text:
Talk:Ahl al-Bayt

Too much original research
As a whole, this article contains an inordinate amount of original research. There are numerous instances where factual claims are made with only "according to such and such person" as citation. I just removed the worst section, which literally contained nothing but original research and not a single citation. I'm going to start combing through the rest of the article during the next few days; I would encourage anyone else with the time to do so as well. We need to get more outside sources to verify what's in here, because as it is i'm having one hell of a hard time cross-referencing everything. MezzoMezzo 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and as mentioned above, the whole article reads like a pro-Shia screed.  ITAQALLAH   23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag everything with dates. Delete everything already tagged. Be mindful however not to delete things merely because they seem to support a Shia standpoint, however. I'm all for burning away all of the OR in this article, frankly I think that will contribute greatly to cleaning it up. Peter Deer (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Performing major cleanup and purge of original research
I've been asked to come in and clean up the article and remove the original research. I'm going to tag it up for now and over the next few days I'm going to try and find sources personally for most of this, and anything that seems even remotely dubious if it isn't sourced I'm just going to delete it.

I'm going to put a little list here of certain issues I would like help on in my edits and I welcome any I can get. I'll probably work on this more as I

 * The Kisa Tradition section is just a total mess, almost to the point of being unreadable. It contains some reference to Hadith, which albeit a primary source is still a source, so I'd prefer it be cleaned up by someone who knew what they were doing instead of bulldozed by me.
 * The Sunni Interpretation section has similar problems.

If anyone can think of anything else tell me. Peter Deer (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to see is the article focusing on the concept of Ahl al-Bayt from the general Islamic perspective, then we can have a views section where the variances between the Sunni and Shia approaches can be discussed. I do agree that substantial changes are needed, and I shall try to incorporate citations where possible.  ITAQALLAH   15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to remove the whole section "Ahl al-Bayt in hadiths" for now because it's an amalgamation of copy-pastes taken from various websites such as this.  ITAQALLAH   15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd like to see much more compounding of things into common ground as opposed to conflict. I'd also like to fix the lead section and the second "Ahl Al-Bayt Family" section, because it seems to me like the second section is just a lead section that got too long and was cut off into a different section. Peter Deer (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though for the record I do think that the mentions in Hadith are important to the article and should be incorporated moderately and responsibly and only when relevant. Peter Deer (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend using third party reliable sources to establish the significance of any primary sources relevant to this topic.  ITAQALLAH   23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the interpretations sections and have rewritten it to reflect the EoI's coverage of the topic, with contributions from Madelung. I thought it was a bit redundant having a section on the Ahl al-Bayt in Qur'an/hadith, because you'll inevitably end up discussing their interpretation in the section too. Thus I've put it all together into one section. I've added another section too about 'Significance' which I intend to rewrite/expand, which will basically discuss the significance of Ahl al Bayt in Muslim thought (including specific Sunni/Shi'i perspective) - where the information about the other Qur'anic verses and hadith narratives (thaqalayn etc.) will be more relevant. I've also rewritten the lead as well.  ITAQALLAH  19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think insofar as notability is concerned that Hadith should, of course, have some inclusion (as it's so expansive it may be preferable for Ahl al-Bayt in Hadith to have its own article) but I think that the current deletion is necessary to getting this article back on the right track from the train wreck of unverifiable and obscure selections it had become. Peter Deer (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the stuff at the bottom of the "Shia View" section about Twelver/Ismaili Imams? Is that even relevant here? Maybe just a link to a page about Imamate would suffice? Can I do that? Shabaniyya (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that makes any sense. The current section is one paragraph with links to the Imamate and Ismah pages... what, exactly, would you delete?  Ogress  smash!  05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Twelver and Ismaili branches of Shi'a Islam differ in regards to the line of Imamate. While the Twelver believe in a lineage known as the Twelve Imams, the Ismaili believe that the descendants of Isma'il ibn Jafar were the inheritors of the Imamate instead." This doesn't seem to fit in the article. In fact this section is kinda just a recap of the opening paragraph where the Shia view of ahl ul-bayt is already expounded. Maybe just a "see also" with links would suffice?Shabaniyya (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahl al-Bayt vs. Ahl al-Kisa
So the Ahl al-Bayt means People of the Household and refers to the household of Muhammad. Ahl al-Kisa means the People of the Cloak and refers to the persons in the Hadith of the Cloak. Ahl al-Bayt is often by Shiites considered to be referring only to the persons also considered the Ahl al-Kisa, and Sunnis consider Ahl al-Bayt to be more inclusive and pertain to all persons under Muhammad's household, not merely His descendants and son in law.

Does that seem accurate? Peter Deer (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems about right.  ITAQALLAH   23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've really only fairly recently started familiarizing myself with a lot of this terminology, so you'll have to bear with me as my English-speaking mind catches up with a lot of this. Part of the reason I'm doing this is to make this more comprehensive to Western peoples so that people have a place to learn a scholarly English presentation of Islam instead of having to learn about it from their preacher or from the war coverage on the news. Peter Deer (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think ahl ul-bayt actually refers to the larger pool of Muhammad's descendants, like the children of the Imams and so on. This is why Shias visit the graves of these people, as well as those of the Imams. Shabaniyya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

It must be noted that in reference to the Quraanic verse related to Ahl al-Bayt:, one cannot neglect the verses and , as verse  is not an ISLOATED verse, but a continuation of previous verses, which starts from: O wives of the Prophet!

