Talk:Fatima/Archive 1

message: The article as it stood was purely Shi'a. I've revised to try to restore balance. Zora 09:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: Ya Ali, I moved the praisenames section to the Shi'a view. This could be wrong, and it could be that the titles are used by the Sunni too. If so, there should be some Sunni sources for that. Then we can move the names section back. 
Is there an Arabic translation for Lady of Paradise? Would it be possible to have Arabic and Farsi script next to the titles? Zora 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, which ones DO they use? Do you have cites? Zora 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praisenames 

message: I copyedited, and removed the unsourced hadith saying that an injury to Fatima was an injury to Muhammad. Putting it up without any source, or any qualifications, is tantamount to saying that Wikipedia accepts it as true, which I don't think we can do. Zora 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Shouldn´t Fatima be named as Fatima bint Muhammad instead of Fatima Zahra? --213.190.195.100 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Is the "evidence" section really necessary? We do not need disclaimers on Wiki telling readers that there is two sides of the story when it is clearly shown in the above sections of "Sunni View" and "Shia'a View".
Sentences like this:
:The Sunni have their traditions and the Shi'a have theirs. It is extremely difficult to judge which is more trustworthy.
...do not belong on Wiki. Stoa 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay,thanks for the reply. Stoa 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence Section

message: I put accents in the appropriate places of her name, along with the tick (') for a hamza. The other transliteration of Fatima Al-Zahra is just wrong. It's a result of people who don't know how to read Arabic. Any definite article (al) followed by a 'Z' is doubled as a 'Z', not an 'L'. So under no circumstance should anyone say "Al-Zahra", only "Az-Zahra". Cuñado  - Talk 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  transliteration 

message: I just realized that the sayings appeared in the article one day without any source. We really shouldn't leave them up there without a reference. I strongly suspect that these are late, and fabricated. I'm going to wait a few days to see if anyone can reference them. Zora 07:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sayings made up? 

message: Most known Fatimah. --Striver 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: This article gives Undue weight to the Shi'a view and needs to be broken up. Zora, any complaints?--Striver 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is another one of those cases where keeping it together is what allows people to get the mutual understanding of the various POVs. Although the 'Shia view/Sunni view/Christian view' articles occasionally make sense, especially on very contentious issues, I think here all it does is isolates one or more branches of Islam. Bridesmill 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, i dont mind, but im keeping the tag so that "somebody" wont start deleting with undue weight as a excuse. --Striver 11:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should be ok as long as it doesn't go from sublime to ridiculous; not overly unusual for a subject to have more input from one group than another; if nobody argues about this for a while, these discussions should stand to prevent later sillines.Bridesmill 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: Can you point out in hte lead what the dates (20th of Jamadi-ul-Akhar etc) refer to? is it feast-days/traditional b'day or?)Bridesmill 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found two of the month, but i dont get the first one... --Striver 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: As per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout this article needs to be rewritten (one sentence paragraphs, broken prose, misplaced quotations, etc.). Kaveh 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: No I am against the suggestion of splitting this article into a new article titled Shi'a view of Fatimah. I think we should just divide sections in this article, one section for Shi’a view of Bibi Fatimah (AS), Sunni view of Bibi Fatimah (AS), And Western View of Fatimah (AS), and it is this way, so lets keep it this way. Thank You--Salman 00:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if everyone is happy, then so i am. But i dread the moment "someone" comes and "trims" the article for "Shi'a non-sense"... --Striver 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right brother Striver, that is the reason i keep on going back to Islamic article to make sure that someone didn't add something that is not true in the Islamic world. Striver if you ever see anything like that in any Islamic article then please do tell other Muslims brothers. Thank You--Salman 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The split suggestion

