Talk:Ali

Cite error

The reference "Al-Islam" is define as part of the ref list in the Reference section, however it is not used in the article. The reference should be commented out or deleted. Thanks 92.5.2.97 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done It was already commented out, but since this was a complete junk source, I removed it altogether. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

hyphen

At the moment, the birth-death dating has an underscore where I believe it should have a hyphen: "13 September 601 _ 28 January 661". Please fix, thank you. 2600:8800:2396:4600:25E8:1F01:85BD:691B (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. It's fixed now. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted citation

I do not understand why the citation was deleted here^[1] - and I do not understand why it was mislabelled as a minor edit. The statement was:

According to Madelung, Ali stood firmly by his principles and would not compromise them for political self-gain

The citation was:

Madelung, Wilferd (1998). The Succession to Muhammad. Cambridge University Press. p. 149. 'Ali, deeply convinced of his right and his religious mission, unwilling to compromise his principles for the sake of political expediency, ready to fight against overwhelming odds.'

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1. It is fixed now.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hello. I am going to work on this article to improve it to a good article. Any suggestion? Ghazaalch (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, Mhhossein, Alivardi, and Vice regent: Hello. I have been working on this article for a while and am going to nominate it for a good article. Is there anything I could do before nomination? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: That seems good. But have you noticed the previous attempts? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Every thing has been changed since 2015. I omitted or replaced all unreliable information and could say that it is a new article now. So I do not think it has the previous issues now.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I changed the contents in the infobox a little bit, but the new information are hidden.(can't be seen by readers) Do you know what is the problem?Ghazaalch (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Are the info you added hidden now? Can you tell me which content you are referring to? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. The following is hidden now:

|Titles: Amir al-Mu'minin, Abu Turab, Haydar, Asadullah, Al-Murtadha, Abu al-Hasan.

Ghazaalch (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Check my edit.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. Well done:) Ghazaalch (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello AhmadLX. You did a great job reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, which was kind of writing the article from the beginning. I am wondering if you have the time to review this article too? If it is too much, I can start preparing Husayn ibn Ali for review first.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have time at the moment for another review. However, you should fix these things before a GAN: (i) primary/poor-secondary/polemic/self-published sources (e.g. Bukhari, Muslim, Kulayni, Razwy Sayed Ali Asgher, Shahin Badr, www.spiritualfoundation.net etc.) should be removed. (ii) the article should be made MoS compliant (iii) Fix ToC (it would qualify as a start class article if written out as text;)) (iv) Reduce verbosity and excessive detail (e.g. Battle of Nahrawan section is almost half the size of the battle article itself; same with Siffin. See Mu'awiya I#Battle of Siffin and arbitration for comparison.). You should also think about GAN requirements, especially 3b, and WP:Summary style. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: You should add Martin Hinds' Kufan Political Allignments and The Siffin Arbitration Agreement in sections on analysis of Ali's Kufan coalition and arbitration. On Kharijites, you should include more recent works such as Jeffrey Kenney's Kharijites and the Politics of Extremism. But Wellhausen's classic The Religio-political Opposition Parties would also be a good addition. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you AhmadLX. I used the sources you mentioned above, including your translation of Wellhausen's book. I couldn't find THE SIFFIN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT as I mentioned before. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

See if you can access from this link. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you AhmadLX I cannot reach the Site. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello AhmadLX. Can you take another look at the article and see if we can nominate it now? Ghazaalch (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: If I were to review a nomination in the current state of the article, I would quick fail it: Bukhari, Ibn Taimiyya, Sahih Muslim, Nahj al-Balagha, Ibn Athir, a master thesis, abundant references to primary sources (see this, see that etc), 50+ footnotes, historiography low standard (the crux of it being that Madelung's deviation from the academic consensus on the unreliability of hadith literature is correct and justified), 3 to 4 See Alsos at the start of every section, more than half dozen titles, still thoroughly verbose, undue weight (ghulat,in Quran & Hadith etc). However, the decision to nominate/not nominate is yours. I just gave my opinion. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Where is the two Omar’s A.S? And 1 Uthman A.S? Guloy61 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for bibliography sorting

can someone rearrange the bibliography section author's name in alphabetical? it's more easier to anyone who want to search and find certain sources of this article which we want to read. thx Ahendra (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Caliphate

It looks like there is a lot of room for improvement in this section of the article. As just one instance, the first pragraph of this section contains the full sentence: "circumstances, led to this civil war in Muslim history, wived differently by different Muslims." I'm hoping to work on this section in the coming weeks. I'll discuss any major changes here. At the moment, it looks like that no one is actively working on this section. Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's toes... Albertatiran (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Considering that these have their own main articles, I think the sections Battle of the Camel, Battle of Siffin, Advent of Kharijites, Arbitration, and Battle of Nahrawan can and possibly should be substantially shorter. This issue might have also come up in earlier discussions. I'd like to just keep the highlights of each event and, for additional details, the reader can refer to the main articles. Albertatiran (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Advent of the Kharijites containts the full sentence "They agreed to the agreement because it was an invitation to Qur'an and peace; but the terms of the agreement had not yet been determined; there was no term according which Ali would no longer be considered the commander of the faithful; however, the expansion of the arbitrators' authority from the Qur'an to sunnah, which was ambiguous, jeopardized the credibility of the Qur'an, Qurra argued." I think this section could be edited and shortened, and then merged with Battle of Nahrawan. There is already a pointer on this page to the well-written Kharijites article. Albertatiran (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Merged the above two sections and summarized them, largely borrowing from Kharijites and First Fitna articles. Albertatiran (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Overall it's in a good shape but there are a couple of places that Arbitration can perhaps be improved: 1) Too much emphasis on the 2nd meeting (a long paragraph), which can probably be shortened quite a bit. 2) The aftermath of the arbitration (e.g., the 2nd Syria campaign) can probably be moved to Battle of Nahrawan or the last section, which might be renamed accordingly. I think that implementing these two changes will summarize and focus this section a bit more. Albertatiran (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

