Talk:Fatima

Consensus to move sandbox to mainspace?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

I'm not sure consensus does mean all parties should agree but nevertheless, I'd like to get your support in submitting the article for GA. So please, copy the relevant points you disagree with in the review section above and we can discuss it as consensus does require discussion. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the death section from the main article has been incorporated in the "Life after the death of Muhammad" section since the Shia book Fatima the Gracious gives a specific account of her death which has been used in the rewrite. Hope that's what you were looking for. → AA ^(talk) — 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note that historically, Klaksonn (talk · contribs) has not taken part in constructive discussions and indeed made no attempts to discuss the changes while they were being made over the course of the last few weeks even after requests from me (see this and this). → AA ^(talk) — 11:41, 10 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)
• Support move. If this version still has a Sunni POV, as was asserted in a comment above, why don't those who feel that way fix it. This is a wiki, and even more so, its a sandbox, so it's not even a live page yet. If you have concerns about a sandbox version, edit it to express your ideas, or comment on the talk page. Just through reading this talk page and looking through the history of the sandbox page, there only seems to be one editor active in rectifying the problems that plagued this article. Pepsidrinka 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• You appear to have missed my changes and my many comments, above, which said editor promptly (largely) reverted! Johnbod 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my edits, for which I (and another editor) gave you the reasoning. Please feel free to continue the discussion if you do not agree (I had assumed the explanation given had been to your satisfaction). → AA ^(talk) — 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I indeed did read the comments you made, and by the complete change of direction initiated by yourself (to external links), it's not hard to see why others would think that you no longer had a problem. Pepsidrinka 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, please review the talk archive which will give you a better understanding of why it has been impossible to move forward with this article. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support move - while the sandbox version has quite a way to go before becoming a good article, it is, as others have said, a great starting point. ITAQALLAH 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the article is good the way it is. Many editors worked hard to build it. If some of you are bothered with the 'death' section, we could split the section in two and add the Sunni point of view until other concerned editors are available to give their opinion on the sandbox version User:AA created, because I noticed no Shi'a editors have edited Wikipedia in some time. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I will also be away for a few days and will also try to write another sandbox version of the article if I find any editors with non-Wahhabi POV who could help me. We should hold this discussion until everybody's available and back from vacation. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop calling your fellow editors Wahhabis. MezzoMezzo 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

.....Poverty..... section of the article:

said she was "grining corn..."

first, it should read "grinding"

second, i don't think corn was around arabia circa 623.

i was skimming the article and that caught my eye.

don't know how to approach in fixing.j

will you fix it please?

my best, allison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.225.41 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions from the discussion

I'm sorry that it has taken longer than the promised 48 hours for me to get back to this discussion, but the advantage of my tardiness is that more people have had a chance to express their views.

The first thing to note is that WP:CONSENSUS does not define consensus as unanimity, and it does not allow editors to simply veto any changes: the aim must be to work to reach agreement.

So I note that six editors above have indicated their support for the move, and one opposes it. There are various ways of considering this situation: one is to ask whether there is a super-majority, and in this case there is (6 out of 7 is 85% support). The other test is to ask whether there is a substantive point of disagreement where editors have set out their concerns and sought to create a version which reflects both POVs ... and in this case, that does not appear to have happened.

User:Klaksonn is the only editor who objects to using the sandbox version as a starting point for further development. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Klaksonn's concerns that the Shia viewpoint is not adequately represented (and indeed that view is shared by some of those supporting the sandbox version). However, I note that efforts have been made to address Kalksonn's criticisms, and that (see for example User_talk:AA#Re:) asked Klaksonn to help incorporate material to resolve those problems; wearing my admin hat, I made a similar request when I protected the article some weeks ago. Unfortunately, despite those requests, I can find no trace of Klaksonn having participated in the review discussions above.

The development of an article cannot be stopped by an editor who simply says "I don't like it" or "it's biased": that position imposes a responsibility on the objecting editor to set out in detail the nature of the concerns and to try to reach a consensus article which incorporates both points of view. So far, despite several polite requests, that has not happened.

So I have to find that there is a clear consensus to move the sandbox version to article space. As above, this is not a matter of saying that the present version is perfect, simply that there is a consensus that it provides the better starting point for further improvement.

So I will now move the version at at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox to the main article at Fatimah, and merge the article histories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Move now done, and histories merged. I have also semi-protected the page, in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection, as a biography subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing.

Since there are outstanding areas of disagreement about the content of this article, may I remind editors again of the importance of discussing concerns and trying to reach a consensus? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

"Virtues"

I don't think it's appropriate to label a section in an encyclopedia article "Virtues". Slacker 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What would an appropriate heading be? I think the content of the section is valid but maybe with a different heading? Would "Attributes" be any better? → AA ^(talk) — 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Importance to Muslims", "Significance among Muslims", or something like that? Slacker 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "Titles" and restructured the text appropriately. → AA ^(talk) — 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvements towards GA

Putting the past behind, I'll try and continue to improve this article towards reaching GA status but need some help from experienced editors on what more is required. Could you please add the list of topics/areas that need to be improved in order to meet the GA criteria. → AA ^(talk) — 11:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• (4) Further work required on neutrality (AA)
• (3) Add details on issue of inheritance (AA) [DONE]
• (3) Add details on disagreements between Fatimah and Ali (AA) [DONE]
• (2) Improve sourcing, increasing use of a variety of academic sources; reducing reliance on less reliable sources (i.e. Abu Muhammad Ordoni). (ITAQALLAH)

refs

i have tried to neaten up some of the ref usage, such as moving replicated refs in successive sentences to the end of the relevant passages, as well as joining up common ref combinations (such as EoI and USC). i had also tried looking for other thorough biographical material on Fatimah without much luck, so i will probably try to incorporate what can be found in works such as Cambridge History of Islam, or any works focusing on the life of Muhammad and/or events soon afterwards. perhaps we could also have a section on Fatimah in Shi'ite thought/beliefs if there's enough material available on it. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have completed by other project, I'm turning my attention back to this. Very useful suggestion re: Shia view section. There's some elements of it in EoI (Fatima the Legend) and I have material from the Amin 1968. I also suggest moving some of the other Shia-only views (mostly from Ordoni) into this new section. → AA ^(talk) — 08:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article:Review

This article should be improved more. Therefor I put an On Hold tag on it.

During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2007 compares against the six good article criteria:

Suggestions

1. Expand lead per WP:LEAD

   Needs to be done. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2. You should add reliable sources wherever I put citation needed. In some cases the information is not clear enough.

   Did all the cn tags. I will re-review the source for the remaining vn tag soon. AA

3. Add some information about migration to Mecca.

   Ah yes - failed to spot this oversight. Will do. AA

4. This article doesn't cover enough some major aspects of her life such as descendants and different point of view about her. You can use Ali#Family life, The Incident of Mubahala, Descendants, Inheritance to improve this article.

   I believe it does cover the major aspects of her life in sufficient detail for GA. Fatimah#Children, Fatimah#Inheritance. AA

   You can use Madelung's work, The Succession to Muhammad, pages 50 to 54.Sa.vakilian

   Multiple views now included. → AA ^(talk) — 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. It doesn't represent Shia POV correctly.

   Please suggest which bit is wrong. AA

   How about now following Aminz's additions. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's good and we can make it better later.Sa.vakilian

6. Add some information about importance of her descendants (the Prophet descendants)

   Mention is made of her being the wife/mother of the Shia Imams and about the Fatimid Dynasty. Again, I believe in sufficient detail for GA. Please suggest anything else that is missing. AA

   I propose to add something like this with reliable sources.

   Ali's descendants by Fatimah are known as sharifs, syeds or sayyids. These are honorific titles in Arabic, sharif meaning 'noble' and sayed/sayid meaning 'lord' or 'sir'. As Muhammad's only descendants, they are respected by both Sunni and Shi'a, though the Shi'as place much more emphasis and value on the distinction. The Idrisid and Fatimid dynasties are descended from Ali and many Muslim notables claim to be descendents of Muhammad via his daughter Fatimah and Imam Ali. The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei, supreme leaders of Iran, Muammar al-Gaddafi president of Libya, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali president of Tunis, The Hashemite royal families of Jordan and Iraq, the Alaouite royal family of Morocco, the Husseini family of Lebanon, and the Aga Khans of the Ismaili community claim direct descent from Muhammad through Ali and Fatimah.Sa.vakilian

   Sounds good. I suggest renaming Children to Descendants and adding this to the end of the section. → AA ^(talk) — 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   I've copyedited this into the article but it needs sources. Could you update please as I could not find any in the Ali article either. → AA ^(talk) — 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Clarify which part is written on the basis of Sunni reports and which parts represent Shia narrations.

   Where there are alternative views, I have attempted to do that. If you have specific items, please discuss. AA

8. Add a template for her such as Template:Infobox Salaf.

   I purposefully omitted a template, since the discussion on her date of birth/death cannot be conveyed appropriately in a template. Having a template is also not a requirement for GA, I believe. AA

   I see you've added a new template. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

9. Surprisingly there isn't written anything about her position among Ahl al-Bayt. Add some information about the religious superiority of Fatima according to Muslim hadiths such as Hadith of the Cloak and Hadith of Mubahela.

