted since that time and are no longer balanced. Yes, some recent reverts concern pictures and honorifics, but those cases are not the ones which concern me. Moreover, reverts are only one symptom of problems here.


 * Contrary to an assumption made previously on the part of another editor, I have taken great lengths to go back through the talk pages and have witnessed a revolving door of editors, both registered and not, who have come to the talk page to have their valuable input on various elements of this article dismissed; certainly not always for valid reasons. Their consensus seems of little concern to some, even though they may number more than the editors whose rejections turn them away; not really a good practice for evaluating a consensus or consensus building.


 * The article’s current western bias in the opening paragraph must be put in check. Our leading paragraph shows that Mohammad is the founder of Islam only stating what might be a Western perspective held by some at best and completely at odds with what a billion other people living on the planet hold true. Neither the Islamic perspective nor a global one concerning this has been presented but for a small footnote. See Need for consistency: Founding of Islam. Is this Western Wikipedia or the international English language site? Is this appropriate for an article of this nature? We need to get back to WP:NPOV.


 * I would ask that other editors participate in this. This is not about WP:BURDEN which concerns citations and NOT consensus . The citations are both plentiful and valid. This is about presenting facts clearly while paying attention to their weight involving the collaboration of editors rather than only elitist gate-keeping. I would like to see this article brought back to the quality it once was when it originally passed the WP:GA review.


 * We could start doing that by improving the opening paragraph. I have already given it a shot. I ask other editors to do the same if they were not happy with my choice of restoring it to that of the last GA edit. If there are not enough current editors here to sort it out, I can initiate an RfC to help build a better consensus. What are your thoughts?


 * Lastly, I find it distasteful and inappropriate of two editors here who sought to lecture me on edit-warring after I had made a single revert and single edit to this article alone since participating here. I am well aware of what edit-warring is and seeing it cease is one of the main reasons I have come to this page. Let’s have a little good faith. Thanks for taking the time to read this lengthy reply and for any input you can make in improving this article. Veritycheck (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * None of that really has much to do with what you claimed initially though, re stability. The requests made by random IPs and throwaway accounts are of no value whatsoever to this article, and are not in any way a factor to consider in the stability of the article. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there seems to be unanimous agreement that the GA reassessment rationale of "unstable" is invalid. I recommend this case be withdrawn on that basis.
 * Furthermore, to address Veritycheck's statements above:
 * The views of random people who make drive-by comments objecting to something hardly constitutes a "consensus". That's simply an outside view. Consensus is something that must be worked at to achieve.
 * Discussions about the word "founder" are not relevant to this GA reassessment. The consensus has been, and continues to be, that "founder" is a neutral secular term, and the Islamic viewpoint is stated in the article; therefore there is no NPOV issue. Whether the Islamic view is in a footnote or the body is a separate matter and getting along quite well elsewhere on Talk:Muhammad.
 * I don't recall anyone lecturing Veritycheck about edit-warring, although the article's editing history shows a clear disregard for WP:BRD.
 * If there are citation issues as Jayen indicated, then fix them, that's simple enough. Otherwise I believe it's time to withdraw this GA reassessment. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just citation issues; the article no longer bears much likeness to what was there when it achieved GA status. We talked about having a GAR in January, and postponed it because of the image arbitration. As that is over, now would be a good time to look at the text. Prose issues are considerable; just look at the very first section, Names and appellations in the Quran. It would be good to get a group effort going to get the article up to scratch.  J N  466  02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that good faith edits to improve the page (e.g. copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions, apply here. I believe the editors ought to pay heed to User:Amatulic's suggestion. If there is an issue, then fix it. Why so much agitation over this simple thing? Brendon is  here  17:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The text has multiple problems and needs serious work before it is anywhere near GA standard. -- J N  466  00:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Jayen, you're entitled to your opinion, although I disagree. Brendon is  here  17:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead: "Discontented with life in Mecca, he retreated to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic beliefs it was here, at age 40,[4][7] in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God." This makes Muhammad sound like he was a hermit living in a cave. He wasn't. What sources (e.g. Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman) say is that he periodically, for several nights at a time, retired to a cave for meditation and prayer. Plus, this has nothing to do with Islamic belief. Muhammad is a historic person. He said this is what happened, and no one doubts that he said so. Suggest, Being in the habit of periodically retreating to a cave in the surrounding mountains for several nights of meditation and prayer, he later reported that it was there, at age 40,[4][7] that he received his first revelation from God. or some similar wording. -- J N  466  01:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We also have a couple of "citation needed" and a "not in citation given".  J N  466  01:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The evaluation on the part of a single editor that there is a “unanimous” consensus here in favour of GA status based on stability alone is hasty at best and inadequate in resolving this. It is not salient as to whether GA Criteria has been met. It only addresses a single aspect. Stability is only one factor and not the only problem with the article at this time. Comments from editors up till now who have voiced their opinions demonstrate that the article does not meet GA criteria for also additional reasons:

JN466: “The text has multiple problems and needs serious work before it is anywhere near GA standard”

Qwyrxian: “this article's lead is improperly imbalanced towards a secular view””

MarshalN20: “the article does not follow WP:NPOV”

Veritycheck: “Sections that were deemed WP:NPOV have shifted since that time and are no longer balanced”

The GAR will remain open for the time being to see if a true consensus can in reality be reached that the article does in fact meet ALL criteria for GA. If that does not happen shortly, I will recommend delisting it. That being said, it is positive that there now seems to be the desire on behalf of many editors to get it right. I do, however, find it potentially troublesome that many of the proposed edits found in the Lead sentence alternatives section below seem WP:Original. I suggest making use of the already vast amount of reliable citations we currently have utilized in our Islamic articles to craft any new sentences that are introduced, particularly concerning the opening paragraph. Veritycheck (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is now apparent that the article meets at least 3 quickfails:


 * contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations (in clear breach with several instances already found – See Copy & Paste)
 * is treated in an obviously non-neutral way (subjective)
 * is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars (subjective)

Any singular violation is sufficient for removing the article without further review. Consequently, I am delisting it from our GA articles immediately. It seems that getting it back to quality involves much more than what was originally anticipated. Veritycheck (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with delisting per Anthony's and Moonriddengirl's comments.  J  N  466  00:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the last two point (but agree they're subjective), and agree that the first point about copyvio is a valid reason to delist from GA. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the last two quick fail criteria that have been mentioned by User:Veritycheck.


 * The article is not treated in an obviously non-neutral way. The note4 says, “Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced.” Editors of that article do make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. That, in turn, nullifies the validity as well as applicability of that criterion, I think. There is not much undue weight given to any POV claim.
 * The article is not the subject of an ongoing or recent edit wars that are unresolved. So, what's the problem? Regarding second criterion, I should clarify that “vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.” (source here)
 * I think Muhammad article meets every criterion listed in this section of WP:WIAGA. Brendon is  here  16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)