Ahl al-Bayt in Quran and Hadith
I disagree with some part of Itaqallah's edition. He's removed information but left the source which lead to misinformation. He's also made the issue to some extent confusing. For example when the name of Salman al-Farsi is mentioned under the verse of purification, the reader may misunderstand the issue completely. Thus I reverted some part of the former editions and rearranged his works. I think it's inappropriate to write one tradition says x is among them, another one says the same thing about x and y, the other says something about z and so on. I think the reader wants to see the conclusion. -- Seyyed(t-c) 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, do what you feel needs to be done. I'd include Itaqallah in the discussion as well of course. Peter Deer (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sa.vakilian, please consult the Encyclopedia of Islam. It is quite clear about Salman al-Farsi. I left in Lewis, because I read his passages and then implemented them. I didn't remove any information except that I replaced it with something better. Sources like Ordoni and Tahir ul Qadri really don't compare to the EoI in terms of reliability. I don't see why you reinserted the information about the pronouns, I discuss it below as part of the Shia argument.
 * I know that it is quite clear about Salman al-Farsi, but why did you put it exactly under the verse. We can make a separate part and discuss about the expansion of the usage of this title for the other people. We can also some other reliable sources such as encyclopedia Iranica. -- Seyyed(t-c) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the 'Interpretation' section is for, to mention the different interpretations about who ahl al-bayt are. I don't see anything in the Iranica entry with regards to interpretation that isn't already covered in the prose. The tradition of the mantle, for one, is certainly mentioned.  ITAQALLAH   17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't agree with why the sections names have been changed, and why you altered the lead to emphasise the most minimal of acceptance - which over-simplifies the issue at hand.  ITAQALLAH   12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Becouse I can't understand the rational of them. The verse of purification is the most important and significant verse. So why shouldn't this verse be under Significance subtitle. I don't agree with you about oversimplification. Do you want to add all Islamic article with such approach? For example Shia and Sunni interpretation about Tawhid or prophet differ to some extent. Now what's your idea to rewrite Islam and emphasize on the differences instead. -- Seyyed(t-c) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The interpretation section is about who exactly is part of ahl al-bayt. 33:33 is extremely important to that discussion and is central to the discussion of whether or not the wives are included, as well as who else is included. That's why the kisa issue is also mentioned in that section as it contributes to the understanding of who is in ahl al-bayt.
 * The significance section is about the importance, or the value, of ahl al-bayt in Islamic thought. Which again, is an issue where opinions may differ. This is where we discuss the obligation to love them etc. and in the case of the Shi'a, their status as infallibles. This is also where we mention other narratives like thaqalayn and the different understandings.  ITAQALLAH   16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, about the oversimplication, then your analogy is off IMO. There are fundamental differences in who ahl al-bayt are and how they are regarded. The agreement is in fact pretty small. Mentioning only 5 of the ahl al-bayt, then emphasising their virtues and their mention in Qur'an/hadith isn't fair at all. The wives are at the center of ahl al-bayt for the Sunni (majority) perspective, so you can't just simplify and say "Everyone agrees about Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn. Look how the Qur'an/hadith glorifies them. Some people add wives as well." - which is a very unfair way to cover the issue, because it carries implicit bias.  ITAQALLAH   17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at your revert again, and I see that you almost completely undid my changes to the body of the article, which I don't find acceptable. If you think I've misrepresented sources, then please say where and how. But I can't see any rational basis for commenting the whole passage out which is, in my opinion, much more encyclopedic and coherent, and looks far less promotional.  ITAQALLAH   12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't want to make Hadith collection. As I told above I think it's inappropriate to write one tradition says x is among them, another one says the same thing about x and y, the other says something about z and so on. I think the reader wants to see the conclusion. -- Seyyed(t-c) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. I have only mentioned narrations that EoI has mentioned. There is no reason why the different interpretations, and the different reasoning behind them, shouldn't be covered in a neutral, clinical manner with reliable sourcing. If we don't want hadith collections, we can start by removing these 'hadith of' articles.  ITAQALLAH   17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lead, you reinserted: "All Muslims agree that Ahl al-Bayt includes Muhammad, Fatimah, his daughter, Ali, his son in-law, Hasan and Husayn, his grandchildern. These five persons known as Ahl al-kisa or "people of the Cloak". This family is glorified by Muhammad frequently and he declared them as his Ahl al-Bayt in events such as Mubahala and hadith like Hadith of the Event of the Cloak. They were also glorified in the Qur'an in several cases such as "the verse of purification". " - That is quite biased IMO, as it talks about 5 of the ahl al bayt, and then talks about how these five alone are apparently glorified in particular hadith and Qur'anic verses. That's unduly promoting of the Shia perspective, misleadingly presenting it as something 'All Muslims' agree to. On that same basis, I disagree with mentioning the minimalist acceptance before ever recognising any dispute - because again, it caters towards a Shia perspective just because they happen to accept the least as compared to others.   ITAQALLAH   13:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I remind that Shia considers all Shia Imams as Ahl al-Bayt, thus I don't think that it's emphasizing on Shia view. I think the problem is that it's a centeral issue for Shias but it's not for Sunnis. This leads to your misjudgment. I don't emphasize on adding that sentence but I completely disagree with emphasizing on Sunni/Shia disagreement while there is agreement aamong them.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While both Sunnis and Shias accept Ali etc., the impression created is that the Shia interpretation is favoured just because it's the most minimalist. This impression is supported by the fact that the passage then goes on to talk about them and how they are glorified, and then tags on at the end: "Sunni interpretation includes wives as well." Discussing agreement is inherently flawed when wives are the main constituents of ahl al-bayt in Sunni thought - so it is necessary to say from the outset that a) there is disagreement, b) Sunnis include such and such, and c) Shias don't include some of those mentioned. Thus, no view is implicitly favoured.  ITAQALLAH   17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Lastly, with regards to this passage: "The great majority of the hadiths quoted by Sunnis and Shias such as Hadith of the Event of the Cloak tell that prophet introduced Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn as the people this verse refers to. However according to Sunnis' Hadith the verse also refer to Prophet's wives." - then Ordoni and Tahir ul Qadri aren't particularly reliable. And the passage certainly doesn't adequately represent what Madelung and EoI say about the matter. You're making the prose seem to insist upon acceptance of the five in a way that isn't neutral, which is what I perceive from your lead edits too.  ITAQALLAH   13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to mention that according to Sunnis' Hadith the verse also refer to Prophet's wives, and you can clarify it more by adding whatever you want. But instead you make the issue unclear and complicated. I think the reader will be confused when he/she sees the name of Salman al-Farsi  under the verse. As you now, Shia glorify Salman and agree with that Hadith. So this is not a biased position. I just want to make a readable, correct and NPOV article. Finally in this case like every other case we have different views based on different sources. I think we are not here to write all of them but we should emphasize on the most important ones and try to make a clear conclusion. -- Seyyed(t-c) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how my version isn't readable, correct, and NPOV. Have you read the EoI article on Ahl al-Bayt? The Salman al-Farsi interpretation is the first one they include. Why should the reader be confused? The inclusion of Salman is an interpretation.