   I will attempt to do so. AA

   You can use Madelung's work, The Succession to Muhammad, pages 14 to 17.Sa.vakilian

   Aminz has added the section an Quranic view of Fatimah. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, that's nice but I prefer to add this part in her biography as we've done in Ali. I mean "In the Quran " may not sound good as the title of a section. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   I've moved the section under #Life before the death of Muhammad. → AA ^(talk) — 16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   But I meant it's not appropriate to write some part of her biography by its source(i.e. In Qur'an, In hadith, In scholars and academic book, etc). This part should be rewrote on the basis of the issues such as "The event of Mubahala"Sa.vakilian

10. New item, I put Verification needed wherever the idea was dubious or contradicts with other sources.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    I can confirm that there is no mention of Umar injuring Fatimah in the Shi'ite Encyclopedia. Even in Ordoni (which is not a reliable source per WP:RS and is highly partisan), it is mentioned in passing. → AA ^(talk) — 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    In fact these two story which has been narrated in the article is just one.

Umar called for Ali and his men to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. Ali refused to exit. Umar sent a force led by his slave-boy Qunfud to Fatimah's house instructing them to bring Ali to the mosque. Arriving at the house, Qunfud requested permission to enter, which was refused by Ali causing Qunfud to return to Abu Bakr and Umar and relate the events, who instructed them to go back and enter the house by force if necessary. Qunfud and his men returned but were this time refused permission by Fatimah which caused Qunfud to send his men back to Abu Bakr and Umar for further instructions who told them to burn the house down if necessary in order to bring Ali to them.[As I remember Madelung narrated the story up to here p.40] Then, according to Shia sources, Fatimah came and stand behind the door to prevent Umar but he fired the door and broke in, resulting in Fatimah pressed between the door and the wall and she was injured. Men invaded, fastened Ali and pull him to the mosque. Fatimah tried to prevent them but Qunfud beat her so that she miscarried Al Muhsin. According to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq this injury led to her death.. This story is narrated in the primary sources such as the The book of Sulaym ibn Qays, secondary sources such as Kitab-e-Isbatu'l-Wasiyya of Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī and contemporary sources such as Peshawar Nights with little difference. (See also:Umar at Fatimah's house)

Of course, some of Shia reliable sources haven't narrated it but we can't say A minority Shia view which is disputed amongst Shia scholars and not found in scholarly works such as the Islamic Shi'ite Encyclopedi. We should mention the beginning of the story up to warn to fire the house as a historical fact which can be found in Sunni, Shia and western sources and then say According to some of the Shia sources ...

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied to comments above. → AA ^(talk) — 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian asked me to comment and I have a few suggestions.

1. The second sentence in the opening needs a source as it's a major claim.
2. In the opening her birthplace is spelt Mecca but in the birth section it's Makkah. Should be the same. I'm not bothered which but the current consensus is Mecca.
3. In the "Death" section the link for "Ramadhan" leads to Ramadan, about the religious observances, should that not be Ramadan (calendar month)?
4. In the "Disagreements with Ali" section the sentence "On one occasion, a member of the house of Hisham ibn al-Mughirah put forward a proposal to Ali to marry a woman from their clan which he did not immediately reject." is not too clear. Did Hisham ibn al-Mughirah want Ali to marry the woman?

   Do you have a suggestion on how it should be worded based on the full context below? → AA ^(talk) — 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I haven't seen this story in Shia texts. Can you please clarify according to what it has narrated.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's in the EoI referencing al-Baladhuri, Ansab, i, 403; Tirmidhi, ii, 310, etc → AA ^(talk) — 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Here's how it's related in the EoI:

   The most serious disputes between the pair arose when the Banū ām b. īra of the Ḳ suggested to ʿAlī that he should marry one of their women. ʿAlī did not reject the proposal, but Muḥammad, when some of the tribe came to sound him on the matter, came to the defence of his daughter. “ Fāṭima ” , he said, “ is a part of me (baḍʿa minnī) and whoever offends her offends me ” (al-Balā urī, Ansāb, i, 403; ī, ii, 319, etc.) or “ what angers her angers me also ” (this ḥadī has many variants which, however, do not much change the meaning).

   I propose to say According to Sunni narrations.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   EoI is an academic source and it would be wrong to say that it's only accepted by Sunnis (as that wording would imply). If the view is not accepted in Shia sources, then we can cite the source and say it's been refuted by Shia scholars with an explanation. I may have seen this view accepted in the Shia Encyclopedia - will remember to look for it next time. → AA ^(talk) — 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   How about something like "On one occasion, a member of the house of [[Hisham ibn al-Mughirah]] proposed that Ali marry a woman from the [[Banu Makhzum]] clan. Ali did not immediately reject the proposal and when word reached Muhammad he is reported to have said, "Fatima is a part of me and whoever offends her offends me."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks - added that in although the woman was from Hashim's clan. → AA ^(talk) — 05:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   If EoI said that there were disagreements between Fatima and Ali then it's certainly not representative of Shia perspective. Most academic sources on Islam focus on the Sunni version and then treat Shias like some split off group which isn't how Shia feel about themselves. This section repeats this biased narrative - the Sunnis are normal Muslims and the Shia are different. The disagreements section should be under "Sunni perspective," or something like that.Shabaniyya (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Look at Ali#Family life. The first and second sentences in that could also fit in here.

   Both sentences would require a citation. I've added cn tags. → AA ^(talk) — 05:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   You can find the sources at the end of the paragraph. I added most of them at the end of the paragraphs similar to Islam.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

6. In the "Marriage" section hijra should probably be linked to Hijra (Islam) as should Uthman to Uthman Ibn Affan.
7. A look through the "What links here" would seem to show that there may be pages that should appear here. Possibly in the "See also" section. Things like Fatima the Gracious and Book of Fatimah.
8. In the titles section, second paragraph, last sentence. It might be a bit clearer if it was; "She was the first wife of Ali, who was the first [[Imamah (Shia doctrine)|Shia Imam]] and the fourth [[Rashidun]] (The Rightly Guided Caliphs), the mother of the second and third Imams, and the ancestor of all the succeeding Imams; indeed, the [[Fatimid]] dynasty is named after her.<ref>Esposito, John; ed. ''Oxford History of Islam'' Oxford; 1999 ISBN 0-19-510799-3</ref>"

Hope this is of some assistance. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shia viewpoint

This article doesn't represent Shia viewpoint correctly. As a reviewer I shouldn't do a major edit but I can introduce better sources in this case.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have struggled to find reliable Shia sources and only managed to track down the Shia Encyclopedia at the local library. If you have suggestions for other Shia RS's please list them here and we can work from there. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

i think there might be some material on the veneration of Fatimah in Shi'i thought in the EoI article. i'll try to make a section on that soon. ITAQALLAH 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find some reliable source in al-islam.org. Some of them like speech of Hamid Algar is academic. There is a Sunni source which I found in google book[1]. If these sources weren't suitable then we could could use Persian sources.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we know who published that book? MezzoMezzo 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation: Shahid Ashraf (2005). Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions. Anmol Publications Pvt Ltd. ISBN 8126119403.

Google returns only 29 hits and nearly all of them to distribution sites. No entries in Google News or Scholar. → AA ^(talk) — 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find any other English biography of companions. I think at this stage (GA review) it's acceptable.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As a shia, I too believe that this article doesn't represent Shia viewpoint correctly. I have never heard, nore have I read anything that shows Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Fatimah have had disputes with each other! Their lives and their relationship are our model! I think this part of the article was not correct and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzieh.parhizkar (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Shia uphold the marriage of Ali and Fatima to be an exemplary relationship of a husband and wife, and worthy of emulation - and do not agree with any Sunni assertions to the contrary. I also agree that al-islam.org is a good place to find the Shia viewpoint. It is a repository of well known Shia reference books, and is quite comprehensive and well respected. User:YAM

COI

Sa.vakilian, with all due respect, I think there is a conflict of interest in yourself reviewing this article for GA. It would be better (as you are doing) for you to be an involved editor and for us to work to address your concerns. I have no problems in withdrawing my GA nomination (I had assumed all interested parties had had their say). Let me know if you agree. → AA ^(talk) — 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be conflict of intrest but whatever I told above was from technical viewpoint. This article represents Shia viewpoint wrongly and I can prove it easily. Please be patient and don't withdraw it. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The review guidelines specifically mention: You are a fan of the subject, and want to see the article listed at GA. (Instead, consider improving the article so it meets standards, rather than simply promoting it.) I think therefore for the review to be seen to be transparently objective, it is better for you to assist with the article and we can list it once we're all happy with the outcome. In any case, I don't believe the kind of changes that have been suggested is do-able within the timeframe. So, I suggest you fail it in this round and we'll improve it and resubmit later. (PS: I do not doubt that you'll provide an objective review - just the guidelines specifically make mention of the exact type of COI you'll encounter with this article.) → AA ^(talk) — 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If it says You are a fan of the subject, and want to see the article listed at GA. (Instead, consider improving the article so it meets standards, rather than simply promoting it.), then you can be sure that this article will be failed similer to other articles which I reviewed. I put on hold on this article and do my best to improve it but as you can see in my former reviews such as Talk:al-Manar and Talk:al-Farabi the fact that I've been the fan of an issue haven't changed my viewpoint about its quality. However I really insist on trying for one or two week.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stable?

