Template:Did you know nominations/Reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has a "confusing" template on it, placed by the nominator shortly before the most recent post here; as the article cannot be promoted with that template and no work has been done since, the nomination is being closed as unsuccessful.

Reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi[edit]

Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC).

  • The article is new enough (created 21 August, nominated 23 August) long enough and sufficiently sourced, without copy-and-paste. But, it is not written in proper English ("Some signs that the Sunni and Shia are of the same mind upon them, Muhammad al-Mahdi is a descendent of Muhammad prophet and has same as him"; "Muhammad al-Mahdi will establish just Islamic state all over the world to bring justice and peace as rightful of caliphs and spherical leaderships") and, most of all, it reads like a profession of faith, not like an encyclopaedic article. We are currently in the middle of a worldwide confrontation between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and this article reads like a sincere but misplaced effort at dawah. It should be rewritten in order not to offend or shock non-believers or believer in others faiths. Edelseider (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention, but i can't found what is the problem. According to sources that i used, this is the beliefs or exact tradition between shia and some sunni Muslim and formed the Mahdiism theory. Please trust me that i never write any sentence from myself or I try to create propaganda about shia Islam. I can change the article's name to 'reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi in shia Islam' or adding the article ideas of other Islamic or non-Islamic sects. Saff V. (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be restructured to read as a non-bias article, no matter what the title may be. I agree with the original reviewer. It does feel like a misplaced preaching attempt. Yes, you get the information from the sources, However, try restructuring it to fit a neutral window... Gvstaylor1 (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This article had been edited by copy editor recently. In other hand I wonder what the exact problem is or actually what should I do. Could you explain the problem clearly, Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Start by addressing the tag "clarification needed", please. And do consider that for non-believers, sentences like "He had been titled as Imam-i ’Asr (the Imam of the "Period") and Sahib al-Zaman (the Lord of the Age), has the name same as Muhammad prophet." make little sense. What "Age"? What "Period"? Who is "Muhammad prophet", do you mean Muhammad, whom Muslims call "the prophet" (non-Muslims don't do). Et cetera. Edelseider (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) I'm the one who brushed the article up some (but I am not a "copy editor"). There's still some awkward English phrasing going on here that I didn't fix, but I'd argue that the biggest problem is that the article doesn't really justify itself much; there isn't enough real content. It could be summarized in two sentences right now: "Shias believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi will return and it will be awesome. He will establish peace and justice and fix everything, and there will be big mystical signs this is happening." There needs to be some more detail that isn't just background here for there to be enough "meat" to qualify as a good article, in my opinion. But... that needs to be really well-sourced, not just to "somebody thinks this." As a side comment, I'm sure it was in good faith, but some of the sources you were using before are probably not the best sources to cite for Islamic eschatology; stuff like "Islam - the Cloak of Antichrist" is a book about how Muslims are totally evil from a certain kind of Christian perspective, and while it does accurately convey certain aspects of Islamic theology, it's probably not what you want to rely on... (I already removed it, to be clear.) SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

On the basis of everything that has been stated above and the fact that the author of the article hasn't done anything about it in a full week of seven days but left it to others to address the problems he created – it's a collaborative project but come on, you've got to be involved a bit more with your own stuff – this article is ineligible for DYK. Edelseider (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was very busy with my exams. I will deal with the raised issues by Wednesday. Saff V. (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for delay, I'm completely snowed under with my exams, But today I try to remove the problem that @Edelseider: nominated them. @SnowFire: Thanks for your good intent, However I can't get to do. As you know, the reappearance of twelfth shia Imam had can be discussed in many aspects, but I thinks that this material is enough. Also I found this book. I appreciate that You make clear the problem of this article. Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)