Talk:Fatima

Protected article

In view of the edit war, I have now protected the article so that only admins can edit it. Please discuss the points of disagreement and try to reach a consensus. You may ask an admin to make changes by placing explaining here what you want done, and placing an {{editprotected}} tag beside it. However, please note that an admin is unlikely to agree to any changes without a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a non-Muslim with very limited knowledge of the subject, the present version does not seem to handle the diametrically opposed Sunni & Shia viewpoints well, and clearly leans somewhat to the Shia view. Different sections for each view of her death are needed, as the question of her possible siblings has. At the same time, since she is certainly more significant in the Shia tradition, that version should be placed first. Johnbod 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, thank you for your comments. I was attempting to make this NPOV and if you look at my edits which Klaksonn reverted, it gives the Shia view full prominence as you suggest with a simple expand tag on the Sunni view which I was hoping to work on but Klaksonn is pushing his POV and does not seem to understand that the article should be neutral. → AA ^(talk) — 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with John. AA, please continue your efforts to fix this article when it is opened for editing again. Let me know if you need any help in the way of references or research. MezzoMezzo 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You could open up a temp version either as a sub-page here (which anyone could edit), or in your sandbox, for drafting/discussion purposes. Johnbod 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul article (Talk:Fatimah/sandbox)

It's good to see a discussion starting here on how to resolve this dispute. I hope it will e helpful to remind editors that the reason for protecting the page is not to endorse any particular version, just to stop edit warring. Ideally, editors will use this time to try to reach a consensus, because if the edit warring resumes when the article is unprotected, it will soon be protected again. To help in achieving that, editors may find it helpful to re-read WP:NPOV, particularly the summary at WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view.

To make things easier for those drafting new versions while the page is protected, I have created a temp version at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thank you very much for your objectivity and helpfulness on the article, Brown Haired Girl. Guys, i've been sort of out of the discussions and improvements on this article so while I can see the edit history and th various versions, I may not be the best person to just jump in and start editing when the protection is gone. Regardless, I can stick around if everyone would want just to look everything over and throw in my two cents when a third opinion is needed. MezzoMezzo 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all for the initiative and support you have given. MezzoMezzo, I would welcome your input and assistance on this. Indeed, I would welcome Klaksonn's help too provided we work towards a goal of keeping the article NPOV. I think if we start from scratch and come up with a structure and section headings we want to see, it would give us all something to work on without any connotations of the article in its current form. I suggest that since it's a BIO article, we take as a template the one suggested at the Biography wikiproject to begin with. I should be able to document my ideas later today. → AA ^(talk) — 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography seems like a good place to start. I'm guessing they have some sort of a basic template for the structure of bio pages? MezzoMezzo 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have stubified the article with the sections I think we need to cover. The next step is to add the list of references that will be cited in the article. One of the key problems with the current article is that the majority of the references do not meet WP:RS. Could everyone please add the references they would like to cite in the References section and discuss these so we can get a solid foundation for building the article and ensure later conflict is minimised. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands right now I have some biographical type resources though they're predominantly in the Arabic language, and there might be an issue with that. For the time being I can do a quick search among my favorite Islamic bookstores and see if I can find any English language reference material perhaps either on Fatimah specifically or maybe the companions in general. For the time being, woudl anybody be interested in some web links to the Arabic text of some excerpts from said books? MezzoMezzo 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to limit the sources to books and scholarly sources as the main problem with the current article is there's lots of links to polemic sites and forums. I'm using two sources myself which are available on the net (USC-MSA bio (Sunni) & Fatima The Gracious (Shia)) plus a book I have (Great Women of Islam). If you have other book sources then that would be great - please add them refs to the sandbox. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

Please review the new article (in the sandbox). It would be great to get this to GA, so if you have further suggestions for improvement, please drop them by here. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the new version be moved into mainspace. → AA ^(talk) — 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth dates and sequence in birth

I think this is better, though I am no expert. I have made a few changes, especially replacing "generally accepted" etc with "generally accepted by Sunni sources" etc. More, and more referencing, is needed on the early sources of the different accounts. The section on the way Fatimah is regarded probably also needs differentiation between Sunni & Shia views. Johnbod 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your interest in this article. Regarding your recent change, the edit by Itaqallah is in fact correct as it's not only Sunni sources which suggest these. The Encyclopedia of Islam is a neutral source which also accepts these view and therefore it is appropriate to state it as such with a subtext that the Shias have an alternative view. Hope that clarifies. Regards. → AA ^(talk) — 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it needs some more detail then. Previous version:

"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations, during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605.[1][2] Most Shia sources, however, state that she was born five years after the first revelation in 615 on the 20th of Jumada al-thani while some claim she was born two years after the first revelation in 612.[3]..."

"Fatimah is generally placed as the fourth of Muhammad's daughters after Zaynab, Ruqayya, and Umm Kulthum.[4] Shias claim she was his only daughter, believing ...."