message: I don’t understand why there are different date of births and date of deaths in the introduction of Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS). We should just say that she was born on 20th Jumada 2 (615 AD) and she died on 3rd Jumada 2 11AH (632 AD). If other Branches of Islam have there own date of birth that they can write it in their section. For example, if my Sunni brothers believe that Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS) was born on different date and died on different date, then they can talk about it in their section. By putting different types of date of birth and date of death we will confuse of western readers, and I am sure that we do not want to confuse them since we are even changing the names of some Islamic individuals just so westerners won’t have any problem reading it names. Thank You--Salman 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a Sunni would argue the same to get ridd of the Shi'a dating. --Striver 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article discusses the different claims of birthdate quite well further on; the fact that there are 2 birth dates in the lead makes it obvious that there are two opinions on this; and makes a good 'hook' to convince the reader to read the whole article.Bridesmill 01:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! --Striver 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool but i would like other wikipedians to think about this matter also. I am not saying that we should put the Shi'a date of birth in the introduction, i am saying that since there are Shi'a and Sunni section in the article, why not put the date og birth there and discuss it. Thank You--Salman 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worht doing, but this will take a bit of work - what is there now is basically what is in all of the popular sources today; none really give much sources or citations. The explanations are also, on most of the websites, pretty obviously very biased and not very scholarly. My first bit of digging, most Shi'a modern sources say the dates given above, and state that Sunni claim the other dates. but at-Tabrisi (writing in 468 AH) states that she died at the age of 23 4.5 months after the Prophet; Imam Reza cites various Shi'a sources that give her birthdate variously as 2 and 5 years after Revelation; and then there are the Sunni dates which he also gives, but he does not mention at-Tabrisi which surprises me. So if the article is going to discuss it, it will have to quote and cite the old authors (hadith etc) and scholars. We have some work ahead.....Bridesmill 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry my brother Bridesmill, we will find out the truth about each and everysingle thing when our last Imam (Imam Mehdi) is going to come back to us. Thank You--Salman 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but until that happens we need to present as scholarly accurate a presentation here as possible; this article is becoming very good & professional, if it keeps moving in this direction it may make for a GA or eventually even FA I think.Bridesmill 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth and date of Death

message: I reorganized the article to the standardized version:
*Biography
*works
*legacy
**view 1
**view 2
*See also
*references
*external links
--Striver 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganize

message: Are there nay copyright-free images, (something better than fair use?) The Ya-Fatimah image would alos be nicer if it could be replaced with one that didn;t look as if it was 'cut off'. Minor quibble, but this article is starting to look good & that would make it even better.Bridesmill 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brother Bridesmill I uploaded some pictures that you wanted. You are free to move around the pictures as you desire. Thank You--Salman 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I chose the Christian article to wl to, after first having put the Virgin Mary in Islam wl, because the point here is to show how Fatimah in Islam plays many of the roles of Mary in Christianity; so "How Islam views Fatimah" compared to "How Christianity views Mary", and not how Islam views Mary. I realize this may be a bit controversial, that's why I'm explaining myself here.Bridesmill 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary/Fatimah

message: Not only has your bold and courageous work in bringing to light some of the "parallel growth" of the phenomena surrounding Fatimah as Muhammed's daughter and her son and his eventual death it is even more startling to think that this injustice might be seen as the one which God Himself avenges; Mary of Fatimah has a lot of explaining to do; Muhammed's saying that the Mahdi would be descended in the people of Salvation from "the children of Fatimah" has a strange inevitability in light of the 1917 appearence of "Al-Zahra": and her Child: the Wrath of the Lamb is his name. Anyway I am writing a book about this and some other stuff: you have entered into a mystery which I hope you would like to see the outcome of: Jesus had his Magi; and this one who comes in the name of Jesus or "the Lamb" has the Sufis. Unicorn144 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridesmill

message: This edit: Interstingly, the there isn't a single hadeeth regarding these 'other daughters' in the famous Sunni books of tradition, namely the books of Bukhari and Muslim. There is however a chapter on "The merits of Fatima" in Bukhari and Muslim. I've removed; if this is so, then what is the disagreement between Shi'a and Sunni if the Prophet only had one daughter (biologically); plus it implies that we should ignore the Qu'ran's mention of at least three. This needs cites and a serious rewording; given that it came from an anon, I question further its seriousness.Bridesmill 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of mention of other daughters in Sunni trad 

