text:
Talk:To Sir, with Love

Old deleted stuff in the history
There is some old deleted stuff in the history that could do with merging here. Cutler 13:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poitier's character "African American"?
Is it correct to refer to Sidney Poitier's character as "African American"? In the film he states that he's from British Guyana, so the question is whether "African American" applies to persons from South America. The Wikipedia article for African American defines the term as "an ethnic group in the United States of America whose dominant ancestry is from Sub-Saharan West Africa" and says that "The term African-American refers only to American citizens...."

The link to the actor Christian Roberts takes you to a bio of a football player who was born in 1979. This movie is from 1966, so this is obviously an error.

 * I've removed the link to Christian Roberts, for reason stated above. The correct Christian Roberts was a member of the Roberts family which owned Job's Dairy in the UK - and indeed a director of that company for a while - and is the uncle of "historian"/commentator Andrew Roberts. He has his own webite at http://web.mac.com/christianroberts/www.lonelyxstar.co.uk/Welcome.html but I'm not skilled enough at editing to do anything with this info. Sitush (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Being from British Guiana Poitier's character was a British subject, the same as all the pupils he was teaching. In other words, he was as 'British' as they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Split the film from the book
I am a university student and I see no reason why the film and book should be incorporated together. I don't want to arbitrarily split and get myself banned so any suggestions?206.26.199.146 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You will not get banned for splitting it. However it is best to know what you are doing. I have lately split a film from a novel, and not knowing much about the process, ended up frustrating some people. The reason was that the novel part had too little to say, on its own. If either the film or the book do not have enough material to stand on their own, usually they are not split. Look at examples: Being There, Meetings with Remarkable Men. If you, or another user you are in contact with, have enough material to make the weaker part into a class "start" article (see here), then split them after having worked on the weak side. If it is an article with a lot of edits lately, better make sure you get consensus on splitting. For technical details here are some useful places to look: Help:Moving_a_page and How_to_break_up_a_page. Also the new article should be "To Sir, with Love (novel)" (not book). I have this article in watch, so if you have any further questions or suggestions, post them here below and I will answer soon. Hoverfish 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts I had on reading this article:

1. Perhaps I am biased as I read the book long before seeing the film, but it seems to me that a film should be indexed under the book from which it springs, not the other way 'round... that is, whichever medium is the original should come first, if a single article encompasses both.

2. I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the book section that the book itself is at least partly autobiographical - it's just called a novel, which implies more or less pure fiction unless modified by an adjective (historical novel, autobiographical novel, etc.). I don't know to what degree the book is memoir versus any fictional elements, but this certainly deserves some mention. Hierophany 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that whichever article (book or movie) has more content should be the main article. If the article is not to be split, the links to the Book article should be removed from the content Soumya92 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is split, would a disambig page be a good idea? There's also a recent Korean horror movie of the same name. (There's no article for it as yet, so it's an entirely theoretical disambig page.  But all the same.)  Shouriki 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Name?
Well, I can't change the title. It won't allow me. Anyone know how to do that without the ridiculous complexity that I encountered?Guyburns (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 * The official spelling of the movie, according to IMDB, is: To Sir, with Love, the way we have it (despite the way it's spelt on the DVD cover)
 * The spelling of the novel is: To Sir, With Love
 * The spelling of the song is: To Sir With Love (no comma)

 * Most ridiculous inconsistency I've ever seen, but that seems to be the way it is. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

'Pupils' not 'students'
The correct term in the UK for primary school/secondary school children (4-16) is 'pupils' not 'students'. In the UK, a student is a young person over 16 who goes on to further education at either a college or university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.128.106 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Boys called “Mister”?
The article (Plot) states that under Thackeray’s new approach, “Boys will be addressed as 'Mister' and their last names.” This is incorrect. They were to be called by the last names only. There was no mention or use of “Mister” for the boys in the film. This was in accord with British usage of the time. Ptilinopus (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:To Sir, with Love


text: Talk:Diane Keaton

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Diane Keaton


text:
Talk:117 (number)

Ununseptium
Ununseptium hasn't been discovered yet, or even claimed to have been discovered. I think the fact is not even worth mentioning until their's at least one scientist saying he's seen it. 141.217.173.171 13:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesnt matter if it's been discovered - Wikipedia has an article on it, and this is how a lot of people will search for it. I'm putting it back71.212.5.9 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

svhjnq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.235.32 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Guild Wars 117 players banned
This note shouldn't be deleted, read the thread on GuildWarsGuru http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10242767 I will put the note back up, if you have anything against it say it here.--Onehundredseventeen (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I'll report you for 3RR, which you've already broken. HalfShadow (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep reverting it--Onehundredseventeen (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a web forum. This is not a newspaper. This is not a notable event. Corvus cornix talk  04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Number 117
This is number of the master chief in game/movie "Halo" it is appropriate that he is the avenging "Angel ". Pablo Schreiber plays the leader of the other three cyborgs. Jimglass (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:117 (number)