I didn't notice until I fixed a red link yesterday that the article was semi-protected as "infinite" by User:BrownHairedGirl back in August. I think the protection needs removing and then see if the article is stable. I don't know exactly how the reviewers look at the articles but if it was me I would question why the article was protected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice it was indef protected. It was done during the consensus building exercise archived at the top of this page. I think the article has moved on considerable since then and the protection can go. Could you do the honours please? Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remembered about this. Done it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed

Although the article has improved during last week but it hasn't reached GA criteria. I want to declare failing if you agree.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Fatima's death

There is written

The Sunnis, however, state that following the farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad summoned Fatimah and informed her that he would be passing away soon but also informed her that she would be the first of his household to join him.

This event has narrated in Shia biography with little difference. I'd rather say The Muslims state... Shias agree whit other part of this paragraph except her death's date. Shias agree with following which Fatimah was grief stricken and remained so for the remainder of her life until she died but according to most of the Shia biographies the major reason of her death was the fact that she was beaten by Qunfuz. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded it. Let me know what you think. Regarding the incident with Qunfuz, that is related here. → AA ^(talk) — 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shia and Sunni disagree about day of her death. Shia report from Imam Sadiq represent she dead in Jamadi al-Sani.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use Madelung's book, The Succession to Muhammad, pages 43.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There is written:

The Sunnis, however, state that on the morning of her death, she took a bath, put on new clothes and lay down in bed. She asked for Ali and informed him that her time to die was very close. Upon hearing this news, Ali began to cry but was consoled by Fatimah who asked him to look after her two sons and for him to bury her without ceremony. After her death, Ali followed her wishes and buried her without informing the Medinan people

This part is narrated in Shia sources and differences are few. So I think we can write a story which compatable with both of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

External links section

Can we justify the addition of each external link per WP:EL please and discuss here the encyclopedic value. We want to keep out links to polemic sites, blogs, opinions, forums etc. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just two links relate to polemic issues and we can remove them. I think other links are suitable.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose inserting these links:

• A biography of Fatimah. — USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
• Holy Fatima, the Ideal Lady of Islam al-shia.com

Both of the above link to biographical information, which this article covers and therefore we should ensure all the relevant topics are covered in the article and not add these links since they do not provide any additional encyclopedic value (Item 1). → AA ^(talk) — 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Picture gallery and quotes — ezsoftech.com

There are a number of ads but they appear to be discreet so this should be acceptable. → AA ^(talk) — 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fatima al-Zahra — al-islam.org
• Fatima is Fatima by Ali Shariati

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

al-islam.org is not a reliable site, does not fall into any of the categories here and should not be linked per Item 2. It also states that it operates through the collaborative effort of volunteers based in many countries around the world and it in no way can guarantee the absolute authenticity of all of the data and should not be held responsible for any errors herein → AA ^(talk) — 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will review these in the next few hours and post my comments. I would request other editors to do the same. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I insist on inserting Fatima al-Zahra. It's a collection of links to reliable sources which represents Shia viewpoint. Of course we can add all of the English links in that pages directly.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to a search and is to be avoided per Item 10. Additionally, the search results (or the actual links if they are used) give undue weight to the Shia POV and should be avoided. We have to balance the links between all the different POVs. The See also section has links to two prominent Shia articles regarding Fatimah, so I think it will be best if we can avoid adding any further links. → AA ^(talk) — 11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunnis can add links and make it balance. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So, exluding the search link, which ones do you propose to include? → AA ^(talk) — 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose adding

• some encyclopedia like Britanica, Iranica(written by JEAN CALMARD)
• Fatimah al-Ma`sumah (as): a role model for men and women by Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlullah (He's more reliable than Urdoni)
• The world’s most outstanding Lady: Fatima az-Zahra’ by Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi
• Fatima is Fatima by Ali Shariati

Can you find some Sunni books to make this part NPOV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Grave of Fatima

It should be mentioned at the end of the lead that the exact place of her grave is not clear . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the article work, we'll need to revisit the lead to make it conform to WP:LEAD and this can be included. → AA ^(talk) — 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sufic View

The article is great, spoiled only by the wild imaginings at the end under the heading sufic view. I would say this has to be a candidate for deletion. It certainly would be worth adding something about the Sufi view of her (radiyAllahu 'anha), but I'm afraid the view of the main sufi tariqas would be considerably less fantastic.Baba farouq 22:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this section needs a rewrite to give the readers a better understanding of what is being said. → AA ^(talk) — 12:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copyedit this but gave up. I believe undue weight is being given to this section and at most a sentence or two is warranted on this topic somewhere in the article. Can someone summarise based on RSs please? Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I had another stab at this and I think there's only two important points in relation to this article which I've reworded and removed the rest. If there are any issues, please discuss here. → AA ^(talk) — 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The two; yes; but you write like a sufi...hmmmmmmm.......................

I have read what you did: it certainly compresses the issues I expressed much better than I did; so in this I salute thee; firthermore you have left out some things that i will put in: but not here; the information about the Sun of Fatimah being the Lamb of Fatima is too controversial; because in this context I cannot go into too great detail; however; could you perhaps paraphrase anything I can put into one or two sentences? I wonder; in any case: great work; now how do I bring to light that the Christ of Islam and the Mahdi of Christianity are One and the Same? Fatimah is the Key; as Maryam al-Kubra she fulfills the prophecy of Muhammed about the only "mahdi" there was ever going to come would be Isa; the Son of Mary. The events at Fatimah are therefore where Islam and Christianity "meet". The Illuminists knew that the providence shifted to Islam when God gave them the kingdom when the Rulers delivered Jesus to death to take the Vineyard for themselves; it is thus a matter of the Grail; the Grail being Perfection; as Mary said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord": apparently in what I know Fatimah magnified the Prescence of the Lamb at Fatimah in 1917: and the Lamb is Lord of lords; King of Kings: thus is Fatimah Al-Zahra Avenged: the Lady of Light produced the Sun of Righteousness; but it is the New Lamp of Allah: this Christ is the Light of the New Heavens and the New Earth: Light upon Light! The Son of Mary! Unicorn144 01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

brother unicorn, I'm genuinely sorry but I wouldn't have thought that wikipedia is the right place for your own theories. Whatever the merit of the 1917 visions, you can't really present it as the Sufi view of saiyyida Fatima (radiyaAllahu 'anha) when the Sufis themselves have placed no emphasis on it whatsoever. I'm assuming this may be a view of a few individuals in the Mariyammiyya tariqa, but if this is the case, this is an extremely small group of people who are on the very fringes of Sufism, you can't really present it as the Sufi view. Baba farouq 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fatima's sisters

There is written Shias claim she was his only daughter, believing Khadija's three other daughters to have been from her previous marriage.

Please read this discussion and correct it. You can read this longer discussion if you have enough time.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't quite follow the previous thread. Which bit of that statement is incorrect? Do Shia not claim that she was Muhammad's only daughter? → AA ^(talk) — 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several viewpoints. There isn't consensus among Shia scholars.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The mass are in majority of her being the only daughter in Usoolism, and it's not even much of a question I believe for Shi'ahs on the Subcontinent. --Enzuru 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We should write there isn't consensus among Shia scholars.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope no one mines me taking this out

I realize I haven't been too active here till recently, and hope my changes aren't trampling on what as been agreed on before. I took this out:

"Although historians cannot give a precise description of the actual events, and even though the various views have been mixed with legendary accounts, it was undoubtedly a key motivation for the hatred born by the Shias towards Umar and his supporters, and was the only political involvement of Fatimah who remained in a sombre mood for the rest of her life."

Thanks. --Enzuru 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies bro, but I think this summarising paragraph is justified being in the article and it is sourced and relevant. → AA ^(talk) — 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary caveats

i have undone this edit of Al-Zaidi. the EoI states the issue of disagreement between Ali/Fatimah as fact - it only provides citation for the specific indicents. to describe these works as "Sunni hadith" is also misguided, for they are hadith collections generally accepted by Sunni, not collections intended to reflect Sunni understanding. it is also unnecessarily POV, aimed at implying that it's only according to Sunnis that domestic disputes occured. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never read such issues in Shia biography. Shia usually consider them as an ideal family without any controversy. You may right when you say "for they are hadith collections generally accepted by Sunni, not collections intended to reflect Sunni understanding" but it doesn't mean that Shia accept them as fact. This is what you can find in Shia sources

Fatimah (AS), with all her virtues, was a good wife for Imam Ali (AS). It has been narrated that Imame Alias (AS) sadness and grief removed whenever he looked at Fatimah (AS). She never asked him for something that he couldnat afford. It is worthy to find out their matrimonial relation from Imame Alias (AS) words as he named Fatimah (AS) the best woman and proud of her and said: I swear to Allah that I never made her angry and never ordered her to do something she didnat like and she also never made me angry and never disobeyed me. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, You must have both accounts of history the Shia and the Sunni accounts. Both are valid in their own narratives. Moreover, if there is a source that is in the EoI, then the originial source should also be stated. If EoI uses Sunni or Shia Hadith, then you must present the hadiths being quoted, it is only good citation.Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

both accounts are presented, stop forwarding this flawed argument. the only difference in my version is that they aren't tendentiously sepearated through POV sections. you are also misusing EoI in order to present certain facts as isolated Sunni viewpoiints. both editing patterns must stop. ITAQALLAH 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Zaidi, please consider stopping this behaviour of sterile reverting whilst repeating the dubious reasoning about reader convenience or primary sources (POV edits do not 'convenience' the reader; your representation of EoI is tendentious and misleading). it doesn't help convince me that you are genuinely trying to address my concerns, which i implore you to address. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two points on which i have acted: 1. EoI cites its sources of the Fatima article from Bukhari and Tirmidhi, thus it is only academically responsible to include the original citation in the Wikipedia article. By simply citing EoI when the original sources are available does not serve any independant article or stands to the scrutiny of primary sourcing. Thus the full citation that i have included links Wikipedia to the original source of claim of the EoI. 2. This claim of EoI is sourced from the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Tirmidhi. These two along with other Hadith collections are from the historucal narrative of the Sunni schools of Islam. Hadith are not concrete undeniable sources, many are strong, whilst orthers are neutral or weak. Those sources in the Sunni Hadith may not be historically accurate and thus not accepted by the Shia collections. Vice versa, many Shia hadith are not considered accurate according to Sunni collectors. Thus we are in a situation where the historicity of the sources becomes an issue. Therefore, it is not only academically responsible for original citation but moreover it is our duty as academics to ensure that all avenues of factuality are presented so that the readers of the content will have a balanced view of the sequence of events. For example, the history of the Battle of Qadesh is presented very differently in Egyptian sources from their Hittite counterparts. Thus to avoid confusion and for the sake of clarity and academic integrity, both viewpoints are presented. Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the discussion page. I hope we can continue discussing the matter here.

