Talk:Hasan ibn Ali

Hasan as 'fifth' Rightly-Guided caliph

@Ghazaalch: I see that you reinstated the paragraph I removed a while ago, without addressing the concerns I voiced in my edit summary. Donaldson 1933, p. 73 does not mention that Hasan was a Rightly-Guided caliph. He only confusingly (and I think confusedly) speaks about al-Suyuti's translator Jarrett (so not al-Suyuti himself! he has nothing to do with this) observing that al-Bukhari had said in some unspecified place that Hasan was a "rightful successor" of the prophet. Even if al-Bukhari used the Arabic word rāshid here (which is not at all clear), Donaldson does not conclude from this that according to al-Bukhari, Hasan belonged to the canonical Rashidun. All that can fairly be said is that almost a century ago Donaldson read in the work of an even older scholar that al-Bukhari regarded Hasan as a rightful caliph. We should not say "fifth", nor "rightly guided", and certainly not link to Rashidun. Also, al-Bukhari is not a "group of Sunni scholars", and the reference to al-Suyuti and al-Tirmidhi in the accompanying note are not supported by Donaldson 1933.

All in all, I stand by my earlier conclusion that Donaldson is by far too confused and unfocused to be used here. It is wholly undue, and should just be removed. We need a section on the Sunni view, but we also need a far better source for this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation Apaugasma. Can you introduce some reliable sources on this and other issues related to the Sunni view of Hasan and help Albertatiran to expand this section of the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If I would know of reliable sources on this topic, I would already have added something based on them to the article. However, I do not, and I don't have the time to work on this right now. My concern at this time is the unreliably sourced information currently in the article. Would you agree, based on the arguments above, with removing it again? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In the English language, being "rightly-guided" and the "rightful successor" are different things. The one does not imply the other.

• The natural English expression "well-advised" means much the same as "rightly-guided", and means showing good judgement.
• The term "rightful successor" means the successor according to law or customary practice. It is the opposite of "usurper".

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course "rightly-guided" (Arabic: راشد, romanized: rāshid) is also a specific religious term within Sunni Islam referring to those caliphs who were lead by the paradigmatic example of Muhammad, as well as a historiographical term referring simply to the first four major caliphs. Only the first meaning here would possibly be applied to Hasan by al-Bukhari, but I indeed do not believe this very likely, and in any case Donaldson 1933 does not establish this. I have removed the paragraph for the time being, as if flatly fails verification. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the source. Saying that Hasan was a rightful successor seems justified based on Donaldson and al-Bukhari seems to be a significant enough Islamic figure whose views would merit inclusion.VR _talk 01:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that al-Bukhari (but only he!) viewed Hasan's short-lived caliphate as legitimate could in principle be added on the basis of Donaldson, but nothing more. However, I'm not sure how helpful that is. What we need is a comprehensible discussion of the larger Sunni view on Hasan, which would necessitate a source that also does just that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Let me add, because there seems to be some confusion on this, an independent and therefore secular source, please. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I just asked to use an independent source, and you go on to add a paragraph based on the Muslim historian, religious scholar and Islamist politician Ali al-Sallabi? I guess it's helpful to know where these claims about Hasan belonging to the Rashidun are coming from, but that is not a reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Politicians are not reliable sources, I agree, but if he is a historian and trained in religious studies, could he not be a reliable source? Anyway, I'm surprised to see you say that he's not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. al-Sallabi is pretty far removed from both Hasan, and the sources he's quoting (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ibn Kathir, al-Munawi, Qazi Ayyaz, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi). I see above you seem to equate independent with "secular". I don't think that's what independent means. Religious Muslims don't automatically have a WP:COI on Islamic studies.VR _talk 03:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

From WP:INDEPENDENT: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All religious scholars have a very strong vested interest in their religion, and they cannot at all be expected to treat topics relating to their religion from a disinterested perspective. Note that it's not being a Muslim that is the culprit, but being a religious scholar: there are many nominal Muslims who study history from a purely secular and academic perspective, but Islamic scholars obviously do not. Of course, that we're dealing with an Islamist only adds an extra layer of utter inappropriateness. @Vice regent: This is really reliable sourcing 101, and I'm baffled that I should be explaining this to an experienced user like you. I hope hope hope that you take this into account when evaluating edits in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you're taking the definition of "vested interest" too far. Policy specifically allows for WP:BIASED sources, which gives examples of common biases: "political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Plenty of academics have strong political leanings. I'm not defending al-Sallabi in particular, but I disagree with you that all religious Muslims are un-reliable sources on Islam. I also disagree with the implication that religious Muslims can't be academic: there are plenty of academic institutions in the Islamic world that teach Islam from an Islamic religious perspective (eg Al-Azhar university).VR _talk 03:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Apaugasma: Finding a neutral source is always better but I don't think being independent is a mandatory requirement for reliable sources. You can also see WP:BIASED. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course there are exceptions: biased sources may be used as primary sources (for straightforward facts about themselves, not for interpretation), or may be just-reliable-enough as a secondary source in some specific contexts. But yeah, WP:RS reads Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and independent means no vested interest and disinterested. The reason why religious scholars are by definition not disinterested with regard to religious topics is that, whatever their take on some religious issue is, for or against, their primary interest is always to frame the issue according to the strictures and preconceptions of their own religious denomination.