 * I haven't read that article and we don't want to write similar article here, because it does exist.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe Wikipedia articles should aim to reflect what is present in the highest quality of reliable sources available (which is, in this case, the Encyclopedia of Islam).  ITAQALLAH   20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Presenting things in a way that favour a Shia perspective isn't neutral. I have simply replicated concisely the discussion of the EoI article. The differences in interpretation should be mentioned, as should be the reasonings involved, especially as the issue is not black and white.  ITAQALLAH   16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Main disagreement(in brief)
If you don't have enough time to read long discussion this is a brief version. I think these are the main problems of Itaqallah's version.
 * 1) Overemphasizing on Shia/Sunni differences.
 * 2) Collecting of more important and less important hadiths beside each other.
 * 3) Mixing different issues which can be separated to make the issue more readable.
 * 4) Finally, we shouldn't judge on the article on the basis of its effects. I agree that if we say there is consensus among all Muslims that Ahl-Kisa are among Ahl al-Bayt, it's in favor of Shia perspective. But it's not good reason to remove the issue and try to mixed the issues and Overemphasize on the differences.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should wait for me to finish writing the significance section so that the content can be assessed as a whole. In any case, we shouldn't try to gloss over the point that there are fundamental differences in interpretation which have doctrinal implications, and we should mention that before we discuss the specifics of what is accepted/rejected. 2) All hadith related to ahl al-bayt are relevant here, especially if they contribute to understanding the differences in understanding, and especially if they are mentioned by a third party reliable source (which is the case here). 3) I don't believe issues are being mixed in my version. I have categorised content according to whether it pertains to the issue of defining ahl al-bayt, or whether it pertains to understanding the religious significance of ahl al-bayt. Both are distinctly separate. 4) A neutral way is simply to tell the readers what Sunnis accept/reject, and then tell them what Shia accept/reject - which is what I have tried in my version of the lead. That makes things a lot more neutral as opposed to implicitly favouring one perspective.  ITAQALLAH   20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, this is my version, and this is Seyyed's version.  ITAQALLAH  20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to defend the old version. This is not the version which I defend. We can write our versions in another pages such as our personal pages and then compare them.-- Seyyed(t-c) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will get to looking at these in a while, but for now I think it would be beneficial to say prayers for forbearance and try and achieve harmony. I know it's a lot to ask to put aside a dispute which has been raging nonstop for over a thousand years, but if you could give it a shot... Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose disputes are sometimes inevitable on controversial articles, which is unfortunately what many Islam-related articles are. I don't see this as a Sunni v Shia thing, all I want is an article of high academic, scholarly, and professional quality, which covers the issues in a clinical, dry (almost boring!) manner. I believe that Islam-related articles, this one included, deserve that much at least, and so do our readers.  ITAQALLAH   23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but looking at the arguments the main issue between the two of you is whether emphasis is being given to one side or the other. Peter Deer (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the previous version of the article was unduly slanted towards one perspective. But I don't see my conflict with Seyyed as some sort of personal Sunni v Shia thing, which is what I (mis?)interpreted from your comment. Sorry if I misunderstood.  ITAQALLAH   23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't see this as a Sunni v Shia thing but the result of your work is that.-- Seyyed(t-c) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole article is bound to be about differences in Sunni and Shia conceptions, which should be recognised and appreciated. The whole point is to not implicitly favour one argument over another.  ITAQALLAH   13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you guys should calm a bit down.Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. We can discuss later.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the current version of the article: One paragraph on Sunni view and another paragraph on Shia view. Let's not mix them all in one single paragraph. Shia paragraph can be written from a shia point of view of course and it can cite whatever hadith they consider relevant. Then there can be one section on Shia view and one on Sunni view. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not have separate sections for Sunni/Shia views, I think they should all be mentioned together as I think it's a more neutral presentation (sections according to POVs are generally not advisable). Three paragraphs in the lead for what is a relatively small article should IMO be joined together to make two instead. I don't see any problem in mentioning the Sunni/Shia perspectives alongside eachother.  ITAQALLAH   16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahl al-Bayt is a more important and loaded concept for Shias I guess. It might be even appropriate to have an article on Ahl al-Bayt in Shia thought. The reality is that there is a distinction between the two views and creating subsections makes this distinction more clear. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He has a point. I feel we have basically two completely different concepts that we are trying to force into one article. -- Enzuru 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in prose
I'm thinking a good idea would be to replace most instances of Ahl al-Bayt with something in English like Muhammad's kin/family/relatives/household etc. It makes things much more readable for English speakers IMO, as opposed to unnecessarily crowding up the text with Arabic phrases (which can in most cases be mentioned in brackets). It's also beneficial from a stylistic perspective.  ITAQALLAH  16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, I follow this myself. For example, you will see on Shi'a templates I put English versions of things like salat (a phrase which half of Muslims themselves don't even use, namaz is the popular term in Pakistan, India, Iran, etc) or hajj. But, when it comes to Ahl al-Bayt or Ahl al-Kisa, there is no scholastic term, there is just a translation as "family." We need a proper noun, and until someone can find one that is used by scholars, I believe we should stick with the Arabic phrase. On another note, Ahl al-Kisa, People of the Book, is actually used by many scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim. -- Enzuru 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, there are plenty of English renditions available in scholarly texts, such as kin, family, household, and so on.  ITAQALLAH   21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Aql
I can quote the Aql phrase by scholars (Tabatabai can be our reference or citation) and even its hadith, it's not just a popular idea unimportant to Shi'a creed. I haven't put it back in myself because perhaps you want to put it somewhere else? -- Enzuru 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can put it back if you find an academic scholarly reference for it (I don't mean Tabataba'i here, as there is disagreement over whether such sources qualify as reliable on Wikipedia), but it'd probably be better placed in the body of the article than the lead. If this is an important theme then it should be pretty easy to find verification in an academic text.  ITAQALLAH   21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no issue. Is Corbin fine? -- Enzuru 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. If he talks about the conception of Aql in Shi'ism, please feel free to incorporate it into the article (my preference would be in the Significance section).  ITAQALLAH   21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Please refer to our former discussion below Ahl al-Bayt in Quran and Hadith.-- Seyyed(t-c) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bayt or Bait
About 520,000 google hits for AhlulBayt (many of which are anyway mirrors of this site) vs 580,000 google hits for AhlulBait. Isn't there a wiki policy about article names following the most common version of the name?81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless section
I am unable to make sense of the section that reads:

