Talk:Glossary of Islamic Terms
From WikiIslam
I should email you about this.
[edit] Stuff
I put the TOC in, but I can't decide whether it looks better on the left or the right. It doesn't look as good as default (center). I am also thinking that Rituals section shouldn't really be on this page, but I don't think it's a big enough section for it's own article. Also it makes the page look 'messy' and inept (dunno how to explain it better sorry). Should we add {{pagetop}} at the end of each letter section for easier navigation or not? (yeah I'm full of questions tonight lol) Sanitarium 10:47, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. =P Seriously though, I'm wondering about something. Can the "search" be improved at all? I found that when doing internal links, wikiislam is very picky about capitalization.--Natassia 10:57, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Whale can correct me if I'm wrong here, but going by the case sensitive nature of the wiki, I'd say that this site is running on a Unix server, and Unix is case sensitive re: filenames and commands. So that would not be a problem with this site, but a feature of the operating system. I <3 linux hehe. Of course if the problem has nothing to do with Unix, I'll go with your previous answer of "I don't know." Let's wait for Super Whale! Sanitarium 11:04, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. =P Seriously though, I'm wondering about something. Can the "search" be improved at all? I found that when doing internal links, wikiislam is very picky about capitalization.--Natassia 10:57, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
Sanitarium, I think it's great that you put the Letter Section in...much easier for people to use!--Natassia 10:57, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- yeah it's much easier to navigate now - and looks less 'messy'. Actually thanks for drawing my attention to the dictionary page. I agree it can go now because this page is better, but I think the table layout that page has looks neater and more pleasing to the eye. Do you guys think we should change this page to the table layout like the dictionary page or leave it as it is? Sanitarium 10:59, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Is it a lot of work to set it up like the dictionary? I mean, let's try it and if it sucks we can always change it back. :)--Natassia 11:08, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- I just did it - have a look! The "A" table is thinner (85% instead of 100%) so it can fit next to the Table of Contents - otherwise it would start underneath it (and that looks crap). What do you think? Sanitarium 11:57, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Is it a lot of work to set it up like the dictionary? I mean, let's try it and if it sucks we can always change it back. :)--Natassia 11:08, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- yeah it's much easier to navigate now - and looks less 'messy'. Actually thanks for drawing my attention to the dictionary page. I agree it can go now because this page is better, but I think the table layout that page has looks neater and more pleasing to the eye. Do you guys think we should change this page to the table layout like the dictionary page or leave it as it is? Sanitarium 10:59, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Oh a nice TOC! The pagetop links would be good for each letter section yea. TOC looks ok on the left as it is right now. I dont like the table layout of the dictionary page, I like this one better because its more compact and less lines. If we use pictures in this page later they will flow better too with this current layout. But do whatever you like, I'm undecided on that. Maybe the table does look better. Islamic Rituals I agree, is kinda out of place there. The groupings of the terms is nice (greetings/rituals/phrases) but I dont know also what we should do about it. Do you wanna remove it or merge it into the main content of the page? I guess it could be merged.
- Yeah the other way was more compact -and I think that if we add pictures later on, I have no problem re-designing it (and removing the tables) but I think it looks OK now - but hey, if you guys don't think it looks good, revert it and do whatever. It didn't take me long to do so I don't mind. I don't think they should be merged into the main content, because the 'tone' of the article is kind if witty/sarcastic on a lot of terms, but those rituals ones are just straight definitions (from what I can see). I guess we can merge them if we can't think of something else. Sanitarium 11:57, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Alright cool this is good then, looks great. Merge/delete, anything you like! --Whale 12:24, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Yeah the other way was more compact -and I think that if we add pictures later on, I have no problem re-designing it (and removing the tables) but I think it looks OK now - but hey, if you guys don't think it looks good, revert it and do whatever. It didn't take me long to do so I don't mind. I don't think they should be merged into the main content, because the 'tone' of the article is kind if witty/sarcastic on a lot of terms, but those rituals ones are just straight definitions (from what I can see). I guess we can merge them if we can't think of something else. Sanitarium 11:57, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Natassia, the "search" feature cant be fixed for the case thing, thats due to the Mediawiki software but give some examples of the search that you tried that didnt work. We tried google search at a time but we didnt like it because it wasnt turning up the things we wanted so we went back. Maybe I'll try google again some day. --Whale 11:45, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
Can we do the contents at the top rather than the side? there's a huge empty space between "A" and the actual dictionary.--Natassia 12:01, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- What browser are you using? Are you using any zooming addons? This can cause white space. I'm using Firefox - and if I use ZoomFox to zoom the page 3 times (text only), it appears just like you are describing Sanitarium 12:14, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Ah that table thing happens in smaller width screens (resize your window to a smaller width and you'll see it), we can make a manual horizontal A-Z TOC. I'll see what I can do. --Whale 12:24, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- See? Super Whale! What would we do without you man? Sanitarium 12:26, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Ah that table thing happens in smaller width screens (resize your window to a smaller width and you'll see it), we can make a manual horizontal A-Z TOC. I'll see what I can do. --Whale 12:24, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Resize my window? Huh? You are not talking to the most computer-savvy person here, guys!--Natassia 12:34, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- I fixed it now. I made a manual TOC now on the top and also added PageTop links. Looks cool now! --Whale 12:44, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Nope, now it looks great! Thanks Whale! I learnt more about TOC's thanks to you! Sanitarium 13:36, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- I fixed it now. I made a manual TOC now on the top and also added PageTop links. Looks cool now! --Whale 12:44, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Resize my window? Huh? You are not talking to the most computer-savvy person here, guys!--Natassia 12:34, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
I'm thinkin' we should just merge the Rituals terms with the rest of the Glossary terms...--Natassia 23:36, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- +1. I don't see any need for them being separate. Gabe 23:52, 16 September 2009 (PDT)
- Alrighty then. I'll consider it to be my project for the morning.--Natassia 07:03, 17 September 2009 (PDT)
[edit] terms in red
the ones that don't have a wikiislam article (and do you really think it is necessary that they all have one?)--should we just link them to wikipedia or something?--Natassia 06:28, 18 September 2009 (PDT)
- I think that ideally they should all link to another page (be it wikipedia or here) to give further information should the reader want it, but it is not essential that we do them all right now, because it is not of high importance. Sanitarium 06:48, 18 September 2009 (PDT)
[edit] Palestinian people
In the glossary on this website, the definition of Palestinian is:
Artificial people created by Arabic nations ever since 1948. There never has been, historically, a Palestinian nation and the land was utterly desolate. Parked in refugees camps mainly to constitute a 'terrorist army' made of 'cheap martyrs' as we would say of 'cheap laborers'. --Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal. King Hussein of Jordan, 1960.
I think this is crazy to deny the existence of the Palestinians and to claim that they were only created since 1948. Read about the 1917 British mandate regarding Palestine, and tell me, there weren't any Palestinians before 1948?
There are archeological evidences that this isn't the case. ([See wikipedia)
When they dumped all those European Jewish to Palestine and created a state for Israel, you do not think that there were settlers there who became homeless? What do you call those people?
As Bertrand Russel says:
The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. [...] What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy.[41]
—Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970
I admire the support this website is offering to those who wish to leave Islam, but lying and denying facts makes you no different than the Islam doctrine.
- So what do you think should be the correct version of the definition? Its open to anyone to edit and make corrections. --Whale 10:20, 8 November 2009 (PST)
