| Revision as of 15:05, 13 August 2007 editAA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,256 edits →Disruption by []← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:12, 7 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,951,087 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (745 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WPBiography|living=no|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=High|Shi'a-Islam=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=12 October 2007 |
|
{{WikiProject Muslim scholars|importance=high |nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=not listed |
|
{{WikiProject Salaf|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=164077570 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|
|topic=philrelig |
|
|
|otd1date=2018-03-09|otd1oldid=829597878 |
|
|
|otd2date=2019-02-26|otd2oldid=885255728 |
|
|
|otd3date=2020-02-14|otd3oldid=940385757 |
|
|
|otd4date=2021-02-03|otd4oldid=1004486927 |
|
|
|otd5date=2022-01-24|otd5oldid=1067638358 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Fatimah|blp=no|1= |
|
{{archive box|box-width=14em|image-width=20px|image=]|*])}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam||importance=Top|Salaf=yes|Shi'a-Islam=yes|Shi'a-Islam-importance=Top|Muslim-scholars=yes}} |
|
== Protected article == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Mid}} |
|
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 <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> tag beside it. However, please note that an admin is unlikely to agree to any changes without a consensus. --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}} |
|
: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. ] 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
::Hi Johnbod, thank you for your comments. I was attempting to make this NPOV and if you look at 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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=top}} |
|
:::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. ] 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::You could open up a temp version either as a sub-page here (which anyone could edit), or in your sandbox, for drafting/discussion purposes. ] 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
| algo=old(180d) |
|
== Overhaul article (])== |
|
|
|
| archive=Talk:Fatima/Archive %(counter)d |
|
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 ], particularly the summary at ]. |
|
|
|
| counter=5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=75K |
|
To make things easier for those drafting new versions while the page is protected, I have created a temp version at ]. Hope this helps! --] <small>] • (])</small> |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
: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. ] 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
::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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
|
:::Yeah, ] seems like a good place to start. I'm guessing they have some sort of a basic template for the structure of bio pages? ] 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
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 ]. 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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{todo|1}} |
|
: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? ] 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{old moves |
|
::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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title1 = Fatimah |
|
|
|
|
|
| title2 = Fatima |
|
===Review=== |
|
|
|
| title3 = Faatwimah |
|
Please review the new article (in the ]). It would be great to get this to GA, so if you have further suggestions for improvement, please drop them by here. Thanks. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title4 = Fatima Zahra |
|
:I have the new version be moved into mainspace. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title5 = Fatimah Zahra |
|
|
|
|
|
| list = |
|
==== Birth dates and sequence in birth ==== |
|
|
|
* RM, Fatimah → Fatima bint Muhammad, '''Not moved''', 16 July 2022, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, Fatimah → Fatima, '''Moved''', 24 July 2022, ] |
|
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. ] 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:Hi, thanks again for your interest in this article. Regarding your 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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
::Ok, but it needs some more detail then. Previous version: |
|
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Factually incorrect according to orthodox Islam == |
|
::"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. 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...." |
|
|
::"Fatimah is generally placed as the fourth of Muhammad's daughters after Zaynab, Ruqayya, and Umm Kulthum. Shias claim she was his only daughter, believing ...." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The page says: |
|
::- 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. ] 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::hmmm...I see. Maybe not mention the Shia view and just state the facts: |
|
|
::::"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations, 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. Other sources, 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." |
|
|