 * Loving Ahl al-Bayt according to Sunni Islam
 * First Caliph Abu Bakr Said :
 * Look at Muhammad through his family.

I don't even know if Said is part of his name or a miscapitalized verb! The section needs to be rewritten by someone who has the communication of encyclopedic knowledge in mind. --Haruo (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In the Qur'an
It says in the text that Ahl al-Bayt in the verse 33:33 refers to the wives. That is incorrect according to the Shia view, which can be proved. First of all, in the same verse God says "houses" (buyut in Arabic) in plural form when talking about the wives, but house (bayt in Arabic) in singular form when talking about Ahl al-Bayt. Secondly God uses the pronoun "kunna" (you group of women) when talking about the wives, and "kum" (you group of at least one man) when talking about Ahl al-Bayt. Thirdly there is the famous hadith of the Cloak, al-Kisa, that says Ahl al-Bayt are Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn, and that shows that no wife is included in Ahl al-Bayt. Other historic references are about this. The only argument Sunni Muslims have for including the wives in Ahl al-Bayt is their own scholars interpretations, which are wrong according to the Shiite viewpoint. 4. When talking about Ahl (folk) in Arabic here, it must be taking into consideration that in verse 11:46 God doesn't include Noas son in his family, "laysa min ahlik". Why is that? That is because he wasn't pure. And the persons in Ahl al-Bayt are pure like the Prophet himself and the Quran, and therefor they are the successors of the Prophet (see hadith al-Thaqalayn) and can touch the Quran, and have all knowledge of it, (56:79). Thank you and hope you correct this fact in the text.--AronSimonEli (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * welcome to Wikipedia. It is structured to support your above opinion by Reliable Source. Quran is classified as a primary source and secondary sources are needed.Saff V. (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit war and subpar sources
There is quite a bit of ongoing edit war here and there are also several subpar sources in the article (almaany.com, Mufradat al-Qur'an, Faith and Reason, al-Islam.org, ...). It's often the case that these sources can be safely replaced with more reliable ones. In the next few weeks, I'm hoping to look into these issues and also copy-edit the text, where needed. Albertatiran (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Edited the section "In the Quran" and incorporated the quotes from secondary or tertiary works into the text & removed the reference to the Princeton Encyclopedia since it's in the context of Muhammad's wives and potentially misleading. Elsewhere this same source lists also other views about Ahl al-Bayt & replaced any poorly sourced content (primary or unreliable) with very similar views from better sources & expanded and better ordered the views (and brought some order to the chaotic back and forth between various editors over time) & removed the content that might be better suited for "Significance" (and would be moved there soon), e.g., obviously the content about imamate in Shia Islam & shortened the quote from the Quran to its relevant part (though the revised article mentions that the previous injunctions are addressed to Muhammad's wives) & the mention of Banu Muharib is the previous version was apparently a typo. Albertatiran (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Edited and expanded the section "Significance": The mention of al-Tabarani instead of al-Tabari was evidently a typo. There was some noticeable mismatch between the text about Ahl al-Bayt's state of purity in Sharia and the source (Madelung), which was corrected. Expanded the content about the Verse of Mawaddah. Expanded the hadiths and added the Hadith of Noah's Ark. Expanded Muslims views, particularly the Shia views. Albertatiran (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Edited the lead: The claim in the opening sentence "Ahl al-Bayt...is a term used to refer to the extended family of the Islamic prophet Muhammad" doesn't exist in the source and is evidently just one of the existing views. Likewise, the claim "In Sunni Islam,... Muhammad himself, his wives, his daughters, Zainab, Ruqayya, Umm Kulthum and Fatima; his cousin and son-in-law, Ali..." doesn't exist in the source. These were all replaced with reliably-sourced statements. Likewise, 'Etymology' was rewritten from reliable sources instead of websites and such (with very similar content). Seems reasonable to remove the unreliable tag now. Albertatiran (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No target errors
I've made all the corrections I can to clear the no target errors on this page, but there are still two outstanding. Both Glassé 2001 and Sharon 2014 have nothing to link to, the cites should be included in the Sources section. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I'll take care of the two remaining ones. Albertatiran (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to father of Mosu
This link links to the father of Maryam 46.144.128.210 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ahl al-Bayt


