Talk:Black Stone/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Picture?

Could someone add a picture to illustrate the article?--Xtreambar 08:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was removed today by an anon (probably because it depicts Mohammad). I put it back, does WP have a policy about using his image yet? Should we find an image without his face or something? Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The only policy I know of would be WP:CENSOR..which would certainly allow the image. Dman727 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm only asking for a policy because it comes into dispute so much, and I've seen people say they were taking it to arbitration or something, although I've never noticed if anything came of it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. In that case I'm not aware of any arbitration decision in this regard. Personally I cant imagine that arbitration would support censorship based on sharia law...but then again anything could happen I suppose. Dman727 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy against using the image. Based on the list at the bottom of Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, it's being used in several articles. --Elonka 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: commons:Muhammad. --Elonka 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

picture of Mohammad is not allowed. Please remove all such pictures as it hurts us as we are Muslims. Thanking you in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.231.104 (talk • contribs) 15:16, August 1, 2007

Wiki isnt censored. this is america (as far as i know. where is wiki based?) it doesnt matter.Wiki isnt censored.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this picture of the Prophet as it is offensive. It is much easier to remove it rather than argue with the billion or so Muslims in this world. --Coolsafe (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In life we often have to make choices between what is easy and what is right. The pictures will not be removed. RavShimon (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

this is not about making a choices between what's easy and what is right, this is about what's offensive and what's not, for Muslims drawing pictures of any prophet is extremely offensive and not polite at all, and if WP doesn't allow humiliating or ridiculing religions or groups then this picture should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wal.haidary (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that picture is necessary

Hi, if anyone thinks that the picture is necessary, please first add it to Main article: Muhammad. If a few muslims do not think it offensive, 99.9999% muslims feel it to be offensive. If you have any original photo of Muhammad, please add it. Otherwise, do not play with other's feelings. There was also a poll here. Its good, but illogical. On the internet, non-muslims are in minority. By this poll, you are just taking advantage of it. Please think before any offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia, or IslamicPedia? Since when did an encyclopedia pander to the religous views of Muslims? On the internet, non-muslims are NOT in minority (contrary to Builder's claims). --Lacarids (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for religious reasons or customs. Please read this thoroughly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of LOGIC this is? Did I stop you from publishing any FACT? This picture is not of Muhammad, if you have any actual image, give it to me, I'll copy it to all the wikipedia. If you want to add this, add this to the main article Muhammad first. I delete this because this is offensive to Muslims, but it is also not necessary here. There is no reason of this picture here. The text is ENOUGH to explain it. Copy it to youtube or flickr if you want.

I can delete it because I can do it within wikipedia policy. I am not hiding ANY information. I am not abusing anyone. I was not feeling this to be offensive. I thought someone copied it by mistake, but you are feeling my actions to be offensive.

Sorry man, there is no place here for this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Builder w, I appreciate your views, but we've had an extensive discussion about this already, and the community consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored, and so even if some editors might find the image offensive, that it is still worthwhile including the image since our mission is as an information resource. If you disagree with this view, you can of course try to convince other editors as to the rightness of your opinion here on the talkpage, but please do not engage in edit-warring on the article itself. --Elonka 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess its important to know that a place (Namely wikepedia) that boasts of learned people to work for them, such ignorance towards muslims is shown, now that is sad to know. Does it not DEFY the very mission statement that promises higher learning for individuals who access it. Wikepedia must learn that it is offensive for any Muslim and why should they provide their website as a platform for their unrest. Its almost as if the individuals who allow such instances to happen do it with the purpose of disturbing millions across the world. Its is criminal on their part as even education and exposure hasn't done them any good. Dont quetion the Muslims, Why? Know they do not wish to go against their principles, do not instigate and exploit based on your narrow thinking, know we have immense respect for Allah;s last messenger but do not wish for him to be idolized as all prayers and appreciation are for Allah. If the people at Expedia need to speak to me kindly mail me and I shall gladly explain to them how they have done something so typical, so ignorant and shallow. Its almost as if people wishes to oust us for our beliefs and toy with our emotions. Why? Its twice as easy to do that with the contradictions present in all other religions then I wonder why the self acclaimed enlightened, educated, civilized nations or individuals dont show any such sign with how they feed of these exploits. Its sad, its really sad, that these perpetrators would sit back and watch when things cause a disbalance saying their intent was never this. Show some signs you are humans, believe in eqality and respect others for their beliefs. Kindly let the world live in peace. Do not stir emotions, do not provoke people and then act innocent. Kindly act human and show the world that you mean well. By actions and not deluding people into believing. Show it by removing these pictures as a good will gesture. Show the world you are not ignorant. Show them you really provide higher learning. Show them by learning your short fall and admitting you went wrong. And I shall congratulate you as the FIRST DECENT ATTEMPT TOWARDS WORLD PEACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.171 (talk • contribs) January 31, 2008