1) Our job on Wikipedia is not that of academics. As editors, we are simply required to verify material to reliable sources.

2) EoI makes the basic assertion and then mentions specific incidences:

ʿAlī and Fāṭima did not always live in harmony. ʿAlī treated his wife with too much harshness (shidda, ghilāẓ), and Fāṭima went to complain to her father. There are some ḥadīths which are real vignettes of family life, describing in a vivid and fresh manner how the Prophet intervened how his face shone with satisfaction after the reconciliation of those dear to him. The most serious disputes between the pair arose when the Banū Hishām b. Mughīra of the Ḳuraysh suggested ʿAlī that he should marry one of their women. ʿAlī did not reject the proposal, but Muḥammad, when some of the tribe came to sound him on the matter, came to the defence of his daughter. “ Fāṭima ” , he said, “ is a part of me (baḍʿa minnī) and whoever offends her offends me ” (al-Balādhurī, Ansāb, i, 403; ī, ii, 319, etc.) or “ what angers her angers me also ” (this ḥadīth has many variants which, however, do not much change the meaning). It seems that at same time ʿAlī was asking in marriage a daughter of Abū Ḏjahl nicknamed al-ʿAwrāʾ (the One-eyed). Muḥammad protested from the minbar against ʿAlī, who proposed to shelter under one roof the daughter of the Apostle of God and the daughter of the enemy of God (i.e., Abū Ḏjahl). On this occasion also the Prophet pronounced the phrase: Innahā baḍʿa minnī ( “ she is indeed a part of me ” ), and added that if ʿAlī wanted to accomplish his project he must first divorce Fāṭima (Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad , Cairo 1313, iv, 326; ārī, ed. Krehl, ii, 440, etc.).

Here, you are piling it all on the "Sunni Hadith" and not on the authority of the EoI - which assumes its authenticity (and cites the primary sources only for the specific incidences, not the general notion). Thus, we can cite to EoI without any such POV attributions, as EoI already accepts it. If you like, we can say "According to the Encyclopedia of Islam...", but "According to Sunni hadith" simply short-changes the above passage.

3) They aren't "Sunni Hadith" - nor are they collected with the intention to represent any particular POV - I have explained above why this reflects a very poor understanding of the original sources.

4) Do you see how Sunni/Shia view sections under every heading is a violation of WP:NPOV#Article structure, and doesn't make for fluent reading? ITAQALLAH 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make, this is why after a while i changed it from "according to Sunni hadith" to Sunni view. This is because of the sourcing of EoI, of which the hadith are from ultimately Sunni Hadith Collections. Had we been editors for them, we would have included a disclaimer, a side note or other hadiths or historical documents for a balanced view on the subject of historiocity when it comes to Hadith. If it hadn't been for Madelung, Esposito, Seyyed Nasr and Henry Corbin, the encyclopedias of the west would have had a simplistic view of the Islam and the Middle East. This situation stems from a long tradition that was brought to light by Edward Said regarding the Middle East and orientalism, this can be applied to Islam as well, including the preoccupation of Islam as being sunni and Shia as being Iranian, both of which are false. There is much debate within the muslim world and thus it is for the first time that mediums like Wikipedia not only ensure integrity but a totality of fact and history. Moreover, we are indeed editors of an encyclopedia, but we are indeed unique to the principles of freedom and fair representation that may not be the case in some academic realms including EoI. Thus the presentation of fact vis a vis Sunni/Shia view, provide a complete and enriched article from which a reader can be enlightened will all aspects knowledge and debate. Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's inappropriate to call them "Sunni Hadith collections"- they were never compiled with the intention of reflecting a particular viewpoint. I have no problem with presenting Sunni and Shia views, Al-Zaidi. I have a problem when it overwhelms the article because we are making lots of POV sections for every view. It is distracting and doesn't do justice to the article. We can discuss it without the headings. I also object to using generally non-academic/unscholarly/unreliable sources. I would prefer if we could focus on representing what the academic sources say; it isn't our job to present views/opinions not already presented in reliable sources. Regards, ITAQALLAH 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Al-Zaidi, is it alright if I remove the Shia/Sunni view section headings? I have WP:NPOV#Article structure in mind, and we might as well get the things we're more likely to agree on out of the way. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, the reason why i have difficulty removing the title on "disapreements with ali" is due to the fact that its mention in the article gives it encyclopedic weight, and for it to have encyclopedic integrity, it must ultimately be proven, and if not proven then cited or noted with a degree of speculation. Since the "disagreements" and even the "death" sections are so very controversial, it is safer for us editors to cite the claims of history from both sides and leave it to the reader to determine what to take from the article. If we do not, then the liability lays on us, since without noting the viewpoint, we are then forced to prove or disprove the claims in the article. The reason for the POV headings is to be safe, be fair and lay the liability to the groups that make the claims themselves and not on wikipedia.Al-Zaidi (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But we are already citing the respective groups when mentioning the views. When we discuss the Shi'a view, we always say 'According to Shi'a'. When we discuss Sunni views, we say 'According to Sunni'. The article makes that clear. Because we've done that, we have little need for the section headings: the readers will know which views belong to who. ITAQALLAH 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NPOV#Article structure. We can just stick to attributing who believes what when we actually discuss it. I doubt this article will be able to improve with the presence of these extraneous section headings. ITAQALLAH 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restructured the section so that id does not violate WP:NPOV#Article structure, i am sure you will be satisfied. Al-Zaidi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Views"

I think that a lot of the "views" of certain events would be better catalogued so that the sources of such accounts could be directly attributed to their quoted positions on the matter. (Example: execution of the Bab) as so many of these accounts are disputed and/or contradictory and knowing their specific origins would be beneficial to understanding them. Peter Deer (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Clear this article up -

Hi could someone clear this up, it is very biased. And alot of it simple POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensleaves112 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Essential edit warring on the Offense Hadith/Disagreements with Ali section

This can't keep up like this. Every day I see this being added or reverted by one side or the other, we need to reach a consensus on this in talk instead of having endless edit warring on the subject. Peter Deer (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit fed up of the current state of affairs. I can't seem to get through to him. I'd much like for this to be properly discussed on talk, but in recent days he's stopped responding and changes the text again without summary. I don't believe his version of the section as it stands is acceptable, but I'm willing to make compromises if it means dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will see that there has been discussion and i have tried to make compromises by referencing only the sources, which seems to be illegal in the fatima article and warrants threats of blocks. I have not claimed ownership over the article. I have simply stressed one point, SOURCES! quote the ORIGINAL sources rather than secondary sources. Why would you quote the EoI when you have the Hadith? It would akin to sourcing a Christian encyclopedia when the source is already in the Gospel.Al-Zaidi (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually per WP:PSTS, you should be quoting the secondary sources and not the primary ones. I was surprised when I found that one out, too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair it does say "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Peter Deer (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. At this point though dude, considering the disputes that have arisen, I think it will be safer as far as avoiding charges of POV from either side to avoid the primary sources when possible. People can interpret things like hadith in different ways, when it's a secondary source like encyclopedia of Islam it's a bit different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Zaidi, Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. We relay what the secondary sources say, not our understanding of the primary sources. ITAQALLAH 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

/* Disagreements with Ali */ lets try this, it is the greatest compromise from my part, if you peter or itaqallah do not meet me here, then it is you who are impossibleAl-Zaidi (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Al-Zaidi for attempting to compromise. I would like to achieve compromise as well, so that we all see the aricle as acceptable. I think you've made a good step forward, and I'm willing to accept the change with a few small tweaks which I shall propose here shortly. ITAQALLAH 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the primary source issue, I think as far as certain things are concerned Hadith can be used as a primary source to report specific things, but we should be careful not to give any analysis of it or interpretations of it, but merely use it for exactly specifically what it has stated, and any synthesis should be shown properly from a reliable secondary source. Peter Deer (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, why are you tying me in in your accusations? I have not taken one side or the other on the issue, except in the fact that you have reverted edits of multiple editors repeatedly. I was not taking a stance on what should be included, only on what is permissible within wikipedia policy. Peter Deer (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Which one of us are you addressing man? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-islam.org

