User talk:Someone65/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring and sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Prophets of Islam
I fully understand what you mean - Jeremiah is not mentioned in the Quran and neither is Daniel nor Joshua by name nor Ezekiel. But I simply stated that Dhul-Kifl is often identified with Ezekeil, not that he is Ezekiel. But I fully understand your points and will think twice before making pages for such topics. However, I added much to the pages of Islamic view of Jonah and Islamic view of Noah, much of which has been deleted. May I know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadjafar (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (Imadjafar (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the reply, but i dont know to be honest about the Jonah and Noah pages as i have not been there. Thanks for your co-operation Someone65 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, may I ask one thing? Is there any way to remove all associations of Eber/Hud, Shuayb/Jethro, Ezekiel/Dhul-Kifl, Enoch/Idris and Salih/Shelah from Wikipedia and to permenantly make sure that the prophets of Islam template leaves the spaces for Biblical equivalent for all these prophets as N/A. Moreover, is there any real need of the PRophets of Islam in Turkey template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadjafar (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (Imadjafar (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I think its fine as it is. To be honest i'm not really familiar with the template. You will have to ask regular editors there or the creator of the template. The Turkey template i think has a consensus already to be deleted. Also, next time please respond on your own talk page. Someone65 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Abd r Raheem al Haq
Please try and find a way to edit what others have posted if you think you can improve it as the version you keep reverting to has typos and grammatical errors which have been corrected since, despite problems with the content. The idea is to refine the article towards the highest possible standard. --Abd r Raheem al Haq (Talk) 05:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Death of Michael Jackson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please read your sources; Latoya Jackson is not Janet Jackson. Rodhull  andemu  23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Images
You are adding a whole bunch of indiscriminate images. Just because images are free of copyright doesn't mean that you should put them in images. The images should have a direct connection to the text in question. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi,

Just fyi, a place to consider looking for contacts and ideas is Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith and it's talk page if that's your interest. Smkolins (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in case your interest it taken to Claims to be the fastest-growing religion, please note the talk page. It been a very contentious article. Generally the Baha'is have avoided adding the religion there. In fact the origin of the article is the fact that the claim is most about noise and confusion though it is evolving into a neutral proving ground where claims can get substantiation. But there may be a lot more development before it becomes a good article. Smkolins (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Singapore. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. '' Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!'' Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Sahih al-Bukhari do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Supertouch (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re
But you do not need to mention it in the opening of the article, before you add such a thing you should understand whether there is such a difference, it would be more appropriate to mention it in his personal life, because he is still a Sunni Muslim, you can be a Sunni and follow Sufi practices as well same goes for Shi'a, Sufism is not really a sect but just mystical practices, I will not remove it but I will move it to the personal life section ok. thanks. BigCoolGuyy (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Daniel
I've had to decline the speedy. Criteria G5 says, in part "...with no substantial edits by others." and the article has had several edits by other people and looks very different from the original. If you want it deleted then you will need to go to Articles for deletion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You already added a WP:PROD to the article here. That means that as per Proposed deletion it can't be added a second time. That is why I already told you to use Articles for deletion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox article size comment
Per your comment on the article talkpage I have been trying for 3 days now to reduce the article size to only have another editor come in and restore the deletions and then also add more. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your explained reversion of sourced material
Hi. I have reverted your unexplained removal of sourced material. You did not provide specific reason for your recent edits in Christianity in Kazakhstan and Religion in Azerbaijan, as you removed/edited information that contained recent sources from 2009. Moreover, I reverted your recent edit in List of the oldest mosques in the world by providing additional references. Before accusing one of vandalism,, kindly read Wikipedia policy on vandalism carefully. Vandalism Thanks.Scythian1 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic articles moving to the Caliphates?
Hello,

Not being familiar with the workings of Wikipedia's processes for deciding when articles need to move. May I ask at whose behest, or for what reasons, you are moving articles containing the words "Islam" or "Islamic" in their titles to article names with "Caliphate" in their titles?

Thanks -Aquib (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi aquib. Please see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup for an overview of why some page moves are occuring. In general, massive distortions have been introduced into many articles by this user over the last five years, and the cleanup will be ongoing for some time; most of his work is unreliable. This includes inappropriate page names which don't fit the article. This user has used sockpuppets to make edits so nobody notices and we took that into account.


 * Most of these articles have names such as "islamic" even though these articles have nothing to do with islam. They are the equivalent of saying the Theory of relativity is the Theory of Judaism, just because it was discovered by a jew. There are no references for the religious preference for many of the historical figures quoted; thus qualifying for Moving a page. Someone65 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the word "caliph" does not appear on the RFC page you listed above.