This is different from having certain leanings: there are, for example, often notable differences between the specific points of view taken by secular scholars who happen to be religious, and those who are not. But whatever their viewpoint, they share a wider secular framework and methodology, in which religion as such has no place. It is because their framework is non-religious that they can treat the subject of religion from a certain distance, however religious they may personally be. However, when the framework itself is religious, disinterestedness becomes impossible.

Compare it with us editors here: I am personally not religious, while some of you are. Apparently, that means that we have different leanings. However, the WP policies and guidelines by which we all abide, the whole method by which we work here, is completely non-religious. That is what makes us independent from the religious topics about which we write, however religious some of us may personally be. We need that in our sources too: they too need to abide by certain non-religious standards.

What is also glaringly obvious to me is that sure, we have now found at least one Sunni Muslim scholar who regards Hasan as having been a rightly-guided caliph: Ali al-Sallabi. But there is no reason to trust that he, as a religious scholar taking a very specific religious position, should be disinterested when he claims that we can conclude that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ibn Kathir, al-Munawi, Qazi Ayyaz, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi all happened to share his very opinion. This should be so obvious: of course he has a vested interest in claiming this, because it reinforces his own religious position. Only a secular scholar, who is not in the business of setting out or defending religious positions, can confirm whether this is reliable or not, point out contradictions, mention other Sunni scholars who have held other views, etc. We, on the other hand, should treat it as utterly unreliable. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Another source

For al-Hasan as the fifth caliph based on Safina's hadith, see The Rightly Guided Caliphs: The Range of Views Preserved in Ḥadīth by Christopher Melchert. Here is a quote:

There is also some ambiguity over the caliphate of al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī. Safīna’s ḥadīth report of thirty years sometimes mentions that ʿAlī’s caliphate was six years, sometimes refrains. ʿAlī was acclaimed caliph in 35/656, assassinated in 40/661, so it may have been felt that counting out a full six (to make a full thirty from Abū Bakr’s accession in 11/632) implied the caliphate of al-Ḥasan as well, which ended in 41/661. (Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī’s version anticipates the problem by expressly counting the caliphate of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar as twelve years and six months, so that al-Ḥasan’s six months are not needed to make up the thirty.51)

There is also a paragraph on the fifth caliph being Umar II. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: that's truly an awesome source! Thanks so much for this! I have added a paragraph based on it to the article. Unfortunately, Melchert 2020 doesn't elaborate on who exactly might have positively regarded Hasan as the fifth caliph (i.e., by whom it may have been felt that Hasan's caliphate was implied in the 30-year period), only mentioning by name a hadith scholar (Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī, not to be confused with Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the more famous 9th-century hadith collector) who seems to have consciously avoided adding Hasan, implying that others (whose works are lost) perhaps did add Hasan. I'm still curious as to whether some post-9th century Sunni scholars whose works are still extant did make such a more positive affirmation. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Overall, a nice summary, although the two- and three-caliph hypotheses are not directly relevant to al-Hasan. I'd consider omitting them. In any case, could you please quote the part where Melchert discusses the two-caliph hypothesis as it pertains to the Shia? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention the two- and three-caliph hypotheses in order to make it clear in what context the idea of Hasan as a fifth caliph may have existed, i.e., one in which there was a wide diversity of ideas about which caliphs were rightly-guided. Not mentioning this context would potentially mislead our readers into thinking that this is some kind of canonical opinion. I think that explaining this stuff is also just instructive for our readers, who may not be aware about the diversity of opinion in early, pre-canonical Sunnism.

As for the two-caliph hypothesis and the Shia, I'm not sure what you would like me to show. As I'm sure you've read too, Melchert 2019, p. 65 writes My guess would be that ʿAlī having such strong support in Kufa, a two-caliph hypothesis was the safest option for Kufan supporters of the Umayyads or at least quietists who resisted active opposition to the Umayyads. Al-Shaʿbī [sc. the first Kufan mentioned in al-Dārimī's report on p. 64] was characterized as taking a strong position against the Shīʿa, meaning those who preferred ʿAlī to ʿUthmān and probably also those who thought the rightful caliphs after ʿAlī had to be among his descendants. Kufa was a bastion of (proto-)Shi'ism in the 8th century, so anyone supporting the Umayyads there (like al-Sha'bi probably did) would be safer to just support Abu Bakr and Umar rather then Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (supporting Ali over Uthman would be quite unthinkable for a pro-Umayyad, but supporting Uthman over Ali would be outright dangerous). However, there would also have been a different class of people in Kufa who would have had reason to support the two-caliph hypothesis: the quietist proto-Shi'is who supported the religious authority of the Husaynid Imams in Medina but who did not support the active political resistance against the Umayyads (as led by the diverse other groups of Kufan proto-Shi'is). This quietist position would later also be adopted by Ja'far al-Sadiq towards the Abbasids, resulting in a large number of Kufan Shi'is who politically served the Abbasids (even taking high positions in the Abbasid administration) but in matters of religion followed the Husaynid Imams. Melchert does not make it explicit that the quietists he is talking about here were these quietist Shi'is, but given the historical context it's quite clear that this is what he is referring to. A good source for this is Haider, Najam (2011). The Origins of the Shī'a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kūfa. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511862618.002. ISBN 9781139503310. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree we should note the diversity, but this should be done without implying that those hypotheses were unique to Sunni Islam. They are relevant to most sects, including the Ibadis[1], the Mu'tazila (e.g., "Wasil acknowledges all four 'righteous' caliphs"[2]), even to the Zaydi Shia: "This is commonly identified as the Zaydī position" (Melchert, p.67). It's misleading to present them as Sunni views or give them this much weight in a Sunni section. For your second point, see wp:synth for now. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That these hypotheses were not exclusive to Sunni Islam is a valid point, though I do not think that we were actually implying that. To explain that early Sunni commentators held a diversity of opinions in a section on Sunni Islam is not the same as saying only Sunni commentators did so. Moreover, the text as it stood was explicitly saying that some quietist Shias held the two-caliph hypothesis. But maybe it was a bit distracting to go to deep into that, and the text as you've changed it is more focused and has a much better flow, so I support the change.

I would, however, strongly disagree that using one's background knowledge to determine how to represent what a secondary source is saying would constitute wp:synth. I think you just kinda did that yourself by pointing to the fact that other reliable sources show that the two- and three-caliph hypotheses are also relevant to other sects. But in any case, see wp:notsynth: What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world, not that someone has gotten around to typing up a specific bibliographic citation in the article. [...] Likewise with very many unsourced statements, regardless of whether they could be deduced from sourced statements in the same article, we know the sources exist. [...] SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. If one's interpretation of a secondary source is guided by what other published secondary sources say (as I pointed to Haider 2011 above), even if these other secondary sources are not explicitly cited, the fact that they exist and that the interpretation is based on them means that there's no original research, and so no wp:synth. If this would be considered wp:synth, we would never get around to writing the encyclopedia: it's impossible to correctly paraphrase secondary sources if one doesn't understand the wider framework in which they are writing.

For the future, please also beware of this bit from wp:notsynth: SYNTH is not a catch-all: if there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. But thanks for being so insistent with your critique: I think the text as you've changed it much better now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Date of death

Hi ! There is an issue in date of his death by Islamic Calendar:

• Encyclopedia Iranica mentions date 5 Rabī al-Awwal 50 AH》link
• TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi mentions date 28 Safar 49 AH》link

(I've not yet looked into other bibliographical sources for this issues.) IAmAtHome (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a response but, to add to this confusion, the 7th of Safar is also commemorated in Iraq and Iran. Albertatiran (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

& I think its good to mention all the three dates (5th Rabī I, 28th Safar, 7th Safar) with mentioning their different historians as mentioned there. But sources are required. IAmAtHome (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's common for primary sources to differ on birth/death dates, and sometimes secondary/tertiary sources will only mention one of them, but a different one. In such cases, we should look if there is one date that is mentioned by the great majority of secondary/tertiary sources (like 4 to 1), or whether different dates are more or less evenly distributed in secondary/tertiary sources. If one date has a strong majority, we should only mention that one date in the lead sentence and infobox, and either leave the other date for the article body or leave it out entirely. If dates are evenly distributed, we should either mention all dates in the infobox and lead sentence (using "or"), or consider using something like "c. 669–670". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

References

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 14:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I will start reviewing this article for GA status. I am looking forward to working with you. Please stay tuned! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It is extremely difficult to follow, because there many large run on sentences, few paragraph breaks and new names are introduced without context. The tone is not always written in WP:Encyclopedic tone. I've marked where it would be helpful to {{clarify}}.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   As a whole, the sources seem to be of high quality and generally reasonably sourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While the prose style makes it difficult to follow, I don't think any of the information is excessively detailed. However, I am unsure if some major aspects are missing, for example the Sunni view of Hasan is notably missing from the different views of Hasan, or other religions, particularly Christianity, which is briefly mentioned. If it's implicitly assumed from the general depictions of Hasan in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, this needs to be made more clear, especially considering his primary importance in Shia Islam.

   On the other hand, I am unsure what this even has to do with Hasan, other than being one of the children of Ali/Fatimah: Surah Al-Insan, attribute its revelation to Ali and Fatima and the story of the illness of their child or children and a vow for their recovery., and other examples like this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Generally neutral, though some comments like "he's criticized most heavily by western scholars" make me wonder what non western scholars think? If non Islamic scholar is intended, then state it as such.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are freely licensed

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 article and has potential to become a GA and FA some day, but serious copy editing is needed to make the prose more accessible. The lede currently does not adequately describe the entire article. The lede is typically 4 paragraphs, and this is two, but with the 2nd being excessively long and details heavily the Hasan–Muawiya treaty at the expense of other aspect of Hasan's life/prominence in Islam. Despite finding and standardizing multiple spelling of Hasan, no mention of spelling variations in the lede is mentioned either. The section "Views in Islam" should be renamed to "Representation in Islam", since this is not about HIS views.

   Given the complexity of the issues mentioned, while a very strong article, with strong potential and strong sources available, I don't think this can be fixed within a week, so I am marking this as a failed review. I am open to be contacted for further feedback/follow up questions and a future review.