(cross-posting from User:Enforcing Neutrality's talk page) Hi. All material should meet Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They all establish that sources must be of a reliable nature. Your insertions on Fatimah do not conform to these requirements, and I would suggest you take the matter to the talk page before reinserting the material further. Please look at the other sources in the article to get an idea of the standard required on Wikipedia. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

al-islam.org does meet the requirements and the website does not provide original research, but cites dozens of books as references. I understand how you might find what's written offending and targeting of your beliefs but the paragraph mentions it as the Shia view so please respect other people's beliefs. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-islam.org is a polemical, sectarian website with no verifiable reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Citing sources is something any polemical website can do, as evidenced by answering-islam.org or ansar.org - that alone cannot make them reliable. In no way does it meet the specifications listed here. This isn't about "respecting beliefs" - it is about adhering to the sourcing standards required on Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your stance is also inconsistent, as you declare websites like "muslimphilosophy.com" unreliable, yet do not do the same for equally unreliable websites like "al-islam.org." ITAQALLAH 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also notify you about the three revert rule. ITAQALLAH 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the facts stated and sourced by al-islam.org are threatening to your whole belief system, it doesn't make it a sectarian, polemical website. In fact, unlike other websites like ansar.org and d-sunnah.net that are actually extremely sectarian and polemical, al-islam.org is used as reference by universities and learning institutions. Regardless of how much al-islam.org is reliable, it states known historical books as references and the story it narrates about the killing of Fatima represents the view held by almost all Shia Muslims, including Ayatollah Sistani whose website al-shia.com narrates the same story and uses Sunni references (see here] and here). Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should respond to my above comment, else I will simply end up repeating what I've said above. Community consensus on Wikipedia is that websites like al-islam.org are not reliable sources. If you think it is a reliable sources, you should explain how it conforms to the specifications mentioned here:

• "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. "
• "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."
• "The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes."

Evidently, websites like al-islam.org meet none of these requirements. Like I said, any religious polemical website can cite sources, but if no independent peer review system is in place, then it's pretty meaningless for our purposes. You can't just claim that websites like ansar.org are sectarian and polemical yet al-islam.org is not - that is not an objective perspective. ITAQALLAH 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the 14 sources I provided, only two are linked to al-islam.org, so please assume good faith and don't delete the whole paragraph because you consider al-islam.org to be unreliable. Also, al-islam.org is mentioned by the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, by Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress here. Obviously, it is regarded as "trustworthy or authoritative". Again, assume good faith, be civil and don't assume the ownership of the article. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you tell me to assume good faith and be civil, you should make sure that you are practicing what you preach by not making claims like the content is "threatening to [my] whole belief system."

Yes, I note that you use other sources apart from al-islam.org, including:

• duas.org - an unreliable website;
• answering-ansar.org- an unreliable website;
• aljaafaria.com- an unreliable website;
• mpacuk forums- an unreliable resource
• A list of sources in Arabic which have been copy-pasted from websites like al-islam.org. I doubt you have access to the print materials in question. Again, none of these conform to the requirement of reliable secondary sources.

The links about al-islam.org are all directory entries, they tell us nothing about the scholarship or reliability of the website, just its content. It's incorrect for you to prefix your assertion with "obviously," when it is clear the notion of reliability still remains unfounded. ITAQALLAH 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that al-islam.org has been mentioned in the press is not proof of reliability as a source. It's a site made specifically to push the Shia Muslim point of view, just like duas, answering ansar, and those other sites. This isn't even debatable; using them would be like using SunniPath or a similar site pushing the Sunni Muslim point of view. That type of site in general does not meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:V. This isn't a matter of opinion; they aren't neutral sources, this is a fact.

The "threatening your whole belief system" comments are troubling as well. Itaqallah simply brought up issues with reliability and Enforcing Neutrality immediately starts questioning the guy's sincerity and motives. Honestly, it looks like a red herring to me. It also isn't assuming good faith. Those sources need to be removed, there is no reason to allow polemical material in the article when there are plenty of objective and scholastic sources around to begin with. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, of the 14 sources provided, two are linked to al-islam.org and the others are mostly historical books. Also, al-islam.org is a known website and, just as you said, it represents the Shia Muslim point of view, which is why the paragraph starts with "There are two distinct views on the manner of her death between the Shias and Sunnis. Shias maintain [...]". So even if the website is polemical, which it isn't because it is cited in too many prominent places as a reliable reference on Islam, it represents the Shia Muslim point of view, along with al-shia.com which tells the same story. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to what I wrote. Noting that only 2 of the 14 links are from al-islam.org is a red herring. All of the links used are unreliable. None of the 'prominent places' discussing it call it a 'reliable reference', they just describe its content, as you would in a directory entry. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just explained, the fact that al-Shia is mentioned in the media is not proof that it is a reliable source, and anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at that, jaafaria, or the other sites know they aren't. This is not even debatable. They push a certain point of view and that is unacceptable from either Shia or Sunni point of view. So as far as i'm concerned, the discussion regarding that is finished. There is nothing else to add and when it comes to sites that non-neutral then they need to be removed whether you accept what they really are or not, and i'm not phrasing it that way to be a jerk but you need to hear this loud and clear. This article will not have POV added to it in that manner, whether you intend it or not.

Now, as for the books. Some of them quoted are the commentary of Nahjul Balagha, which I would avoid not only due to its status as a primary source - all references to hadith sources, Sunni or Shia, should be avoided unless that isn't possible - but also the fact that the content of Nahjul Balagha is highly disputed. Shia accept it, Sunnis don't. As a historical piece it's controversial and I would highly recommend avoiding such material. Quoting forums for the Shia POV is really inappropriate as well, first and foremost because without publishing info we can't even verify if the citations are actually in these books, and secondly because we can't even verify what these books are. Forgive me, but I have never heard of the Sharh Kushaij or Balazheri or Lisanul Mizan. And I will be honest, given that the material it's sourcing - you've added great detail to the Shi'a perspective on Fatimah's death already using POV sources such as answering ansar - it essentially appears as though you're stacking as many sources as you can in order to push the Shia POV via this article. I'm hoping you're not doing so consciously but this is what is going on.

Now this is what you need to keep in mind, as given your comments about representing the Shia point of view I think you should keep it in mind. Observe WP:N and WP:V at all times, even when explaining the perspective of certain groups. This is why we have sources such as the encyclopedia of Islam, as it is more neutral than polemical works from either side. Now if you can bring some sort of objective proof regarding these sources in line with the policies above, then that is great. But simply stating your opinion as you did in your last comments - you just told me the sources were acceptable and left it at that - isn't proof that what you've been putting into this article is an improvement over the consensus version. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You said: it essentially appears as though you're stacking as many sources as you can in order to push the Shia POV via this article. Well, I'm supposed to push the Shia point of view because this is exactly what is required, to represent both point of views, which is why the paragraph starts with There are two distinct views on the manner of her death between the Shias and Sunnis. Shias maintain[...]. Anyone who can read knows that al-islam.org and Sistani's al-shia.com are the main Shi'a Muslim websites on the internet. I just wish we could end this and allow the Shi'a point of view to be properly represented. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between representing a point of view and pushing it that I perhaps did not express properly in my last comment. For that I apologize. Yes, the Shi'a view should also be represented but by a reliable source. al-islam.org and al-shia.com may be the "main" Shi'a sites in the web by way of popularity and hits in the same sense that SunniPath and islam.com are the "main" Sunni sites on the web, but this doesn't change the fact that all four of those examples are polemical and unverifiable sources not meeting the standards of WP:RS. What you've expressed here is the desire for the Shi'a point of view to be more accurately represented which is good, and has much potential to improve the article. You haven't, however, explained why this should be done via both sites and books that either have an agenda, are not notable, or not reliable, or all three. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think administrators should decide whether or not al-islam.org and al-shia.com are reliable enough to represent the Shi'a point of view. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are simply editors with extra tools for maintenance of the website. They don't ovesee content decisions. You need to prove how these websites conform to the specifications in WP:RS and WP:V. I should note that reliability is not assumed until disproven; reliability must be positively demonstrated. ITAQALLAH 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the sources are up for discussion at: Wikipedia:RSN#Fatimah. ITAQALLAH 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I added sources and fixed others, and I will ask other users to give their say on the reliability of the websites which I kept off for the moment. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CITE#Say where you found the material. Anybody familiar with online polemic will know that these have been taken from unreliable websites themselves like al-islam.org (e.g. [2]), which cannot really be trusted to fully and faithfully represent the sources (and the stance of their authors) in question. You've also been altering another section without basis. ITAQALLAH 12:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should be a bit more civil and stop removing the whole paragraph by insisting that al-islam.org is not reliable. There is a great difference between al-islam.org, which is cited by more than enough prominent institutions, and hate websites that are actually polemical like ansar.net, SunniPath and D-sunnah. The last I checked, none of these websites are mentioned anywhere outside of hateful forums, let alone places like Columbia University and the George Mason University. Refrain from removing the paragraph and its sources until you can prove as you claim that the sources are false and until it is agreed upon by the majority of the community that websites like al-islam.org and Sistani's al-shia.com do not represent the Shia point of view. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing Neutrality, you have violated the three revert rule, for which you may be blocked. I am giving you the oppurtunity to self revert to avoid that scenario, which I strongly recommend you do. ITAQALLAH 13:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please respond to my above comments. I've already discussed the issue of the Columbia/GMU listings, which assert nothing about scholarship or reliability, just the breadth of content. Like I said, reliability is not assumed until disproven (which is a negative proof fallacy), it is something which must be positively proven. ITAQALLAH 13:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