 * Second, "Islam" (which, by the way, is spelled with a capital "I") is an inexact term. It may refer to the religion, or the society, with all its constituent members of whatever religion.  Whereas "Christendom" may be used to refer to the societal complex unfolding under the auspices of Christian leadership and a Christian majority, we have no corresponding term "Islamdom" in English.  See Lewis, Hodgson, etc.


 * Please join me on the Jagged RFC page to see if we can get some other opinions on this.


 * Thanks -Aquib (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 -Aquib (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with this undiscussed mass renaming of articles. Terms such as "Islamic mathematics", "Arabic mathematics" or "mathematics in medieval Islam" are the terms used in academic literature to refer to the mathematics practised, developed and discovered in the Islamic world between c. 600 and 1600. The title "Mathematics in the Caliphates" is something you just invented and not in use among historians of science. Would you please be so nice to clean up the incredible mess you made and rename the article back to their previous titles. —Ruud 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am perplexed to see Hindu and Buddhist contribution to science in medieval Islam to Dharmic contribution to science in the caliphate without any discussion on the talk page.


 * Considering your mass renaming of articles why the mercy on the categories ??
 * Category:Islamic astronomy | Category:Islamic mathematics | Category:Islamic medicine | Islamic architecture | Architecture | Islamic art


 * Now What is preventing you to change these to
 * Category:Caliphate astronomy| Category:Caliphate mathematics | Category:Caliphate medicine |Category:Caliphate Islamic :::::architecture | Category:Caliphate Architecture | Category:Caliphate Islamic art


 * I am learning to enjoy the random anarchy of wikipedia ....so lifelike.
 * Maybe sombody will graphic Chaos theory Exposition of wikipedia edits
 * Intothefire (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI-Notice: Move drive
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Move drive by you. Thank you. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 02:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you hold off a minute on "Shia" vs. "Shi'a"? Discussion ongoing
We seem to be working to opposite ends on the "Shi'a" vs. "Shia" spelling. Rather than duke it out, I made a post on WP:ISLAM to discuss it. Please pause for a minute in your page changes, I'll do the same, and let's talk it out here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the articles on women and other stuff
Ok, I took in your complaints, but Hagar (Hajra) is commemorated on the pilgrimage of Hajj. Please realize that the ONLY woman NAMED in the Qur'an is Maryam. Many others are referenced, including Eve, Anne, Elizabeth (21:90), Hagar, Sarah, Miriam (Qur'an 28:11), Jochebed (28:12-13) etc. It is a pointless to state that they are not mentioned in the Qur'an when they are. They merely are not mentioned by name. Similarly the prophet Samuel, who Muslims commemorate at his grave, is NOT mentioned in the Qur'an but is referenced as a 'prophet' who chose Talut then David as kings. Nonetheless, Muslims take his name from the Bible and view him as a revered prophet. Many, many other figures are also referenced in the Qur'an but there references are so small that it is worthless making page on them.

So to say that these women - who God does mention in a positive light - have Nothing to do with Islam is obviously wrong, as righteous women lived in all ages, and just as we commemorate the prophets and wisemen we must commemorate them. If you read the Qur'an translation of many good modern scholars, including Abdullah Yusuf Ali, with their commentary, they quote lengthy portions of the Bible, because in it's true form, it too was God's scripture.

Also, I feel that there is nothing wrong with quoting from the Bible. I will, of course, never quote corrupted material. But material which is useful in the place should be quoted. Only the Qur'an has been given the assurance of uncorruption. All other religious texts - including the Bible and the Hadith - are open to corruption. I just felt that the women who are mentioned by Allah in the Qur'an as being pious, righteous women have a right to be honoured and should have their own pages, which show the view Muslims have of them.

Also, the Qur'an doesn't name many. Names of Cain and Abel and others are either translated from the Biblical name or from Hadith. These figures are spoken of in the Qur'an with importance, and therefore they deserve a page of their own. As regards to the She-Camel of God, I made the page in reference to Saleh's miracle. I feel that Muslims have to write a lot more on the other figures and beasts in Islam. The Christian and Jewish writers have pages on the Four horsemen of the Apocalypse, Leviathan, Behemoth etc. Why don't we have it on God-given animals mentioned in the Qur'an?

The place where I agree is my creation of fact boxes, using the saint template. That is a Christian template and if we are to create something similar we will create our own template.