text:
Talk:Ports of the Baltic Sea

Untitled
The list is not complete. Maybe somebody can add missing ports, especially in Finland and Sweden. Cautious 13:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a lots of ports with references in article on pl.Wiki. Maybe sb wants to avail it. JDavid (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected Copenhagen Malmö Port
added references to CMP--PerV (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Table sorting
something is wrong with table sorting - it doesn't work got values such as amount of people transported or ware trasported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.163.47 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ports of the Baltic Sea


text:
Zenzizenzizenzic

Zenzizenzizenzic is an obsolete form of mathematical notation representing the eighth power of a number (that is, the zenzizenzizenzic of x is x8), dating from a time when powers were written out in words rather than as superscript numbers. This term was suggested by Robert Recorde, a 16th-century Welsh physician, mathematician and writer of popular mathematics textbooks, in his 1557 work The Whetstone of Witte (although his spelling was zenzizenzizenzike); he wrote that it "doeth represent the square of squares squaredly".

History

At the time Recorde proposed this notation, there was no easy way of denoting the powers of numbers other than squares and cubes. The root word for Recorde's notation is zenzic, which is a German spelling of the medieval Italian word censo, meaning 'squared'. Since the square of a square of a number is its fourth power, Recorde used the word zenzizenzic (spelled by him as zenzizenzike) to express it. Some of the terms had prior use in Latin zenzicubicus, zensizensicus and zensizenzum. Similarly, as the sixth power of a number is equal to the square of its cube, Recorde used the word zenzicubike to express it; a more modern spelling, zenzicube, is found in Samuel Jeake's Arithmetick Surveighed and Reviewed. Finally, the word zenzizenzizenzic denotes the square of the square of a number's square, which is its eighth power: in modern notation,
 * $$x^8=\left(\left(x^2\right)^2\right)^2.$$

Samuel Jeake gives zenzizenzizenzizenzike (the square of the square of the square of the square, or 16th power) in a table in A Compleat Body of Arithmetick (1701):

The word, as well as the system, is obsolete except as a curiosity; the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has only one citation for it. As well as being a mathematical oddity, it survives as a linguistic oddity: zenzizenzizenzic has more Zs than any other word in the OED.

Notation for other powers
Recorde proposed three mathematical terms by which any power (that is, index or exponent) greater than 1 could be expressed: zenzic, i.e. squared; cubic; and sursolid, i.e. raised to a prime number greater than three, the smallest of which is five. Sursolids were as follows: 5 was the first; 7, the second; 11, the third; 13, the fourth; etc. Therefore, a number raised to the power of six would be zenzicubic, a number raised to the power of seven would be the second sursolid, hence bissursolid (not a multiple of two and three), a number raised to the twelfth power would be the "zenzizenzicubic" and a number raised to the power of ten would be the square of the (first) sursolid. The fourteenth power was the square of the second sursolid, and the twenty-second was the square of the third sursolid.

Jeake's text appears to designate a written exponent of 0 as being equal to an "absolute number, as if it had no Mark", thus using the notation x0 to refer to an independent term of a polynomial, while a written exponent of 1, in his text, denotes "the Root of any number" (using root with the meaning of the base number, i.e. its first power x1, as demonstrated in the examples provided in the book).

title: Zenzizenzizenzic


text:
Coron

Coron can refer to:

Places

 * Coron, Palawan, a municipality in the Philippines
 * Coron Island, under the jurisdiction of the municipality, Philippines
 * Coron, Maine-et-Loire, a commune in the Maine-et-Loire département in France
 * Coron, the Venetian name of the coastal town of Koroni on the Ionian Sea, in present-day Greece.
 * Siege of Coron

People

 * Jean-Michel Coron (born 1956), a French mathematician
 * Coron D. Evans (born 1844), an American soldier

Other

 * (urbanism) Coron, a historical type of working-class housing found in parts of Northern France and Belgium
 * Coron Land, a 1995 action video game
 * Llywelyn's coronet (Coron Arthur)
 * "Les corons", French miner's song

title: Coron


text:
William Cheselden

William Cheselden (19 October 1688 – 10 April 1752) was an English surgeon and teacher of anatomy and surgery, who was influential in establishing surgery as a scientific medical profession. Via the medical missionary Benjamin Hobson, his work also helped revolutionize medical practices in China and Japan in the 19th century.

Life
Cheselden was born at Somerby, Leicestershire. He studied anatomy in London under William Cowper (1666–1709), and began lecturing anatomy in 1710. That same year, he was admitted to the London Company of Barber-Surgeons, passing the final examination on 29 January 1711.

He was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1712 and the following year saw the publishing of his Anatomy of the Human Body, which achieved great popularity becoming an essential study source for students, lasting through thirteen editions, mainly because it was written in English instead of Latin as was customary.

In 1718 he was appointed an assistant surgeon at St Thomas' Hospital in London, becoming full surgeon in 1719 or 1720 where his specialisation of the removal of bladder stones resulted in the increase in survival rates. Afterwards, he was appointed surgeon for the stone at Westminster Infirmary and surgeon to Queen Caroline. He also improved eye surgery, developing new techniques, particularly in the removal of cataracts. Cheselden was selected as a surgeon at St George's Hospital upon its foundation in 1733. In 1733 he published Osteographia or the Anatomy of Bones, the first full and accurate description of the anatomy of the human skeletal system.