al-islam.org being mentioned offhand by Colombia and other unis isn't a proof of reliability or scholastic integrity, I really can't stress that enough. That isn't even worth discussing, it's an invalid proof for reliability. Now aside from that issue, there is the fact that an edit war has ensured over disputed content that was never a part of the consensus version of this article. It really isn't very appropriate to simply revert and insert this new material when it's obvious that it isn't agreed upon at this time. EN, the onus is still on you to provide any sort of real proof of reliability, verifiability, and/or notability for most of these sources. You just keep saying they're reliable without any actual proof. In the current state of things, nothing is going to get solved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Islam.org is a site which gathers many sources. Some of them are reliable and are not. In every case we should check the auther. For example A Study in the Philosophy of Islamic Rites is written by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr who is authentic in that field. Fatima is Fatima is written by Ali Shariati who is not authentic in the field. Furthermore you can use Google book, Amazon, etc to find the more informatio about publisher, author, etc. So we can't judge about the site which is collecting sources from different authors in general.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Answering-islam.org also gathers many sources, and has numerous publications on its website of varying quality. For instance, it has Muir's biography of Muhammad which on its own may be considered reliable. But the website itself is not reliable at all. ITAQALLAH 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From the RSN discussion, I think it's clear that most people seem to believe that the current state of the disputed content and its sourcing isn't acceptable. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it's not clear. First you argued that al-islam.org is not reliable, then you said that what al-islam.org claims is not correctly sourced and after I spent hours searching for the sources and locating the text, it turned out al-islam.org is right. Maybe you should have a shred of integrity and stop debating and making up useless arguments to waste everybody's time. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's crossing the line. Keep it civil, personal attacks are against wikipedia policy. Peter Deer (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave a pertinent example of precisely how al-islam.org misused a reference given. Yes, al-islam.org is not reliable; yes, the information it presents is not trustworthy; and yes, everyone except you appears to agree that the insertion as it stands is not appropriate. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you quoted the author of Lisan al-Mizan as having called a man a Rafidhi after he narrated the attack on Fatimah's house. That doesn't change the fact that it is the Shi'a view and it doesn't make all the other sources equally 'misused'. That al-islam.org is not trustworthy is not the issue anymore. The sources it provided turned out to be very correct. And please read the other editors' comments before coming with the conclusion that people agree with you. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Hajar calls the man a liar (thus his hadith are rejected) and then relates some examples of such. The honest and responsible thing for anyone citing Lisan al-Mizan - which isn't a book on history - would be to fairly represent the source instead of cherry-picking from it and then saying "Look! It's in a 'Sunni' source!" - implying that the author attaches to it a semblance of credibility instead of dismissing it outright. This is typical of the approach I have come to expect from such polemical, unscholarly websites, and it's a glaring testament to their lack of objectivity. It's precisely the same with Sunni websites who use Shi'ite sources for the same purpose. I didn't say everyone agreed with me, I said that everyone agreed that the content as it stood was unacceptable. ITAQALLAH 13:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"you quoted the author of Lisan al-Mizan as having called a man a Rafidhi after he narrated the attack on Fatimah's house" - Please read the source again, he is denounced as al-Rafidhi al-Kadhdhab in the first sentence. ITAQALLAH 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And, if you notice, Ibn Hajar quotes another authority who says the narrator is ghayr thiqah i.e. untrustworthy. Again, this is before any specific narration is mentioned. And note that I've only picked up on one source as it's the same source I mentioned before you even brought the quote, and the clearest example of manipulating sources to forward agendas. I'm sure I'd find similar cases in the some of the other sources listed, but only one example is necessary. ITAQALLAH 13:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You make it a habit to reply without actually addressing the points I made. You intentionally misquote me and misrepresent the point I made and formulate your own response which has nothing to do with what I said. When Ibn Hajar called the man a lier, whether before or after the sentence, is of absolutely no importance. What I said is regardless of what Ibn Hajar thinks, he presents the story according to a Shi'i, whom he calls a dirty infidel. It doesn't change the fact that it is the Shi'a point of view. As for "I didn't say everyone agreed with me, I said that everyone agreed that the content as it stood was unacceptable", one editor thinks a few of the sources are controversial, another said you were right, technically speaking, to remove unsourced material but he doubts you are ignorant about the factuality of the sentences you're removing. This is different from agreeing that the content as it stood is unacceptable. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you at all - please let's put these red herrings to one side. Ibn Hajar's view is of significant importance especially if he totally discredits it. If Ibn Hajar's assessment is irrelevant, what's the point in quoting a "Sunni source" then (the intention behind which is to give their views more credibility amongst Sunnis), why not quote a Shia source? He doesn't present "the story" according to a Shi'i - he doesn't present any story except an example of a fabricated narration. It'd be different if the text said "One narrator is credited with such and such story, but is rejected by Ibn Hajar as untrustworthy and as a liar," but as it stands the implication is that the source (Lisan) is forwarding the assertion. This is pure academic dishonesty on the part of the polemical website, which no editor should attempt to defend.

Secondly, Aminz said I was right in removing the content which was poorly sourced (he said "not sufficiently sourced," not "unsourced" as you claimed), Bless sins said the source usage was inappropriate, so did MezzoMezzo, so did Stephen Schulz, and Seyyed agreed that content generated by al-islam.org itself was unreliable. Thus, none of them agree with you. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was invited to take part here, but i don't have the time and patience to do so fully. Basicly, Al-Islam.org is THE most reliable source on the shia point of view on the english internet. It is even cited in dozen of books [3]. And from what i gather, "Of the 14 sources I provided, only two are linked to al-islam.org, so please assume good faith and don't delete the whole paragraph because you consider al-islam.org to be unreliable.". Further, "is not reliabel" for what? Reliable as a source of what you view is the true Islam? Or reliable as a source for mainstream Shi'a views? Don't play polemics, we all know that al-Islam.org is the most reliable site for presenting Shi'a views, and i am saying this as the most decorated and most active shi'a wikipedia editor. Don't belive me? Then show me a more trusted site for Shi'a views. You can't? Then admit you are wrong or that you don't know what you are talking about (you = nobody specific)--Striver - talk 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And stormfront.org might be the 'most reliable source' on white supremacist views available on the internet; or "answering-islam.org" might be the 'most reliable source' for anti-Islam polemic on the internet. It doesn't make any of them a reliable source on Wikipedia. Shia views should be sourced to reliable scholarly sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Islam, or the plentiful number of works available in reliable published texts (and this applies to all content on Wikipedia in general). I assure you, they do cover all significant views, including the Shia view where relevant. Partisan sources need not be relied upon, whether that's al-islam.org or ansar.org. ITAQALLAH 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

The page is now protected for seven days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If editors here do not use WP:DR while the page is protected, what is the purpose of page protection? Page protected again, thos time for 15 days. Please pursue dispute resolution while the page is protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we've in effect had a request for comment on the issue here where a number of uninvolved editors say the sourcing used (or mis-used, in some cases) is inappropriate. Not only is User:Enforcing Neutrality the only one in claiming it's adequate, he refuses to even acknowledge that other editors share some of the concerns I have raised. Do you mind acting as an informal mediator? ITAQALLAH 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help, but my time is limited. I would suggest you contact the good folks at the WP:MEDCAB to assign an informal mediator from their ranks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Requesting addition of {{POV-section}} to Fatimah#Death given the disputes over neutrality and sourcing. ITAQALLAH 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Could you please link to no:Fatima Zahra. Thank you. 80.212.158.184 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Toushiro, could you please explain to me how the sources you've inserted meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verification? To me, they look more like partisan sources, and the content itself seems to be copy pasted from polemical websites.[4] ITAQALLAH 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

True, the quote itself was added as such. However, this is also found in the following sources:

• ibn Qutayba, Abu Muhammad. Al-Imama wa-al-siyasa. Vol. 1. Dar ul-marifa. p. 14.
• al-Qurashi, Baqir (2006). The Life of Fatimah az-Zahra. Ansariyan Publications. pp. 240–241.
• Shirazi, Muhammad Sultan al-Vaizin (1996). "7.5, 8.12". Peshawar Nights. Hamid Quinlan, Charles Ali Campbell. Pak Books.
• Ordoni, Abu-Muhammad (1992). "52". Fatima the Gracious. Ansariyan Publications. p. 255.

