# Talk:Ali al-Hadi

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV  (Talk) 08:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Family tree starting from Imam Ali Naqi is called as NAQVI family which can be largely found in India, Pakistan, Iran & Iraq.
Regards
Shadab Naqvi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.80.37.124 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Do we have any reason to doubt that this source is valid? I've Googled the source, and it seems prominent and is used elsewhere aside from Wikipedia. --Enzuru 02:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made little search over  Al-Ḳāsim Ibn Ibrāhīm's Theory of the Imamate by Binyamin Abrahamov from Arabica  and found following details:
 Abu Mohammad al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim Taba- 
Abu Mohammad al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim Taba (ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Hasan al-Muthanna ibn al-Hasan ibn Abi Talib [a]) was one of the leaders of Zaidiyyah, and his brand of Zaidiyyah was called Al-Qasimiyyah. He was born in 169/785(AH/AD)  and died in 246/860(AH/AD). Following are the sources about him:
Negative: Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam By Muḥammad ibn Hārūn Warrāq, David Richard Thomas,
Positive: The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam By Herbert Berg
Informative: Shi'ism By Heinz Halm, Janet C. E. Watson, Marian Hill, Anthropomorphism and Interpretation of the Qur'an in the Theology of Al-Qaim Ibn Ibrahim: Kitab Al-Mustarshid by Binyamin Abrahamov
 Binyamin Abrahamov 
Binyamin Abrahamov is professor of Islamic Theology and Quranic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.
Informative: Al-Kasim B. Ibrahim on the Proof of God's Existence: Kitab Al-Dalil Al-Kabir, Abrahamov
Summary:
No excerpts of his work quoted in this article are available, probabily the person who first provided this source owns hardcopy of the book and used it is source; in that case we can ask for his collbration & contribution on this issue.
It is clear that Al-Ḳāsim Ibn Ibrāhīm is not a very agreed source and Binyamin Abrahamov probably have based his work on Ḳāsim's work so Abrahamov's work fall under same category.
Abrahamov is an Israili & a Jew so there may be serious questions on his neutrality over all these contraversial issues.
Regarding usage - anything which maligns face of Islam/Ahl-e-Bayt becomes popular with westerns scholars
Regarding prominency - I want to say that any thing which is prominent may not be just/correct.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the first source being both invalid because in MOS:Islam we avoid ancient sources, and second because it is polemical and not reliable scholarship. Someone's Israeli Jewish background does not make their scholarship invalid (Bernard Lewis is a huge source for most of our articles on Islam), so we must investigate the stature of his writings within the scholarly community. I think however the information itself is notable enough for inclusion about this individual, but I'd like to further probe into Abrahamov's stature in scholarship (if he is considered a fringe radical that breaks WP:reliable). I believe the best thing to do is perhaps include that these two figures are stating it, as well as that these two figure's backgrounds. So for example, "Zaidi scholar al-Kasim states," and so forth. On Wikipedia we can't really argue about the validity of those statements unless the source is downright polemic (as the first one is, however the second one is a secondary source so perhaps may be contribution to serious scholarship). --Enzuru 09:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick google, including this page, reveals a character who seems to be a serious individual within the scholarly establishment. Also, on second thought, we cannot really state the background of the person stating it (but their name is fine) unless we can cite a source noting that his scholarship is controversial because of his background, as long as we're careful not to break WP:synth. --Enzuru 10:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding an Author's description on a website which sells his book I think no website/shop will say that the author of book for sale is of controversial background. But primary reason of believing this source as weak is that Abrahamov's work is based on Kasim's work & Kasim's standing is not very strong among scholors. Probably Abrahamov's work is an extended translation of Kasim's work with footnotes, enhancements, explations and views of Abrahamov. I still insist that we should also look for excerpts of his work quoted here to compare exact nature of what is stated in source and what is mentioned here on this article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It's true Kasim's work is controversial, but if a respectable scholar chooses to use his work, it makes the situation much different (we aren't in a place to criticize a respectable scholar for their sources). But sure, we should see if we can get excerpts of that work, it could very possibly be in a separate context. --Enzuru 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
There may be case that this excerpt has been quoted by Abrahamov followed by his views/commentry which may be contrary to quote. But I still maintain my stand that as base work is controversial so any subsequent work is liable to be weak despite credebility of scholar. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We're not allowed to criticize a reliable secondary source because of the primary sources it uses (that is WP:original research) unless scholarship itself is doing that. Once again, let's look out the context and see what we can find. --Enzuru 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is irrationale & illogical argument, neverthless I'm not the sort of aggresive editor whose aggrisivenes makes him vandal thats the reason I have not even touched the section of article being discussed but varily I think I'm free to express my discontent atleast on talk page so that if any user refers here he can get to see some debate and views about article & its sections. I'll try to find some support on my point meanwhile, but it seems I'll be little busy next 15 days due to Muharram. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll continue this after the mourning, insha'Allah. --Enzuru 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Sayed Rizvi. By the way, does that mean you're Akhbari and not Usuli? --Enzuru 11:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm not Akhbari or Usuli in hard sense. I don't follow Taqleed of any single Mujtahid but also I don't curse Mujtahideen. I follow path of Ihtiyat which is one of the three principle doctrines of practicing Masail-e-Fiqh i.e.
either be a Mujtahid (jurist) himself, capable of inferring and deducing from the religious sources and evidence;
or if he is not a Mujtahid himself, he should follow one, i.e. he should act accordi ng to the verdicts (Fatwa) of the Mujtahid;
or if he is neither a Mujtahid nor a follower (Muqallid), he should act on such precaution which should assure him that he has fulfilled his religious obligation. For example, if some Mujtahids consider an act to be haraam, while others say that it is not, he should not perform that act. Similarly, if some Mujtahid consider an act to be obligatory (Wajib) while others consider it to be recommended (Mustahab), he should perform it. Therefore, it is obligatory upon those persons who are neither Mujta hids, nor able to act on precautionary measures (Ihtiyat), to follow a Mujtahid.
