Talk:Fatima/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Improvements towards GA

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

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

refs

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

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

Fatima's death

There is written

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

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

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

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

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

---

There is written:

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

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

Sufic View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links section

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

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

I propose inserting these links:

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

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

• Picture gallery and quotes — ezsoftech.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose adding

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

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

Hope no one mines me taking this out

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

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

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

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

References

Fatima's sisters

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

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

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

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

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

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

unnecessary caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Views"

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

Clear this article up -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected

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

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

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

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

{{editprotected}}

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

Interwiki

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

Al-islam.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See WP:CITE#Say where you found the material. Anybody familiar with online polemic will know that these have been taken from unreliable websites themselves like al-islam.org (e.g. [1]), which cannot really be trusted to fully and faithfully represent the sources (and the stance of their authors) in question. You've also been altering another section without basis. ITAQALLAH 12:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was invited to take part here, but i don't have the time and patience to do so fully. Basicly, Al-Islam.org is THE most reliable source on the shia point of view on the english internet. It is even cited in dozen of books [2]. And from what i gather, "Of the 14 sources I provided, only two are linked to al-islam.org, so please assume good faith and don't delete the whole paragraph because you consider al-islam.org to be unreliable.". Further, "is not reliabel" for what? Reliable as a source of what you view is the true Islam? Or reliable as a source for mainstream Shi'a views? Don't play polemics, we all know that al-Islam.org is the most reliable site for presenting Shi'a views, and i am saying this as the most decorated and most active shi'a wikipedia editor. Don't belive me? Then show me a more trusted site for Shi'a views. You can't? Then admit you are wrong or that you don't know what you are talking about (you = nobody specific)--Striver - talk 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Sources

Toushiro, could you please explain to me how the sources you've inserted meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verification? To me, they look more like partisan sources, and the content itself seems to be copy pasted from polemical websites.[3] ITAQALLAH 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of uncited passage

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

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

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

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