• @Shushugah: Thanks for taking the time to review. Based on first glance, the issues don't seem too great. Maybe they could be resolved in 2 weeks? Instead of failing this, would you be willing to put it on hold instead? I know 7 days is the standard wait time but the advantage of "hold" would be that since you've read the article it will be a lot easier for you to determine if the issues have been fixed than for someone new to come in and review the article from scratch. VR _talk 23:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Vice regent absolutely! Happy to give a two week holding period! Thanks for asking! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! Lemme ping a few folks to help here: Ghazaalch (the nominator), some who have been active on the article's talk page: Albertatiran, Mhhossein, AhmadLX. And finally, TheAafi (who can maybe dig up sources on the Sunni view).VR _talk 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest I'm rather skeptical that the outstanding issues here will be fixed in two weeks, unless all of those pinged above go to work on it right now. But then every improvement is more than welcome, and whether it leads to GA status or not is less important. Anyway, I'm posting here to draw attention to the fact that the lacking coverage of the Sunni view indeed is a major gap in the article. The article is only on my watch list because it gets regularly disrupted by IPs who try to frame Hasan as the fifth Rightly-Guided (Rashid) caliph without adequate sourcing (the same at List of caliphs). The concept of Rightly-Guided caliphs is essentially Sunni, and though historians do certainly not reckon Hasan among 'the' Rightly-Guided caliphs (in scholarly parlance, this exclusively refers to Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali), there appears to be some tradition among some medieval Sunni scholars of supporting Hasan as some kind of rightful successor (=caliph) to the prophet. It would be really nice to have some well-sourced information on this, since clearly a lot of people who are reading this article are looking for that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hi all, I'd be happy to work on this article. Haven't carefully read the review yet but eventually, I can perhaps go over the text and then post comments + proposed edits on the talk page... Albertatiran (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Dear Vice regent, I'd be glad to share resources on this, some in English and several others in Urdu. You can locate a plethora of resources published by Taha Karaan's Mahajjah Institute at mahajjah.com and I can share others over email. I'm sorry that I can not personally help on this article, subject to my ongoing semester exams at the university. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure exactly which sources you have in mind here, but given the religious nature of the website you link to, and just for clarity's sake, I feel I should mention that we absolutely need independent, secular, academic, secondary sources. Nothing directly published by a religious Islamic institute qualifies in this context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I second that. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have to disagree with the reviewer's view on broadness criteria. Broadness is not akin to FA comprehensiveness. It requires moderate coverage of the most important aspects of the topic. In Shi'ism, Hasan is regarded as an Imam, a divinely appointed religio-political leader of the Muslim Empire and legitimate successor of Muhammad; hence such detail on the Shi'a view is warranted. In Sunnism, he is just a caliph and Muhammad's grandson. As such, Sunni position does not warrant a treatment anywhere near to the treatment of the Shi'a view. EI2, Iranica, and other sources thus don't mention the Sunni view at all.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I Agree. Above, I was unduly putting my own wishes for this article before the review, but detailing the Sunni view is in fact a very difficult challenge which should not be required for a GA. What does require more work though is the encyclopedic focus: currently, the article is too much a collection of facts and stories, and not enough a discussion and analysis of historical events and their legacy. The relevant GA criterion is 3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). To qualify for this, it needs a lot of trimming and rewriting. I think that what the reviewer mentions under (1), i.e., that it is difficult to follow and that it needs WP:Encyclopedic tone, actually falls under (3b). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Ready to help with improving the page. @folks: suggest taking a look at [3] and [4]. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shushugah. Thanks to @Albertatiran, Vice regent, Apaugasma, and Wiqi55: the article is ready to be reviewed again. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue number 1

Thank you very much Vice regent. Can you handle the copy editing issues and reorganize the lede? I'll try to modify other issues with the help of others.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Vice regent. I placed a copy editing request here. For the time being I have nothing else to add to the article and I think it is time to edit it.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue number 3

Hello @Albertatiran: Can you expand on this section with the help of @Apaugasma and TheAafi: to deal with the issue number 3 mentioned by the reviewer above? It is important to use only reliable sources as this section is a controversial one.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma and TheAafi: To begin, I wonder if there is a specific source (or sources) that, in your view, is essential to a discussion about the Sunni view of Hasan (besides Madelung). Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unfortunately I'm not at all familiar with the specific sources, and have neither the time nor the inclination to get familiar with them at this moment. However, as I commented above, I was in fact mistaken to ask for coverage of the Sunni view, which would only be fitting for an FA review. I'm sorry about that! I suggest focusing on GA criterion 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), which I do think is a major problem here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: No worries, thanks for the follow-up. Albertatiran (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I added some new information from Encyclopaedia Islamica, and from a Persian version of a book by Ali al-Sallabi. I guess this is the English copy of the book and might be of some use. Sa.vakilian may be able to introduce some more sources.