Usually people don't take this path as it is little tricky & requires some research & findings but I prefer this one than following without thought, and surely Almighty Allah mentions in Qur'an that Each one is accountable of his account(deeds). Hope this has cleared confusions, if any. By the way my name is Faiz so you don't need to call me by my family name. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, so you follow the last one. Most Akhbari don't curse Mujtahids, only Malaangs seem to, am I correct? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Neo-Akhbarism is very recent happening in India and is mostly found in cities of Hyderabad & Mumbai and you don't find many Malangs in India so I'm not sure of this point, but it seems most of them see Mujthadis (especially of Iran who support Wilayet-Fiqh) as userpers and curse them. My family is very strong Usuli one, being Muqqallad of Aqa-e-Khui & now Aqa-e-Seestani but I from start onwards follow path of Ihtiyaat and most of the people know about it (even Imam-e-Juma of few mosques who are Aalim also) but no one brands me as Akhbari. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed lots of Neo-Akhbarism! Why is this happening? I heard Akhbarism lasted in India longer than it did in other places, but Usulism eventually defeated it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually until very recently Indians(unlike Pakistanis) were critical of Wilayt-e-Fiqh and most of the Indians even today follow Mujtahids of Najef(e.g. Aqa-e-Khui, Aqa-e-Seestani, etc) rather than Qom(Aqa-e-Khamnei). Even I know Aalims who have studied in Qom but are advocate of Najaf ideology(i.e. not in favour of Wilayat-e-Fiqh although now due to increase of impact of Hauza-e-Qom people are becoming more inclined to Qom ideology but still majority of them follow Aqa-e-Seestani. Akhbaris never lost their full ground in India due to tolerance in India (e.g. Ahamadis/Qadiyanis practice freely in India having their Mosques/institutions). Yes they never got into main-stream. Although most of Indians in principle are Usuli but majority don't abide by Fatwas regarding Azadari(esp. Qama & Zanjri Matam etc.). So, in general Indians can not be considered as very strict Usuli or Akhbari they are bit rationalist and bit traditionalist. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I added that reference a long time ago, I have the book in published form (not from the Berlin MS) in 'Arabic as well as the secondary references I used from Benyamin and Madledung. I don't edit wikipedia anymore because of the ease with which religious apologists are able to remove recognized research on these matters with no other justification given than a shallow claim that the author is "wahabi" or a Jew. It's sad because Imam al-Qasim (rah) is one of our earliest sources detailing the character of 'Ali, predating any written material even by the Twelvers concerning him. All our other information about him comes generally from Shi'ite Twelver sources since mention of him is scarce outside of these as having actually done anything. And on the basis of that naturally polemical material, this whole article has been crafted, to the exclusion of anything from outside these sources that would threaten said set of beliefs (though to be fair, it's seen a lot of improvement from two years ago...)
174.21.159.14 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am going to improve this article a little bit using reliable sources.Hadi (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Read-write-services. Many thanks for your recent edit on this article which is much better now. Do you think we could nominate this article as a Good Article now or you think it needs some more changes? Best Hadi (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no conclusion over three sons or seven.  Why it is considered necessary to place a full stop after mentioning three sons.  Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the reliability of reference being emphasized with the availability of an ISBN # and its publishing in English language by a foreign expert (his dignity is recognized, but critical view is our right).  In my discussion Abu Mikhnaf is one of primary sources per norm of social science (history).

Primary sources: relate to an event, written by someone who experienced or witnessed the event in question by  letters, memoirs, journals, speeches, manuscripts, etc.
Secondary sources: function to interpret primary sources.  Secondary sources interpret to assign value and draw conclusions about the events reported in primary sources.
When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the very basis warrants to know:

(i)How does the author know these details
(ii) Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene?
(iii) Where does this information come from, i.e. personal experience, eyewitness, or reports written by others?
Thus the reliability of an scholar (Wilferd Madelung ) belonging to a belated period (20th century) depending on single source of tenth century does not sense to overrule the very old primary source of 8th century  which is not only supported by millions of naqvis/naqavis  of the world (particularly the sub-continent) but also evident from the various published (secondary) sources e.g. Gulzar-e-Naqi (Riaz ulnasab), compiled with the help of 38 books annexing 40 pedigrees, by a family member of Ali Naqi Naqvi .  The writer belongs to well educated family, his two elder brothers were college principals in colleges of Punjab.  Among his brothers Dr. Sohail Bukhari was an authority in Urdu Literature  in his time besides being an author for Punjab Text Books for school and colleges.
In view of above discussion the section which provides explanation to the confusion in numbering and names of sons should remain in the main article for research and reference, in terms of EN-WP being  the tertiary source. Nannadeem (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nannadeem. As you could see here, Madelung's article is not based on a single source. Beside do you think someone like you and me could analyse all primary sources about the conditions of Hasan-Muawiya treaty for example to realize which one tell the truth and which one is false. Look at chapter 6 of this book for example to see how a new historian do this job. See also how these information has been used in a wiki article. Regards. Hadi (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


### View point (treaty)
According to general rule, no primary source can be deleted.  Acceptance or rejection is discussed in secondary source and comments/explanations provided therein are evaluated by groups and schools.  However a primary sources may or may not be a truth e.g. the theory of 04 elements (air, water, fire and sand) is classic primary source, rejected in secondary sources of the modern era.  