text:
User talk:Acole

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Acole


text:
User talk:Chrisuk

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chrisuk


text: User talk:83.227.111.196

title: User talk:83.227.111.196


text:
User talk:Oliver Gehrke

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oliver Gehrke


text: Category:British weightlifters

title: Category:British weightlifters


text: Category:British gymnasts

title: Category:British gymnasts


text: Category:Greek weightlifters

title: Category:Greek weightlifters


text:
User talk:Klosterdev

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to YTMND
Please check out that page's talk page before making edits. Thanks a mint! Snurks T C 07:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Didn't know how to create a new discussion in the YTMND discussion page so I didn't know how to ask.

Thanks. Klosterdev 08:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm so very confused; was I somehow involved with YTMND and am not aware of it? The only connection I see between myself and your account is that I left a welcome message for you six months ago. Is there some way I can help you? :-S -- Essjay ·   Talk 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

XD. I'm an idiot. I clicked on the wrong user. Sorry about that. Klosterdev 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That's okay; if there is anything I can do for you, let me know. I'm always here to help! -- Essjay ·   Talk 08:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey bud!
Essjay recommended that I give you a hand in getting acclimated with Wikipedia, and I didn't think it was too shabby of an idea. Now, I have no idea if you'll read this in the near future, but whenever you do see it I'd love to get an editor on his feet and working. If you don't feel up to writing long paragraphs for articles (to be honest, I don't either yet), there's still plenty of ways to help. One of them is vandal fighting - I do a lot of this, and it's rewarding as well as pretty fun sometimes. There are tools that can help out: CryptoDerk has a cool Java program called CDVF, and both Popups and godmode lite are useful for making rollbacks. Let me know on my talk page if you have any comments or anything. Snurks T C 09:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, all you need is vf.jar and you're set. It's a handy little program.  Oh, and remember to sign all your posts with ~ .  I'm sure you know this, but it's hard to remember the first few times and it's a good habit to have, so I'm just reminding you.  Enjoy fighting vandals and good luck!  PS: You should make a userpage if you have the time.  They're fun to have and let people know who you are.  Snurks T C 10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Vandal fighting
''Couple things. Is there an FAQ that explains how to use it?''
 * Not as such, no. But its homepage does a fairly good job of explaining how to use it, and a lot of the options are somewhat self-explanatory - essentially, you can just hit "connect" and get started right away.  Certain changes are highlighted in different colors for a variety of reasons; either they're edits by unregistered users (which display as IP addresses instead of usernames), or they're especially large changes (which are often deletions or copy-pastes of bad text), among other things.  Using CDVF isn't necessary or anything, so don't worry if you don't like it - normal RC patrolling (constantly checking Special:Recentchanges for vandalism) is often just as good.

Also, how do I roll back a page?
 * Technically, the rollback tool is only available to administrators. But normal users such as you and me can "roll back" vandalism in a variety of ways.  The most simple is to just find the most recent "good" version of the page (typically the one directly before the vandalism) in the page's history, then go to Edit mode and save it as it is, typically with a comment like "revert vandalism" or simply "rvv".  However, there are add-ons you can get to make this faster and more convenient.  I use something called "godmode lite" - if you want to try it out, just go to my monobook.js, go to edit mode, and copy the entire page's text into your own monobook.js.  This will enable a script that allows you to select a "rollback" link that appears at the top of every History page and every (top) change in somebody's Contribution's page.  Clicking that link will rollback the page to the newest version not edited by the user you're rolling back, and it even includes a useful change comment.  If you're uncertain about giving yourself the "godmode lite" script, I can do it for you!  Just give the word on my talk page.

''Now that I'm thinking about it, how do I delete a page that was vandalized? (an article for something non-existant or somesuch)''
 * Welcome to the wide world of article deletion! As a non-administrator, you cannot delete articles.  There is a rather elaborate system for article deletion, but essentially there are two types: Speedy deletion and AfD.  You can read about speedy deletions here - essentially, it's used to alert administrators to delete the most obviously useless or bad articles.  You have to make sure the article meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, though, before you add the SD template.  Non-speedy deletion is a bit more complicated - essentially, all you need to know is at Articles for deletion.  It's a process in which you first tag the article, then create a subpage and then list it in the daily AFD page (see "How to list pages for deletion" at the bottom of WP:AFD), and then people give their vote on what they think should happen to the article.  You can do some voting yourself if you want to get a feel for the process before listing articles.

This ended up being a long post, but I hope it's helpful. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me anything!

Snurks T C 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The +/- column with the numbers
I'm pretty sure it's how many characters the change is: for instance, -23 means twenty-three letters or numbers or whatever were removed in that change, while 382 means that many were added. Extremely large numbers, especially large negatives, are usually vandalism in the form of "blankings". Snurks T C 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Couple More Questions
Tables of contents magically create themselves once a certain number of headers (things marked up like ==this== or ===this=== ) are in an article. There might be a way to manually create them if you don't have enough headings, but it's probably excessively difficult.

As for your second question, marking things for Wikification is easy. Just add the template to the top of the page and it'll automagically get added to Category:Articles that need to be wikified.

Good luck and keep on editing!