Cheselden retired from St Thomas' in 1738 and moved to the Chelsea Hospital. His abode is listed as "Chelsea College" on the 1739 royal charter for the Foundling Hospital, a charity for which he was a founding governor.

In 1744 he was elected to the position of Warden of the Company of Barber-Surgeons, and had a role in the separation of the surgeons from the barbers and to the creation of the independent Company of Surgeons in 1745, an organisation that would become later the famous Royal College of Surgeons of England.

He died at Bath in 1752.

First surgical recovery from blindness
Cheselden is credited with performing the first known case of full recovery from blindness in 1728, of a blind 13-year-old boy. Cheselden presented the celebrated case of a boy of thirteen who gained his sight after removal of the lenses rendered opaque by cataract from birth. Despite his youth, the boy encountered profound difficulties with the simplest visual perceptions. Described by Cheselden: When he first saw, he was so far from making any judgment of distances, that he thought all object whatever touched his eyes (as he expressed it) as what he felt did his skin, and thought no object so agreeable as those which were smooth and regular, though he could form no judgment of their shape, or guess what it was in any object that was pleasing to him: he knew not the shape of anything, nor any one thing from another, however different in shape or magnitude; but upon being told what things were, whose form he knew before from feeling, he would carefully observe, that he might know them again;

Philosopher George Berkeley claimed that his visual theories were “vindicated” by Cheselden's 1728 report on this congenital cataract patient. In 2021, the patient's name was published for the first time: Daniel Dolins. Berkeley knew the Dolins family, had numerous social links to Cheselden, including the poet Alexander Pope, and Princess Caroline, to whom Cheselden's patient was presented. The report misspelled Cheselden's name, used language typical of Berkeley, and may even have been ghost-written by Berkeley. Unfortunately, Dolins was never able to see well enough to read, and there is no evidence that the surgery improved Dolins' vision at any point prior to his death at age 30.

Works
Cheselden is famous for the invention of the lateral lithotomy approach to removing bladder stones, which he first performed in 1727. The procedure had a short duration (minutes instead of hours) and a low mortality rate (approximately 50%). Cheselden had already developed in 1723 the suprapubic approach, which he published in A Treatise on the High Operation for the Stone. In France, his works were developed by Claude-Nicolas Le Cat.

He also effected a great advance in ophthalmic surgery by his operation, iridectomy, described in 1728, to treat certain forms of blindness by producing an artificial pupil. Cheselden also described the role of saliva in digestion. He attended Sir Isaac Newton in his last illness and was an intimate friend of Alexander Pope and of Sir Hans Sloane.

title: William Cheselden


text:
Talk:Moses in Islam

Umang

Untitled
It would be sensible to include references to which sura is being described, every couple of paragraphs or so. The reader can't tell what of this legend is actually incorporated in the Koran (Qur'an) and what is the legend that has developed round it. Wetman 14:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. 29 Jan 06

About Musa's death.
There is no single verse in Quran that states that Musa went to a mountain and never came. Quraan didn't mention his death, but according to Prophet Muhammed's talks, Mussa was confronted by the angel of death who at that time appeared when he was about to take people's souls, since Musa was strong, he beat the angel of death, and the angel went without taking Musa's soul.

Then God told Musa to put his hand on a goat's skin, and the number of goat hairs his hand will cover will be the number of years he will live, but then Musa chose to be near God, and he chose to die. Since then, the Angel of death is invisble.

This is the Islamic story of Musa's death, and I am sure of it, so plz change the info on the page. thx

right, but you need a link to a credible source. and remember to sign your post with four tildes(~ ~ ~ ~) 75.72.25.219 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Firawn,Pharoah giving up?
The claims about the first borns of Egyptians dying, the son of the Firawn dying and Firawn giving up his defiance is unsubstantiated in Islam as far as I know. If nobody comes up with references I am going to delete them. --Abdousi 05:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also noted that, so I deleted it. 29 Jan 06