And I guess the information I added needs to be shortened a little. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

Regrettably, Shushugah has been inactive of late and unresponsive to queries, so I've changed the nomination status to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I had conducted a pre-nomination review of the article and made (before as well as after the review) some minor edits here and there. Am I allowed to take over this review? --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

AhmadLX, apologies for not getting back to you sooner. If you're familiar with the GA criteria and how to apply them in a review, and your edits to the article are minor and there are not a lot of them, then by all means take over. Thank you for offering. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you AhmadLX for the offering. Looking forward to your review. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Review by AhmadLX

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Images

• File:A Portrait of 'Ali, Hasan, Husayn, and the Sufi Leader Nur 'Ali Shah Ni 'matullahi.jpg : US tag needed.
• File:The Prophet, 'Ali, Husayn and Hasan in Paradise; 'Uthman, 'Umar and Abu Bakr are in the foreground. Miniature from a 17th century manuscript of Khavarnama, a poem on the deeds of 'Ali; Punjab, 1686 (BL).jpg : ditto
• File:Baghi tomb.jpg : this as well
• File:Coffin of Imam 'Ali, Folio from a Falnama (The Book of Omens) of Ja'far al-Sadiq.jpg : this one too

• File:The first three Shiite Imams- Ali with his sons Hasan and Husayn, illustration from a Qajar manuscript, Iran, 1837-38 (gouache on paper).jpg : The source link does not verify the license.
• File:Coin from the time of Hassan ibn Ali.jpg : Almost certainly not "own work"; the license is invalid
• File:Unknown Artist Imam 'Ali with Hasan and Husayn Painting With Calligraphy Persian , 19th century.jpg : The source link dead
• File:HassanSVG.svg : license invalid

Hello @Mhhossein:. I am not so familiar with the issues cited above by the reviewer. Would you have the time to help me fix the images? Ghazaalch (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ghazaalch, thanks for the ping. Would be happy to help. @AhmadLX: What do you mean by "US tag needed"? Because the works cited as such by you are apparently in PD. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Works originating in countries other than the US are to have tags for both the source country and the US. Please see Commons. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: If that's your sole objection, then you're kindly invited to read the licenses more carefully. The files you tagged as 'US tag' are allowed in US. Actually, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What you quote above addresses the issue whether pictures of public domain 2D works are also in public domain themselves. The point I made above is different. Being PD in one country doesn't make anything PD in the US by default. For that, explicit tag is needed. If no justification regarding the copyright status in the US is provided, these images will have to be removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What kind of more "explicit" tags other than "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States" are you asking for? If you are still unsure you may ask Wikimedia Commons admins other than me. I am done here. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• واکنش مراجع عظام تقلید به سریال الاسباط : non-Rs; remove
• Fayazi, Kia. Critique of Mokhtarnameh serial : ditto
• Referring to the Prophet as (master) : ditto
• Paktchi, Ahmad; Tareh, Masoud; Haj-Manouchehri, Faramarz; Masoudi Arani, Abdullah (2013) : as above
• Jafarian, Rasul (1999) and Jafarian, Rasul (2003) : this one too
• Egypt Independent : fine for GA, but won't work if you plan for FA.
• Veccia Vaglieri, L. (2022a), Veccia Vaglieri, L. (2022b)., Veccia Vaglieri, L. (2022c). Wrong years. Correct per respective EI2 volumes, and provide full bibliographic data.
• Ibn Rashid, Mamar (2014): Translator and editor (Sean Anthony) missing; Either format as Anthony, Sean (2014). "The Expeditions: An early biography of Muhammad by Ma'mar ibn Rashid according to the recension of Abd al-Razaq al-San'ani" or add editor and translator parameters to the template as is.
• Netton, Ian Richard (2013). Encyclopaedia of Islam : Which article?
• Glassé, Cyril (2001). The new encyclopedia of Islam : Which article?
• Order sources alphabetically using last name.
• The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought: cite the article and its author(s).
• Encyclopædia of Islamic Civilisation and Religion: Netton, Ian Richard is the editor. Name the article's author in the author parameter and Netton in the editor parameter. Give the article's page range.
• Vaglieri, L. Veccia (1991). Bearman, p. (ed.). Al-Djamal (Second ed.): Second edition of what?

MOS

• Ahl al-Bayt → ahl al-bayt; italicize
• Ahl al-Kisa → ahl al-kisa; italicize
• Abū Ḥanīfa Dīnawarī : drop the diacritics
• rāshidūn : ditto
• ismah → isma
• Dar al-Ifta' al-Misriyya → Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya
• Jamiʽ al-Tirmidhi → Jami'a al-Tirmidhi
• Sunna → sunna; italicize

Misc.

• Abu Huraira → Abu Hurayra
• taqiya → taqiyya
• Quotes like "Go to your uncle ... I shall pledge allegiance to you." should be followed immediately by a citation.
• ahl al-bayt link missing; ahl al-kisa linked more than once.
• Mubahala and mubahala

(@AhmadLX: What do you mean by this?)

This means that at some places you start the term with capital M and at some place you start with small m. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some historians you introduce (e.g. Ibn Isfandiyar), some you don't (e.g. Tabari, Madelung)
• "Hasan received 5,000 dirhams as the state revenue." He received "pension from the state revenue" and not the state revenue itself.