Snurks T C 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Editing problem
You wanted Carbon filtering ; it seems like the capital F was the problem, since Wikipedia is case sensitive. I fixed the article, but in the future make sure to pay attention to case! Snurks T C 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Antarctican Dollar
Why did you remove the AfD notice in the above article? I have reverted your edit and ask that you not remove the notice again until the AfD process is completed. -- I@n 12:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the assumption that since the article had been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale there was no reason to delete it. Klosterdev 12:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the importance scale has nothing to do with the deletion process. Importance is a single persons view whereas AfD seeks community consensus on notability and encyclopaedia worthiness according to our policies of same. -- I@n 13:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
I deleted the article because I closed the AfD. I salted the article and talk page so that it couldn't be recreated. Hope that helps! Nandesuka 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV
I believe the page you're looking for is Administrator intervention against vandalism -- sometimes just called AIV. :) Luna Santin 21:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: reporting a vandal
First you need to make sure the vandal's been warned, usually to Test4 or Blatantvandal or an equivalent. Then, if they continue to vandalize, you alert the administrators using WP:AIV, following the instructions on that page. Generally, they will be blocked soon afterwards. Snurks T C 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are good instructions on WP:VAND. Ideally, warnings should be incremented, with exceptions for pretty bad vandalism. The rules have to be much laxer when dealing with an IP - especially a shared IP. You'll see; the page is pretty self-explanatory. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletes
First, you make sure it's a page that deserves speedy deletion rather than Prod or WP:AFD. If you think so, decide which speedy deletion template to use using WP:SPEEDY and the list on the right under "speedy," then add the tag to the top of the page. I took the liberty of adding it to the page you mentioned, but now you know! Snurks T C 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer to last question
It's part of the ipvandal template, just fill in the IP like this: (except with a real IP) and it adds all that stuff for you. Snurks T C 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked what program I used for the Goldbach pictures,

I used a simple Python script to generate the numbers, and "gnuplot" to render them as a graph.

Contact me at sidney@jigsaw.nl if you have more questions.

Re: mass image deletion
I'm not too familiar with WP:IFD, so I can't tell you more than what's on that page. If you scroll down the IFD list, you'll see that even when there's a large number of similar images being deleted, they're listed one by one; see the Interstate images on that page, for instance. It looks like you're just going to have to list every offending image per WP:IFD. Snurks T C 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in ur userpage
Addin useless comments to it. Also, sup Klost, greetings from CN /b/

 * Oh hai Klosterdev 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ..
... for the report on WP:AIV. Sorted now :) - Alison ☺ 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To nominate for deletion
Hi, to nominate something for deletion, please see Criteria for speedy deletion if it's something obvious. If it's something that's debatable, see Articles for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

o lawd, is dat sum CP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.220.186 (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fappers Remorse
A tag has been placed on Fappers Remorse, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ports article
I agree with you on the list in the Port article. There was proposal from early March to relocate it to List of seaports. As no one opposed this I've moved it over. Hopefully this means the article can now become about the concept, history and structure of ports instead of a simple location guide. Euryalus (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference Lists are missing
In Melbourne IT There are tables and reference lists in the article under "edit this page," but for some reason they aren't showing up in the article itself. Part of the page is gone. What's up with it? klosterdev (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. An unclosed tag. Algebraist 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:IRB-7-MUDDY2.jpg listed for deletion
Image has been cropped to remove watermark - Leonard G. (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Islamic Culture
Thanks for your kind words, and I can use a brighter color of blue to perhaps give more contrast. Would that work? Also, does Template:Islam or Template:Buddhism cause similiar distraction? -- Enzuru 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made this design originally for Template:Islam, along with several other designs. The one you currently see was the one most accepted, and the one I am using for Template:Islamic Culture was the one I liked the most (as well as other editors), but was controversial for obvious reasons (the Taj Mahal is a symbol of Islamic Culture, but not Islam itself). I am not going to make changes right away, I am going to wait for more feedback. The reason I was okay with the colours is because I've tested it on several monitors, including an old CRT, and different operating systems and different web browsers, and it seemed fine. But, if there is a huge voice for change, I will change it (others have pointed out what you said too, but others seem oblivious to it). I won't figure out how to fix this smoothly for a while, I always think rather slowly on fixes. But hopefully something wonderful soon. Thanks for your input, all suggestions are good. -- Enzuru 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template issue
Hello Klosterdev. It's fixed. One of the links was not closed properly. --McSly (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Uncle Dick (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion for "Press-up"
Happy New Year! As a user who has previously stated support for moving Press-up to "Push-up", I invite you to weigh in on the move discussion currently under way: Talk:Press-up. Clconway (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Klosterdev


text:
User talk:Oxymoron01

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the time stamp, and five tildes (~~~~~) produces only the time stamp.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or leave a comment on my talk page. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

- Sango  123

Image copyright problem with Image:RGwyn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RGwyn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the note - but checking the edit history, all I seem to have done is put the article in Category:Saints (one of my occasional pleasures is rounding up stray saints and herding them into the appropriate cat:) But thanks for spreading the WikiLove! Man vyi 09:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Saint Richard Gwyn
I'm rather ashamed to say that I found the image here, on the other SRG's website. I'm not sure if the image tag is correct but I won't tell if you don't. I wanted to put his icon on but I couldn't find it anywhere, perhaps he doesn’t have one but I think most saints do.

I think you've done a fantastic job on Saint Richard Gwyn and for that matter on St Richard Gwyn RC High School. I have to admit most of my edits are about a load of rubbish, like Star Trek or Stargate. Although I am proud of starting the UK Prime Ministers Template, its probably the only worthwhile thing I've done on here. Philip Stevens 10:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Game theory
Thank you for adding the article on the Pirate game. If you have extended interest in game theory, you may be interested in joining us at WikiProject Game theory. This is a central place where we can coordinate our activities regarding game theory articles. If you're interested, please add yourself to the list. Feel free to work on any open projects and add to the lists! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oxymoron01


text:
User talk:Cpcofhe

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cpcofhe


text:
User:Vertigre

This is a simple user page.