Thus, treaty of Hasan-Muawiya  and primary sources relating to the event can be discussed in secondary sources per Doctrine of Repugnancy in view of conflicts and wars between Ali & Muawiya and our stance of silence with respect to events  of that time was force meajure.  Battle of Karbala is the final proof under retrospective doctrine of history which also validates our strategy for avoidance of bloodshed and provision of guidance with no greed for dominance. In this scinerio a number of events were recorded as primary source, many of these events contradict to each other, which is a bone of contest in our secondary sources.Nannadeem (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@ user:3hunna I think "Internet Meme" section should not be placed in the page in order to avoid like stories whether retrospective or prospective.  Nannadeem (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and is not censored. The added section covers a modern controversy related to a major religious figure in an objective and verifiable manner. I am not endorsing or promoting such topics, I am merely describing them. While I understand that Imam Naghi (a.s.) is sacred to you and your fellow Shia, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be edited from any explicit religious viewpoint. Best regards. 3hunna (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

AliHadiSVG.svg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Albertatiran. This article could be the next good article. I would work on it while you preparing the draft.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again @Cplakidas and Albertatiran: for making Muhammad al-Jawad good. If you agree, I think this article (Ali al-Hadi) could be the next good article. I added some new information to it and reorganized it. Do you have any ideas on how to improve it before nominating it? Ghazaalch (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Before nominating, I'd suggest going through the points raised in the GA review for al-Jawad: clear prose with a view to the non-expert reader, implementing NPOV as to his position as imam, editorial issues like clear distinction of AH and CE dates or appropriate introduction and contextualization of the sources and scholars referenced, etc. Constantine   ✍  08:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ghazaalch, thanks for expanding this article. I'll be happy to work on it in the coming days, though it might take me a bit longer this time. I'll also keep in mind the above comments by Constantine. Albertatiran (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi again Ghazaalch, I have added some content from new sources (Wardrop, Pierce, Sachedina, Hussain, etc.) and also new content from the existing sources to the article. I think the coverage in Death is fairly comprehensive already but it could be improved further if Islamica (Persian) has something to add there (just in case you have access to it and have time for it). Otherwise, please have a look at the article. We can submit it for review when you feel happy with it. Albertatiran (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to add that I have commented out "Political context" for the time being. It does seem somewhat repetitive as it stands (details given there are scattered in the section "Life") but I could be convinced otherwise :) Albertatiran (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Albertatiran. I took a look at some parts of the article.  A lot of good work! Here are some comments:
linking "kept aloof from politics" to the Political quietism in Islam might not be exact. Because keeping aloof from politics cannot be considered as a principle in the life of Shia imams. I think they didn't revolt because they didn't find enough honest followers to work for the revolution. In Ja'far al-Sadiq case for example we read "Al-Sadiq also played no role in the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyads.[1] His response to a request for help from Abu Muslim, the Khorasani rebel leader, was to burn his letter, saying, " Al-Sadiq also played no role in the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyads.[1] His response to a request for help from Abu Muslim, the Khorasani rebel leader, was to burn his letter, saying, "This man is not one of my men, this time is not mine."[14][15]"
You're right. I've removed the link. Albertatiran (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The following sentence is not in context and has nothing to do with shia being under pressure, because al-Hadi's true shias did not insulted the companions: The caliph is said to have imposed the penalty of death by flagellation on anyone who insulted the companions or the wives of the prophet.[37]
I've followed the source here. But also note that Ziyarat Ashura, a well-attested and popular Twelver prayer, repeatedly invokes a divine curse upon the early caliphs and Mu'awiya. Albertatiran (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
"invoking a divine curse" is different from "insulting" which is not accepted. Shia imams never insulted and never advised it to their followers. Even in the Ziyarat Ashura, we cannot see an explicit curse against the  the companions or wive of Muhammad. We see only the names of Abu Sufyan, Mu'wiya and Yazid, none of whom could be considered as companions of Muhammad.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
To address your comment, I've changed the sentence in question to "The caliph is said to have imposed the penalty of death by flagellation on anyone who defamed the companions or the wives of the prophet." Albertatiran (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
we might be able to reword/clarify the "charitable gifts" in this sentence: prevented Alids from answering to religious inquiries or accepting charitable gifts, thus pushing them into poverty.[45] Because receiving charity (sadaqa) was forbidden for Sayyids or Alids who are decedents of the prophet.
Good point. I've changed this to 'gifts'. But it's also worth noting that Khums in Shia is now primarily for the descendants of the prophet. Albertatiran (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of the reports in the article seems to be incomplete such as the report about the Indian who arranged for the loaves of bread to move away when al-Hadi reached for them. These kinds of reports generally ends with miraculous responses of the Shia Imams in the sources.
In this specific case (the Indian), the source doesn't add anything beyond what's already given in the article. Albertatiran (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of the reports are unclear for readers such as al-Mutawakkil temporarily forbade his staff from serving al-Hadi, advised by a relative nicknamed Harisa, who warned the caliph about the good name of al-Hadi in the court. The report has a miraculous ending with the caliph abandoning his policy after an unexpected breeze blew the curtains open for al-Hadi instead of the guards.[86] Because it is not clear how serving Hadi will raise his good name.  This report from wiki-Farsi seems more plausible: "al-Hadi managed to answer all of Yahya's questions. It was after that that Yahya asked Mutawakkul to refrain from asking more questions from Hadi, because this would reveal his knowledge and strengthen the Rafizi (Shiites) among the people."
For the first one, I have revised it to "Bihar reports that al-Mutawakkil temporarily forbade his staff from serving al-Hadi, advised by a relative nicknamed Harisa, who warned the caliph that this was boosting the image of al-Hadi among people. The report has a miraculous ending with the caliph abandoning his policy after an unexpected breeze blew the curtains open for al-Hadi instead of the guards." The report that you mention would have been a good fit had it not been for its unreliable source. Albertatiran (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I will probably add more comments soon.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello again Albertatiran. One more point:
"...to prove that they do not harm true descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib". Again linking "true descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib" to "Alids" is not exact. I am sure that the true descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib here are not the same as "all" the Alids, but it refers to some distinguished ones such as Zaynab, Abbas, and the Shia imams. Plus, we don't need to quote the exact words of Madelung which are misleading to readers.
To address this comment, I have updated the text as "In the presence of al-Mutawakkil, al-Hadi miraculously debunked the claim of a woman who pretended to be Zaynab, daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib."
That's it. Thank you again for your good work and good luck with this new nomination.
By the way, there is no Islamica article concerning al-Hadi in Persian. 
