Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Categories

Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad

This category should be deleted. --- Faisal 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument? --Striver 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category has quite a few articles in it - why does it need to be deleted? Dev920 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay as long as each of persons included in the category are well-suited to be included in that category. However, because this creation-News I have got from a User page that is known to me for his Islamic-propaganda hence I will definitely like to keep a close watch on it. I will also advice other people to watch it closely and keep reviewing the individual persons pages included in that category. --- Faisal 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the articles in the catgory - they are all People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, and with some pretty impressive references, some of them. Be nice if some of the other Islam articles had such citations... Dev920 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support this if you support my idea: "Category: Words George Bush can't Pronounce" . That'll definitely have a bigger list. His Excellency... 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a really useless comment, Amibidhrohi/His excellency. Let's keep it on topic.Timothy Usher 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that category being, that all the articles you could put in it would be immediately deleted and transwikied over to Wiktionary. Dev920 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On first look His Excellency... comments sound strange but when read second time they do make lot of sense. What category we should create and what should not be created. A category should have how many articles in it? It should have potential to grow. May be "Category: Words George Bush can't Pronounce" makes more sense here than having this category. We should read wikipedia criteria for making a category. --- Faisal 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal, bingo. He missed the point, the point being: not everything that can be categorized needs to be categorized. The likelihood that anyone will come into a bookstore looking for the "People whom Muhammad killed" section is slim. It's also unlikely people will come to an encyclopedia looking for that particular list. Maybe I'm wrong here, maybe there is a reason such a list would be usefull. But that's my thought on the matter. His Excellency... 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with you, but I see your point. We can start by agreeing that it's not correct to frame it as an attack on Islam, or as an attempt to censor criticism thereof, but about the logic of categories, generally.Timothy Usher 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category makes me think of Category:People killed by or on behalf of Richard the lion hearted. I suspect that such a category would be enormous. Netscott 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then set it up if you want. But the category DOES contain articles for people who were killed by or on the behalf of muhammad, so I don't see why it shouldn't stay. Dev920 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really formed too much of an opinion on this category but it does strike me as falling a bit outside of neutral point of view in that it tends to demonize Muhammad. As another counter example, I think a more logical and pertinent category might be Category:People killed by or on behalf of Adolf Hitler. Other counter examples might be Category:People killed by or on behalf of Jesus Christ or Category:People killed by or on behalf of Moses. Netscott 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Set em up. But don't say that an article or category shouldn't exist because similar categries or articles don't exist - otherwise Wikipedia would never have gotten started... Dev920 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a winner: Category:People killed by or on behalf of George W. Bush. I bet that one'd go real far. heh. Netscott 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, if you change that to "Bush Administration", you can add the name of that guy Dick Cheney shot, and then cross it out. Okay, this one I'm partially serious about: "Category: Countries America Bombed" His Excellency... 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would only become a redirect to [[Category:Countries]]... Dev920 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! --Striver 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put the category on CFD and see what outsiders have to say? Agathoclea 08:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Muhammad does not appear to have actually killed any of these individuals by himself, but rather used proxies, perhaps "People killed on behalf of Muhammad" or "People killed at Muhammad's orders" would be a more acceptable title? I find much of the opposition to this category absolutely baffling since it is undisputed that Muhammad ordered these people killed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should stay but with the name "People killed at Muhammad's orders" or "on behalf". Feel free to create the other categories if you want. You could allways go for a category of people the Dalhi Lama ordered to be killed LOL.Hypnosadist 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is being considered for deletion. Vote here. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

This category should also be deleted. Yes! there are many people who had said wrong things about prophet Muhammad. However, if we repeat those things then it is just spreading abuse. I being a Muslim will not like to read hate-speach and other wrong words said against prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad is a blessing to the whole world. I think many other Muslims also do not want to read such pages too. Hence this category is as bad (anti-Muslims/Islam) as Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, although the creater of this category appears to be more neutral. --- Faisal 11:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but I find the reasoning rather telling. Faisal never mentions any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, nor does he say that the category is unencyclopedic or subjective. His logic is very simple: anything critical of Islam must be buried, the deeper the better. On top of that, Faisal has just established a hierarchy of editors depending on their inferred friendliness towards Islam — talk about commenting on content, not on editors! However, I appreciate this unabashed lack of neutrality; at least, no one can accuse Faisal of being dishonest, as he does not even pretend he intends to build a neutral encyclopedia. Pecher ^Talk 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although im sure Faisal reacted and proposed in good faith, the conclusion is not supported by wikipedia policies. Wikipedia will contain anti-Islamic material, and that is the way it is. Unless im wrong in this specific case, of course. --Striver 12:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness Wikipedia doesn't blanket "contain anti-Islamic material" but rather has a number of articles that refer to such material (and in some cases actually show it as part of the article). This category just allows editors to be able to group such articles together. As an example, if an article covers a church that displayed a sign that read, "The Koran should be flushed.", it's not original research to add such an article to this category. Netscott 14:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it if not original research? Do you have any reliable sources saying that the sign was a manifestation of anti-Islam sentiment on part of the article's subject? Pecher ^Talk 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL^^^^. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]