Jump to content

Talk:Fatima

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Klaksonn (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 13 August 2007 (→‎Disruption by [[User:Klaksonn|Klaksonn]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Protected article

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

As a non-Muslim with very limited knowledge of the subject, the present version does not seem to handle the diametrically opposed Sunni & Shia viewpoints well, and clearly leans somewhat to the Shia view. Different sections for each view of her death are needed, as the question of her possible siblings has. At the same time, since she is certainly more significant in the Shia tradition, that version should be placed first. Johnbod 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnbod, thank you for your comments. I was attempting to make this NPOV and if you look at my edits which Klaksonn reverted, it gives the Shia view full prominence as you suggest with a simple expand tag on the Sunni view which I was hoping to work on but Klaksonn is pushing his POV and does not seem to understand that the article should be neutral. → AA (talk) — 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with John. AA, please continue your efforts to fix this article when it is opened for editing again. Let me know if you need any help in the way of references or research. MezzoMezzo 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could open up a temp version either as a sub-page here (which anyone could edit), or in your sandbox, for drafting/discussion purposes. Johnbod 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul article (Talk:Fatimah/sandbox)

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

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

Thank you very much for your objectivity and helpfulness on the article, Brown Haired Girl. Guys, i've been sort of out of the discussions and improvements on this article so while I can see the edit history and th various versions, I may not be the best person to just jump in and start editing when the protection is gone. Regardless, I can stick around if everyone would want just to look everything over and throw in my two cents when a third opinion is needed. MezzoMezzo 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you all for the initiative and support you have given. MezzoMezzo, I would welcome your input and assistance on this. Indeed, I would welcome Klaksonn's help too provided we work towards a goal of keeping the article NPOV. I think if we start from scratch and come up with a structure and section headings we want to see, it would give us all something to work on without any connotations of the article in its current form. I suggest that since it's a BIO article, we take as a template the one suggested at the Biography wikiproject to begin with. I should be able to document my ideas later today. → AA (talk) — 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography seems like a good place to start. I'm guessing they have some sort of a basic template for the structure of bio pages? MezzoMezzo 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As it stands right now I have some biographical type resources though they're predominantly in the Arabic language, and there might be an issue with that. For the time being I can do a quick search among my favorite Islamic bookstores and see if I can find any English language reference material perhaps either on Fatimah specifically or maybe the companions in general. For the time being, woudl anybody be interested in some web links to the Arabic text of some excerpts from said books? MezzoMezzo 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to limit the sources to books and scholarly sources as the main problem with the current article is there's lots of links to polemic sites and forums. I'm using two sources myself which are available on the net (USC-MSA bio (Sunni) & Fatima The Gracious (Shia)) plus a book I have (Great Women of Islam). If you have other book sources then that would be great - please add them refs to the sandbox. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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