Apparently Rashid al-Din didn't find the image offensive, and according to their articles, he and his patron both converted to Islam long before the book was printed. Your request would place us in the position not only of deciding what Islam allows, but who is a good Muslim and who is not. Remember also that only a Muslim has any urge to idolize Muhammad - other readers see only a painting. However, in the spirit of the story illustrated in the drawing, we should consider that the content of the page is separate from any one reader. It should be possible to devise an alteration of the Monobook.js file (as is done for the "peer review" script) which changes how the page appears. Thus there should be some way by which a user can choose to suppress the display of images that are tagged as belonging to some category - in this case images representing Muhammad - solely from his own point of view. Would such a compromise be enough for you, or would it still bother you that other people were viewing the painting? Wnt (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignited by an arrow?

The part that states the stone was ignited by a flaming arrow should be re-written to sound more neutral. I don't think it's possible for a stone to be ignited by a flaming arrow; the flame would go out quickly once the arrow was embedded in the rock, unless the rock was coated in oil for some reason... I'm not going to edit it though, since this whole article seems to be sensitive for some people.-- Worldruler20 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "uscmsa" :
  • {{cite web|author=University of Southern California|title=The Prophet of Islam - His Biography|publisher=|accessmonthday=August 12 |accessyear=2006|url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/profbio.html}}
  • {{cite web|author=University of Southern California|title=The Prophet of Islam - His Biography|publisher=|accessdate=August 12|accessyear=2006|url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/profbio.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Picture at least

In the section of Origins and History sub-headed Islamic Views there is a particular image of Muhammad(PBUH) suppposedly placing the Black stone. This picture has various factual errors as it was fabricated at about 1315 about 7 centuries after the prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s life so therefore the author's depiction is incorrect. Moreover, the artist himself "Rashid al-Din" is from a Jewish denomination so therefore the image that he has fabricated is biased due to conflicts between Islam and Judaism. As well as the text under the picture tells the reader that this is a picture of Muhammad(PBUH) and does not make it clear that this is an fabrication by a Jewish artist that has much controversy. By allowing this picture to be displayed on Wikipedia, you are in effect twisting people's knowledge and beliefs on Islam. Please remove the unwanted image.

Note:This is an insult. What is the significance of this picture it does not give any more information and just wrongly and biasly depicts Muhammad(PBUH). So am I allowed to edit an article of a reverred person by including an insulting picture and below stating this is my view of such and such a person with my name and date. I dont think so. Please review this and Please remove this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.209.188 (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Regards,

A Barden

Remove the picture/ sketch depicting an important event in the history of Islam, where the different tribes were united for a common goal. there is no need to depict a picture , wikipedia is hurting the sentiments of one billion believers of the greatest of monotheistic faiths. don't have a rigid views, infact western concept of liberalism is a myth and a way of convenience.Remove the pictures. Irfan Ahmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.52.166 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather like the image, it illustrates the article nicely. I've made it a point to try to add relavent images to wiki articles where possible (I did not add this one though). It's always nice to have a image while you're reading an article, it adds context and allows one to be (in this case for example) more involved with a particular myth or story. I don't see why this article should be any exception.

As far as offending, it is perfectly acceptable to put up a picture of a historical person in an unflattering light. For example there is a picture of Franklin Roosevelt in a wheelchair in the main article, when he was alive he tried to hide this fact, and were he alive today would be offended to see it on the page.

The issue that is of importance here is that wikipedia, as a repository of human knowledge, should not concern itself with any religious doctrine when deciding what content is appropriate.

--Ianare (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Move the picture alongside other views

I have moved the picture below Islamic View, since the islamic view refers to early period view, yet the picture is later period and held by a minority of muslims, yet mostly prefered by non-muslims. Faro0485 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kissing/touching the stone

Can we have some more infomation regarding kissing the stone or touching it? I've heard non-muslims and anti-hadith muslims say that such is an idolic ritual, in disagreement with muslims. Faro0485 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Some anon keeps re-adding the same picture to this article. I have removed it several times for two reasons: 1) it is of a rather poor quailty, with a poorly-placed inset obscuring much of the image (among other factors); and, more importantly, 2) it shows nothing the photo already in the article does not (Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a photo gallery). I would like to invite said anon to voice his/her(/its?) opinion and to justify its addition; I would like to ask for input from the general community on this matter as well. RavShimon (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and furthermore, it appears that the image may be a copyvio: see [1]. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. The article already includes a better depiction of the Stone, both closer and from a better angle. The proposed additional picture is inferior in both presentation and actual detail of the article subject. The attempted insertion of the extra picture is probably in good faith but it adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the article and may not be free-use. On both those bases we're better off without it. Other opinions welcome, of course. Euryalus (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages

A relatively new user seems insistent upon the inclusion of a translation of "Black Stone" into Urdu within this article. While this is an English-language article, I feel the Arabic does warrant inclusion, as it is the holy language of Islam. Howver, Urdu has, to my opinion, no place here. If we start adding other languages, then why stop there? Why not French? Why not Finnish? Why not Bulgarian, Korean, Dakota and Yiddish already? And even if one were to argue that Urdu is a major language in the Muslim world, so are many others: Turkish, Aramaic, Indonesian, &c... should we start including them all? Opinions, please. RavShimon (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think diversity and multiculturalism are great; evidently you feel otherwise. Kslall8765 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

مرگ بر دشمنان اسلام ـ

Kslall8765 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

عربی کے بعد عالم اسلام میں سب سے زیادہ استعمال ہونے والی زبان اردو ہی ھے ـ

Kslall8765 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And I thank you for proving my point. This is the English-language Wikipedia; do you expect anyone to understand you? RavShimon (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Shape of the silver setting

Is it supposed to look like a vulva? -- AvatarMN (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people seem to think so, see [2]. I doubt this is a mainstream viewpoint, though. Gabbe (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Adam and HAWA?

I think this should be changed to Adam and Eve and linked to the perfectly good wikipedia page for Adam and Eve. There apearantly is no page for Adam and HAWA. This is the English language Wikipedia and Eve is the English name for Hawa. I will do so in a few days, if no one objects. Superstitionfree (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam and Eve was changed to Adam and HAWA on April 9, 2010 by Attilios (talk). I am curious why he would change the link and use a name for Eve that very few English speakers would recognize. Again, I'll wait a few days and if there's no objection and it hasn't been corrected by someone else, I'll change it back to Adam and Eve. Superstitionfree (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would change it, or at least direct the link to the Adam and Eve page, since there is no HAWA page, and most people don't know that Eve is Hawa in english. Darktangent (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Damage?

I find it bizarre that a real, physical object of a known location in the world is broken into "between 7 and 15 pieces". Count them sometime? Argh. 70.71.12.30 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the discrepancy appears to be due to some of the pieces having been cemented together. It consists of 15 original fragments. Some of these have been cemented together to form seven or eight fragments. I'm not sure why these weren't in turn cemented to reconstitute the stone, but there you have it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad image

Please removed the image A315... If you want to describe Prophet Muhammad SAW, please just use Muhammad word in arabic. You can find many picture of this. And you can avoid people to arguing each other ( one of the solution ) Beside, if you do this, i will be very thanksful.

Thank you before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.146.111 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Blackstone.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Blackstone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blackstone.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Great and interesting article!--GoP_T^C_N 08:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

   Until the nomination discussion of the lead images will be closed--GoP_T^C_N 10:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Piece removed by Muhammad Ali?

The article says that a piece was removed by Muhammad Ali (presumably the Muhammad Ali Pasha mentioned earlier) in 1817 and examined by Ritter von Laurin, an Austrian. How/why did this happen? How long was the piece out of it? (Was it ever put back?) Wnt (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali was in the region to fight the Ottoman–Saudi War, which ended with the defeat of the Saudis. He seems to have taken the opportunity to renovate the Kaaba and re-cement the fragments of the Black Stone, presumably acting on behalf of the Ottoman sultan (who was the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques). He evidently kept one of the fragments for himself - very naughty - but I'm afraid I have no idea what happened to it after von Laurin saw it. Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2012

Ritual role

The Black Stone plays an important role in the central ritual of the Hajj, when pilgrims must walk seven times around the Kaaba in an counterclockwise direction. They attempt to kiss the Black Stone seven times, once for each circumambulation of the Kaaba, emulating the actions of Muhammad. In modern times, large crowds make it practically impossible for everyone to kiss the stone, so it is currently acceptable for pilgrims to simply point in the direction of the Stone on each of their circuits around the building. Some even say that the Stone is best considered simply as a marker, useful in keeping count of the ritual circumambulations (tawaf) that one has performed. Its black colour is deemed to symbolize the essential spiritual virtue of detachment and poverty for God (faqr) and the extinction of ego required to progress towards God (qalb).

please replace walk with circumambulate 7xwonder (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an unreasonable request, but I'm curious why. Circumambulate means simply "walk around", and the text above already says "walk seven times around". What is the purpose of using a sesquipedalian word of equal precision when simpler words suffice? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Amatulic here. It makes no sense to use a complicated word unnecessarily. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing to clear backlog and for inactivity. To the OP: the template has instructions for reactivating should you wish to do so. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 17:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)