Template talk:Isa

Problems in the template

I like the layout and colors of this template, but I have a feeling it will lead to debate because it has items that do not relate to Jesus e.g. eschatology in Islam, and because it combines a template (see Template Jesus) with an info box. And it renames articles to assert facts, e.g. neither died, etc. It asserts the date of birth as 4AD with no source, Bethlehem as the birth place, etc. It asserts Bethlehem, not unanimously accepted, etc. The assertion of family is controversial and needs to be a link to the relevant article, etc.

If just the key links to Jesus in Islam are maintained without telegramming controversial items, then it should work out. The image size may need to be reduces, somoen commented about that on Ebi's talk page. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm Lets start one by one

Primary sources:

1. Eschatology in Islam : Muslim believes that the hour will not come until the second coming of Jesus takes place. Reference ^{[Quran 43:61]}

2. Neither killed nor... : Muslims also believes that Jesus was not killed. Reference ^{[Quran 4:157] [Quran 4:158]}

3. Date of birth : According to Google here

4. Place of birth : The annunciation and the conception, we may suppose, took place in Nazareth(of Galilee), say 65 miles north of Jerusalem. the delivery took place in Bethlehem about 6 miles south of Jerusalem. It was a remote place, Not only with reference to the distance of 71 miles, but because in Bethlehem itself the birth was in an obscure corner under a palm-tree,from which perhaps the babe was afterwards removed to a manger in a stable. Reference : ^{[Quran 19:22] [Quran 19:23]} further detail in The Holy Quran (Text, Translation and commentary) by A.Yousuf Ali (Page 772 n.2475) Also been stated in Qasas al-anbiya by Ibn Kathir

5.Family is controversial : Muslims also believe Zechariah (father of John) to have been the guardian of Marium. Controversial please be specific.

Secondary sources:

Encyclopedia of Islam Pg:239

The Life of Isa ( Jesus ) -peace be upon him- in Light of Islam Although the whole book is about Jesus in Islam but (Pg:23 para 3) favors point 2.

Mary and Jesus in Islam Although the whole book is about Jesus in Islam but (Pg:152) favors point 2 and the miracles.

I am sure majority of your queries have been resolved. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think that Google is a source for Jesus being born in 4 BC, why did you write 4 AD in the template? 4 AD is 8 years later.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Normally on Wikipedia, templates contain a framework into which other people can insert the facts. That works quite well. Your template is not like that. This is not good. Editors have pages on their watch-list, and monitor changes to those pages, which helps to maintain the quality of information on Wikipedia. If a malicious person changes information in an article, it will quickly be reverted. But if the information is hard-coded into the template - like this template - then a malicious person can change the information and it will not show up on on editors' watch lists. Hard-coding information into templates makes it harder to maintain the quality of information on Wikipedia. (Many editors have articles on their watch-lists because editing an article usually adds the article to the editor's watch-list. As few editors will edit this template, very few editors will have it on their watch-list. We cannot design Wikipedia on the basis that the template creator will be around in perpetuity to fix problems.)--Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ISLAMOR? This says:

"The Quran and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:NOR. Therefore they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage. Editors can not use primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. But it's a good idea to quote the Quran and Hadith to explain a topic, if they are cited in reliable secondary sources. For articles and sections where only Quran and Hadith are cited without secondary sources, use the templates {{Primary sources}} or {{Religious text primary}}, or inline tag {{primary source-inline}}."

Except for the Google source, all your other sources are primary sources. The template is itself original research.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes? This says:

"A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. Infoboxes may tend towards greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies. The general guidelines WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NBSP (use of non-breaking spaces), WP:MOSNUM (numbers and dates), and WP:COLOR (use of color) are likely to be particularly relevant. As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility, not appearance; therefore, infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative."