In Arbitration, the sentence "But, the religious leaders of Medina, who did not participate in the first arbitration, tried to resolve the crisis of the Caliphate in this way" doesn't exist in the source (Madelung, pp. 238, 239). Albertatiran (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The last year of the caliphate does not meet the Wiki's standards of writing in some places, e.g.,

• "still called himself the caliph of the Muslims"
• "his loyalists decreased every day"

Other claims are questionable or exaggerated, e.g.,

• "Ali lost control of the Hejaz"
• "In 40 AH, Ali did not even have control over the cities of Mecca and Medina"
• "He was practically confined to the city of Kufa and in a defensive position"
• "Arab public opinion tended to Mu'awiya's succession"

I think parts of this section can be rewitten more carefully and without inflamation or exaggeration. (FYI, proposed changes for the last year of caliphate, Ghazaalch.) Albertatiran (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

problematic edits

@Albertatiran: If you want to shorten this article, you shouldn't delete the well sourced long standing information of this article, and replace them with contents from other articles, like what you did here. Instead you should summarize the existing information.

Ghazaalch, the version you pointed to also contained the following claim that doesn't exist in the source (which I removed). There is really no doubt that my edits improved this verbose section, which was, almost to the word, copy-pasted from Vaglieri. "The rebels maintained that Uthman had been justly killed, for not governing according to the Quran and Sunnah; hence, no vengeance was to be invoked." Albertatiran (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure what your question is, but I explained it below. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, thanks for the responses below. Instead of clarifying myself, it might be more productive for me to jump to the main point below and answer that. Albertatiran (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I noticed that you deleted some attributions (according to ...), which are needed for controversial contents. You should fix them yourself.

Ghazaalch, the above can be easily addressed without reverting the article. Albertatiran (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't revert them. You should fix them yourself. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also when you want to rearrange or clarify a paragraph, you cannot attribute the information of one source to another like what you might have done here.

Ghazaalch, your claim is false. "According to Poonawala, before the assassination of Uthman, the Basri rebels were in favor of Talha, and the Kufi rebels were in favor of Zubayr, but with the assassination of Uthman, both groups converted to Ali. With the assassination of Uthman, the Umayyads fled Medina, and the Egyptians, prominent Muhajirun, and Ansar gained control. They invited Ali to the caliphate and he accepted the position after a few days," is all sourced from Iranica. Albertatiran (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Again I don't know what you are saying, but I didn't revert them either. You should fix them yourself. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you need more information ask the editors who are more experienced like Mhhossein. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: If you are going to edit the infobox, please could you at least check that your edits are compatible with the templates used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Toddy1:. Sorry I didn't want to. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C, Al Ameer son, Mhhossein, HistoryofIran, Toddy1, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, M.Nadian, and Apaugasma: I would ask you to please look into the edit war started by Ghazaalch. Without any exceptions, I've improved the flow and writing of the article (e.g., [2]), added new sources (e.g., [3]), removed udue weight or shortened verbose content (e.g., [4]), filled in the gaps within the narrative (e.g., [5]), corrected misrperesentations of the source (e.g., [6]), removed repeated or rearranged misplaced content (e.g., [7]), removed content that didn't exist in the source (like [8] or [9]). Ghazaalch has now reverted the article, even though I had posted my proposed edits on the talk page long ago and waited for feedback before editing the article. Thank you for your help. Albertatiran (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Albertatiran: None of the links (diffs) you provided above were reverted except for the number 4, and I already explained why; However, I would explain again. You are saying that the summaries that you copied from the First Fitna and pasted in this article are better than previous ones; but the question is that are they good enough for this article too? Is it okay if we summarize the article, Battle of Nahrawan, for example, and pour it in the relevant section in this article? I am saying no. Because this article is about the life of Ali, and we should concentrate on the information that explain his life not any information about this battle or that battle. That is why I am saying that if you want to shorten this article, you'd better use the existing information which are concentrating on Ali's position about the events of his life, not just the event of his life, and of course you could clarify the existing information or add new information from other sources too. The second point is that we are arranging the events of Ali's life in chronological order, so it is better to write about the Advent of Kharijites before we write about Arbitration; and write about Arbitration before we write about the Battle of Nahrawan. So this point should be taken into account while merging sections.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, thanks for the response. Would the following be agreeable to you? I will attempt to address all of your concerns over the next couple of weeks, starting from this version [10], e.g., by highlighting the role of Ali in those events and separating the Kharijites' genesis story from the Battle of Nahrawan. (I'll also integrate the recent edits by Toddy1 and Thegreatrebellion.) Albertatiran (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The point of the reverts was that the long-standing information should be the base of your work not the copy-pasted ones. So I'd prefer to start with the current version. But you can use some of the reverted information which are not problematic. Also you can merge the Advent of Kharijites with one of its adjacent sections, Battle of Siffin or Arbitration.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the future, it'd arguably be more productive to voice your concerns here instead of reverting the article point blank. I'd personally be much more responsive and wellcoming to constructive feedback received on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)