Ghazaalch (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ghazaalch, thanks for the comments. Please have a look at the responses above. I'll submit this tomorrow for review (unless you have any follow-up comments). Fingers crossed! :) Albertatiran (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Albertatiran. Good! Fingers crossed! :) Ghazaalch (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Cplakidas! Hope all is well! Ghazaalch and I have been working on this article for some time and we finally feel that it's ready now for the nomination. We also carefully took into account your earlier comments on Muhammad al-Jawad but it's still possible that we have missed some things. (In that case, sorry!) We hope that you would be available to review Ali al-Hadi. Thank you! Albertatiran (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch and Albertatiran: From a quick look, it looks like another amazing piece of work. Would love to review it! Constantine   ✍  10:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ali al-Hadi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 
Will gladly take this on, but it will be likely a few days before I can devote enough time. Constantine   ✍  16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
To save time, I will be doing some minor copyedits straight away. Feel free to challenge them if they appear unreasonable.

Lede and infobox
There is a recently adopted guideline, MOS:CALLIGRAPHY, concerning calligraphic representations of names; the consensus is that unless these are images with some inherent notability (e.g. the panels in the Hagia Sophia), they should be removed.
We have now removed the infobox image.
tenth of the Twelve Imams add 'of Twelver Shia Islam' here or something like 'succeeding his father, Muhammad al-Jawad (d. 835), as leader of the Imamite Shia.'
This was changed to tenth Imam in Twelver Shia
kept aloof from politics in Medina not clear if it is meant that he kept aloof from politics in Medina, or he kept aloof from politics (by staying) in Medina. And please link political quietism in Islam here.
This was changed to As with most of his predecessors, he kept aloof from politics until he was summoned from his hometown of Medina around 848 CE to the capital Samarra... This was initially linked to political quietism in Islam but I removed the link because of a comment I received from Ghazaalch to the effect that there is evidence the Shia Imams didn't revolt because they didn't have enough support. That is, they were forced to withdraw from politics rather than the article's description of the religiously-motivated withdrawal from political affairs or skepticism that mere mortals can establish a true Islamic government. Here is also a similar statement from our article on Ja'far al-Sadiq, the sixth Shia Imam. In contrast, similar to his father and his grandfather, al-Sadiq adopted a quiescent attitude and kept aloof from politics. He viewed the imamate and caliphate as separate institutions until such time that God would make the Imam victorious. The emphasis is mine.
Fine for now. But I would suggest that whether voluntary or enforced, quietism is the same political choice, especially since the lack of support never bothered the various Zaydi imams. The Imamite leaders may have awaited more favourable opportunities, but in the meantime they accommodated themselves to the Abbasid status quo (perhaps most notably in al-Ridha's case) in a way the Zaydis or the Ismailis did not.
I think once the distinction between CE and AH dates is made clear, it is not necessary to repeat CE constantly, especially since it is assumed that in an English-language encyclopedia, any date without a marker will be a CE date, as e.g. the regnal dates or death dates (conversely, all Hijri dates should be marked as such).
Done! This comment was also applied to Muhammad al-Jawad.
towards Shia hmmm, perhaps 'towards the Shia'? It might also be worth (but completely optional) distinguishing throughout the article between 'the Shia' as a movement and 'Shiites' (rather than 'Shias') as adherents of the Shia
To show his (documented) hostility towards the adherents (rather than the religion itself), this was changed to known for his hostility towards Shias. As for 'Shiite', Google Dictionary defines 'Shia' as both a noun (to describe an adherent) and an adjective. I highly prefer 'Shia' over 'Shiite' for obvious reasons and the former is becoming increasingly more common on Wikipedia. With that in mind, I found no instances in the article where the distinction between 'Shia' (as the religion) and 'Shias' (its adherents) is unclear.
religious affairs of Imamite Shias suggestion to remove 'Imamite' here, if you haven't used it before, as it is a new and unknown term for the average reader. Simply 'religious affairs of the Shia community' or 'of his followers'.
Done! This was changed to religious affairs of the Shia community.
though an exception is al-Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 1022) 'with the notable exception of   al-Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 1022)'?
Done!
The majority of his followers the last person mentioned is al-Shaykh al-Mufid, so 'The majority of al-Hadi's followers...' or something similar
After reshuffling the content in the lede (as suggested in the next comment), this change is now unnecessary.
link Sunni, clarify that Samarra is in modern Iraq for context. I would also move the part about his tomb to the end of the lede.
Done! This was moved to the end and changed to the al-Askari shrine in Samarra, located in modern-day Iraq, houses...
Titles
according to the Islamicist Shona F. Wardrop, who adds that is unnecessary; this is not an opinion, and the fact is referenced.
Done! This sentence was changed to He was also known as al-Mutawakkil (Arabic: المتوكل على الله, lit. 'he who relies on God'), but this title was perhaps rarely used to avoid confusion with the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil.
Is there a special significance to the name Abu'l-Hasan apart from being his kunya? Then this should be explained
Probably no, to the best of my knowledge.
These two are cited in Shia sources as Abu al-Hasan, the first, and Abu al-Hasan, the second, respectively this can be omitted entirely IMO, or shortened to '...who are also known by the name Abu al-Hasan'. The numbering is pretty clear from the sequence.
This sentence was removed per your comment.
Birth
sometime after 215 AH suggest using CE dates here
Done! 215 AH overlaps with 830 and 831, so this was changed to sometime after 830...
to perform Hajj 'to perform the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca' or similar
We followed your suggestion here.
Ithbat is an early collective biography of the Shia Imams, but its attribution to al-Mas'udi is not certain Would recommend merging this into the previous sentence:  'As for his birthplace, the  Ithbat al-wassiya, a collective biography of the Shia imams attributed to the historian al-Mas'udi (d. 956), differs from the prevalent view...' or similar
To address your comment, we merged the sentence in question with its previous sentences as follows. As for his birthplace, the Shia-leaning historian al-Mas'udi (d. 956) differs from the prevalent view. Ithbat al-wassiya, a collective biography of the Shia Imams attributed to him, reports that...
Reign of al-Mu'tasim
is father al-Jawad and his wife which wife?
Following your comment, this was changed to ...his father al-Jawad and his wife Umm al-Fadl traveled to...
 latter source better spell out that it is the Dala'il al-im'ama
Done!
guardianship of caretakers I assume appointed by al-Mu'tasim? If so, then clarify.
