Talk:List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala

message: The very title of this article is POV. How about "List of Husayn supporters killed at the Battle of Karbala"? Zora 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three words: Martyrs of Cordoba --Striver 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. I think for something this long ago we can afford to let the name stand. DJ Clayworth 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless the title "List of casualties at the Battle of Karbala" is unhelpful, because the article only lists casualties in the rebel army, and not the casualties in the caliph's army.  I have therefore moved the article to "List of rebel casualties at the Battle of Karbala".  If anyone objects, please suggest an alternative neutral POV name.  Wikipedia does not take sides in the conflict between the rebels and the caliph, so titles using words like "hero" or "martyr" are unhelpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I realised that "List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala" is more helpful than my previous idea, so moved it again.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Khalid, can you find references? --Striver 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ref

message: There is a disagreement about who should be listed in this article.  As the article is entitled "list of casualties..." I would think that it would be useful if it really were a list of the casualties in the rebel army.  This is on the principle of least surprise.  The article on the Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar lists all the ships, not just the important ones.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Article on the List of Sahaba also contain names of all Sahabas not only important ones.SpidErxD (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether this article should exist at all, based on the guidelines on Wikipedia not being a memorial. I do not think the Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar is a good comparison, that is a listing military warships of major powers - each listed item is inherently notable.  The article is the equivalent of a list of people who died at the Alamo, or in the sinking of HMS Hood, or in the 9/11 attacks.  Only those people who are notable should be listed. Edward321 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not propose it for deletion at WP:AFD.  I do not think that the article is necessary.  But if it does exist, I think it should be what it says it is.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Who should be listed

message: An editor keeps deleting that Hussain ibn Ali's father was fourth caliph.  During Hussain's lifetime, his father being fourth caliph was relevant and important. Hussain had not wanted his brother Hassan to make the peace agreement with Muawiyah, because Hussain wanted to keep the caliphate within the family.  Hassan, who was much wiser, told Hussain to shut up because Hussain did not understand these things.  If Ali had never been caliph, it is unlikely that Hussain would have been foolish enough to rebel against the sixth caliph.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th Caliph

message: According to Sunni view Ali is fourth caliphate but in Shia view is first Imam. It is better write both views in the article or write a neutral point of view sentence and delete bias sentence.Saff V. (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no Shias during his lifetime.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The whole point of the battle was that Husayn ibn Ali wanted to be caliph like his father.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you have a little information about Islam and specific Shia and Sunni. Also, Your idea about the purpose of Battle of Karbala is wrong. this sentence (Husayn ibn Ali, chief of the army, son of the fourth caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib, and grandson of Islamic prophet Muhammad) has POV issue. Mhhossein can you help in this discussion?Saff V. (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh! It's clear. Based on the main article,  But we don't have to write such details here because the subject of the article is really some thing else. We'd better write "ALi Ibn Abitalib" without further explanations. By the way, why Husayn ibn Ali fought Yazid has nothing to do with this talk page and all the claims to be inserted in the articles need referencing to secondary reliable sources, as you know. Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Tody1 added again Ali is fourth caliphate. What should I do?Saff V. (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Saff V.: He shows zero effort for reaching to consensus and did not pay attention to my explanation. I suggest you to ask him on his talk page for the first step to partcipate the discussion and explain why he insists on adding this phrase to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ali ibn Abu Talib]] 

message: If there were people who did not die at the Battle of Karbala, they should not be listed in an article that is a list of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: People who did not die at the Battle of Karbala

message: Instead of writing " were killed " you can give some respect and say " were martyred "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.110.226 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Martyred" is not a neutral point of view word, "killed" is.Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use proper word !!!!! 

message: The link to Non-Muslim view of Husayn ibn Ali should be removed from See also because the article has been deleted. LjL (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link to deleted article