Talk:Burial of Fatima

Rewritten article

I've rewritten the article primarily based on top-tier Sunni sources. Albertatiran (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

@Psychonaut you've removed the infobox. Could you please explain what the problem is with infobox? Mhhossein (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is a biographical one, but this article is about a geographic location. It seems very much out of place in this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is too Shia oriented. There's not even one reference about the Sunni views of where Fatimah eas buried.175.144.181.54 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, have you even read the article? There's a section dedicated to Sunni view which is referenced. Mhhossein (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It can't go even a few sentences without unnecessarily repeating the same things from the shia view Abuqut (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Location of grave

An important information (rather a fact hidden from masses) as below, clearly indicated in published book was added but deleted on the ground of unreliable source.

“Many believes that she was buried in Jannatul-Baqi' in a unmarked grave.”

Please suggest further.

You are generalizing al-Jibouri's viewpoint and we don't know if it's authentic or not. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MHH, if these are specified as 'al-Jibouri's' viewpoint, we can make this statement more specific and, encyclopedic. As I am much confident that Dai of Dawoodi Bohra had direct link with Fatimid Imam from the era of Imam Mustansir, who were descendants of Ali and Fatimah and might have confident enough to pass on the real location of Fatima grave as there were no further threat felt at that time. As no personal views of any sect can be presented here till they are available in mass media in encyclopedic way, we editors can pass on the information to Wikipedia readers in whatever best way possible, as this media has the quality of that standard.

Please suggest rewording of matter to improve the information on subject.--Md iet (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I would find reliable sources for the above claims as the problem is not going to resolve merely via rewriting. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Md iet: For this photo to be used in the article, there need to be a reliable source supporting the claim. Also, we can't do original research for inserting the photo. In other words, the source you use should directly address the used photo. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Mass edits

@Albertatiran: Hi, your edit is making a large change to the page and is beyond a copy edit and expansion, as opposed to your edit summary. Actually I see not expansion, rather condensation ! Moreover, you have removed some well-sourced portions without discussion. Can you please explain your most important changes? Thanks. Mhhossein ^talk 02:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein! Thanks for the comment. Yes, probably should have used "revised" instead of "copy-edited." The plan was to improve the English, use better sources whenever possible, have more specific attributions, and use a more neutral language in the article. Here, in particular, new content was also added about Fatima's secret burial.

One main change was that "Background" was shortened by removing the arguments for or against the alleged the attack. It seemed more appropriate to defer these arguments to the main article Attack on Fatima's house for the sake of neutrality of this article. Information about the attack was also mostly removed from the lead again for the sake of credibility of this article which should be focused on the burial. However, following your comments, the lead was expanded a bit to summarize the article better. If there is something that you think should be added back to the article, that's fine. Just let me know to put it back! In general, it'd be very time consuming to log all the changes but, from now on, I'll definitely summarize the key changes on the talk page :) Albertatiran (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Salam Albertatiran. Thanks for the response. I know it would be time consuming to list all the changes but, in a collegial atmosphere, that would be better for the details to be explained, especially when the topic/content is challenging. For now, those info you described as being "against the alleged the attack" provides prominent POVs which you have removed. The article neutrality is poorer in the case. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Salam! No worries, Mhhossein. I'll put that part back. Albertatiran (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)