Musa/Moses
I added a section "Musa in Judao-Christian thought" because... well, this should link back to Moses, the Christian version with a little blurb as that article links here. Granted, I think 95+% of the editors here know him as Moses but, I don't think this should be only about Islamic thought... and yet Moses be about Mostly Christian and then link here... does that seem right? This is primarily Musa from Islamic thought but from this perspective we acknowledge that Christians and Jews are part of this tradition as well. Does that seem sensible? gren グレン 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this need a separate article?
It seems to me that, unlike the case with Jesus/Isa, the Muslim view of Moses/Musa is virtually identical to the Judeo-Christian view, except that they use different names. Would not a brief section in the Moses article outlining Muslims views, and where they differ (if at all) from Judeo-Christian views, be sufficient? As it stands, the story outlined here is virtually identical to the story given in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and in later Jewish legendology. john k 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should remain separate at least for now until the factual errors are corrected. (of which there are still quite a few and I am not sure if this is all Islamic or rather as you pointed out taken from the Bible, which is, of course, to some extent, also a valid Muslim source). In the end one can see how similar the stories are.
 * I belive this articel must be merged with article moses! i see no reason why it should be seperate! all arabic texts i know (old testement/bible/quran) use the same name (موسى) which is translated to moses, by all AFAIK. the stories are very similar and there is no dought that they all talk about the same person.--Mayz 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs a separate article because there is much more information that can be added. Stories of Musa's life are recounted more in the Qur'an than any other prophets and do differ from Christian and Jewish stories. This article should have more information, not merged. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that there are enough differences between the Biblical and Qur'anic accounts that these articles should remain seperate. This also allows more scope for adding later interpretations, cultural references, art and literature. Each article can refer the reader to the other for comparison. Tom Harrison Talk 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still belive this article should not exist! the figure "Moses" has an article, other articles shouldnt be variants of how the name is written! so if a separete article about moses in islamic texts can be written, and cant possibly be merged with the main article due to its size, then so must be it titled, ie, moses in islamic texts or moses in islam or somthing similar!--Mayz 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moses in Islam
This article ought be retitled "Moses in Islam", with a prominent link back to the Moses article across the top.

Along with reconciling it to the standards of an English-language article, it would bring in a broader mix of editors, and help curb blatant POV such as "Musa is a prophet of Islam", "the stories of his life", etc. Also, this article could benefit from more copy editting; more traffic can only help the situation.Timothy Usher 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is "Musa is a prophet of Islam" POV? Surely it's clear from the context that this describes the religious view of Muslims. Or am I missing your point? Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * We cannot say that Moses (here called "Musa") was a Muslim, which is entailed by calling him, without qualification, a "Prophet of Islam".

 * There was no qualifier before I'd added one. The only context to which you could be referring (unless I'm missing something which is possible) is the mere fact of its appearance in this article rather than in Moses - which pretty much proves my point about it being a POV fork, at least in its current title/version.

 * The very title of the article, besides being inappropriate for an English-language encyclopedia, is unacceptably POV - we cannot say he was a prophet in the title (even though you and I might agree on this point). It also violates Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).Timothy Usher 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I hadn't seen the style page for Islam-related articles. Certainly we'll need to follow that, unless there's a very important reason to deviate. The article is in a sense a POV fork, but it's a real-world POV fork, caused by differing views about Moses. Wikipedia didn't create the fork. To me, 'prophet of Islam' means Muslims regard him as a prophet. "Muslims believe Musa to be one of the prophets of Islam" looks fine. I'd like to avoid 'purported' stories if we could. As far as the title, maybe, 'Musa (Islamic prophet)'? Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, purported was unnecessary.

 * However, "Musa (Islamic prophet)" is even worse than the current title. The question is whether Moses was an Islamic prophet, which implies that he was a Muslim.  This is not factually accurate, as being a Muslim entails not only monotheism, but also acceptance of Muhammad as God's messenger.

 * What this is all about, in the Qur'an and on wikipedia, is establishing the legitimacy of Islam's claim to Abrahamic succession by retroactively declaring previous historical figures to have been Muslims, and in the process delegitimizing Judaism and Christianity.Timothy Usher 02:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I see this page as describing the Muslim understanding of Moses. We may say things like 'Musa was a prophet' or 'Musa was a proto-Muslim'(apologies for incorrect terminology), as long as we make clear that they are statements of Islamic religious belief. I'm open to considering other suitable page titles. I'd like to hear what others think of your suggestion, "Moses in Islam." Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Timothy has tried this before and I said no. I agree with Tom about the title and removing "Muslims believe". The name Musa is a name like Moses is. Due to length, and the fact that this article describes an important prophet of Islam means that the article can be named Musa. Moses in Islam would mean "Moses in Christianity", "Moses in Judaism". Musa on his own is a prophet of Islam and important enough to have an article.

 * Also about the "Muslims believe", since the article already says "prophet of Islam" it makes it clear that it's an Islamic belief.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It won't be clear at all. If we do things the way you suggest, many readers will be very confused.
 * We cannot have a "POV article" wherein POV is declared on top (and only interpretatively/implicitly), and what follows is hence exempt from WP:NPOV guidelines.
 * Please see the discussion on Talk:Isa to fully appreciate the strangeness of the "Musa on his own..." claim. There is no "Musa on his own..."  What differs isn't who the ideas are about (Moses vs. Musa), but who holds them.
 * Nor is it quite the case that "The name Musa is a name like Moses is." - they are both names, but one is standard English and the other is Arabic.Timothy Usher 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you cannot say Moses is considered a prophet of Islam without qualification, as the vast majority of non-Muslims do not consider him so. Merely mentioning Islam does not suffice, much less does the use of Arabic translations in place of standard English. Can there be anyone who believes that Moses was not a prophet of Islam, but Musa was?