message: I wonder why the article is named Fatima Zahra and not Fatima Al-Zahra or Az-zahra. Fatima Zahra is not the Arabic name. --Lanov 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by common usage?. I'm saying that her name in Arabic is not Fatima Zahra. It's Fatima Al-Zahra. If we're gonna use ghits, we have to compare between al-zhara and az-zahra only. --Lanov 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm, all for putting her Arabic name & (principal) vasriants in the lede; but being an English WP article, and the overwhelming usage in English is as titled, it is not up to us to change what is used in academia etc; although I suppose the misleading/eroneous nature of our ways could be alluded to in the lede.Bridesmill 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about Muhammad?. ghits is 47M for mohammed and 36M for the current name(Muhammad). --Lanov 04:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bridesmill. This is the English language WP, so we use the most accepted English name for the person. Just like there is an article on Jesus, not Yeshua bin Yusuf. Noting her Arabic name is important, but we use the commonly accepted English one. Ashmoo 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a move to Fatimah al-Zahra, its the proper name, per Muhammad's (pbuh) name. --Striver 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Arabic Name? 

message: I believe the book of Bibi Fatima (AS) should be in see also. There is no information about the book in the article unless you click on the link. I think it should be under see also. Thank you--Salman 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I say Yes and No? Should be in See Also as Salman suggests, but a short section summarizing with a  should prob be there too - not sure if this belongs where it is now or under the Shia view - I'll wait for consensus before moving anything around.Bridesmill 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Bridesmill, see I don’t have any problems with the book being in the article, but there should be something about the book in the article of Bibi Fatima (AS). Just putting the book’s link in the article doesn’t make nay sense because there is no information about the book in the whole article .Si I suggest that the book should be listed in See Also. Thank You--Salman 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked the question at the book's article as to how rest of Islam sees this book; then I noticed Striver did most of the work - hopefully he'll answer here 
. That will allow reasonbable decision on if it belongs in Works or in Shi'a section or just in See also (but given significanceI think it deserves more than 2 words)Bridesmill 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's basicly a Shi'a only book, Sunni hardly know that Shi'a belive it exists. --Striver 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works

message: Guys, seriously, this article needs to be renamed to either "Fatimah al-Zahra", Fatimah bint Muhammad" or most preferably just "Fatimah". --Striver 11:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rename

message: This is some information on Fadak.
(remove long copy and paste copyvio: it's available at [allaahuakbar.net/shiites/fadak_area_between_abu_bakr_&_fatimah.htm]) Patstuarttalk|edits 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above is the Sunni view, Shi'a have another view and present other evidence.--Striver 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FADAK

message: *Fatemeh is Fatemeh --Striver 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant

message: I am going to slowly start expand the non-Shia view, so to avoid duplication in the same article, i am spliting out the Shi'a view. Either way, this is long overdue, giving the Shi'a 90% of article is in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Striver 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I'm not sure how to find references for this, but I think the only descendants of Muhammad all trace their lineage through Fatimah, because all other children or grandchildren of Muhammad died in infancy. If this is correct, it should be mentioned. Cuñado  - Talk 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct that all descendants of Muhammad trace their lineage through Fatimah.--Striver 12:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad's lineage 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Weak support I find Fatimah pedantic; the English appears to be Fatima, which is now a dab page (and has no h in the listing for this article). . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that works as well. Im moving it right now. --Striver - talk 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I've moved this back from Fatima to Fatima Zahra. Fatima now redirects to Fatima (disambiguation); only an admin make move it back. The original proposal was changed halfway through voting. There was no consensus to move. Striver moved first, then the debate was closed as a fait accompli. There was no notification at Talk:Fatima, which was obviously affected by the second move proposal. As Talk:Fatima (name)#disambiguation shows, Striver asserted the default-ness of "Fatima Zahra" for "Fatima" months ago and was disagreed with. w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Fatima includes more links relating to Fatima, Portugal than Fatima Zahra. This needs a wider discussion. jnestorius(talk) 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Fatima (disambiguation)#Requested move jnestorius(talk) 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quote from above: "The result of the debate was move to :Fatima." This is not the same as "The result of the debate was move to :Fatimah." ":Fatima Zahra" was moved to "Fatima", not "Fatimah". I have undone that. I have no opinion about what should be at ":Fatimah" and have not changed it. I think before I reversed the move it would have been a double redirect. In any case, I left this notice as a courtesy; feel free to ignore it, or to add your opinion to the discussion at :Talk:Fatima (disambiguation)#Requested move jnestorius(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move undone 

message: Move per Ali, Muhammad, Umar, Uthman and other prominent early Muslims. Move to Fatimah with H and NOT to Fatima without H. Note that Fatimah with H already redirects here.
=== Survey ===
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
==== Survey - Support votes ====
#Support. --Striver - talk 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move round 2 

message: Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
==== Survey - Support votes ====
#Support. --Striver - talk 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: #Support. --Striver - talk 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey - Support votes 

message: Add any additional comments:
*Why is this article not at Fatimah bint Muhammad or Fatimah Muhammad? It apparently has a wrong name. Vegaswikian 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Hi.  I have just created a (stubby) page on Zahra Freeth.  I wanted to redirect the page 'Zahra' to her if there was no other use, but I see there is, with 'Zahra' redirecting to Fatimah.  Is there some way we could have a disambiguation page for Zahra rather than it leading directly here?  I'm not very au fait with how Wikipedia works yet, so am loathe to do it myself.  Many thanks Jasper33 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Zahras

message: The article reads too much like hagiography, but one glaring inaccuracy is the statement that she was the only daughter of Muhammad.  This is a view only held by Shi'as, and even among Shi'as there is no consensus.  I'm going to modify the statement so that it represents both views.Slackerlawstudent 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shia POV

message: I just wanted to add the Prescence of the Lamb that came with the "Sun" of Fatimah along with the Prescence of the holy angels that came with the children and their "angel". And more; if it was sourced right. I can show the "Door" of Noah in the "Triple Door of the Ark"; a well known esoteric mystery; and full of hidden signifigance in light of the powers of these "children of Fatimah"; they who Muhammed said the Mahdi would be descended from.
I added the entire ref. of the Holy Grail by Malcolm Godwin; I will include the entire quote of his from Chapter II from Part II "A Myth for Our Time"; it's called "The Loss of the Female" and in the sub chapter "The Gnostic Female" Fatimah is examined in depth especially as the "Tree of Paradise" or "Body of Mary". Page 204; first paragraph. 71.224.69.244 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Virgin of Fatimah

message: Before removing it again, please look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material. Slacker 05:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Predictably, User:Klaksonn has either not read the policy, or is disregarding it intentionally.  The statement that "Fatima died of her wounds" needs a historical source because you are required to source any statement that is challenged or is likely to be challenged. Slacker 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also undeniable that Sunni Muslim's believe that Fatimah died a natural death. For example, see the USC biography. Regarding the sources mentioned, they are all Shi'a sources. It is a common mistake to believe that Ibn Abi Al-Hadid was a Sunni. His name was actually "Al-Mu'tazili", which says a lot. Hamid-Masri 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit the section on her death if you want; just make sure you provide proper sources. Slacker 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unreferenced" Tag 

message: First of all, I appreciate User:Klaksonn's modification of his position.  Now, I hope he will be more willing to utilize the Talk Page to argue for his edits.
Now, regarding the sentence on Othman, that comment does not belong in the opening paragraph for the following reasons:
(1) It is false.  Sunnis "legitimize" Othman's caliphate - rightly or wrongly - based on the decision of the Shura commitee set up by Umar (see Uthman).  They indeed cite his marriage to Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum as evidence of his high standing with Muhammad, but that is not what his caliphate is based on.
(2) The test for inclusion in an article is not whether or not it's "controversial", but rather whether or not it's attributable to a reliable source.
(3) The other test for inclusion is relevance, and this statement is not relevant enough to Fatimah's life to be included in her introductory paragraph.  It's more relevant to articles on Othman, Ruqayyah, or Umm Kulthum, or at most it could be included in the body of the article in a section comparing Fatimah to her three sisters/step-sisters.
I believe it should either be (a) deleted for the sake of relevance, or (b) changed from "legitmizing Othman's caliphate" to "arguing for his high standing with Muhammad" for the sake of accuracy. Slacker 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Othman Comment 

message: In my humble opinion, the sentences about Fatimah's marriage is clearly made from a Shi'a POV. It is not the sunni view that God ordered Fatimah to marry Ali. Hamid-Masri 10:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i may allow myself to say it, this is also nothing more but the Shi'a POV: Umar and Khalid ibn Walid threatened to burn the house down if they did not submit. They broke in, resulting in Fatimah's ribs being broken between the broken door and the wall, and she miscarriaging an unborn son named Muhsin. Hamid-Masri 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamid, You can add an alternative narrative, as long as it's properly sourced. Slacker 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slacker, i am also Shi'a, but lets be reasonable, we all know that most Sunnis do not agree that Umar assaulted Fatimah.--Striver - talk 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say otherwise? Slacker 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, you did'nt. I just got that impression. I generally tend to try to keep the introduction and non-Shia/Sunni view clear of controversial material, it makes editing less... frictional. --Striver - talk 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Slacker 13:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a POV 

message: This article is biased tawards the Shia point of view and requires a lot of attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hasseniqbal192 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a terrible article. "When she attained the age of puberty, it became necessary for her to marry someone who would appreciate her status and the perfection and maturity of her virtues." Is that a fact? Arrow740 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: This article is covering both Shia and Sunni views and therefore the  navigation template is appropriate. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many may have views, but considering that Abu Bakr and Umar caused Fatima's death, and that the 'Islam template' covers both Shi'as and Sunnis (Sunnis having nothing to do with the Prophet's family, the article should be part of Shi'a Islam alone. KlakSonnTalk 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like POV to me.  Considering that Sunnis would disagree with what Klaksonn said. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they disagree with what said, otherwise 'Sunnism' wouldn't exist. Fatima is one of the 'People of the House', hence the expression 'Supporters of the People of the House'. Seeing that (accoring to non-Sunni historians) she was killed by Abu Bakr and Umar and that virtually all of her descendents are Shi'a Muslims, the article belongs to 'Shi'a Islam series'. No need to further argue. KlakSonnTalk 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That certainly is POV pushing (also with very weak refs in the article). → AA (talk • contribs) — 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Klaksonn, it is a lie that all of Fatimah's descendants are Shi'a. The royal house of Morocco is sunni, the same is Sayyed Habib Ali al-Jifri, a famous sunni-sufi scholar from Tarim. In fact, through history, many of the sunni scholars were actually descendants of Fatimah. You do not hear that often, because Sunni Muslims do not give as much importance to being 'seyyed' as the Shi'a Muslims do. In fact Fatimah is so revered by Sunni Muslims that we include her among the 4 of the best women of all times. Thus your arguments is invalid. Hamid-Masri 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Unfortunately, user:AA bravely took advantage of me getting blocked for 48 hours to radically change the content of the article. Refrain from doing so again, and from letting vandalism to the 'death' section go unnoticed. KlakSonnTalk 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Klaksonn, we'd hoped you'd have taken this time off to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policies (at least WP:CIVIL) but you may wish to read up on WP:OWN before asking anyone to "refrain from making any changes" to any article. If you have an objection with any specific element of the changes I or any other editor have made, bring it to the talk page and discuss but do not revert the complete article. → AA (talk) — 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, why did you revert the following changes: , , ]? → AA (talk) — 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: your revert summary "saying Ali and Fatima are insolent is a little daring and quite disturbing)", that is not a change I introduced (see here). As I've mentioned before, if you have a problem with specific paragraphs or sections, discuss them here and we can work together to improve the article (I agree with your sentiments on this point) but do not simply revert the whole article. → AA (talk) — 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Klaksonn's edits upon seeing them (AA's version seemed more neutral), but reverted myself after seeing that it was an edit war. Please try to come to a consensus or this page will have to be protected. ugen64 16:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:AA]] 