Your template is not consistent with this.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have provides some of the secondary sources do have a look. I am afraid the comment you made here was controversial and you were reverted on it too.If these sources are not sufficient then i would provide more.As far as the Date is concerned {{circa}} is used that clearly says it estimated. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand that you gave a different date than the source you claim?--Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the date is c. 643 BH – 644 BH from Qasas al-anbiya i have tried to convert it and i think that is the reason for this. And there is sources differing each other.I will change it to BH. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am beginning to doubt we are going to get very far in this discussion, due to the reliance on primary sources. But let me again try to explain it again:

• Look at the Template: Jesus
• How many facts/assertions does it include? Zero. It is just links.
• How many facts/assertions does this template include: plenty.

So it is not an Islamic version of that template. And the very existence of the discussion above means that you have to provide sources for the assertions above. So in effect the template is now a topic of a "content debate". I will not even debate the content, for templates are not the place to present content - and I will not even try to open the Pandora's box regarding the miracles in the template.

Infoboxes, on the other hand, provide summary of content for the very subject of the article. I think the only way you can save this is to make it an infobox on Isa, not a template on Isa. Then it can apply to the Jesus in Islam page as an infobox, with no fanfare. History2007 (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Other factual errors include: Mary in Arabic should be transliterated Maryam and not Marium. Zakariya was not regarded as Jesus' cousin. Salawat is only due to Muhammad, other honorifics are not called Salawat. Year of birth is not specified in Islamic tradition. Place of birth is also not specified, early Islamic writings site both Palestine and Iraq. Why are attributed Miracles written in funny King Jamesque English?
The whole template looks POV anyway, to whom is that note addressed? Why is there no mention of Shi'ite, Ahmadiya or other non-Sunni views?--Rafy talk 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mary is transliterated as Marīam or Mariam (if one omits the macron) see Romanization of Arabic.Zakariya was the father of Yahya and guardian of Mariam your are right i am correcting it. Salawat is PBUH see here and is for all prophets in Islam. The note is because of the fact that the miracles are by the will of Allah not otherwise.Why is there no mention of Shi'ite, Ahmadiya or other non-Sunni views? because i have not worked on it. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• comment: It seems that the templates are a little biased toward sunni islamist view. As far as I know, despite the fact that Islam has many Imams they consider 4 of them namely abubakr, umar, ali and uthman legitimate, the four imams are considered “holy warlords” who conquered much of the middle east, and for some unknown reason they ferociously reject any depiction of them, therefore the images are replaced with Islamic honorific calligraphies i.e. a P.B.U.H in jpeg format. They have extensive views about Jesus too, another P.B.U.H for them.

Another concern is that calligraphies can’t replace a few rare and interesting images that can be found in wikimedia commons and they are unwelcome in Christian articles, I mean what’s the point of having Arabic calligraphy in a page about Christianity. I undid another of his edits on Resurrection of Jesus. Do we really need so many arabic calligraphies and templates in a page? The majority of muslims don’t even understand arabic today and the templates use too much space. I tried to change the image of template:Quran from this to this, and my edits is being reverted by that account.Kiatdd (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very biased statement unwelcome in Christian articles Jesus is the prime topic depicting views of Jews Christians and Muslims and WP:IMAGE doesn't states that Arabic Calligraphy should not be used. Althought the size can be altered. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is correct Kiatdd, yet an instance of a more general issue. The issue is this: "whenever a template tries to telegram facts, never ending debate ensues". That is true of so many templates. So even if a patch is made here, in 3 months someone will say the views of some other Islamic group is under-represented etc. The only way to get stable templates is to have them only include links and no assertions of fact. That is the only way. History2007 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As i said earlier it is depicting Islamic view of Jesus therefore there would be no issue if some other Islamic group wants to add there perception to the template. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You just admitted that this template has specific views, and is hence by definition a POV-nightmare. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding, I didn't notice that the contents of the templates are biased too, I agree with you that they must be changed to infoboxes i.e a collection of links, but how? Kiatdd (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The general point is this:

• Templates have links
• Info boxes have facts and/or views

So this can get applied to the Isa page as an infobox, but to remain as a template, it needs to have "all assertions" removed, and just have links. The only section that can remain is then the "related articles". As is, it can not be plastered all over he place the way Ebi is doing it. I will revert one more now. Come to think of it, what links does it have that the Islamic section of the Jesus template does not have? History2007 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I want it applied to the Isa page as an infobox, but to remain as a template and have tried to clear the assertions but i guess its not working. Tag it for deletion or delete it. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to fix it such that it is just links - the links need to be to the real article names, and not to POV names.