Please dont delete either of the women articles nor the template of honoured women nor Abel. Because all these figures are important in our religion and we must pay our due respects to them. I agree, with a figure, for example Daniel, there is no proper sources that we have. He is neither in the Hadith and is neither refernced nor mentioned in the Qur'an. But these figures are different. Imadjafar (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Sarah
We went through this before with Daniel. As per Proposed deletion, "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.", it can't be added a second time. That is why I already told you to use Articles for deletion if you think the article should not exist. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of figures
I don't mean this to be taken the wrong way, but I will tell you where we have got the names from:
 * Sarah, the name, appears both in the Bible and in the Sahih Bukhari Hadith, number 575.
 * Hagar, the name, appears both in the Bible and in the Sahih Bukhari Hadith, number 575.
 * Elizabeth as a name appears nowhere. The Qur'an mentions her "his (Zakariya's) wife".
 * Qabil and Habil are names from Islamic tradition. The Qur'an mentions them as the 'two sons of Adam'.
 * Jonah's father, Amittai, is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, number 608.
 * Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq and all classical commentators adopt the Biblical names in reference to the Qur'anic figures whose names are not given.

I read what you said about the Islamic view of Torah page, I now copied the material onto the Tawrat page, which means the first page can be deleted. I fully understand your point of view also about this whole thing. I don't want an argument to begin and I want both of us to make contributions in the future. I just feel that all figures - big and small; good and evil - deserve their own page if they are referenced and/or revered and/or regarded in the Islamic faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadjafar (talk • contribs) 09:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but Shias dont accept bukhari hadiths and Shia hadiths dont mention them. You cant only think of Sunni point of view. If its in the Quran, then okay; if not, then leave it out of wikipedia Someone65 (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand, but can we have a discussion on this topic with others, because I feel they should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadjafar (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * first you should discuss it with Shias on wikipedia and ask them whether their hadiths agree; or find an online Shia source or reference. Otherwise its against Neutral point of view policy. If a name is not in the Quran it should not have a wikipedia article. Someone65 (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But why are you so caught up in the names? ALL MUSLIMS accept these names and believe that Adams sons were Qabil and Habil. They believe that Abrahams wife was Sarah etc. I agree, figures not mentioned in the Qur'an dont deserve a wikipedia article, but all these figures are mentioned, just not by name. Please tell me, why does Daniel have an article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadjafar (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, i dont make the rules. I was told to read No original research policy and Notability policy and i did. Im only following the rules. You know Shia and Ahmadiyyas and Ibadis have different hadiths, so they might disagree with some stuff you say, especially Shias. I highly recommend you go through this template Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines to read editing guidelines. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets stop this argument. Why dont we solve the problem and instead of deleting the information on these pages, let's merge the information onto the main pages of each figure, in a section titled 'Islamic view'. I feel the same should be done with Daniel. --Imadjafar (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I can see your perspective, give me your view on merging, but I will read through the guidelines.--Imadjafar (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you insist to keept this info, then create a new article and collect the info onto one page; but only for the articles that have enough reference. I agree Islamic view of Hagar should stay (sorry about that 1), but most of the rest are not notable enough for a seperate individual page. If you merged non-Quranic figures into a page called [Characters in Islamic traditions] or something, that might be okay. Someone65 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In that way, we can reach an agreement, and i promise i wont delete your article if you merged them all into one. Do you think [Characters in Islamic traditions] is a good name for a merged article? Someone65 (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea that. Thank you for your help. Characters i feel may make it sound fictional. How about Biblical figures in Islamic tradition, with a heading showing that this article deals with all the figures not mentioned by name but referenced. --Imadjafar (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with this proposal and that title. Thanks for your co-operation. So that means you agree with the deletion of the current articles right?Someone65 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You can delete the Sarah and Elizabeth articles. Thank you for your help again. I will inform you of the deletion of Cain and Abel too--Imadjafar (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please just see this page Biblical figures in Islamic Tradition--Imadjafar (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
Just hold on for a few minutes while I post a note at WP:AN to ask a uninvolved admin to review. I'm a bit to involved right now to delete myself. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Pages
I feel that pages should be made on the following figures:
 * Islamic view of Gabriel, dealing with the archangel who is mentioned in the Qur'an
 * Islamic view of Michael, dealing with the archangel who is mentioned in the Qur'an
 * Qarun
 * Haman
 * The one prophet who is referenced in the Qur'an is Samuel, should a page be made for him? --Imadjafar (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Other pages
Your principle is remove articles in which the figures are not mentioned in the Qur'an. Then why do Munkar and Nakir and Khidr have a page. None are mentioned by name in the Qur'an. --Imadjafar (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblical figures and Prophets in Islam
Someone65,

Your drive to eliminate references to biblical figures and prophets in Islam is misguided. In fact, there is a good deal of scholarly research on this topic.

For instance, a quick search of book titles on the subject, using Google Scholar, turns up a reference to Daniel on page 49 of Muslim writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm By Camilla Adang. This book mentions the purported relocation of Daniel's tomb by Umar. It is a lengthy, recent work loaded with citations.

This is just one quick example of the scholarly work that is readily available on this subject. I emphasize the word scholarly, as there is really no point in citing the Quran or Hadith as a basis, either for the article, or its deletion - this is not acceptable on Wikipedia, as it is original research into primary sources.

So you may be able to temporarily suppress some of this information, but in the long run there are plenty of good secondary and tertiary sources out there to support articles such as the ones you wish to delete. Many biblical figures, including women, and most (or all) biblical prophets, have a place in Islamic literature, history, culture and theology.

Aquib (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but i find it far-fetched to include a "prophet of islam" when a figure is not mentioned in the sahih hadiths or in the Quran; this would also clash with Notability. Either way, me and User:Imadjafar have agreed that such biblical figures can be included here . Thanks Someone65 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone 65, I know we sorted this, but to just tell you my view. The Qur'an mentions that only some prophets are mentioned. The Bible, like the Hadith, is a historical document. Many prophets mentioned in the Bible were most likely real prophets. Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah and even some of the more minor figures, including Amos and Zechariah (Hebrew prophet) are regarded by scholars as prophets of our religion. Just as we take the correct portions of the Hadith to find the history of Prophet Muhammad's time, we use the correct portions of the Bible to find the details of the lives of prophets of the past who are unmentioned in the Qur'an. May we ask Aquib (talk) what he feels of the Biblical figures in Islamic tradition page? And what his view is?--Imadjafar (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Stories of the prophets is not consistent with Notability; nor is it a sahih hadith. Also, Shias disagree with some hadiths. Not all muslims are Sunni. Someone65 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about Sahih hadith only - I am talking about general Islamic belief. Muslims accept Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah etc. in the prophetic pantheon. Samuel deserves his own page too, he is mentioned in the Qur'an! Tribute is paid to the prophet's graves and Muslims generally accept their prophetic status.--Imadjafar (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Time out? -Aquib (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone65. This is not a question of the Quran, the Sunnah, or sects of Islam. Again, the Quran and Hadith are primary sources.  You are arbitrarily establishing the mention of a figure in these sources as the criteria for notability.  That is to say, you are overlooking 1400 years of Islamic commentary, exegesis, scholarship and law.  Mention in the Quran and Hadith are not the article inclusion criteria required by the Wikipedia Notability policy.  Notability requires a detailed examination of the subject by objective third parties.  Rather than quoting to you from the notability link you have provided, I encourage you to read the notability policy for yourself.


 * Here is another example of a reliable third party, discussing the subject of Daniel in Islam. The book is Prophets in the Quran: an introduction to the Quran and Muslim exegesis By Brannon M. Wheeler.  His chapter on Daniel (beginning on page 80), by itself, satisfies the Wikipedia requirement for notability.  Although Daniel is apparently not mentioned in the Quran, it appears Wheeler has included him in the book due to the numerous scholarly treatises on Daniel which have appeared in Islamic literature over the past 1400 years.


 * You will find the other biblical figures and prophets of Islam you wish to suppress are also the subject of modern scholarly, third party works. And this is also due to the volumes of Islamic commentary, discussion and research by Islamic scholars and theologians over the centuries.  This is all well documented and easily verifiable.


 * I would encourage you to take some time to review Wikipedia policy and try adding verifiable content to existing articles, whose subject you are personally familiar with, rather than attempting to rename or delete existing articles. You seem unfamiliar with both Wikipedia policy and the subject of Islam.


 * Perhaps you are here to right a grievous wrong of some sort, but we are just the reporters of facts. And the facts are not on your side.


 * As for your agreement to consolidate these articles, that is an agreement which I do not accept. Therefore you do not have consensus for your actions.


 * Aquib (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone65, you could have restored the AfD template. I did and have warned Imadjafar. I would second Aquib's position. You say that only a mention in the Quran or sahih hadith is the criteria for inclusion. What I think you really mean is that only a mention in the Quran or Shia sahih hadith is the criteria for inclusion. However, it is not a matter of using only Sunni or Shia sources. Articles should not be excluded just because of what one particular branch of Islam thinks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Sarah is mentioned in . Again it is not only hadith and the Qur'an that are sources of notability. What scholars have had to say also figures in. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)