This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article became obvious sunni bias as the shia section was removed totally and there is no mentions of any critical documents against him. I readded the Shia section and the old more historically accurate Sunni section instead of the bias nonsense posted before. This article should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.90.239 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it seems that whoever last edited this page to its current form overly relied on limited Indonesian sources which are pro Hurayra. It is of course within that user's right to present counter critism of the criticism, but the sources and the way it is presented does not seem to show good faith in arguing. It is mostly rambling, do not engage with core critism's logic, simply reiterated pro opinions, and created a strawman by making the critism section short. Is it time to edit the article to be more balanced? 182.3.52.8 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding the {{Sahaba}} template. It's ugly and misplaced, and it's already mentioned in the introduction, as well as the category. If you want a template on all the Sahaba, then make a nice template. Cuñado - Talk16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abu Hurairah → Abu Hurayra – Abu Hurayra is the common Arabic transliteration per WP:MOSAR. Abu Hurayrah is also a correct transliteration of the Arabic word per the guidelines here though it is more common on Wikipedia to drop the 'h' in similar cases, e.g., Mu'awiya I instead of Mu'awiyah I. Abu Hurayra also seems to be a more common transliteration in reliable sources, e.g., the works of Madelung. TatesTopG (talk) 8:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk)09:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the merits, but since this has been sitting here for the better part of a week, I'm just going to assume it's potentially controversial and contest it so that others can weigh in. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
- Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
