Talk:Muhammad in the Quran

Better sources wanted
The topic is interesting and legitimate, but the sources aren't too great.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad in the Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810145129/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/ to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Source 3 looks like islamic propaganda
That should not be the kind of information I want to see on wikipedia.80.131.48.68 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re edit 09:19, 2 January 2020
Before the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_in_the_Quran&diff=933659124&oldid=933652973 is accepted there are a number of over-arching issues to be considered and discussed. They are elaborated on as Points 2 to 9 in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, a confused and rambling post on matters entirely beyond the remit of this talk page does not need to be discussed here. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with the IP user. I feel that information is relevant and belongs in the article. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion on the merits of specific content belongs on this page. The nonsense Koreangauteng posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam doesn't. And doesn't belong there either, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.74.102 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the IP. There is no reason to reference that rambling, polemic post.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that "rambling" is the right way to describe it. It's well articulated. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how well articulated something might be, if it doesn't related directly to the relevant article, discussion of it doesn't belong on an article talk page. I suggest you stop trying to drag extraneous matters into this discussion, and instead start a new section explaining exactly what the content dispute is about, before this thread becomes another rambling mess like the one at WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, two editors here do feel that it is directly related to the article. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the Talk page guidelines. And confine discussions on this article talk page to matters directly relating to article content. Koreangauteng is not a reliable source on the article subject matter (at least I assume not, lacking evidence to the contrary), and accordingly what he/she posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam isn't going to to be cited in the article. And the content of this article is the only thing that needs discussing here. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IP, for your clarity. That wikiproject note from Koreangauteng, whose overall usefulness is in question, has no direct connection to this article, not least the dispute that resulted in the page being protected. Please focus on that,, and, indeed, stop trying to "drag extraneous matters into this discussion." And , I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish on this article talk page, but much like your absurd COI-of-belief, it is disruptive. Please stop and go do something else. Stop following SharabSalam around, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 02:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the guidelines when it comes to people not actively involved in a dispute join a discussion. If this is seen as something unneccesary, I'll find my way out. At least in the german Wikipedia, there wasn't much problem in this regard. On this subject, I find the questionable citation misplaced in this article, as this page primarily deals with "Muhammad in the Quran". Thus, the section in dispute should be deleted as it doesn't belong in this article to begin with. For this particular purpose, there is already a respective page. This article should primarily deal with Muhammad in the direct quranic context, not the persona, as this defeats the purpose of this page, likewise defeating the purpose of other related articles. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)