Please read and respond to this point before reverting again.Timothy Usher 21:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter. The point here is that he is a prophet in Islam. I would agree with you if it just said that without saying the religion. But I changed it to "in Islam" to make it clear. I think that solves it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "It's like saying that "Christians believe that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity"
 * No, it's not. To say Moses is a Prophet of Islam is to suggest that he was a Muslim.  That's POV, as I imagine you're well aware.
 * "Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter."
 * Sorry, but it does. I don't believe Moses (or Musa, as you'd have it) to be a Prophet of Islam.  Adminship doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily declare other POV's irrelevant.  See WP:NPOV.
 * "I would agree with you if it just said that he is a prophet without saying the religion."
 * It does that as well, in the title of this article.Timothy Usher 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again you are assuming bad faith and I was trying to solve the problem peacefully. It's exactly the same thing as saying that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Your argument that people will now think that he's Muslim is ridiculous. Also I changed it to "considered a prophet in Islam" so you wouldn't have a problem with it now. Check the article before discussing the older edit. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * No, it doesn't solve it. You cannot unilaterally declare an issue solved.  The only thing that "solves" it - for you, for now - is WP:3RR, as you are well aware.  Shame about the readers, and the article.

 * Re faith - when a Muslim editor does *exactly* what I'd been advocating re translations, you agree it's good faith, but did not offer me the benefit :of the same presumption. Did you think this wouldn't be noticed?Timothy Usher 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page.Timothy Usher 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "Yet when I advocated the same changes, you weren't so sure.Timothy Usher 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * What? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Moses is Nationality isn't Israelite it's Islam. So I suggest you on putting Moses is Nationality as Islam. JohnnyDab31353 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

impressive
who ever went and got all those page references did a great job. very helpful.

The drowned (Firawn's,pharoah's) body from the parting of the red sea exists, is preserved and kept somewhere?
From the section 'God calls Moses', the end of the alst paragraph.

"Here Moses used his staff to part the ocean that allowed the Israelites to pass through, then the (Firawn,Pharaoh) also followed but the ocean closed on him drowning and killing Firawn and his entire army. and now (Firawn,Pharaohs) body can be seen in musuems all over the world plus scientist have proved that Firawn died from drowning and were shocked because his body was preserved in such a manner after all these years which is like a miracle, and god also states in the quran hus body will be preserved as a sign for future generations."

Tha bits above in bold. Where did the statement come from, what backup / proof is there; are there any references available?

God or Allah?
This article uses the English "God" frequently and only once uses the latin translitteration of arabic "Allah". Since "Allah" is the definite article "al" before "ila" (god) it seems to me that the one use of "Allah" could be changed to "God." Of course, I don't want to change it and start any fights, so I'm posting here first. 05:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.55.53 (talk)

Merge
This needs to be merged with the regular article Moses. Since Muslimes recognize the Bible that Jews and Christians use, having a separate article is a nuisance and unhelpful as pointed out by many previous editors above, long before me. What are we waiting for? Student7 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Islamic view of Moses → Moses — This duplicates information in standard article Moses. This is the same Moses, using the same resource as the other two religions do. —Student7 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Speedy close this is not a move request, it is a merge request, it should be listed at WP:PM, NOT WP:RM. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per above, the guy wants a merge not a move Little Professor (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Removed my own tag as per information above. changed to merge Student7 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of references in the Qur'an
I notice other articles on Islamic views of Hebrew characters contain lists of the significant references to that character in the Qur'an -- but this article doesn't (and it would be really useful for me right now if it did!). Has there been any discussion to adding a list of significant passages that deal with Moses/Musa? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See eg Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur'an, which could be a basis for adding such material. Jheald (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * If this differs from the Judeo-Christian view, it should be specifically noted somewhere. A pending change to merge is listed above. Student7 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Title "Islamic view of Moses"
Title given to this article of such a importance does not seems at all suitable in my view.The topic's start with 'Islamic' does not make any sense as no one search with word 'Islamic' ,it will start with either 'Moses' or 'Musa' .Any islamic fellow want to serch for Musa does not get any where.If any one want to come from Main article 'Moses', he can always be redirected from there, but one if start with search of  'Musa' will not find any serch result ,hence topic should start with Musa  and "Musa( Moses)" is best title possible for the topic ,may pl.agree and discuss further.--Md iet (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We should get rid of all the images of Moses
The title is "Islamic view of Moses", so why does the article have all those pictures that obviously depict Moses from the Christian perspective? Images of prophets are forbidden in Islam, so this article should be devoid of any images. 211.25.129.2 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree, that persian image has nothing to do with Islam..It does not represent the Islamic view of Moses, so it should be removed. Kiwix (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, so you cannot remove content based on it being "forbidden in Islam." Peter Deer (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok you can say that but what about the picture when searching asiya bint muzahim (given the title of one of the best women to have lived in Islam)-someones bloody put a picture of ariana grande there! Its entirely disrespectful-its not only one picture you need to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.190.181 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be quite a ridiculous thing to do, seeing how manuscript images, and such were allowed under the rulingship of the Caliphs and throughout the Golden age of Islam. Of course this was pre-Wahhabiyyah reign, Wahhabiyyah being a new age a new way, nothing to do with historical Islam. So there is no reason for you to be removing such manuscripts, your idea and view of Islam may be completely different from others who follow the historical religion.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

List of promonent prophets
A template is prepared for prominent prophets.