There are many like it, but this one is mine.

title: User:Vertigre


text:
User talk:Dannyno

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boo
Are you dannyno from mono? Morwen - Talk 15:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep. Handy tip - you can sign/date your comments with ~ .  and welcome. ;)  Morwen - Talk 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * or do I just reply here? I knew about the signing thing. Dannyno 15:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * you can reply either place. Morwen - Talk 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism & Malise Ruthven
Thanks for the lead: I've added the link to my sources page. I see your provided some context for the citation in the Neofascism and religion article: where did you find the citation? It's too old for LexisNexis: I'd like to check it, but I'm not sure how I should go about it. --- Charles Stewart 15:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It can't be too old for LexisNexis, since that's exactly where I found it!--Dannyno 15:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Got it, thanks, I must have been misusing the search terms. Looks definitive, good lead. --- Charles Stewart 18:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Secularism -- too many capitals
Hello. Please try to avoid gratuitously capitalized initial letters in section headings, as in your edits to secularism (I've fixed that one). See Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 02:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi. Thanks for the tip, will do. --Dannyno 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Atheism
Great edits to the atheism article! Lockeownzj00 08:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much! --Dannyno 08:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Atheism
I was going to revert the article to a much earlier version because it did not comply with WP:MOS, meaning that your many good contributions to the article would be lost in the revert and needed to the folded back in. After taking a swack at folding back in those lost additions, it's apparent that just going back to your last version and working on the intro to get it to comply with the MOS is the path of least effort here, so... I've reverted my revert and done just that by moving the historical background content into a subsection immediately following the intro, which brings it into alignment with the MOS. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Unomi has indicated he is retiring from the present discussion --JimWae (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent "meal" deletion on Secularism
I'm not sure this warrants a comment on the talk page of Secularism, and I didn't want to just change your edit without explaining it. Your logic puts us in a quagmire. We would have to remove game playing and bathing as well because they "can be" religious activities just as much as eating a meal (as in there are plenty of religious rituals of purity that involve bathing, and the line between ritual and play, even in religious settings, is often non-existent. In fact if you extend the logic fully then any activity "could be" a religious activity--for instance in Zen Buddhism.  Even shopping.  The rest of the sentence reads "... because there is nothing inherently religious about them".  The key is that there is nothing "inherently" religious about them.  That includes meals, shopping, bathing, etc.  Sorry for the long explanation.PelleSmith 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * That wasn't quite my point. I was quite happy with "meal" in the first place, but then it got changed to "fast food". Either that was done abusively (i.e. secular activities aren't as 'nourishing' as religious ones..), or because eating meals is something that is often done religiously. So, should it just get changed back to "meal", or should we change the example to escape the potential argument entirely?  I thought the latter was a clearer approach. Otherwise you could have "circumcision" as a secular activity because it's not inherently religious. We don't want to get bogged down in that kind of thing. --Dannyno 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

References for Spanish Revolution
Hi. Someone at Spanish Revolution is saying it doesn't have enough references for such an important topic. Would you know of any good ones to add? Marnanel 03:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheism
You seem to know what you're talking about. Can you suggest a rewrite for the first couple sentences of the lead section (unless you like the current version). Please leave a suggestion at Talk:Atheism. Thanks! — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-04-27 11:57Z

Dannyno, I manipulated the indentation of your comment because it was unclear who left the first paragraph. If the first paragraph was intended as an immediate response, then unindent the rest of it, but sign the first paragraph as well. Thanks. --Merzul 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

clinical
Hi, no one wants to call mckeith a "clinical nutritionist". Most people want to use the term "nutritionist", one person keeps reverting to "non clinical nutritionist". In the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. A clinical nutritionist is someone who sees clients - they don't need any qualifications to do this. I'm trying to re-write the nutritionist article, to include information about the different types of nutritionist - ie: unqualified homeopaths all the way to qualified, registered "non-clinical nutrition scientists" (who'd work for food companies). Kind Regards, Dan Beale  23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak
I've never understood why Israel Shahak has to be treated so badly in his article. Articles I've seen for Muslims who've had problems with their faith are supportive eg Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's a proven lier, and I'd be surprised if any Muslim defends her. Why can Shahak not be allowed to say and do his thing? He's held in considerable esteem by some of the very religion he's attacked (eg Noam Chomsky). For "experts" on this religion to come along and insist that the theology of a dead man is wrong is POV and unfair. These are his views, this is his testimony, there's no reason he should not have an article that's "fair" to him. PalestineRemembered 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach
I'm interested in your comments on the Shmuley Boteach talk page concerning "circumstances in which Boteach left England". Are you talking about the "controversy" of him being a rabbi at Oxford? Or is there more? I'm interested, as I have done quite a bit of clean-up and self-promotional spam removal on that page. Proxy User (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 * See the material here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shmuley_Boteach&oldid=323014793: "In 2000, Boteach left Britain and returned to the United States, following disagreements with others in the Jewish community. David Zackon, of the orthodox Jewish youth movement Bnei Akiva, told The Times that Boteach "invigorated Judaism for a lot of students... But there was a lot of spin and razzmatazz. He was controversial for the sake of it, and though he was a great orator, he was not a great philosopher." The Times also cited the view of Rabbi Yitzhak Shochet of Mill Hill Synagogue that "Boteach distorted teachings to serve his own ends", while expressing sympathy with Boteach's "scathing attacks on what he sees as British Jewry's ghetto mentality." Boteach denied being driven out, but was quoted in The Times as saying, "It doesn't mean that I wasn't caused a lot of pain by these incessant attacks."  I think there may have been more at some point.  Seems to me that Boteach's move from the UK is significant in terms of his career, and that a general overview of the circumstances should be provided, without taking sides on any disagreements there may or may not have been. As it stands there is nothing in the article about this.  --Dannyno (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Atheism vs Anti Theism
I want to point out to you Dannyno, that you sometimes use master suppression techniques in your responses. You make forward an argument and then you proclaim this is the only rational position based on the established norm. It's dishonest, it's bad form and shouldn't be a fitting tactic for an editor. And I personally find it quite unprofessional. We have a valid discussion on the position of Atheism. I've suggested and I've put forward my sources and arguments for those suggestions. Your perfectly fine and able to push me to provide further sources for my position without using these techniques. But that is different from what you have done. You continuously claimed I was wrong by default because previous understanding contradicted it. Without showing or supplied any evidence of that fact. And when I've supplied evidence for my position you shifted the goalpost and proclaimed it bad evidence, without taking into account for the foundation you based the page definition on. You've based unequal weight of evidence for equal sources. And you put the blame on me for disrupting the pot. I don't respect that kind of tactic. I don't respond to it. So I suggest we stick to arguing the points of the dispute.