:::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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Surely you must see that just excluding the Shia view is wrong, and will just lead to further edit conflicts? Is the neutrality of the EoI in fact accepted by Shias? If it doesn't mention the views held by most Shia sources, as you imply, this would seem unlikely. If by "widely accepted" you actually mean "the only view given in the EoI", it might be better to just say that. Any statement like "widely accepted" or "generally accepted" must mean that the view is held by at least a good number of Shia sources. ] 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's certainly held by all Sunni sources and the EoI can be regarded as a non-muslim source. Additionally, it's accepted in , 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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Actually, looking at the original article, there's a whole list of sources (including Sunni, Shia and EoI) supporting this view. I'll copy them across into the new article). → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::just to clarify, the ] is a standard academic reference on Islam, and one of best scholarly sources one can use on Islam related articles. ] 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I also notice the links to the series of specifically Shia articles are missing, and many of the links to online Shia texts. I agree that something like ] should not be linked by the "main article" template, but they should be linked, maybe by something like ] 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I have not reviewed the EL section yet (been working exclusively on the article) but we should not have anything that does not meet ]. Please do suggest the ones you think would be acceptable per the guidelines and we can discuss here. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Muhammad died in 632, Fatima and her husband Ali refused to acknowledge the authority of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. The couple and their supporters held that Ali was the rightful successor of Muhammad, possibly referring to his announcement at the Ghadir Khumm. |
|
==== Discussion of links for EL section ==== |
|
|
On the language issue, ] 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. ] 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think any site can be considered an "official site" for this article so the use of non-English-language links should be avoided. I believe the criteria applies more to an official site of a product/organisation/person etc. However, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as the links in the EL section of the current article all appear to be in English. Could you paste the link here please. Thanks. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have removed the ones which I don't believe meet ]. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, this is not the view held in Orthodox Islam and the majority of Muslims around the world. The page should reflect the Orthodox view and if for the sake of completeness it wishes to include the claim Fatima refused to accept Abu Bakr, a note should be made that this is according to the Shia view. ] (]) 23:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
::My reading of EL is that " when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" is a separate case from the preceding "official site" bit (an "or" would make this clearer). So I don't think you are correct in saying "the use of non-English-language links should be avoided". For the links, look at those attached to Note 1. ] 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::This other policy may or may not clarify the matter: ]; in any case I'm pretty sure my reading is correct the full sentence describes 3 cases, not 2. ] 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: The page is supposed to reflect reliable sources about the matter and that it does well. It is also the view of the "Orthodox Islam" that Ali withheld his pledge from Abu Bakr for some months after the death of Muhammad (per Sahih Bukhari). He did so obviously because he considered the caliphate to be his own right and his wife Fatima naturally supported his claim until her death. Now the Shia view is that Ali never renounced his claim, based on numerous sayings and letters attributed to him, even though he didn't actively pursue it for the sake of the unity of the Muslim community. ] (]) 11:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::Ah - I see. You're referring to the References and not the External links section, right? If so, then yes, those refs in note 1 have been copied across (note 7 in the new article). → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023 == |
|
==== Virtues section ==== |
|
|
On the whole, this version of the article looks excellent. I noticed from the virtues section: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
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; |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
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. ] 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:That was one of the few elements I copied across from the existing article. I assumed the ref at the end to Esposito, covers the first sentence (since the second one does not really need a ref). If not, then it may need replacing. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also, I assume you meant '''third''' Sunni Caliph? → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::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). ] 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ah yes - of course :) → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I found the refs and have added them in and made the suggested change. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Lol, typo on my part. Good job with the refs though. ] 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Fatima|answered=yes}} |
|
== Consensus to move sandbox to mainspace? == |
|
|
|
In this article it states “Umm al-Aima (lit. 'the mother of Imams') is a kunya of Fatima in Twelver sources, as all the Twelve Imams descended from her” please change “ all the Twelve Imams” to 11 of the 12 imams as the first Imaam was actually her husband. ] (]) 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{Discussion top}} |
|
|
|
: Done! ] (]) 09:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
As noted above, I have been by {{User|AA}} to move the version at ] to the main article at ], following a rewrite, and to merge the histories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A whole section about the Fatimids == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{u|Caliphinspector}}! While a few lines about the Alid descent of the Fatimid dynasty might be relevant, your is clearly out of the scope of this article. Am I right in concluding that you have directly imported this long new section without any changes from ] or ]? The new references are also missing from the bibliography, creating about a dozen harv errors at the end of the article. May I please ask you to summarize your content in one or two relevant paragraphs and add your sources to the bibliography? Thank you for your interest in the topic and for your help. Please also see ] and ] and ]. ] (]) 07:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
(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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong info about Sayyidah Fatimah ra and her family == |
|
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 :) --] <small>] • (])</small> 08:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahlul bayt never put so much hatred for sahabah. Infact Abu Bakr ra is the best and the closest companion of Rasulullah Sollaallahu alaihi wasalam until forever. how is it possible that those who have the purity of heart and sincere faith like rasulullah saw hate the good friend of prophet muhammad???? ] (]) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (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. -- ] 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': The new article is a very good piece of work. ] 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. <small>]<sup>]</sup></small> 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. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 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 ] gives a specific account of her death which has been used in the rewrite. Hope that's what you were looking for. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' Please note that ], {{user|Klaksonn}} 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 and ). → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 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. ] 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 ]. 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. ] 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::*You appear to have missed my changes and my many comments, above, which said editor promptly (largely) reverted! ] 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). → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 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. ] 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Also, please review the ] which will give you a better understanding of why it has been impossible to move forward with this article. Thanks. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages in some time. <small>]<sup>]</sup></small> 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. <small>]<sup>]</sup></small> 07:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please stop calling your fellow editors Wahhabis. ] 14:05, 12 August 2007 (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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It is well-known that Sunni tradition has whitewashed the conflicts among early Muslims. ] (]) 13:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
The first thing to note is that ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Portray == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] Hello. I have added a painting of Fatima to the section pertaining to her appearance. In my opinion, the lack of such an image might have been a deficiency in the article. Alongside presenting the beliefs of Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis, incorporating this image by a western painter can enhance the understanding of the topic and contribute to the improvement of the article. But you've deleted this image. I'd be happy to discuss any problem you might have considered. ] (]) 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
] 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 ]) 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 ] above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|Hosein}} Hi! thanks for the ping. How do we know that the painting was intended as a portrait of Fatima, the historical figure? ] (]) 10:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
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 ]. So far, despite several polite requests, that has not happened. |
|
|
|
::@] We can say that at least allegorically. Jules Lefebvre has painted his works, drawing inspiration from historical figures, biblical characters with mythological and allegorical themes. For example, in 1892, he painted ], inspired by this character. The title "Fatima" alone is also attributed to the historical figure of ], and the Arabic motif in the painting further suggests this theme. ] (]) 17:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] I'm sorry but this is clearly not convincing. ] (]) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Clearly, "Fatima" means "Fatima," (especially with the ] around her neck in the image) and if you think Fatima alone is not widely recognized by this name, it contradicts the existing consensus about the title of the article. Otherwise, consensus could have been reached on another name for the article, such as Fatima bint Muhammad. |
|
|
::::If this is not the case, you should express your dissent more clearly. Especially since the article lacks any portrait of her, especially from western artists, which is a deficiency in this article. It is worth mentioning that it is true that in traditional culture, drawing images of the Prophet of Islam and his relatives was usually prohibited, but this should not be a reason for not displaying portraits that help readers' understanding. ] (]) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I am also not convinced that because the necklace is similar to a Tasbih, and because this article is called Fatima (instead of Fatima bint Muhammad), we should put that image in this article.] (]) 01:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@] Firstly, in addition to the Tasbih of Fatimah around her neck in the allegorical painting, even the color of her dress (ghamis or gamis) closely matches the one attributed to her in the Istanbul museum (described as yellowish cream with patterns of blue in certain areas). I'm not certain if the dress truly belonged to her, but I mean the painter attempted to draw the most inspiration from the historical figure. |
|
|