The guardians were appointed apparently by one Umar ibn al-Faraj al-Rukhaji, an Abbasid official. To clarify, we changed the sentence as follows. After the death of his father, the young Ali was likely kept by the Abbasids under the guardianship of caretakers hostile to the Shia cause.
 of the Imams decapitalize throughout, unless you refer to the Twelve Imams as a group, or to 'the Imam' as an alternative to 'al-Hadi'
Your proposal is correct and we agree with you. In this case, Muhammad ibn Faraj, a trusted associate of the Imams,... specifically refers to the Shia Imams contemporary to Muhammad. We have changed this to Muhammad ibn Faraj, a trusted associate of the previous Shia Imams,... Elsewhere in the article, there are currently no instances where 'Imam' does not refer to one of the Twelve Imams.
which is a seventeenth collection  'which is' is redundant
We followed your suggestion. This part now reads Bihar, a seventeenth-century collection of Shia hadiths...
hostility to Shia per above, either 'to the Shia' or 'to Shias/Shiites', depending on what is meant
In view of our response above, this was changed to hostility to Shias.
Reign of al-Wathiq
ascension 'accession'?
We followed your suggestion here (but probably 'ascension' is also ok).
It is, but when dealing with religious personalities, 'ascension' has other connotations and I would prefer avoiding it.
... and Alids received stipends, according to the early historian Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 967).[29] Alids are the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661)... To avoid the repetition, perhaps '...and, according to the early historian Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 967), stipends were given to the Alids,[29] the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661)...'? Also, add here that Ali was the first Shia imam.
Following your comment, this was changed to The Shia community was relatively free in this period, and the early historian Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 967) reports that stipends were given to the Alids, that is, the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661), the first Shia Imam.
Was  Ibrahim ibn Mahziyar al-Ahwazi a Shia partisan? In what capacity did he visit al-Hadi?
Good point. This was changed to An account by Ibrahim ibn Mahziyar al-Ahwazi describes a visit to Ali al-Hadi in 228 AH (842-3) to deliver some goods, accompanied by his brother Ali. The two brothers were trusted associates of al-Jawad.
The understanding of Wardrop  is awkward; e.g. 'According to the Islamicist Shona F. Wardrop, this may be an indication of the young Ali beginning to renew links with the loyal followers of his father, al-Jawad'
We followed your suggestion here.
ascension of Ja'far al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861) again, 'accession', and clarigy Mutawakkil's relationship to Wathiq
To address your comment, this part was rewritten as follows. An account in Ithbat from this period might show the political awareness of the young Ali, even though it has been given a miraculous aspect in some other sources. This account is dated 232 AH (846-7) and narrated by a servant in the court of al-Wathiq, named Khayran al-Khadim, whom Ali al-Hadi inquires about the caliph's health. Khayran tells him that al-Wathiq is dying, adding that the general view is that he would be succeeded by his son. Ali, however, correctly predicts the accession of the caliph's brother Ja'far al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861).
First sections, will do the rest tomorrow. Constantine   ✍  20:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Reign of al-Mutawakkil
I suggest breaking up the large paragraphs into smaller ones. Walls of text do not encourage readers.
Agreed. This was done throughout the article wherever a paragraph could be broken without breaking its flow.
anyone who defamed the companions or the wives of the prophet. for the average reader, the relevance of this to al-Hadi won't be apparent.
Good point. This was changed as follows and we also added a citation for the new claim at the end. The caliph is said to have imposed the penalty of death by flagellation on anyone who defamed the companions or the wives of the prophet, some of whom are viewed negatively in Shia.
Several localities are mentioned here which will be unknown to most readers. May I suggest including a map like File:Iraq Ninth Century.png here?
This is a good idea. This map and a more detailed map of the area near Samarra were added to the article.
I guess that the Abna mentioned here is most likely not a locality, but the abna al-dawla?
Nice. It makes sense :) The sentence was changed as follows. The caliph also created a new army, known as Shakiriyya, which recruited from anti-Alid areas, such as Syria, al-Jazira (Upper Mesopotamia), al-Jabal, Hejaz, and from the Abna, a pro-Abbasid ethnic group.
Does al-Jarjara'i have a full name?
I'm sure he does :) but the source doesn't bother with it. He is probably Ahmad ibn al-Khasib al-Jarjara'i, which has been added to the article.
Can Abd Allah ibn Muhammad be identified? If he is notable (likely, as governor) he should at least be WP:REDLINKed
His full name is apparently Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Dawud Hashemi, according to Madelung. A (red) link was added for this full name.
official in charge of both prayer and war I am pretty certain that this is simply a poetic description of the governor's office. An amir was primarily a military commander, and leading the community to prayer was his most important public/ritual function.
You're very likely correct. However, the source (Wardrop) doesn't describe him as the governor, but rather as the guy in charge of prayer and war. As an alternative solution, I removed the sentence altogether. This part now reads as follows. It was during the caliphate of al-Mutawakkil that the governor of Medina, Abd Allah ibn Muhammad, wrote to the caliph and warned him about the subversive activities of al-Hadi, claiming that he had concealed arms and books for his followers. Alternatively, the Ithbat attributes the affair to Burahya al-Abbasi, the leader of prayers in Medina, who may have advised the caliph to remove al-Hadi from the city because he was allegedly agitating against the caliph.
not far from Baghdad is rather inaccurate: Samarra was 130km north of the old capital, after all...
To address your comment, this was revised after consulting the source. Now it reads as follows. ...but requested that he with his family relocate to the new Abbasid capital of Samarra, a garrison town where the Turkish guards were stationed, north of Baghdad.
and Kitab al-Kafi. The latter source is a comprehensive collection again, better continue the sentence, '...and Kitab al-Kafi, a comprehensive collection...'
Done! This now reads as follows. ...and is recorded in Kitab al-Irshad and Kitab al-Kafi, a comprehensive collection of Shia hadiths by the prominent Twelver scholar Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (d. 941).
he was received warmly by the governor since this was Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Mus'abi, who is mentioned further down (as "al-Tahiri"), please introduce him here.
Good point. Now this sentence reads as follows. When al-Hadi approached Baghdad, people gathered to see him and he was received warmly by the governor, Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Tahiri, who rode out of the city to welcome him.
Shari' (lit. 'street') Abi Ahmad is the full Arabic name important?