• '''[[Mary in Islam|<span style="color:#a0b6db;">Mariam</span>]]''' (Marīam - مريم) is not OK
• '''[[Mary in Islam]]''' (Marīam - مريم) is OK

Also we need to do away with the non-standard colours. Let us have black writing on a white background. I have tolerably good eyesight, and find it hard to read the link text in the template.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Key articles on
Jesus in Islam Prophet Apostles Disciples Gospel Mary Death Masih ad-Dajjal Mahdi

• why did you tag your template for speedy deletion?

Administrators please don't delete this template until we rectify the issues. are you trying to close the discussion by deleting this template? you have already copied thousands of your templates in wikipedia pages most of them are your POVs, here is your -contribs. Kiatdd (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I look at the larger picture, this is not just a template issue, but a user behavior issue. As you said, Eby is plastering templates all over the place, in effect adding POV without adding content.... I would prefer to see this template deleted anyway, then let the other issues proceed, unless Eby wants to resurrect it again. This one has no hope, now that we have had this discussion. But for now, as you suggested I contested deletion. History2007 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

-I made some changes to the template:Isa based on your suggestion, I have no idea whether the contents are okay now? however I still think a good image is better than a calligraphy.Kiatdd (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I touched it up here, in a form that addresses your concerns:

• Smaller, so it can fit everywhere
• Links, not facts

But I am not aware of a restriction on caligraphy in Wikipedia, and Muslims generally avoid depictions anyway. But the link on parables was going to Parables in Christianity etc. so they can not fit. But if Eby or someone else has other links, he can extend that list anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no position on the use of calligraphy vs a book image. You guys can discuss that. But yout probably needs the portal Islam at the end. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

-I saved the template:Isa, I made minor changes to template:Quran too. I Agree that depictions of individuals should be avoided but images of books are okay and as I previously mentioned most muslims don't understand arabic therefore there is no point to use a calligraphy in this widely used template instead of an image, for exmaple these pages look more meaningful now:Tajwid, Sura. I put the portal link too. I think we can put a box that summarizes the result of the discussion. Kiatdd (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• No can do after providing primary sources as well as secondary sources for my version of the template. There is no policy that say that that infobox canot be placed in navigational templates so its better to make one at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) before pointing out Its the user behavior and plastering templates if updating the template from this to this is plastering then be it that way. This version of yours falls under the category of CSD T3 so if this one is what you are proposing then add it to Template:Jesus. This one is going for deletion and if there are problems with the other templates i have designed then talk on WikiProject Islam not here although your are reverted here second time with your POV at template:Quran. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This template should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous misrepresentation of policy, because... per discussion above. --History2007 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And now it falls under CSD T3. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ebi, please stop tagging this template for speedy deletion like you did here and here, the template and its history & talk page are valuable and will be referenced in future, If we keep them, we won't need to discuss everything all over again. Kiatdd (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

He has a right to tag it and you have a right to contest it and go on. The only way is if he wants to Afd it. Much effort for nothing. I am not even sure what he wants to do. I am going to stop watching here anyway. A waste of time it has become. If it gets Afd-ed, let me know. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless talks no productive efforts. No need to expand if only links are to be placed same purpose can be done by Template:Jesus under section "Jesus in Islam" the idea was to make it an infobox that can be used on Jesus in Islam and in Islam section of article Jesus and can serve the purpose of template as well (why is it so difficult to understand?) but if it is offending other editors there is no need for its existence, further the idea was mine the template created is by me if editors are not convincing by the use of this type of Navigational box then the better way is to drop the idea and move forward. stop tagging this template for speedy deletion i cant help it if they fall in the category, prove me wrong if i tag it incorrectly. If you are so keen to keep this i am afraid i would go for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (For your version of template) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (For the actual version of the template). Decide and let me know. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is useful!--88.111.115.71 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)