Thats kind of tactic is sometimes called domination techniques if your not familiar with the above terminology. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Nothing you say here is correct. You are merely promoting your personal POV, which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and cannot be found in reliable sources. Given that, the rest is noise. --Dannyno (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dannyno - I would be pleased to hear more about the "challenges" to: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" of Michael Scriven, in "Primary Philosophy" if you could spare a few minutes - it sounds interesting - thanks in advance Yoga Mat (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheffield article reference
Hi. We are trying to get the Sheffield article back to featured article status. One of the reviewers has asked for the page numbers for the reference to Alexander, Don (2001) Orreight Mi Ol': observations on dialect, humour and local lore of Sheffield & District that you added back in 2005. If you still have this book could you check the page number for us. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, ignore the above. I just found it in your original message. —Jeremy (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach
Shmuley Boteach noticed you had previously been active - added some details you had fought back on... can you come and support them and make an edit or so so it sticks ? 65.112.21.194 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DRN notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --un☯mi 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi, This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam regarding a dispute between other editors, which briefly touches on some of your edits. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide your own perspective on events. bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Asking for a help
Hello Dear User,

I would like to ask you to do me a favor: it's keep going discussion in the talk page of Thomas Jefferson's article about including his words about Christianity in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Thomas_Jefferson.27s_words_about_Christianity. Unfortunatelly, some users turned it into the religious sermon. If you have time and want to help please give an attention to that issue. Thanks in advance. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=750469059 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F750469059%7CDialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man%5D%5D Ask for help])

Ways to improve Ethel Venton
Hi, I'm Devopam. Dannyno, thanks for creating Ethel Venton!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please don't confuse WP:BIO notability with real world notability. Kindly reference the article with verifiable WP:SECONDARY references and change the prose.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Devopam (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Brearey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Brearey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Peter Brearey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dannyno


text:
User talk:Nissyen

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nissyen


text: Category:University of Georgia

title: Category:University of Georgia


text:
User talk:Thebusdriver

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis
Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thebusdriver


text:
User talk:Borgerone

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Corrieredellasera.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Corrieredellasera.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Italy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikiportal/Italy. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Italy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Italy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikiportal/Italy. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Italy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Borgerone


text:
User talk:Volunteer Sibelius Salesman

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that warm welcome! Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're welcome! (In the other sense of welcome...) -- Essjay ·  Talk 20:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Another Sibelius Lover
Hi. As a Sibelius lover, it's good to see someone who's associated themselves with this wonderful composer. Why didn't I think of that? Can we expect some erudite edits to the Sibelius article (I haven't checked it of recent times)? Cheers JackofOz 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, the "Sibelius" in my user name refers to the Sibelius notation program. I do like to listen to the music of Jean Sibelius every now and then, though. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, after I'd posted my message, I read further and realised that your Sibelius was probably the program rather than the composer. But, hey, I've discovered a program I had never heard of, so that's a good thing.  Cheers JackofOz 00:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Baroque Tonartencharakter
Thanks for noticing my comments on "key of grace," "key of glory," etc. I have seen those designations referred to frequently in Christoph Wolff's essays on Bach as well as Xinh's page, which I linked at Category talk:Musical keys. Unfortunately, I have no original sources for this, although I am curious and looking. Matdaddy 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Accidental
You wrote:
 * ''For the sake of clarity, some composers put a natural in front of the accidental. Thus, if in this example the composer actually wanted the note a semitone lower than G-natural, he might put first a natural sign to cancel the previous G-sharp, then the flat.

I've never seen this in any standard literature. I have, however, seen that notation used to cancel a double accidental, going from a double-sharp to a single sharp. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen this in the music of Richard Wagner and Max Reger. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Finale Printmusic Screenshot1.png
It's alright, I am the composer of the music seen in the picture (I made sure that I depicted one of my own compositions so that I avoid this very problem of crediting). Thanks for noticing, though. Sean MD80 talk 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * You should still give yourself credit. You're putting yourself in the company of Johann Sebastian Bach, Michael Haydn and Robert Volkmann. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hi. Me and other user have quite different view of second movement of Symphony No.5 (Sibelius). Indeed, we have conflict on this. If you can help, please refer here and here. Hope you can give me some comments. Thanks!

PS: I am interested to know the meaning of your user name :) (Addaick 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

 * I tell all my friends how crappy Finale is and that they should switch to Sibelius, but I don't get paid for this, so I'm a volunteer salesman. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Volunteer Sibelius Salesman


text:
User talk:Jona

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NAMB
Per WP:NAMB, please do not add hatnotes in cases like this in the future, as they are unnecessary clutter. Thanks, --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jona