No! To address your comment, this was changed as follows. More specifically, his residence was in the center of the city on Abi Ahmad street.
Muslim scholar occurs twice, and doesn't tell us much. Are these people historians or theologians? If the latter, pro-Sunni or pro-Shia partisans?
Following your suggestion, these instances were replaced by 'Muslim academic'. I think it is to be contrasted with 'Western Islamicist'.
Reigns of al-Muntasir (r. 861–862), al-Musta'in (r. 862–866), and al-Mu'tazz (r. 866–869)
the section title is unwieldy, recommend something shorter, perhaps 'Later yeas (861–868)'?
We followed your advice.
Muhammad ibn Hajar was killed missing context here. Who was this and what is the relationship to al-Hadi? It is mentioned after, but it makes for puzzlement until one gets there. Generally there is a tendency to contextualize things after they are mentioned. You should avoid this.
To address your comment, the sentence was rewritten as follows. Also in Egypt, a follower of al-Hadi by the name of Muhammad ibn Hajar was killed and the estate of another follower, Saif ibn al-Layth, was confiscated by the ruler, according to al-Kulayni.
Death
ascribed to al-Rida it would be helpful to remind the reader that al-Rida was al-Hadi's father
We added the following similar statement: A similar tradition is ascribed to al-Rida, the eighth of the Twelve Imams,...
paid allegiance should probably be linked to Bay'ah
Done!
named al-Muwaffaq (d. 891) he is famous enough that 'named' can be omitted; as a rule of thumb, if somebody is not just an hapax legomenon, let alone if there is an article about them, then 'named' is redundant.
To address this comment, the sentence was rewritten as follows. The funeral prayer is said to have been led by al-Muwaffaq (d. 891), a brother of the caliph.
Introduce Naser al-Din Shah Qajar as ruler of Persia and a Twelver
Done! This sentence now reads, More recently, the complex was rebuilt in 1868-9 at the request of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar (r. 1848–1896), ruler of Persia and a Twelver, and the golden dome was added in 1905.
his son, Hasan al-Askari last person mentioned was Naser al-Din Shah Qajar
To fix this issue, this sentence was rewritten as follows. In addition to al-Hadi, the shrine also houses the tombs of his son, Hasan al-Askari...
the shrine was bombed in February 2006 by whom?
Apparently no one claimed responsibility for the attack but the Iraqi officials blamed al-Qaeda. This part now reads as follows. As an important destination for Shia pilgrimage, the shrine was bombed in February 2006 and badly damaged. Another attack on 13 June 2007 destroyed the two minarets of the shrine. Iraqi authorities hold the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda responsible for both attacks.
Personal traits
Introduce Dwight M. Donaldson
Done! This now reads, The historian Dwight M. Donaldson...
Hmmm, I would recommend a slight rewrite in this section to emphasize that all these stories are told by later, and mostly partisan, sources about him. We don't actually know his personal traits, only what his followers wanted us to know (or invented wholesale).
I have done my best to clarify this. The paragraph repeatedly (excessively, really) uses phrases like 'Shia sources' or 'Twelver sources' and emphasizes repeatedly that what's given is the image of al-Hadi as portrayed in Shia sources. Following your comment, I checked the sources and made some changes to the paragraph. It is also important to note that persecution and oppression by the Sunni majority is the ever-present theme in Shia history.
Will do the remainder tomorrow. Constantine   ✍  20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are doing a very good job at it, don't get me wrong. But we have a subject where the details are provided almost exclusively by his partisans and are correspondingly hagiographic, whereas the other sources are relatively silent, so this has to be repeated every now and then for context.
Imamate
precedent of al-Jawad, however explain what precedent this is
This refers to the imamate of al-Jawad as a minor, which is hopefully clear from the previous sentence: As with his father, Ali al-Hadi was still a minor when he succeeded to the imamate at the age of about seven. Thanks to the precedent of al-Jawad, however, the imamate of Ali was widely accepted without much demur,...
Muslim jurist per above, this is not sufficient introduction (e.g. Iranian jurist or Iranian expert on Islamic law)
Done! From his Wikipedia article, he is now introduced as, For the Muslim jurist and academic Hoessin Modarresi, the account of his succession suggests that the seniority of Ali over his brother was not sufficient and the Shia community had to be convinced that Ali was directly appointed by his father.
A few of the known agents of al-Hadi are listed below.  what is the criterion for inclusion?
These were introduced by our sources and so they are 'noteworthy' in that sense. Wardrop also has an index of key figures at the end of her thesis that lists some (all?) of these agents. If the list is too long, then we can remove some of them...
Albertatiran Some of the agents could have their own article and we could include a summary/ part of the article that is more relevant to the life of al-Hadi here.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ghazaalch, this is a good idea but it also takes a lot of time to implement :) For the time being, it's perfectly ok with if you or Cplakidas decide to remove some of the less important agents (maybe on the basis of their appearance elsewhere in the article). Albertatiran (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I will try to move some of this information to "Notes" section or their own articles. It would take me a day or two hopefully. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Albertatiran:. Done. Feel free to edit the changes.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghazaalch! I reworded a few sentences and added back Faris who later shows up again in the article. Hopefully, we'll later get to expand the new articles about these figures. Albertatiran (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The solution arrived at works very well, thanks to you both.
Link Occultation, gold dinars
Done!
 is the eschatological Mahdi who is now concealed from the public 'now' may be ambiguous; perhaps 'has been concealed from the public since 874 and is expected to return as the eschatological Mahdi' or similar?
We used your suggestion with a slightly different wording: ...both about occultation, which is the Twelver belief that al-Askari has a son Muhammad, who has been concealed from the public since 874 and would return as the eschatological Mahdi at the end of time.
Miracles
Most of these miracles are mentioned earlier, under the biographical section (e.g. the foretelling of Mutawakkil's death or the soldiers not killing him). Since I think we can agree that these are stories reported after the fact to highlight his divine inspiration, I strongly recommend removing them from the prior section; a short note to the effect that many miracles are attributed to him during e.g. during his confinement in Samarra is enough.
Listed below are the miraculous accounts in the bio.
Among others, multiple accounts in Ithbat and Dala'il al-im'ama show Ali supernaturally alert the very moment his father died.