::::::Regarding the second matter, I didn't quite grasp your point. I didn't suggest that just because the article is titled "Fatima," it must include this painting. My main emphasis is that this painting contributes significantly to broadening the subject for the reader, in terms of her appearance. However, if you intend to argue that she wasn't widely recognized under the name "Fatima," my question was whether there is a consensus that she was widely recognized under this name (the title of the article), and there's no room for debate on this matter. ] (]) 03:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::@] You'll need a ] proving that it depicts this Fatima. One auction catalogue describes it as "The portrait of a handsome Oriental woman". ]] 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::@] Usually, images in such articles (including this one) lack support from reliable sources, and I haven't read in ] that such a requirement exists. However, an auction catalog is also not a reliable source. Such descriptions can often be general and may not fully capture the artist's intended symbolism or historical references. In the case of the painting in question, "Fatima," I think several elements within the artwork strongly suggest its connection to the historical figure of Fatima. ] (]) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Attack on Fatima's house == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Article presents the supposed attack as a FACT and continues to elaborate about it and only disputes the details ] (]) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
So I will now move the version at at ] to the main article at ], and merge the article histories. --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Move now done, and histories merged. I have also semi-protected the page, in accordance with ], 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! --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] As mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be anything concrete about your claim so far. Quote from the article and give us specific details. ] (]) 22:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Disruption by ] == |
|
|
|
::Also, as the one who changed the article, you (not me), when challenged, need to present your case and establish a consensus. See ]. ] (]) 23:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Klaksonn, you are engaging in ] of this article. The version moved to mainspace by ] 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 ] editors. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::the article presents the attack from the Shia point of view and disputes some details but doesn't give any other point of view, ] (]) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Abu Bakr terminated the status of purity of Muhammad's kin by forcing them to rely on general alms which the prophet had forbidden for them in his lifetime. |
|
|
::the article mentions the "Sermon of Fadak" and the "the status of purity of Muhammad's kin" alot and relies on them many times even though they are only present in shia scriptures ] (]) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] First off, the article follows reliable sources, i.e., academic sources written by known Islamicists, including the quote from or purity of Muhammad's kin. This doesn't immediately imply neutrality but it's a key requirement of it. As another instance, the article does mention the sermon of Fadak but also makes it clear that Sunnis reject it. This perfectly meets the criteria for neutrality. What else? ] (]) 18:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::the page needs more clarification or a complete separation of the two view points, i support the latter solution ] (]) 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@] I see that you put back the POV template. Misplaced Pages edits (that is, any change to the article) should be constructive and slapping a template on an article without providing any concrete reason is not. It's even worse to hide behind semantics to start an edit war over a template. At any rate, what's written on a template maintenance page is not a Misplaced Pages guideline to be followed. I think you should quote from the article and work in good faith with other editors to assess their neutrality. Only if attempts to fix instances of POV fail that you should go ahead and insert the POV tag. |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Iskandar323}} In the past, you have significantly contributed to this article (and its talk page). Are you available to have a quick look at this thread and give us your feedback? Thanks. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::it was a mistake sorry, i was supposed to send this ] anyways thanks for telling me about the issue ] (]) 11:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::@] Re your idea of splitting the historical narratives into Shia and Sunni, that can be put to vote for sure. However, note that this doesn't have a precedent in Misplaced Pages (that I know of), e.g., see ], ], etc. There could be something like "Shia views" and "Sunni views" sections added to the article focused on respective polemics of both sects. ] (]) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
However, this is not the view held in Orthodox Islam and the majority of Muslims around the world. The page should reflect the Orthodox view and if for the sake of completeness it wishes to include the claim Fatima refused to accept Abu Bakr, a note should be made that this is according to the Shia view. 86.26.78.170 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
In this article it states “Umm al-Aima (lit. 'the mother of Imams') is a kunya of Fatima in Twelver sources, as all the Twelve Imams descended from her” please change “ all the Twelve Imams” to 11 of the 12 imams as the first Imaam was actually her husband. 92.9.61.190 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Ahlul bayt never put so much hatred for sahabah. Infact Abu Bakr ra is the best and the closest companion of Rasulullah Sollaallahu alaihi wasalam until forever. how is it possible that those who have the purity of heart and sincere faith like rasulullah saw hate the good friend of prophet muhammad???? 121.121.56.61 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
This Article presents the supposed attack as a FACT and continues to elaborate about it and only disputes the details Kelcoz (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.png)