This will help at a glance view link between them. Hope this is also of prime importance in this article. If there is no further suggestion on this, we may include this in this article.--Md iet (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no further suggestion for the template. Hope this seems OK for inclusion.--Md iet (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your patience waiting for responses is appreciated. It looks like you put a lot of work into that diagram. My only question is, can the diagram be made smaller, more compact? It seems like it would dominate any article you put it in. It would be nice if there were a way to shrink the padding within the boxes and shrink the length of the connecting lines. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to make it much smaller due to it using the familytree. However on the line "{{familytree/start" add "|style=font-size:xx%" will reduce it somewhat. By the way, why not link to Islamic view of Abraham, Islamic view of Adam, Islamic view of Noah, Islamic view of Moses, Islamic view of Jacob and pipe to Ishmael. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Audience applause for you CBW, appreciating the efforts made by someone with special help from Joren. Your suggestion will go long way I hope.--Md iet (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Template squeezed in font-size as suggested and Overall width also reduced .Hope Amatulic, now it’s OK.--Md iet (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I woudn't make the font any smaller than that. Actually reducing the font has such a minimal effect on the size that you may as well make it a notch larger. I just did this.
 * One more thing you could do is remove some of the white boxes. Jacob, for example, doesn't need to be there. Wouldn't it be enough to have a dotted line from Isaac? Similarly you could have a dotted line directly from Ishmael to Muhammad. If the point is to emphasize the six, it should be enough to show how they connect, not selected relatives they connect to.
 * Also, "applause/sausage" was suggesting replacing the links you have with the "Islamic view of..." links instead. In the context in which this template would appear, that would make the most sense, rather than linking directly to Adam, Moses, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, Jacob and Abadullah are deleted from template. These will not affect family links as one major link is still available in between. The further linking is done for Islamic as well as general article. Thanks Amatulic, this has really made template more concise and well connected.--Md iet (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Height further reduced by removing not needed.--Md iet (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added in between names. Also it might work as shown at Template talk:Six Islamic Prophets which cuts out the links to the non-Islamic views. By the way Abdul Muttalib is a disambiguation page. Given the dotted line between him and Muhammad I figure you want his grandfather, Shaiba ibn Hashim, rather than Abd Allah ibn Abd al Muttalib. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Look more symmetrical and prominent.Link for Abdul Muttalib also corrected. Thanks CBW,--Md iet (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Further spell correction done by Joren, thanks. Hope this correction will continue for betterment. For the present it seems that template is ready for inclusion in all related articles.--Md iet (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or this template can now be displayed as a flat box like navigation templates at the bottom of an article by setting a paramter "navbox=yes" {{Six Islamic Prophets|navbox=yes}} {{Six Islamic Prophets|navbox=yes}} which may be less intrusive in certain circumstances -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This template can also be displayed with the list collapsed by adding the parameter "expanded=no" {{Six Islamic Prophets|expanded=no}} {{Six Islamic Prophets|expanded=no}} -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't there a German version of this article? Where did it go?
? 24.25.237.226 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the English language Wikipedia and has no control over the German version. You need to go to the German language Wikipedia and ask there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2
– The article i want to move to Musa is Islamic view of Moses. As Islamic view of Moses depicting the Prophet Musa in Islam so i believe the name of the page should also be depicting the way it is spelled and understood in Islam. While the Islamic view of Moses would be treated as a redirect to the page Musa and Page Musa should be move to Musa (disambiguation). As the Prophet Musa is a prominent figure in Islam therefore majority of the places and names of person are named after Him as also show in Musa (disambiguation) page. So i believe the primary topic should be Islamic view of Moses and the disambiguation page Musa should be moved to Musa (disambiguation). Please provide your opinion regarding the move with justification whether positive or negative. Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Islamic view of Moses → Musa
 * Musa → Musa (disambiguation)
 * Procedural close; I'm consolidating these requests on Ibrahim's behalf. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Visiting devil accidentally by Prophet Moses according to Islam
Once Prophet Moses saw devil (Prophets can see devil) was crying very much. He said, why you are crying? Devil answered because God doesn't forgive me. Prophet Moses said, I ask your forgiveness from God. He discussed it with God, Allah said ok I forgive him but he has to say that I'm not better than human. Prophet oses told devil. In answer Devil said no I'm better, I am from fire and human from soil.

[User:Mjesfahani|MansourJE]] (talk) 12:27 16 July 2015 (UTC) "family tree with prophets on right" is intended to convey. It seems to have been introduced several years ago. My guess is that it's intended to refer to some sort of diagram and is a placeholder of some sort, but is now obsolete. I'm going to delete it, but if someone cares to restore it, perhaps they could explain what it means a bit better. Wcoole (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

2.147.214.57 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

God is not really Allah.
"God" is a regression of Gotan, that includes a second tree, where one becomes "God". This is not part of the original Gotan religion, neither Islam. Gotan though is like Allah, and Ragnarok, Vàlhàll and Hél corresponds to Judgement day, Jannah and Jahannam. On the islamic side, Allah is not associated with secs, or their sufism either. Clearing this up, the "christian" distortion of a second tree, hallucinogenic drugs, and claims of being "god" has many similarities to the pantheism of the sufis, and may be seen as irreligious conflicts, and really conflicts of sectarian regressions, rather than the original religion, which is culturally corresponding. Which indeed, in religion science, if prophets really talked about the same deity, then it would be so.

