Talk:Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya

message: Islami, justify this please. --Striver 08:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that answering-ansar is not saying the truth. Is that a surprise? Check Tagreeb al-Tahdhib and Tahdhib al-Tahdhib yourself. --Islamic 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then pleace explain for us, in detail, so we all get more educated and we can continue with editing. I want us to have a good atmospher of editing, like in Talk:Shi%27a_etymology. Do you think that is possible? Explain What of the AA statmen is not true, why it is not true, and third, what the truth is. --Striver 09:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No answer? Then im reverting to the version that contained both statments. --Striver 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

message: The English name and the Arabic name do not match. Where is al-Hanafiyyah in the Arabic? Someone who has access to original source materials should clear this up. The article has other problems - why is this individual notable in history? Wikipedia is not a collection of genealogical trivia. Unless some clear explanation is provided, and soon, I will nominate this article for deletion. It could of course be reincluded later if anyone provides enough backing for an article. I note that there is no entry for this individual in the Arabic-language Wikipedia. Cbdorsett 08:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is notable as the grand son of Ali, and a person who is quoted as a narrator of hadith that are controversial, and is not there for only for his genealogy. The Arabic wikipedia is smaller than this one, and you could see that he has entires in both Tahdhib al-Tahdhib and The Book of the Major Classes, both major books in the science of hadith. Somebody else argued that there is a lot of hadith narrators. That is true, there is also a lot of :category:trains, so being a part of a large category does not render one as non-notable.--Striver - talk 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify please 

message: The article says Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah died 100 AH. This means that he died roughly between 720 and 725 AD/CE. The use of AH is allowed "as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar" (per WP:MOSNUM). Does anyone know the year of death of Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar? AecisBrievenbus 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An additional problem is that the date of birth is not given. Because the Islamic calendar does not correspond to the Gregorian calendar, it's not known if he was born before or after the Gregorian New Year. AecisBrievenbus 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gregorian calendar came into existence in 1582 and has no application to dates before then. If there are different Hijri dates in the Arabic-language sources, they should all be provided, together with appropriate citations. Cbdorsett 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of death 

message: الستة الحسن بن محمد بن علي بن أبي طالب الهاشمي أبو محمد المدني وأبوه يعرف بابن الحنفية 
Maybe i am mistaken, but as far as i can see, it means:
Al-Sattah Alhassan bin Mohammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib Al-Hashimi Abu Muhammad Al-Madini and his father is known to be Ibn al-Hanafiya. Hamid-Masri 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: If we summarize it, we have three different translations aviable:
#By Hamid-Masri: Al-Sattah (which means the the Sixth) Alhassan bin Mohammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib Al-Hashimi Abu Muhammad Al-Madini and his father is known to be Ibn al-Hanafiya.
#By Fsotrain: "Hasan the Sixth, son of Muhammad, son of Ali, son of Abi Talib", which is the same as the full name given in the article, but then it goes on: "...the Hashemi, father of Muhammad the citizen, and his father, [who] know the son of Hanafiyyah."
#By Cbdorsett: 6. Al-hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib al-Hashimi abu Muhammad al-Madani and his father known as ibn al-Hanafiyyah." 
It is true that this is nothing but a mention of his name. The two questions is: Which translation is more correct? And: Should it be included in the article at all? Hamid-Masri 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arabic Wikipedia now has a nice (small) article on this person. Someone who knows Arabic better than I do should extract information from there and translate it for the English page. I'm still not happy with the translations offered for the untranslated text; we need a native speaker, or someone educated in an Arabic-speaking country. I suspect that the proffered text is itself non-notable and maybe should be deleted. Is there an English translation of the cited reference? Cbdorsett 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Within the original article, this short Arabic extract was stated to be a quote about the man. Now it seems quite clear that this is not true - it's just another way of writing his name. The person who originally uploaded the information has not followed this discussion at all. I'm going to delete it, along with the phrase "X said about him as follows:" Cbdorsett 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarization