User talk:Tauphon

Hello Tauphon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoi khoi 18:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Muhammad

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. We do have some standards and guidelines that are relevent to what you're doing that you should check out: WP:NPOV and WP:V come to mind, more are enumerated above. Anyways, while it's clear you're trying to help, your edits have been unproductive and introduced things in inappropriate spots - most notably the see also on Child Abuse. Here at Wikipedia we strive to present things neutrally and in context. Aisha's marriage to Muhammad is discussed extensively at Aisha, which is the most appropriate place to discuss what you're apparently interested in. The Muhammad article is already quite large and irrelevent stuff will just be culled from the article (probably before I finish this introduction). If you have any concerns, feel free to bring them up at talk:Muhammad, although I'll caution you this issue is already discussed to death - take a look at that pages archives. Anyways, Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you become a productive contributer. WilyD 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and the like

Whether or not Muhammad was a pedophile is not an appropriate question to be asking at articles like Pedophilia, which is a general overview article for the whole topic. I believe it should be straightforward to understand why pedophilia cannot have a see also section that lists everyone who is, was or may have been a pedophile - such a list would be prohibitively long. Muhammad is certainly not particularly notable in this regard (after all, how many billions of people have married young partners?) and discussing one incident in a general overview article is inappropriate per our undue weight criterion in the neutral point of view policy. The article you're look for is Aisha's age at marriage, go discuss the issue there. WilyD 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comments. However I'm quite sure I'm being neutral, getting married to a six-years old girl is pedophilia by all standards. Thanks for the warning anyway. Tauphon 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it actually isn't. It's also universally agreed upon that Muhammad's sexual relationship with her didn't begin until some years after their marriage - I would not call being married to a child pedophilia where no sexual or romantic relationship exists. That said, most of your edits really run afoul of the undue focus clause of [{WP:NPOV]]. There have been literally billions of adult males and females who've had sexual relationships with children. Any random example thereof is not particularly notable in this regard. Cheeseburger doesn't list random people who've eaten cheeseburgers, for instance. This is the biggest concern. WilyD 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad started a sexual relationship with Aisha when she was 9 years old, according to the hadith. This is still pedophilia. You may be correct that mentioning Mohammad in the "Pedophilia" article is unnecessary, but I don't see the clause "pedophilia" should be omitted in the article "Aisha's Age at Marriage." It definitely is related to pedophilia. Thanks for the advices, anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauphon (talk • contribs)

that you perceive it to be related to pedophilia is a) presentism and b) your own original research, certainly unsupported by any academic, scholarly material. ITAQALLAH 14:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Islamic sources are quite clear on this issue: Mohammad married Aisha when she was 5 - 9 years old. Thus, according to our standards today, he is a pedophile. You can bring forth the usual cultural/moral relativism arguments, but you can't deny that he is a pedophile. Reality is often harsh. Tauphon 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tauphon, Aisha's age at the time of marriage and consumation is a fact, as much as anything in hadith can be called fact. It does not remotely follow that Muhammad was a "pedophile": at best a psychological evaluation at which we have no basis to arrive, at worst the sort of value judgment which does not belong on Wikipedia at all. Do not restore it.Proabivouac 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better angle is concentrate on notable historians and figures that have called Muhammad a pedophile. It is not original research if you phrase it as; "Notable person 'X' believes Muhammad is a pedophile". We do not have to add our own value judgements, particulary in this case, as most rational people can accept the fact, that a late middle aged man sexually penetrating a 9 year old, is inherently reprehensible morally. Prester John 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why is it wrong to even mention the possibility of pedophilia? The exact phrase is "a delicate situation which gives rise to the claim/accusation of pedophilia." In that case, Mohammad's pedophilia is a claim every individual may accept or reject. Why is it wrong to include the phrase? It's definitely not POV. Having sex with a child is pedophilia, so this is not my own value judgment --it is merely a simple logical calculation. Tauphon 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tauphon, there's a policy here called WP:OR. If you want to put in the statement that Muhammad was a pedophile, you'll have to source it with a reliable source. People might argue that FFI is not a reliable source (see WP:RS) at this point. You might find some statements like them here. For example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said that he was a perverted tyrant or something like that. Jerry Falwell said that he was a demon possessed pedophile. You can use these statements like Prestor John advised above. Be aware of the WP:3RR rule though and justify your edits on the Talk pages of the effected articles and talk to people there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]