I suggest that all articles that deal with Allah, not use the regression "God". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

mussa
he was a very repectful man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.120.240 (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses discussion
Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Musa(prophet)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Musa(prophet) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Imran and Amram
These are two completely different names. why are they used interchangeably? I understand they sound similar, but they're not the same, this is exactly why the author of qoran got it mixed up 121.200.6.85 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

MAJID
Majid 39.48.25.128 (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

But also Who is The Firaun (Pharoah)
Some people say it’s Ramses II but this is a bit confusing……………………………………….. Mathsmaster707 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Pharaoh in Islam" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaoh_in_Islam&redirect=no Pharaoh in Islam] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing Image File
under the "Escape to Midian" and "Prophecy", the Image file of Midian Mountains and Mount Sinai is missing, but the caption and source is still displayed on the page SiWa12 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Repaired. Thanks for letting us know. — Trey Maturin™ 10:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this paragraph.
For example, this "His revelations, such as the Ten Commandments, which form part of the contents of the Torah and are central to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity." is not a sentence. Kriegman (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moses in Islam


text:
Tensor calculus

In mathematics, tensor calculus, tensor analysis, or Ricci calculus is an extension of vector calculus to tensor fields (tensors that may vary over a manifold, e.g. in spacetime).

Developed by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and his student Tullio Levi-Civita, it was used by Albert Einstein to develop his general theory of relativity. Unlike the infinitesimal calculus, tensor calculus allows presentation of physics equations in a form that is independent of the choice of coordinates on the manifold.

Tensor calculus has many applications in physics, engineering and computer science including elasticity, continuum mechanics, electromagnetism (see mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field), general relativity (see mathematics of general relativity), quantum field theory, and machine learning.

Working with a main proponent of the exterior calculus Élie Cartan, the influential geometer Shiing-Shen Chern summarizes the role of tensor calculus: "In our subject of differential geometry, where you talk about manifolds, one difficulty is that the geometry is described by coordinates, but the coordinates do not have meaning. They are allowed to undergo transformation. And in order to handle this kind of situation, an important tool is the so-called tensor analysis, or Ricci calculus, which was new to mathematicians. In mathematics you have a function, you write down the function, you calculate, or you add, or you multiply, or you can differentiate. You have something very concrete. In geometry the geometric situation is described by numbers, but you can change your numbers arbitrarily. So to handle this, you need the Ricci calculus."

Syntax
Tensor notation makes use of upper and lower indexes on objects that are used to label a variable object as covariant (lower index), contravariant (upper index), or mixed covariant and contravariant (having both upper and lower indexes). In fact in conventional math syntax we make use of covariant indexes when dealing with Cartesian coordinate systems $$(x_1, x_2, x_3)$$ frequently without realizing this is a limited use of tensor syntax as covariant indexed components.

Tensor notation allows upper index on an object that may be confused with normal power operations from conventional math syntax.

Vector decomposition
Tensors notation allows a vector ($$\vec{V}$$) to be decomposed into an Einstein summation representing the tensor contraction of a basis vector ($$\vec{Z}_i$$ or $$\vec{Z}^i$$) with a component vector ($$V_i$$ or $$V^i$$).

$$\vec{V} = V^i \vec{Z}_i = V_i \vec{Z}^i$$

Every vector has two different representations, one referred to as contravariant component ($$V^i$$) with a covariant basis ($$\vec{Z}_i$$), and the other as a covariant component ($$V_i$$) with a contravariant basis ($$\vec{Z}^i$$). Tensor objects with all upper indexes are referred to as contravariant, and tensor objects with all lower indexes are referred to as covariant. The need to distinguish between contravariant and covariant arises from the fact that when we dot an arbitrary vector with its basis vector related to a particular coordinate system, there are two ways of interpreting this dot product, either we view it as the projection of the basis vector onto the arbitrary vector, or we view it as the projection of the arbitrary vector onto the basis vector, both views of the dot product are entirely equivalent, but have different component elements and different basis vectors:

$$\vec{V} \cdot \vec{Z}_i = V_i = \vec{V}^T \vec{Z}_i = \vec{Z}_i^T \vec{V} = {\mathrm{proj}_{\vec{Z}^i}(\vec{V})} \cdot \vec{Z}_i = {\mathrm{proj}_{\vec{V}}(\vec{Z}^i)} \cdot \vec{V}$$

$$\vec{V} \cdot \vec{Z}^i = V^i = \vec{V}^T \vec{Z}^i = {\vec{Z}^i}^T \vec{V} = {\mathrm{proj}_{\vec{Z}_i}(\vec{V})} \cdot \vec{Z}^i = {\mathrm{proj}_{\vec{V}}(\vec{Z}_i)} \cdot \vec{V}$$

For example, in physics you start with a vector field, you decompose it with respect to the covariant basis, and that's how you get the contravariant coordinates. For orthonormal cartesian coordinates, the covariant and contravariant basis are identical, since the basis set in this case is just the identity matrix, however, for non-affine coordinate system such as polar or spherical there is a need to distinguish between decomposition by use of contravariant or covariant basis set for generating the components of the coordinate system.

