Talk:Battle of Badr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Battle of Badr is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Remove image
Hi,
Can someone kindly remove the image which is so called depicted the Holy Prophet ﷺ as this is a cause of great disrespect.
Thanks. Rasojp (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Rasojp: No, sorry; this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text, and the historical image is relevant to the content. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. General Ization Talk 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Even if this is not considered a religious text, in Islam any image depicting the Prophet ﷺ is a cause if disrespect, therefore I would like to kindly implore you to replace this image with a map of the location of 'Badr' where this historical battle took place.
- Many thanks. Rasojp (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NOTCENSORED, specifically:
Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
...
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.
- Jamedeus (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Jamedeus praise to the holy rules of wikipedia, the picture you have provided is the 'most appropriate' picture, despite the fact 2 billon people regard that picture as far from accurate and offensive. shame on you 2401:BA80:A107:7815:17DC:157:D79:43B9 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Rasojp True. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
GA concerns
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited text, particularily in the "Battlefield" section, which has an orange "citations needed" banner. I see that some editors were working on this article earlier in the year: is anyone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Battle of Badr
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The "Battlefield" section has an orange "additional sources needed" banner at the top since March 2022. There are also uncited sections elsewhere in the article. The article relies too much upon long block quotes, particularily in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some of what is in the Battlefield is already covered in Battle. The last paragraph has a citation. We can just remove the uncited parts if need be. The aftermath section now has only one quote, and its an important quote. I've seen that particular quote from Muir being reproduced in several other works.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are also lots of primary references and sources written by Dawah publishers such as Darusallam. Overall, the article reads like a history lecture from a religious viewpoint. Quite a few important articles related to Islam suffered from what I presume to be activism rather than encyclopedic work. Recently the GA status of Muhammad in Islam was renounced for the same reason. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Hamza in Implications
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a link to Hamza (an Arabic script character) in the Implications section of the article, which should instead link to Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, who is the person being discussed. -- 174.17.179.188 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Done I removed the link without adding a new one (Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib is already mentioned multiple times in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect Belligerent
I noticed that in the Belligerent side of The Quraysh, Al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Abi Sufyan, and when you click on it it leads to Al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Abi Sufyan when it really should have been Al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Rabi'a who participated in The Battle of Badr. Abd.wasay (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)