The last of them is used many times over in this page, as well as being included in the reference books at the bottom of the page. I don't see how they wouldn't meet the standards, and as for claiming them as partisan sources - the same can be said every time Sahih Bukhari or Muslim are quoted. As well, not including this material puts that section under a heavy bias, and can be argued against with NPOV. Toushiro (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I know at least Peshawar Nights is a polemic source. I'm not familiar with the rest. --Enzuru 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

er, yea I don't mind removing that one. ~ Toushiro (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Ansariyan Publications a recognised academic publisher known for printing good quality scholarship? Do these sources meet the criterion as listed in WP:RS? We should be wary of using partisan sources from either side. As for the comment about Bukhari/Muslim: these sources are primary sources, and may not be cited except without a supplementary reliable secondary source. In most instances, the source in question has been Britannica or the Encyclopedia of Islam. If you feel a significant viewpoint is not being represented, you're more than welcome to locate academic reliable sources dicussing the viewpoint in question. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ansariyan Publications -- it definately is a significant viewpoint when most of what is included in that section is not believed by any Shiite. ~ Toushiro (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Shia view is worth mentioning where appropriate, of course. But the nature of this coverage is determined by what can be verified by the reliable sources and how much weight is to be assigned accordingly. The policies in question here are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. ITAQALLAH 23:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of uncited passage

I have removed the following passage as it does not contain citations to verify that this passage is true with regards to them being accepted by Sunni Muslims:

"She seems to have performed only three acts of political significance, each recorded in almost all sources, both Sunni and Shia, though in different versions. First, after the conquest of Mecca she refused her protection to Abu Sufyan; second, after the death of the Prophet she defended Ali's cause, opposed the election of Abu Bakr, and had violent disputes with him and particularly with Umar; third, she laid claim to the property rights of her father and challenged Abu Bakr's categorical refusal to cede them, particularly Fadak and a share in the produce of Khaybar.[6]"

If someone can add citations and then put it back in it would be appreciated. M2k41 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a citation on the paragraph and it's not a controversial issue. You are free to add additional ones. I believe the EoI also mentions the three points. → AA ^(talk) — 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

MY OPPINION ON FATIMA

Fatima is love so, so much and i think everyone should love her all the time I persanally think Fatima was the best daghters of the prophrer a am not saying i hate zaynab, ruqayyah and umm kulthoom i love them to but i love fatima the most out of them all i her storie i inspire the fact that ali was cosen to marrie fatima i think that she erned to get such a amazing husband she was so lucky an why am i saying was i should be saying she is still lucky because she is in jannah righ know. and thet is it for know so thankyou for reading my oppinion thankyou again for reading my oppinion on FATIMA.

THANKYOU I LOVE YOU فاتمه

your sincerly IQRA AMIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.24.90 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of Fatima

Faiz could you specify the reason to revert the addition of fatima number among the children of prophet Mohammed--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding, Fatimah (being sole daughter or not), see Genealogy of Khadijah's Daughters. As far as Shi’as are concerned they believe that Hazrat Mohammed SAWA had one daughter (Bibi Fatima Zahra (SA)) and one son (Qasim ibn Muhammad AKA Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad). Unfortunately Hazrat Mohammed SAWA’s son (Qasim ibn Muhammad AKA Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad) died in an early age. And because of that the Shi’as believe that Hazrat Mohammed SAWA’s family extended from the family of Imam Ali (AS) and Bibi Fatima Zahra (SA) children. Tabatabaei's book "Shia Islam" p. 191 calls Fatima, the prophet's "sole beloved daughter". But I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that". And atleast we can spare lede from the topic which is not accepted by all parties. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

in this regards as a senior editor in WP you should mention the reason for reverting the edits, I hope there is some policy WP is following for reverting the edits and it applies to every person senior or fresher.

• Second point: if this article is about some person who is inspiration for multi sects, why not update with the perspective according to both X and Y point of view, as far i understand WP allows it. it will provide the complete information to the viewers. as what is done with the articles Like , jesus, moses and etc, please advice for further..--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully revert option does not have provision to provide reason.

Second point: I have already said, "I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that". " but I also said, "we can spare lede from the topic which is not accepted by all parties".

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass tagging of the refs

Recently an editor has mass tagged long standing refs and phrases. Majority of the refs being tagged are reliable e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica, USC-MSA-BIO. Also few tags were put with Dec'10 date probabaly result of copy n paste. Also various sentences phrases and words were added without nay references. For now I have reverted the edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

most of the reverences are given, but under the name of those references information is add which needs reference to justify the information provided.--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you even know what Third-party sources mean? I'll asume not. So let me give you brief idea. Quran and other primary sources of Hadiths e.g. Bukhari, Muslim, etc are termed as primary resources while the derivative works are termed as third-party source, most of the Encyclopedias are further derivatives of third-party sources. Most of the references tagged by you are accepted as reliable sources by WP editor community and are widely used across WP even on articles involving controversy. Hopefully this will give you an idea of Third-party sources, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if that so, you should remove that particular edit, why do you removed the complete edit????--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

no response is given to previous query, therfore reverting the previous edits and asking for direct reference.

Suggesting for the removal of the section Fatima In Quran as its all frictional and personal believe, not from any reliable source, where as quran does not hold any of the Mohammed's household name in particular.

Most of the references are given but generalized to Muslims where as its a particular section believe among muslims not all muslims.

related to mass tagging, i hope its allowed by WP, if not please give the reference. --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging is allowed but not in the way it is being done. A very good example of how things should be done in this regard can be found here, here, here, here, here, here & here; In the case I cited huge discussion took place before actual tagging not like somebody someday jumped up and mass tagged the article. List the concerns point by point here on talk page and we will discuss them and review the article.

Regarding removal of the section Fatima In Quran a large number of people believe that Jb. Fatima SA is mentioned in the Quran (may be not by name) e.g. she is mentioned in verses of mubahela, purification, etc. This discussion regarding name of another personality in Quran may help.

So in light of above comment I am going to restore the article in it's previous form.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

this article is not a fairytale in where if you beleive it should be mention, therfore removing the section In quran as what you provided is not a valid reason to keep the section in this article.and reverting all the previous issues as none is clarified.As its not a mass tagging its taged only for few particular section, whole article is pending to be taged for reference.--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are not aware of Islamic events of Mubahela, etc because your mullahs don't let you know anything which exalts Ahle-Bayt AS so such events seem to be fairy tale to people like you. In addition you are tagging sentences which already have references which are RS e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica, USC-MSA-BIO. If you think anything is out of context put your detailed research here on talk page we'll discuss & then take action.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr 123 why are you shy to put your research here on Talk page for discussion? Is it because you don't have evidence & logic to support your actions? Put up details of the claims that are not supported bu their refs on Talk. Balantly mass-tagging is no solution. I gave you example of the things being carried away in similar situation on another article but it seems you are not intrested in learning. I see your talk page is full of warnings & that shows that you need to pause take a deep breath and consider your actions and have introspection. It would be really helpfull if you leave article in peace and concentrate your efforts here on talk page to proove your point and negate other's.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you put all your additions on talk page before placing it into the every article you edit????? if you are true in your words can you give reference for any single word of my which looks like a warning to you  ??? its again your frictional beleive, which is making you to take the words in wrong way and habit of you people to fix baseless blames. Secondly: YES i do not have enough knowledge about collecting references and I hope you people are born with the degree of Ayatollah. Forget about my quit from this article (as you are warning to me in above) unless it is cleaned with one sided thoughts, Yes i do not have knowledge about collecting reference thru internet and proper resources to reach upto that data what you had used as a reference, but if i dont know any instance, i will go back and search the reference and make this article a neutral one, i will never leave it for your mercy to spoil it. Omer123hussain (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On controversial articles, yes, I prefer to put notice on talk page or act as per previous discussions, conclusions over talk page. Why are you being that personal and what do you mean by you people. You have showed your ignorance about equating title of Ayatollah to a degree, do you know that every spec of creation from atom to cosmos is ayat of Allah. And who said that anyone wants someone to quit all I urged was a systematic approach and you are jumping all over WP complaining and pleading like a kid as if I have given you shock of 440 Volts. And if you'll see history of the article I have never been a major contributor on this article I only act as patrolmen here. In over two years of my edits on this article I have did only 21 edit & at least half have been done within last one week, thanks to you and inactivity of other patrol-guys. You are welcome to contribute to the article but not to dismantle it without reason & process.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove the tag Ahlalkisa as already Islam is taged on the article.Omer123hussain (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the template. Please give sound justification for removal of the template. Is there a policy which says more than one template can't reside in an article. Also if Usman's article can have both Islam and Sunni templates why this article can't have Islam & Shia templates? Also, Imam Ali a.s.'s article have Shia Islam Sunni Islam & three other templates. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Previously when you removed the template Sunni Islam from this same article,i just said what you wrote above, but you did not understand, SO i have to make you understand practically as what you wrote above and that is the way some people understand the things. by your words in above query i understand how ignorant you are while editing the articles, I think you don't realize what you are editing while you work on the articles or just you want to follow and post the things blindly and you are trying to apply the same on WP, but its not possible do what you like, at least here on WP. --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

pasted template Sunni Islam explanation already given by Mr. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider in above opening of the query. --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for comparing the articles hope in future we can compare the articles for conclusion of the queries. --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

title removal attached with the name

removed title from the name,asking for the reference (as provided reference is of WP article) --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Provided reference. Please try to create a case and then act I have reminded you several times and pointed modus operandi at article aisha, in fact lately you have tried to equate both articles at par so why are you being shy to create a case or do you want an easy solution probably you even not have patience to go thru lengthy discussions at aisha's talk page's archives far from creating yourself such case. buddy it will take time and effort to clean the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

i dont know how to make you understand?? do not humiliate on others knowledge, if you humiliate again i will have to report it. --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I put a reference, is that a humilation to you? And I never questioned your knowledge on contrary you seem to be quick learner seeing your track record at WP. But it is a fact that you have avoided putting up a case anywhere till now, you just seem to jumping over article & user talk pages complaining & asking for intervention & accusing. If you feel humilated by any of my actions & words I'm really sorry as I never intended to do so & IMO I nver did so. Finally I request you once more that please try to create a case and then act.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

the words you being shy to create a case or do you want an easy solution probably you even not have patience you said humiliates, Please i am requesting you kindly use the gentle language.

any way, what is/you mean of putting the case??? is that you practiced for your edits or one should do for his edits?? if that so, plz give the references.??? any way while i made the edit i placed on the talk page, and even gave the brief reply while editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

the words you being shy to create a case or do you want an easy solution probably you even not have patience you said humiliates, Please i am requesting you kindly use the gentle language.

any way, what is/you mean of putting the case??? is that you practiced for your edits or one should do for his edits?? if that so, plz give the references.??? any way while i made the edit i placed on the talk page, and even gave the brief reply while editing.--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, "that is the way some people understand the things".