Covariant vector decomposition
$$\vec{V} = V^i \vec{Z}_i$$

Contravariant vector decomposition
$$\vec{V} = V_i \vec{Z}^i$$

Metric tensor
The metric tensor represents a matrix with scalar elements ($$Z_{ij}$$ or $$Z^{ij}$$) and is a tensor object which is used to raise or lower the index on another tensor object by an operation called contraction, thus allowing a covariant tensor to be converted to a contravariant tensor, and vice versa.

Example of lowering index using metric tensor:

$$T_i=Z_{ij}T^j$$

Example of raising index using metric tensor:

$$T^i=Z^{ij}T_j$$

The metric tensor is defined as:

$$Z_{ij} = \vec{Z}_i \cdot \vec{Z}_j$$

$$Z^{ij} = \vec{Z}^i \cdot \vec{Z}^j$$

This means that if we take every permutation of a basis vector set and dotted them against each other, and then arrange them into a square matrix, we would have a metric tensor. The caveat here is which of the two vectors in the permutation is used for projection against the other vector, that is the distinguishing property of the covariant metric tensor in comparison with the contravariant metric tensor.

Two flavors of metric tensors exist: (1) the contravariant metric tensor ($$Z^{ij}$$), and (2) the covariant metric tensor ($$Z_{ij}$$). These two flavors of metric tensor are related by the identity:

$$Z_{ik}Z^{jk} = \delta^j_i$$

For an orthonormal Cartesian coordinate system, the metric tensor is just the kronecker delta $$\delta_{ij}$$ or $$\delta^{ij}$$, which is just a tensor equivalent of the identity matrix, and $$\delta_{ij} = \delta^{ij} = \delta^i_j$$.

Jacobian
In addition a tensor can be readily converted from an unbarred($$x$$) to a barred coordinate($$\bar{x}$$) system having different sets of basis vectors:

$$f(x^1, x^2, \dots, x^n) = f\bigg(x^1(\bar{x}), x^2(\bar{x}), \dots, x^n(\bar{x})\bigg) = \bar{f}(\bar{x}^1, \bar{x}^2, \dots, \bar{x}^n)= \bar{f}\bigg(\bar{x}^1(x), \bar{x}^2(x), \dots, \bar{x}^n(x)\bigg)$$

by use of Jacobian matrix relationships between the barred and unbarred coordinate system ($$\bar{J}=J^{-1}$$). The Jacobian between the barred and unbarred system is instrumental in defining the covariant and contravariant basis vectors, in that in order for these vectors to exist they need to satisfy the following relationship relative to the barred and unbarred system:

Contravariant vectors are required to obey the laws:

$$v^i = \bar{v}^r\frac{\partial x^i(\bar{x})}{\partial \bar{x}^r}$$

$$\bar{v}^i = v^r\frac{\partial \bar{x}^i(x)}{\partial x^r}$$

Covariant vectors are required to obey the laws:

$$v_i = \bar{v}_r\frac{\partial \bar{x}^i(x)}{\partial x^r}$$

$$\bar{v}_i = v_r\frac{\partial x^r(\bar{x})}{\partial \bar{x}^i}$$

There are two flavors of Jacobian matrix:

1. The J matrix representing the change from unbarred to barred coordinates. To find J, we take the "barred gradient", i.e. partial derivative with respect to $$\bar{x}^i$$:

$$J = \bar{\nabla} f(x(\bar{x}))$$

2. The $$\bar{J}$$ matrix, representing the change from barred to unbarred coordinates. To find $$\bar{J}$$, we take the "unbarred gradient", i.e. partial derive with respect to $$x^i$$:

$$\bar{J} = \nabla \bar{f}(\bar{x}(x))$$

Gradient vector
Tensor calculus provides a generalization to the gradient vector formula from standard calculus that works in all coordinate systems:

$$ \nabla F = \nabla_i F \vec{Z}^i $$

Where: $$\nabla_i F = \frac{\partial F}{\partial Z^i}$$

In contrast, for standard calculus, the gradient vector formula is dependent on the coordinate system in use (example: Cartesian gradient vector formula vs. the polar gradient vector formula vs. the spherical gradient vector formula, etc.). In standard calculus, each coordinate system has its own specific formula, unlike tensor calculus that has only one gradient formula that is equivalent for all coordinate systems. This is made possible by an understanding of the metric tensor that tensor calculus makes use of.

title: Tensor calculus


text:
User talk:Mohsen~enwiki

hi! welcome! Optim 14:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Mohsen. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Mohsen~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mohsen~enwiki