Regarding File:Unknown Artist Imam 'Ali with Hasan and Husayn Painting With Calligraphy Persian , 19th century.jpg. The review said that the source link dead. This problem has been fixed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1. The problems mentioned above by AhmadLX are fixed, except for the Images section that still don't know what should be done. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

AhmadLX, since you did take over this review, I've belatedly changed the nomination status from "2nd opinion" to "on review". Please let me know if it should be "on hold". Where does the review stand at the present time? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

AhmadLX will not be able to return to complete the review, so a new reviewer is needed to take over and do their own checks of the article against the GA criteria. I've set the nomination again to "second opinion" status. Thank you to whoever takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to step in and will take on the vaunted and daunting "third opinion" role. Will complete this review tomorrow, one way or the other; sorry you've had to wait, Ghazaalch! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ganesha811. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some questions about the lead: I think a new first sentence can be inserted. "Hasan ibn Ali (##) was a prominent early Islamic figure. He was the eldest son of Ali and Fatima..." This clarifies immediately for the reader who may not know who Ali and Fatima were off the top of their heads. Why is the "masters of youth in Paradise" quote in the lead? Doesn't seem necessary, can remove. Not yet addressed. Inconsistent to use the Islamic calendar for just one date (August 661) and not the rest. Can be removed. Not yet addressed. "Another Sunni hadith" is used, but the first hadith is not specifically mentioned. Add the word hadith to the mention of the prior story. The part about "greatest sahaba" is mentioned in the lead, uncited, and then cited/supported/mentioned nowhere else. Should be removed or incorporated into the body of the article with a source. Issues above addressed except those noted. Continuing prose review. "Hasan was born in Medina in c. 625 either in Ramadan or Shaban" change to "Hasan was born in Medina in c. 625. Sources differ on whether he was born in the month of Ramadan or of Shaban" "reportedly had chosen another name" switch in for existing Fatima shaved whose head? Muhammad's? "prevented him from eating a date meant for charity" This is clearly a summary of a longer story, but here it is a somewhat odd parenthetical. Separate into its own sentence and expand, or else remove. Why is his participation in the event of Mubhala given so much space? What is its significance to Hasan ibn Ali, as opposed to its significance to Islam/Muhammad? The cloak story is repeated twice - remove duplication. The last sentence about ahl al-bayt seems irrelevant to Hasan ibn Ali. Explain the connection in text or remove. Continuing prose review: "a pension" instead of "the pension" "the former's caliphate" - is this Sa'id ibn al-As? Clarify Ali opposed Uthman when? Chronology is a bit confusing If Ali opposed Uthman why did he then ask his sons to guard Uthman's house? How can we reconcile the conflicting stories about Hasan from this period (to lash / not lash, ID assassins or not, etc)? "It has been reported" by whom? Was Hasan's mission with "4 people", or with "Ammar ibn Yasir", or was Yasir one of those 4 people, or are these separate missions. Clarify. "the former took no active part in the battle." Is "the former" Hasan? Clarify What happened with his role in trying to remove the ruler of Kufa? Was he successful or unsuccessful? What arbitration incident? Explain some in text - the wikilink is good but insufficient.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Revisiting this: the templates for Shia Islam and Sunni Islam should be set to auto-hide instead of auto-expand; as it is they take up too much visual space. Same with the template on Twelver Shi'ism further down the page.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else major found from checking references and googling. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Much to talk about here; for starters, see stability/Jaafarian issue below.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	An unresolved issue from the talk page; variable dates of death. I suggest that a note be added to his date of death in the lead (you can use the efn template) to note that some sources have a different date of death. Issue addressed. Continuing disputes about the reliability of a certain source and Shia/Sunni historical perspective. Stable enough to continue review - provisional pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:HassanSVG.svg should be removed, or more detailed metadata is needed, such as a US copyright tag, an artist, etc. File:Coffin of Imam 'Ali, Folio from a Falnama (The Book of Omens) of Ja'far al-Sadiq.jpg needs a US public domain copyright tag File:Baghi tomb.jpg is incorrectly licensed - it was clearly not published by the copyright holder (who would have taken it in 1926) and so needs a US public domain copyright tag. File:The first three Shiite Imams- Ali with his sons Hasan and Husayn, illustration from a Qajar manuscript, Iran, 1837-38 (gouache on paper).jpg needs a US public domain copyright tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A little over-illustrated: to address this: The picture of the graves in Medina can be removed. The picture of Ali's burial can be removed, although it is a great image. File:Name of Hasan in Arabic in Hagia Sophia, April 2013.jpg can be removed - doesn't add very much and is low quality. Issue addressed - pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you again Ganesha811. Can you give more details on what needs to be done? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will, don't worry - just didn't have time to get to everything yesterday. More comments are forthcoming! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ganesha811. BTW I forgot to make some edits to the article before asking you to review it. I am done now. Sorry for the inconvenience. I will be waiting for your more comments.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The Jaafarian source has already been deemed unreliable (see article talk). I'm sure there are better alternatives. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiqi55, I see the discussion about the Jaafarian source on the talk page, but I don't see where it is currently cited on the article; could you be more specific? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You might have reverted the changes again before I looked at it; taking a second look now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I reverted to the stable version. The Jafarian material was only inserted yesterday even though it was removed previously per talk page discussions. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Rasul Jafarian is currently the Professor of the Department of History at the University of Tehran which is among the top university of the world. The first reviewer had no problem with him being cited in the article, the second reviewer changed his mind in considering him as a reliable source. And now we have the third reviewer that might have another view. The same thing can be said about the Encyclopaedia Islamica which you reverted it too.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Jafarian is an obscure non-English source that most readers wouldn't be able to verify/utilize. I've never seen any reliable source that cites him for info on al-Hasan and early Islamic figures. Instead, we need to direct readers to high-quality sources written in English and there are plenty. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Non-English is not a problem per WP:NOENG, especially if there is not an equivalent English-language source. Obscurity is harder to measure. This is an important issue for the article's neutrality and stability; I will do some research and make up my own mind, since right now I don't know which of you I tend to agree with. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I know you have some interest and knowledge in this area, and I see you've edited Jaafarian's page before. Do you have any thoughts on Jaafarian's reliability and usefulness as a source for this article, after reading the dispute above and on the talk page? —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What I meant by obscure is not cited in any reliable source relevant to this topic. There is also no indication of meeting the requirement of wp:rs: a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Political History of Islam was published by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, not an academic or reputable publisher. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Rasul Jafarian is cited in a few high quality WP:RS, but that's more regarding later (Shia) Islam in modern Iran, such as the The Safavid World by Rudi Matthee and Isfahan and its Palaces: Statecraft, Shi`ism and the Architecture of Conviviality in Early Modern Iran by Sussan Babaie. We also have to remember that Rasul Jafarian is a cleric, just like the current leaders of the country, who are notable for their revisionist views and disregard of human rights, particularly against non-Shias. Perhaps we're better off using other sources in early Islamic history, which we fortunately don't lack in. That's obviously not saying that Iranian historians aren't reliable - the afromentioned Encyclopaedia Islamica, one of the leading WP:RS in this field, is mainly written by Iranian historians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This should perhaps have been taken to WP:RSN some time ago, but the fact that we're dealing here with a religious cleric publishing with the ministry of 'Islamic Guidance' of a theocracy are two huge red flags for me. I do not believe that a source like this can ever be WP:INDEPENDENT, i.e. be a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and that can cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. As Wiqi55 said, there are plenty of high-quality sources on this topic, so there's not really an excuse to rely on someone as susceptible to religious bias as Jafarian. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your thoughts. It's clear there is plenty of scope here for an in-depth discussion that will not be easily resolved. This means, Ghazaalch, that it will be tough for this article to pass GA review while issues of source reliability and neutrality are still under active dispute. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