- In both cases the views of "Shias" or "most Shias" are said to be different from the "widely" or "generally" held view. I don't think this can be right. Johnbod 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...I see. Maybe not mention the Shia view and just state the facts:

"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations,[1][2][7] during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605, although this does imply she was over 18 at the time of her marriage which was unusual in Arabia.[2] Other sources,[3] suggest that she was born either two or five years after the first revelation but this timeline would imply her mother was over fifty at the time of her birth.[2]"

The point about her place in the sequence of Muhammad's daughters is only a Shia view and the EoI does not add any subtext to say otherwise. → AA ^(talk) — 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you must see that just excluding the Shia view is wrong, and will just lead to further edit conflicts? Is the neutrality of the EoI in fact accepted by Shias? If it doesn't mention the views held by most Shia sources, as you imply, this would seem unlikely. If by "widely accepted" you actually mean "the only view given in the EoI", it might be better to just say that. Any statement like "widely accepted" or "generally accepted" must mean that the view is held by at least a good number of Shia sources. Johnbod 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly held by all Sunni sources and the EoI can be regarded as a non-muslim source. Additionally, it's accepted in Encylopaedia Britannica, MSN Encarta and other encyclopaedias so it is the generally accepted view. The Shia do have a different view (and I'm not sure if it's a universal Shia view either) and we can either report it explicitly or implicitly but it would be incorrect to label it only a Sunni view. → AA ^(talk) — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the original article, there's a whole list of sources (including Sunni, Shia and EoI) supporting this view. I'll copy them across into the new article). → AA ^(talk) — 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a standard academic reference on Islam, and one of best scholarly sources one can use on Islam related articles. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also notice the links to the series of specifically Shia articles are missing, and many of the links to online Shia texts. I agree that something like Umar at Fatimah's house should not be linked by the "main article" template, but they should be linked, maybe by something like [[Umar at Fatimah's house|some Shia sources. I understand your concerns about linking to inflammatory Shia sites, but I think links to historical texts online are ok. There seem to have been several of these in the old references, now missing. Of course I can't read them myself. Johnbod 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the EL section yet (been working exclusively on the article) but we should not have anything that does not meet WP:EL. Please do suggest the ones you think would be acceptable per the guidelines and we can discuss here. → AA ^(talk) — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of links for EL section

On the language issue, WP:EL says "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language ..." - as I say I can't read any of the Arabic (or Farsi ?) texts, but if they are to straight texts of historical sources, it should be ok to use them, in the absence of (or as well as) links to English translations. Several of the old links appear prima facie to be this sort of link. Johnbod 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any site can be considered an "official site" for this article so the use of non-English-language links should be avoided. I believe the criteria applies more to an official site of a product/organisation/person etc. However, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as the links in the EL section of the current article all appear to be in English. Could you paste the link here please. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the ones which I don't believe meet WP:EL. → AA ^(talk) — 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My reading of EL is that " when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" is a separate case from the preceding "official site" bit (an "or" would make this clearer). So I don't think you are correct in saying "the use of non-English-language links should be avoided". For the links, look at those attached to Note 1. Johnbod 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This other policy may or may not clarify the matter: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#non-English-language_sites; in any case I'm pretty sure my reading is correct the full sentence describes 3 cases, not 2. Johnbod 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I see. You're referring to the References and not the External links section, right? If so, then yes, those refs in note 1 have been copied across (note 7 in the new article). → AA ^(talk) — 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Virtues section

On the whole, this version of the article looks excellent. I noticed from the virtues section:

After Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader of all women in Paradise, and a behavioural examplar. She was the first wife of the first Shia Imam, the mother of the second and third, and the ancestor of all the succeeding Imams;

The first sentence should probably get some citation as it's a factual claim. For the second sentence, it should be included that she was the wife of the first Shia Imam and also the first Sunni caliph, I think. MezzoMezzo 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That was one of the few elements I copied across from the existing article. I assumed the ref at the end to Esposito, covers the first sentence (since the second one does not really need a ref). If not, then it may need replacing. → AA ^(talk) — 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to move sandbox to mainspace?

As noted above, I have been asked by AA (talk · contribs) to move the version at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox to the main article at Fatimah, following a rewrite, and to merge the histories.

I have no expertise in the subject, and so I do not want to make any assessment of the article. Instead I will ask whether there is a consensus to support this move. Please indicate below whether you support the move, by simply adding a line of the form "* support move" or "* oppose move"., and sign your comment. I will weigh the comments after 48 hours to see if there is a consensus to move.

(Note that the question now is not whether the version in he sandbox is perfect, but whether it should be the starting point for future edits. If the sandbox version is moved to mainspace, it will of course be open to ongoing editing as with any other article).

Sorry if this sounds a bit long-winded, but consensus seems a better way of assessing things than a judgment by an admin like me who knows nothing about the subject! Thanks :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: this is a far-superior version to the one we had before in terms of neutrality of tone and balance of views, and should make an excellent starting point for a thorough treatment of this subject. -- Slacker 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: → AA ^(talk) — 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: The new article is a very good piece of work. MezzoMezzo 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm going to try to formulate another one in the days to come. Consensus means all parties should agree, and not two Wahhabis and a Sunni Bengal. Sadly, it reeks of Sunni POV. It seems the section on Fatimah's death in AA's version was also removed to suit Sunni POV. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support as starting-point, as Slacker says. I don't think the Shia view is sufficiently represented yet, so more work is needed, and general expansion. Johnbod 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)