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

Birth dates and sequence in birth

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

Hi, thanks again for your interest in this article. Regarding your recent change, the edit by Itaqallah is in fact correct as it's not only Sunni sources which suggest these. The Encyclopedia of Islam is a neutral source which also accepts these view and therefore it is appropriate to state it as such with a subtext that the Shias have an alternative view. Hope that clarifies. Regards. → AA (talk) — 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it needs some more detail then. Previous version:
"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations, during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605.[1][2] Most Shia sources, however, state that she was born five years after the first revelation in 615 on the 20th of Jumada al-thani while some claim she was born two years after the first revelation in 612.[3]..."
"Fatimah is generally placed as the fourth of Muhammad's daughters after Zaynab, Ruqayya, and Umm Kulthum.[4] Shias claim she was his only daughter, believing ...."
- In both cases the views of "Shias" or "most Shias" are said to be different from the "widely" or "generally" held view. I don't think this can be right. Johnbod 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm...I see. Maybe not mention the Shia view and just state the facts:
"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations,[1][2][7] during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605, although this does imply she was over 18 at the time of her marriage which was unusual in Arabia.[2] Other sources,[3] suggest that she was born either two or five years after the first revelation but this timeline would imply her mother was over fifty at the time of her birth.[2]"
The point about her place in the sequence of Muhammad's daughters is only a Shia view and the EoI does not add any subtext to say otherwise. → AA (talk) — 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you must see that just excluding the Shia view is wrong, and will just lead to further edit conflicts? Is the neutrality of the EoI in fact accepted by Shias? If it doesn't mention the views held by most Shia sources, as you imply, this would seem unlikely. If by "widely accepted" you actually mean "the only view given in the EoI", it might be better to just say that. Any statement like "widely accepted" or "generally accepted" must mean that the view is held by at least a good number of Shia sources. Johnbod 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly held by all Sunni sources and the EoI can be regarded as a non-muslim source. Additionally, it's accepted in Encylopaedia Britannica, MSN Encarta and other encyclopaedias so it is the generally accepted view. The Shia do have a different view (and I'm not sure if it's a universal Shia view either) and we can either report it explicitly or implicitly but it would be incorrect to label it only a Sunni view. → AA (talk) — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the original article, there's a whole list of sources (including Sunni, Shia and EoI) supporting this view. I'll copy them across into the new article). → AA (talk) — 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a standard academic reference on Islam, and one of best scholarly sources one can use on Islam related articles. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice the links to the series of specifically Shia articles are missing, and many of the links to online Shia texts. I agree that something like Umar at Fatimah's house should not be linked by the "main article" template, but they should be linked, maybe by something like [[Umar at Fatimah's house|some Shia sources. I understand your concerns about linking to inflammatory Shia sites, but I think links to historical texts online are ok. There seem to have been several of these in the old references, now missing. Of course I can't read them myself. Johnbod 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reviewed the EL section yet (been working exclusively on the article) but we should not have anything that does not meet WP:EL. Please do suggest the ones you think would be acceptable per the guidelines and we can discuss here. → AA (talk) — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of links for EL section

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

I don't think any site can be considered an "official site" for this article so the use of non-English-language links should be avoided. I believe the criteria applies more to an official site of a product/organisation/person etc. However, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as the links in the EL section of the current article all appear to be in English. Could you paste the link here please. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the ones which I don't believe meet WP:EL. → AA (talk) — 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of EL is that " when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" is a separate case from the preceding "official site" bit (an "or" would make this clearer). So I don't think you are correct in saying "the use of non-English-language links should be avoided". For the links, look at those attached to Note 1. Johnbod 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This other policy may or may not clarify the matter: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#non-English-language_sites; in any case I'm pretty sure my reading is correct the full sentence describes 3 cases, not 2. Johnbod 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I see. You're referring to the References and not the External links section, right? If so, then yes, those refs in note 1 have been copied across (note 7 in the new article). → AA (talk) — 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtues section

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

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

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

That was one of the few elements I copied across from the existing article. I assumed the ref at the end to Esposito, covers the first sentence (since the second one does not really need a ref). If not, then it may need replacing. → AA (talk) — 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I assume you meant third Sunni Caliph? → AA (talk) — 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the two of you meant the fourth Sunni caliph (i.e., Fatimah was the husband of Ali, the fourth Sunni caliph, not Abu Bakr, the first Sunni caliph, nor Uthman, the third Sunni caliph). Pepsidrinka 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - of course :) → AA (talk) — 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the refs and have added them in and made the suggested change. → AA (talk) — 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, typo on my part. Good job with the refs though. MezzoMezzo 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. KlakSonnTalk 07:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. KlakSonnTalk 07:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop calling your fellow editors Wahhabis. MezzoMezzo 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption by Klaksonn

Klaksonn, you are engaging in disruptive editing of this article. The version moved to mainspace by BrownHairedGirl has achieved a super-majority consensus. Please review her comments above and start discussing the changes in a constructive manner (and hold off on the edit summaries attacking editors. → AA (talk) — 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed twelve sources on how Fatimah died. Maybe you should live with the fact that Umar was a sick murderer and refrain from vandalizing the article by adding things like "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)". KlakSonnTalk 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fatima&oldid=150968764"