Also dated 861, the biographical al-Khara'ij by the Twelver scholar Qutb al-Din al-Rawandi (d. 1178) similarly reports a house arrest of al-Hadi under Sa'id al-Hajib, who was allegedly ordered to kill the Imam. This time a visitor finds al-Hadi seated next to an open grave in his house but is reassured by him that he would not be harmed because al-Mutawakkil would die shortly.
Bihar reports that al-Mutawakkil temporarily forbade his staff from serving al-Hadi, advised by a relative nicknamed Harisa, who warned the caliph that this was boosting the political image of al-Hadi among people. The report has a miraculous ending with the caliph abandoning his policy after an unexpected breeze blew the curtains open for al-Hadi instead of the guards.
The only overlap between the bio and 'Miracles' seems to be #2 above in the bio, a summary of which appears in 'Miracles' (Ali al-Hadi is also credited in Twelver sources with predicting the death of al-Mutawakkil, who had either imprisoned or humiliated al-Hadi.) But I also have to disagree with the proposal that the miraculous reports are fabricated. True, some of them are exaggerated. Still, they can't be ignored. From our article: Wardrop stresses that, while many of these reports might be exaggerated, they are likely based on truth and unwise to ignore [in the bio]. Her view (very roughly) is that it was probably difficult for Shias to see their imam defenseless against the tyrant of his time and so some historical accounts were probably embellished with miraculous details to show that the tyrant gets his fair share already in this world. That is to say that the few miraculous accounts in the bio are not totally out of place. On a more personal note, I don't find many of these attributed miracles difficult to believe, like occasionally predicting the future, speaking multiple languages, or showing a certain vision to others. Similar deeds are commonly attributed to Muslim saints.
Hi Albertatiran If we want to keep the miraculous reports in bio section (i.e. they cannot be separated from bio section), I think we should emphasize that the reports are attributed to Shia belief.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this comment, Ghazaalch. I have addressed it by adding 'Twelver' or 'Shia' in some places to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
who is commonly known by the title al-Askari (lit. 'military') on account of his almost life-long detention under close surveillance in the garrison town of Samarra,[4][148] after moving there with his father as a child.[148] has already been repeated in the beginning, and is not that relevant here. What is noteworthy is that
This was probably left unfinished :)
Don't know what I intended to write with 'What is noteworthy is that...', so just ignore it ;).
might have compelled Hasan is the conjecture here that this might be the reason why Hasan wrote these letters, or that he may have written letters to that effect?
It's the latter. To address your comment, this part is now rewritten as follows. Still, some considered al-Hadi to be the last Imam, and Hasan is said to have written to Imamite figures across the Abbasid empire to dispel their doubts about his imamate.
Succession
Have made some copyedits to tighten prose, feel free to revert/discuss
Thanks. That's always welcome.
At the same time, some followers of Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini claimed that Muhammad ibn Ali al-Hadi was the successor of al-Hadi, even though he died before his father. are these the same as the Muhammadites? Even if not, should this not be mentioned along with them, rather than here? The whole episode of Fari's challenge to al-Hadi is also something that might be mentioned as an episode of its own earlier in the article.
About those certain subgroups of the Ja'farites, it seems that they were not part of the Muhammadite movement. They apparently believed that Muhammad was the true successor of al-Hadi during his lifetime and that the former (rather than the latter) appointed Ja'far as his successor before he died (during the lifetime of al-Hadi). This makes very little sense and it looks like they had other motives (financial, political, etc.) for rejecting Hasan al-Askari. This part of the text is now rewritten as follows:
At the same time, some followers of Faris ibn Hatim claimed that the successor of al-Hadi was his son Muhammad, who appointed his brother as the next Imam before his death during the lifetime of al-Hadi. They accordingly accepted the imamate of Ja'far instead of al-Askari. This was apparently an act of defiance to al-Askari, who had sided with his father al-Hadi when he excommunicated his erstwhile agent Faris for embezzling religious dues and openly inciting against him.
To address your comment about moving up the material about Faris, I've added a new bullet to the list of his agents:
Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini was initially a representative of al-Hadi and his intermediary with the Imamites living in the Jibal (lit. 'mountains'), the region encompassing the central and western parts of modern-day Iran. Faris was involved in a dispute with Ali ibn Ja'far around 248 AH (862) and was consequently banned by al-Hadi from receiving alms on his behalf. He continued to do so, however, without forwarding them to al-Hadi, who excommunicated Faris in 250 AH (864) for embezzling religious dues. Later when Faris continued to openly incite against al-Hadi, the latter called for his death, and he was indeed assassinated during the imamate of Hasan al-Askari.
Please link Faris at the first instance (In particular, Faris ibn Hatim ibn Mahawayh al-Qazvini), and an ex-agent of al-Hadi and his erstwhile agent become redundant.
Done! Also removed the above redundant phrases.
Works
Khums (Islamic alms, lit. 'one-fifth')  has already been glossed
Done! We removed the description of Khums there.
sultan I assume that here it is meant in the original sense as 'government', rather than the royal title? Then I would translate it as such.
The source is silent but it's probably meant as 'Muslim ruler' here. In the revision, 'sultan' was replaced with 'ruler'.
Sources
All are high quality RS, and a consistent and clear citation format is used
Haven't yet had time to do a copyvio spotcheck, will do at the earliest opportunity.
Sounds good. Thanks!
Other remarks
As pointed out above, try to split up the large blocks of text into paragraphs. The article is already very dense with information.
We have made some effort in the revision to address your concern.
Optional: keep the AH dates only for the birth, death, and succession dates. Elsewhere use CE.
We followed your suggestion except for the inaccurate dates like this one: One of the many such accounts about al-Hadi is narrated by Ibrahim ibn Mahziyar, who describes a meeting with a young al-Hadi in 228 AH (842-3)...
Optional: consider if you can include the lone footnote into the main text
I managed to successfully remove the footnote by adding just one word to the main text.
