User talk:Translator1933

May 2023
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Muhammad in Islam. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please have a look at MOS:MUHAMMAD, we do not include those things on Wikipedia, thanks! Felida97 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles, you may be blocked from editing. Felida97 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry these are my first edits. Islamically speaking the correct editorial standard is to include a PBUH after His name is mentioned. Translator1933 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, and on Wikipedia the clear consensus and direction (i.e. the correct editorial standard) is to not include such honorifics. Therefore, you will be reverted every time you go against that consensus/try to add such things and if do it often enough, you will be blocked. Wrongfully altering the corresponding section of the MoS won't change that either. Felida97 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the basis of the MoS? What determines whether it is right/wrong? Translator1933 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style is based on Wikipedia's policies and the consensus of editors. In this case, many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Given that the neutral POV is one of the core content policies and "non-negotiable" (WP:NPOV), anything contrary to it is not acceptable on Wikipedia (just to make clear how much weight this principle holds here). I hope that clears things up. If you want, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles, though you're not the first one (on the same page and its archives, you may also find existing discussions on the topic). Felida97 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was also already typing a reply, so please allow me to butt in and reiterate some of what Felida97 has said:
 * This has been determined by the Wikipedia community, consisting of the thousands of editors who have collectively built this website in the past twenty years. We decide things here by wp:consensus. If Wikipedia editors want to change a wp:policy or guideline, they discuss it on talk pages like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Only when a large majority of experienced editors are in favor of adjusting a policy or guideline does change actually happen. The more foundational a policy is, the harder it is to change it.
 * From a foundational perspective, Wikipedia follows traditional encyclopedias in being secular. This is extremely unlikely to ever change. If you would like to edit Wikipedia, it is absolutely necessary for you to accept that we are secular, and that this means that we do not and will not ever follow any type of religious injunction.
 * Do note that it is possible to write a Wiki-based encyclopedia from a religious perspective. If you would happen to be Shi'a, you would probably love WikiShia. Unfortunately, there is no Sunni counterpart, which I hope will one day see the light. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the responses. I will go through those threads. However, to respond to this discussion here: it's important to be respectful of other people's cultures even if they may not be the represented via majority vote holders within a group. There are vocabulary words from 50 years ago that are no longer editorial sound. I believe the term "Peace be upon him" does not contain a title that would be anti-secular. Translator1933 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)