Talk:Rashidun

message: The term is used in both sunni and Shia Islam although there is a difference in (Tafseer)the explination of the term.--Aziz1005 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni and Shia Islam 

message: Can someoen clarify this?
The article states "Another reason for this support for Ali as the first caliph is because he had the same relationship to Muhammad as Aaron had to Moses"
In the Hebrew Bible (Jewish and Christian) Moses and Aaron are brothers. According to the article, Ali is Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law. In the main article about Ali states:
Non-Muslim views Edward Gibbon (British 18th century historian)is Quoted: "From the first hour of his mission to the last rites of his funeral, the apostle was never forsaken by a generous friend, whom he delighted to name his brother, his vicegerent, and the faithful Aaron of a second Moses."
Gibbon is describing Ali's loyalty, not the reason he was chosen as Caliph.
I suggest deleting or changing the first statement,Rgbutler (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses and Aaron 

message: After clarifying any possible errors in pronunciation or dialects, Uthman sent copies of the sacred text to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, and destroyed variant texts. It is also important to mention that this text was not questioned by any of the followers of Islam, even those who were alive during the time of Muhammad This statement is asking for a citation, but I feel it should be deleted outright as it assumes too much that is unverifiable. Comments?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstairs (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uthman ibn Affan 

message: This article seems to consist of editor's own opinions about the early caliphs.  Very little of it is backed up by citations.  I doubt its neutrality.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-neutral and largely uncited

message: It seems that Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate cover the same topic. Shouldn't they be merged? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Leo1pard (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge needed? 

message: Firstly, the quotations which are not straight are meant to reflect the fact that the Arabic names, such as 'علي' and 'عثمان', have letters that do not usually have equivalents in the English language, the letter 'ع' in the case of these 2 names, which is pronounced from the throat, and they do not necessarily make it harder for users to search for those names, since links for these 2 men exist without the apostrophe, so it doesn't matter if you insert the apostrophe or not, it should still return the same result when searching.
Secondly, Hasan ibn Ali's role in the end of the Rashidun Caliphate and rise of the Umayyad Dynasty, that is, that he was the Caliph who negotiated the transfer of power to Muawiyah I, to end the First Fitna, is too important to ignore, from a historical POV. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "too important to ignore" - but this article is not a retelling of the history of how power was transferred from Ali to Muawija but rather about that four-member group of Caliphs. Hasan's role might be noted (in Ali's section) but that doesn't make him one of the four. Str1977 (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reversion 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have begun cleaning up the references and citations. I started by adding what was missing and moving book with harvtxt references into a bibliography.  I expect to return and continue that work.
I would also like to convert the verbose  into easier to maintain . I will do so if there is no objection raised.
ref: Template:Harvard citation text and Template:Sfn —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference/Citation Cleanup 

message: I'm a bit confused about the precise scope of this article;  it seems to overlap with Rashidun Caliphate a lot.  Even the title adds to this:  is it about the Righteousness of these caliphs as a concept?  A collective bio?  The caliphate generally?  The first of these seems to make the most sense, but the lead really doesn't make that clear, and the subsequent contents then wander all over the place.  If this can't be cleared up, perhaps the article should be merged outright?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fair criticism. Also, does the concept of these caliphs need to be outlined? Caliph is not outlined separate to Caliphate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly?  I think it's fairly clear already, given the context, the literal meaning being given here, and the link.  But depending on the actual intended scope -- per the above -- maybe given these being the very first such, and their status being denominationally disputed, it could benefit from being expanded on a little.  If that's what ends up working best in the context of the remainder of the article.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there should only be one article. That article should mainly deal with the actual caliphate and caliphs, and the concept of being 'rashid' or 'rightly-guided' should be dealt with in a separate section. It's fairly typical for Wikipedia to have an entirely separate article for what should in fact only be a substantial section in another article. But I would suggest to leave such things be unless and until someone undertakes to rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Haphazardly merging stuff can make things even less transparent. The key is to actually want to spend a few weeks on going through the literature and thoroughly update the article. If the will for that is not there, better to leave things be and only fix the most egregious mistakes. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "caliphate" article is a pretty substantial one, so certainly it's not on the face of it unreasonable for this to be a summary-style split of the section of that.  Were it structured properly as such.  If we get the lead in better shape I think other improvements should flow more readily from that.  Begin by stating the scope, explain it briefly, trim stuff that's outside of that scope and just repeats other caliph-related material.  If we're only left with a section-sized article, then merger might look like the better option.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that would be a good way to do it, for someone who would like to do it. The scope of this article should be the Sunni religious term 'rightly-guided'. Start with reading Melchert 2020. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope unclear, possible merge