@Albertatiran and Ghazaalch: A very comprehensive article, very well referenced and well written. I worry a bit about overloading the proverbial 'average reader' with information, but I cannot fault your effort here, the transformation of this article is spectacular. Constantine   ✍  21:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas, many thanks for your time and the feedback. We'll work to address them. Albertatiran (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Cplakidas, thank you again for the excellent feedback. Our point-by-point response (in blue and turquoise) is added above. In nearly all cases, we followed your suggestions as it's clear that they improve the article. A couple of general notes:
In some places you added the article 'the' to book titles, e.g., the Ithbat. This made sense and I initially followed the practice elsewhere in the article but then realized that it might be problematic (?), see here.
Oh. Thanks for the link. I suspect this is one of the rules more honoured in the breach than in the observance, though, as I see this very often.
The article refers to two persons named Ishaq ibn Ibrahim. One is the governor of Baghdad and the other is the governor of an area in central or western Iran. It's not clear from the corresponding sources if these two are the same person. I thought I'd bring this to your attention just in case you have heard this name before. Albertatiran (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately no, I couldn't find anything about this. But I suspect that they are two different individuals: the Tahirid was governor of Baghdad, whereas Saymara was a fairly unimportant locality, and above all, the Tahirid is not known to have been dismissed from office (and I doubt anyone with Alid loyalties would remain long as governor of Baghdad).Constantine   ✍  16:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, this is a reasonable argument. In that case, I've removed the less relevant character from the text. His only appearance is now replaced with the following sentence. The caliph also dismissed officials suspected of Shia sympathies, including the governor of Saymara and Sirawan in the province of Jibal.
Further comments
The lede is bit short for an article of this size. Some sections, e.g. 'Designation' or 'Miracles' are not covered at all. Please ensure that the lede provides a summary of the article body; facts may be selectively expanded upon or summarized depending on importance, but a reader should be able to gain a good idea about the subject as covered in the article even without reading the actual main body.
Yes, this is a good point. I've revised and expanded the lede a bit to cover 'Birth', 'Designation', 'Miracles', and 'Personal traits'.
Sobhani 2001 is apparently not (no longer?) used in the article.
Done! This was removed.
Apologies for the delay in responding and doing the spotcheck, was unexpectedly away from any decent internet connection for a while. Constantine   ✍  16:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cplakidas, no worries. Your feedback is appreciated; nothing we do is time-sensitive anyway. :) Above please find the new responses. Albertatiran (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Spotchecks:
#17 Pierce, p. 44 Y
#27 Pierce, p. 144 Y, he emphasizes that al-Mufid contains unexaggerated accounts; I would recommend including this here, since 'reliable' according to Shia view is not necessarily reliable according to everyone else.
This part was now closely follows the source: al-Irshad, which is considered reliable and unexaggerated by most Shias.
#49 Wardrop 1988, p. 112 Y
#7 Madelung 1985, some parts are too verbatim, shown by Earwig's tool. Overall however I don't see too much of a close paraphrasing problem, except in the inevitable cases where specific facts have to be repeated, sourced from here. Even there, an effort has been made to rewrite them.
Some parts of the article were rewritten to address this issue. In response, the caliph assured al-Hadi of his highest regard for him but... ---> The caliph responded respectfully but... ...Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Tahiri, who rode out of the city to welcome him. ---> ...Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Tahiri, who welcomed them outside the city. ...but assigned a house for his residence ---> ...but assigned a house for him. ...as he liked the quality of its water and air ---> ...as he liked its good water and air. A theological treatise on free will and some other short texts are ascribed to al-Hadi... ---> A theological treatise on free will and various short texts are attributed to al-Hadi...
#30, #33 Wardrop, pp. 107–8 Within five years of this meeting, Ali al-Hadi was in contact with representatives from several regions is too close to the original.
This was changed as follows. In the next five years, Ali al-Hadi successfully established contact with representatives from several regions.
#74 Hussain 1986, p. 51. but the last author believes that al-Hadi sent and received his messages with secrecy, and that the caliph had his house searched for any evidence of seditious activities. hmmm, the latter part at least is directly attributed to al-Masudi, and the house searches are repeated in several locations in the article ( The account of al-Mas'udi adds that this escort searched the residence of al-Hadi in Medina, without finding any evidence of subversion, writing that the caliph on multiple occasions was intent on killing al-Hadi and had his house searched, Kitab al-Kafi reports that al-Mutawakkil ordered to search the residence of al-Hadi at night) so it is not Hussain's opinion, and probably redundant as well. Otherwise Y
I probably wanted to convey that the last author doesn't think al-Hadi was freely communicating with his followers. The part about house search was removed and the rest was changed as follows. but the last author believes that al-Hadi sent and received his messages with secrecy under the watchful eyes of the caliph.
#106-108 Wardrop 1988, pp. 147-8. Y
#44 Sajjadi 2018. Y
#96 Esposito 2004, p. 105. Y
#156 Hussain 1986, p. 60. Y
#157 Modarressi 1993, p. 81. Y with the note that he calls Ali 'Ali al-Talhin' rather than 'Ali b. Talhi' as does Hussain
#162 Mavani 2013, p. 147. Y
For urls that point to a paywalled version (e.g. archive.org ones), please add the pertinent access params.
Done!
That's it. There's a couple of minor issues outstanding, but I am satisfied that the article fulfils the GA criteria. Once the minor issues are done, I will promote it. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  14:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@Albertatiran and Ghazaalch: as an aside, and unrelated to this GA process, you might want to submit your articles to the WP:GOCE process. It can do wonders for prose quality, style, and tone. Constantine   ✍  18:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas, thank you very much for the new comments. I think they have all been addressed in the current version of the article. GOCE could be a good idea and we'll probably try it for our next article. The downside is their huge backlog, and I'm a bit skeptical about the quality of edits by someone entirely unfamiliar with the topic. But I guess one could also argue that this unfamiliarity could be a good thing. Let's find out next time! Albertatiran (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Albertatiran: Satisfied with changes/responses, passing now. On the GOCE, you may have to wait a couple of months, it is true. And yes, the unfamiliarity is a double-edged sword, but usually it leads to improvements that make the article more understandable to the average reader. Once again, well done to you and Ghazaalch, looking forward to the next imam! Constantine   ✍  12:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)