So instead of Jafarian I would use the aforementioned Encyclopaedia Islamica, that as HistoryofIran said, is one of the leading WP:RS in this field. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the article currently in a place you're happy with in terms of sourcing? i.e. should I continue my review with the article as-is. or are you planning changes to the sources used? —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes Ganesha811. You could continue your review. I won't use new sources, Ghazaalch (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It may take a day for me to add new information from Encyclopaedia Islamica, and you can continue your review from tomorrow. Thank you for your time. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, please ping me when you're done. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am done Ganesha811. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

U.S. tag needed

Hello Iskandar. Do you have time to deal with issues mentioned in the table here, part 6a. I am not so familiar with the issues. Here they are:

• File:HassanSVG.svg should be removed, or more detailed metadata is needed, such as a US copyright tag, an artist, etc.
• File:Coffin of Imam 'Ali, Folio from a Falnama (The Book of Omens) of Ja'far al-Sadiq.jpg needs a US public domain copyright tag
• File:Baghi tomb.jpg is incorrectly licensed - it was clearly not published by the copyright holder (who would have taken it in 1926) and so needs a US public domain copyright tag.
• File:The first three Shiite Imams- Ali with his sons Hasan and Husayn, illustration from a Qajar manuscript, Iran, 1837-38 (gouache on paper).jpg needs a US public domain copyright tag. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I've resolved the third and fourth. The second seems fine already? The origins of the first are potentially too mysterious to tag as public domain. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Iskandar323. Would you tell us Ganesha811 what should be done about the first one, also the second? Ghazaalch (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Coffin of Imam 'Ali, Folio from a Falnama (The Book of Omens) of Ja'far al-Sadiq.jpg has now been removed from the article, so no worries there. I agree that File:HassanSVG.svg is probably not public domain - it should be removed from the article/template. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find the File:HassanSVG.svg in the article Ganesha811. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's used in Template:Hasan ibn Ali. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on deletion of the image here. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Auto-hide

Thank you again Iskandar323. Could you also auto-hide the templates cited in the table above, part 1b ? Ghazaalch (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We could keep them as they are if it is not a big deal Ganesha811. I think they are very helpful to the readers who are not familiar with Shia Islam and Sunni Islam and the different between them. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind the templates being in the article, but they should not be auto-expanded; they take up too much space and distract the reader from the body of the article as currently constituted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. So I will ask someone else to do it for me. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Failing the review due to prose issues

The density of prose issues (we haven't even gotten to the meat of the article yet!) suggests that this article is a long way from meeting GA Criteria #1 (well-written). I think I will have to fail it for now, regretfully, and encourage you to copyedit the article carefully. The writing is clunky and the chronology is often confusing; sometimes it is hard to tell why sentences or phrases are joined together, or who is doing what. The text also does not provide enough context for contradictions among sources. You could seek help from the Guild of Copyeditors - there are some great folks there who are good at improving articles like this. There's a lot of good material here and we've made real improvements; I encourage you not to be discouraged by this but view it as an opportunity to keep developing the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2022 (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.

Albertatiran's comment

Hi Ghazaalch! Sorry for the slow reply. Please don't consider this discussion to be in any way a criticism of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and, in particular, Shia articles. The following gives a couple of examples to support my earlier comment. An earlier version of the Hasan article included the passage: "According to Madelung, Hasan criticized his father, Ali, for not doing enough to defend Uthman. Jafarian, however, writes that such reports about Hasan's alleged Uthmanid stance are not consistent with his widely reported involvement in Ali's military campaigns and the fierce opposition of the Banu Umayyad to the burial of Hasan next to Muhammad." The criticism of Ali by Hasan is derived from Sunni sources and, sadly, there is no western academic source that includes the Shia counter-argument, hence the use of Jafarian's Hayat-e fikri wa siyasi-e imaman-e Shia. However, this counter-argument was removed later in the process of preparing the article for GA. As another example, the current article includes the sentence "Hasan was present at the Battle of Siffin against the army of Mu'awiya I, though the former reportedly took no active part in the battle." Again, there is no Shia counter-argument and it's also not possible to remove the sentence from the article, considering that it comes from a reliable source, which was nevertheless heavily influenced by early Sunni historians. I guess my point is that 1) the GA process invites considerable attention and interest from (hopefully well-meaning) Sunni editors who rewrite the article from their own point of view without including the Shia views, and 2) this process is often irreversible. To summarize, if one's goal is to offer a fair and unbiased view of key Shia figures, then a GA article seems to fail to achieve that goal since the end product is more or less the usual Sunni propaganda. In any case, these are my personal views, nothing more. Thanks again for your contributions to Shia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Albertatiran. I moved your comment here for further discussion. AhmadLX said previously that he do not consider Jafarian as a reliable source any longer, and I had to remove it from the article. Reading your comment however, made me think that we could at least add Jafarian's views as Shia views, and I did so. You have my consent to take your time and add more Shia content and when you are finished, I would ask AhmadLX to review the article again. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ghazaalch. Whether academic sources are influenced by Sunni sources or Shi'i sources is irrelevant. We write here based on academic consensus and not based on our our own preferred selection of RS. The academics with sound credentials may lean one way or another. We give survey of such sources. Rasul Jafarian, on the other hand, is a cleric trained in a seminary and his writings are very much colored by his seminary background (if his translated works are representative sample of his writings). My earlier view of him being RS was based on assumption that he is a university trained historian and I had not read any of his works. On the other hand, the OP I see has removed content from Vaglieri who was one of the foremost Islamicists of the 20th century and whose academic credentials are impeccable. I stand by my evaluation of Jafarian. If you plan to reinsert him or other sources like him, you have two option. Either I fail the review and you renominate it, or you find another reviewer for the current nom. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ghazaalch! At the moment, it doesn't seem constructive for me to edit the article. The comment about Jafarian was an example to support my view, not the main issue. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Albertatiran (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Shortdesc

Albertatiran removed my edit saying "Hasan is the 2nd imam for most Shia Muslims. not every sub-subsect has to be taken into account in the lead or the short description". According to you, not every sub-subsect should be taken in the short description. First, I never mentioned any Shi'a subsect in the shortdesc. Secondly, there are many historical and huge Shi'a sects which deny Hasan's imamate. The Nizariyya, who are '15 million' in population, do not accept Hasan's martrydom. This historical '15 million' group is not just any small random Shi'a subsect. Per WP:NEUTRAL, the short description should be neutral since the Nizariyya are in fact Shi'a and denying this would just be biasness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.112.131 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Nizariyya is a small subsect of Shia and there is no reason not to add their view to the article from a reliable source. At the same time, there is no reason to include their view in the lead or the short-description which are meant to summarize and highlight the key points. You're suggesting to remove the overwhelming majority's view for the sake of a tiny subsect (for your own Sunni agenda). A more accurate short description would be "Grandson of the prophet and Shia Imam except for a small subsect called Nizariyya." Hopefully you'd agree that this alternative poorly summarizes the article, hence my point about what should go into the lead or in the short description. Albertatiran (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying brother Albertatiran. First, the Nizariyya is not a small tiny subsect of Shi'a, as a I stated above, it has a population of more than "15 million". If 15 million is less for you, then the 150–180 million Shi'a is also a tiny little sect as compared to the 1.7 billion Sunnis, which is 85–90% of Muslims. Also, its not only the Nizariyya which dispute Hasan's imamate, numerous other sects have historically denied Hasan's imamate. There's also nothing Sunni-related in the short description so it would be equally fair to not include anything Shi'a-related in the short description. Also, I never said that to include Nizari in the short description as you proposed "Grandson of the prophet and Shia Imam except for a small subsect called Nizariyya". I just propose to have "Grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (625–670), that's what he's primarily known for around the world among both the Shi'a and Sunni and among non-Muslims. Hopefully, you would agree with all of these points. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.112.131 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran! You've been dealing with a disruptive user who has banned years ago and has since been editing through a ton of sockpuppet accounts and a number of IPs (see here). You can freely revert their edits and ignore their input at talk pages (do have a look at WP:BLOCKEVASION though before you do). When in the future you hit upon an IP or account that you think may be them but you're not sure enough to file an SPI, feel free to e-mail me and I'll have a look. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)