We have extensively worked to make aisha problem free and balanced, you just need to see how it is done by refering to article's & it's talk's history before & after December'10 that what a mess it was and what discussion we did to fix it up, I have been pleading you to go thru it, have you seen that yet , I don't think so becuase if you would have then you would have not asked above question. You may ask other users same question they may help you beeter tahn I can.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your advice and information --Omer123hussain (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fatimah callig.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fatimah callig.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Fatima or Aisha ? Sunnis definitely do not regard Fatima as the "most significant historical figure" after Khadijah. Aisha is referred to as the mother of all believers and Sunnis argue that 33:33 of the Qur'an ("do not ask of you any reward for it except love for (my) kin") is a direct reference to Muhammed's wives, especially Aisha. The following claim should be reevaluated. After Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader (Arabic: Sayyidih) of all women in this world and in Paradise New Source Denise L. Soufi, "The Image of Fatima in Classical Muslim Thought," PhD dissertation, Princeton, 1997: Has been endorsed ad follows: ((For a summary of the accounts of the early sources on Fatima, see the entry on her in the Encyclopedia of Islam, (Veccia Vaglieri)... See also Denise L. Soufi, "The Image of Fatima in Classical Muslim Thought," PhD dissertation, Princeton, 1997)) Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shiite Literature (Vol.1) 2003, Hossein Modarress, p.17 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1851683313/ For Sunnis, Fatima is often portrayed as an ordinary pious Muslim woman, but she occasionally rises to the ranks of sainthood. p. iii (abstract What is most significant about these traditions on Fatima's marriage is that none of them is told from Fatima' point of view. We see only the public aspect of the marriage; without the private side. We are not able to discover what Fatima thought about her marriage. What little we see of her has her acting out Islamic norms for women; namely in her shyness as a virgin when asked for her consent and when brought to her husband to consummate the marriage We also see a not-so-subtle polemic in Ali's favor barely concealed under the ostensible purpose of the narratives: the rejection of Abu Bakr and Umar in a favor of Ali, the emphasis about Ali's poverty, Fatima's complaints which elicit compliments about Ali from the Prophet. p.37 later in p. 45: Other traditions tell of Fatima's initial aversion to Ali. In one such tradition, Fatima cries when she finds she has been . married to Ali; the Prophet then tells her that God has ordered the marriage. In another tradition, Fatima protests that Ali is not handsome and has no money. The prophet then enumerates Ali's virtues and blessings given to him by God. This convinces Fatima and she says she would not choose anyone other than him. These traditions are similar to the Kufan traditions cited earlier which portray Fatima's aversion to Ali; as noted, they were probably originally a narrative device used to provide a framework for praising p.59: Other traditions tell of Fatima's unhappiness with the poverty of Ali's household. These traditions seem to be mere narrative devices used to provide a means to praise Ali, as in those traditions in which Fatima expresses dislike at being married to Ali. In one such tradition, Fatima complains to her father about her hunger and poverty, to which the Prophet replies: "Are you not content that I have married you to the one who is first in Islam, the most knowledgeable and the most patient of my community?" the phrases also used in the Kufan traditions on Fatima's aversion to Ali. p. 60 In some traditions prophet also consoles here with the high status of her sons in the Hereafter or with her status as Queen of the women of Paradise. p. 64-65 The Shia portrayal of Fatima and Ali as spiritually compatible and the portrayal of their marriage as harmonious and divinely ordained, contrasts starkly with the traditions which narrate her complaints. These complaints are downplayed by Fatima's eventual admission of satisfaction with her life, but they could not be erased because they were needed to enhance Ali's image for the Sunni-Shii debate over the caliphate. later in p. 202: like the Imams, she is a martyr for the cause of the true Islam. Her grief over the Prophet's death and the actions of Abu Bakr and his supporters, including the bruising and miscarriage she suffers and the hands of the latter. ultimatelly cause her slow and painful death. This part of Fatima's life became a subject for rawdah-khanis, taziyas, and elegies in the 12th/18th and 13/19th centuries, allowing the image of the martyred Fatima to take its place beside the stories of the martyred Imams. Particularly Husayn. In addition to her activist and martyr roles, Fatima is used as a foil to Ali in order to enhance his prestige; her complaints about Ali elicit high praise from the Prophet for him. In fact, whenever Fatima has any troubles or worries in her life, it is usually praise for Ali which is used to comfort For the Wedding, Ali had to provide a wedding feast. Fatima was dressed in two striped garments and two silver bracelets yellowed with ssaffron and led to Ali's house by a group of women. p. 36 Another indication of their special relationship is found in the fact that Ali never married another woman as long as Fatima was alive. Sunni sources explain this curiosity in a tradition in which Ali asks for Abu Jahl's daughter in marriage, but the Prophet does not allow him to marry her because it would upset Fatima. The three most popular versions of this tradition are related by al-Miswar b. Makhrama, a Companion who was about nine years old when the Prophet died. pp. 51-52 In the first version, ... The Prophet ... also praises his son in law Abul As al Rabi. The reference to Abu l As serves to denigrate Ali. ... The second version.. Prophet means that the son in law may either be Abu l As or Uthman... By hinting that the son-in-law may in fact be Uthman, the narrator is sestablishing Uthman's superiority to Ali. This tradition may represent the beginnings of the development of Sunni orthodoxy, which ranks the first four caliphs according to the order in which they ruled. So concerned was Fatima about her veiling that she ordered Asma bint Umays to build her a bier (na'sh) so that the shape of her body would be hidden when she was carried to her grave. p. 74 p. 78: according to Nasir- khusraw, Fatima is the Prophet's feminine alter ego Fatima's image as a part of the Prophet resulted in her portrayal as a pious, ascetic woman: since she was "a part" of him she must have been very much like him. For Sunni Muslilms, this aspect of Fatima's image makes her an ideal role model for women to emulate. ... However, for Shiis, Fatima is more than just a role model: her characterization as "a part" of the Prophet means that she is the feminine ideal, the female counterpart to the Prophet and the Imams. p. 79 He also cites Abu Bakr on his deathbed saying that he wished he had never opened Fatima's house to anything, even though they had locked it as a gesture of defiance, implying that her house may have been broken into forced open. p. 84 All this leads to the conslusion that Abu Bakr did not justify himself on the basis of the Prophet's saying " la nurathu". p. 97 A second problem was that Abu Bakr seemed to be the only person who had heard the Prophet's statement. p.99 In examining the totality of the traditions about Fatima's.death one is stuck by the lack of coherence. We are left wondering when she died, who prepared her for burial, and where she was buried. DS Magolioth surmises that "the fact that Fatima's death was intentionally concealed for a considerable period". This idea is implied by caliph al-Mansur's letter ti al-Nafs a-Zakiyya in which he states that "[Ali] nursed [Fatima] secretely and buried her at night." and is supported by the incoherence of the traditions on Fatima's death and burial. But why did Alu do this? Margoliouth opines that "Ali kept up the belief that Fatima was living until he felt that it was useless to contend against Abu Bakr any longer" however, given the insistence of the traditions on Fatima's displeasure with Abu Bakr, it seems more likely to me that it was Fatima herself who desired to keep her death a secret for a time, so that Abu Bakr, as leader of the community could have nothing to do with her funeral rites. p.126 traditions discussing her involvement in the events which took place after the death of the Prophet seem to contain some truth despite their partisan biases. This is due to the fact that the Sunnis were unable to completely suppress what was so obviously detrimental to their reconstruction of religious history: namely, that Fatima quarreled with abu Bakr over his seizure of the caliphate and the Prophet's properties, that she never forgave hime for his actions and that ther death was kept secret for some time, probably at her request, in order to prevent him from presiding over her funeral rites. What is ironic is that this small window into the character of Fatima has been downplayed or ignored by Sunnis and inflated and overemphasized by Shiis... p. 206 Kazemita1 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Introduction Normally citations are not required in the introduction of an article because it is a summary and the sources are presumed to be included in the article. Therefor, I was going to remove this edit by Kakar22, which was the equivalent of a tag. However, when I double-checked the body of the article to make sure it was properly referenced somewhere, I got distracted by a section that needed cleanup and Edward321 took care of removing the personal note/CN request from the intro before I got back to it. The thing is, I haven't been able to find any text or references in the body to support the claim that Kakar22 was challenging. I think it would be best to rewrite that last sentence so that it only mentions what is currently supported by the text we have in the article; everything seems fine except the bit about Umar's letter of confession. Since this is a minor change I'm just going ahead with it, but let me know if there is a problem. Doc Tropics 03:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)