message: In view of the edit war, I have now protected the article so that only admins can edit it.  Please discuss the points of disagreement and try to reach a consensus. You may ask an admin to make changes by placing explaining here what you want done, and placing an  tag beside it.  However, please note that an admin is unlikely to agree to any changes without a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-Muslim with very limited knowledge of the subject, the present version does not seem to handle the diametrically opposed Sunni & Shia viewpoints well, and clearly leans somewhat to the Shia view. Different sections for each view of her death are needed, as the question of her possible siblings has.  At the same time, since she is certainly more significant in the Shia tradition, that version should be placed first. Johnbod 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Johnbod, thank you for your comments. I was attempting to make this NPOV and if you look at my edits which Klaksonn reverted, it gives the Shia view full prominence as you suggest with a simple expand tag on the Sunni view which I was hoping to work on but Klaksonn is pushing his POV and does not seem to understand that the article should be neutral. → AA (talk) — 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with John.  AA, please continue your efforts to fix this article when it is opened for editing again.  Let me know if you need any help in the way of references or research. MezzoMezzo 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could open up a temp version either as a sub-page here (which anyone could edit), or in your sandbox, for drafting/discussion purposes. Johnbod 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected article 

message: On the language issue, WP:EL says "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language ..." - as I say I can't read any of the Arabic (or Farsi ?) texts, but if they are to straight texts of historical sources, it should be ok to use them, in the absence of (or as well as) links to English translations. Several of the old links appear prima facie to be this sort of link. Johnbod 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any site can be considered an "official site" for this article so the use of non-English-language links should be avoided. I believe the criteria applies more to an official site of a product/organisation/person etc. However, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as the links in the EL section of the current article all appear to be in English. Could you paste the link here please. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the ones which I don't believe meet WP:EL. → AA (talk) — 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of EL is that " when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" is a separate case from the preceding "official site" bit (an "or" would make this clearer). So I don't think you are correct in saying "the use of non-English-language links should be avoided". For the links, look at those attached to Note 1. Johnbod 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This other policy may or may not clarify the matter: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#non-English-language_sites; in any case I'm pretty sure my reading is correct  the full sentence describes 3 cases, not 2. Johnbod 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - I see. You're referring to the References and not the External links section, right? If so, then yes, those refs in note 1 have been copied across (note 7 in the new article). → AA (talk) — 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of links for EL section 

message: On the whole, this version of the article looks excellent.  I noticed from the virtues section:
After Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader of all women in Paradise, and a behavioural examplar. She was the first wife of the first Shia Imam, the mother of the second and third, and the ancestor of all the succeeding Imams;
The first sentence should probably get some citation as it's a factual claim.  For the second sentence, it should be included that she was the wife of the first Shia Imam and also the first Sunni caliph, I think. MezzoMezzo 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was one of the few elements I copied across from the existing article. I assumed the ref at the end to Esposito, covers the first sentence (since the second one does not really need a ref). If not, then it may need replacing. → AA (talk) — 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I assume you meant third Sunni Caliph? → AA (talk) — 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the two of you meant the fourth Sunni caliph (i.e., Fatimah was the husband of Ali, the fourth Sunni caliph, not Abu Bakr, the first Sunni caliph, nor Uthman, the third Sunni caliph). Pepsidrinka 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes - of course :) → AA (talk) — 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I found the refs and have added them in and made the suggested change. → AA (talk) — 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, typo on my part.  Good job with the refs though. MezzoMezzo 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtues section 

message: Klaksonn, you are engaging in disruptive editing of this article. The version moved to mainspace by BrownHairedGirl has achieved a super-majority consensus. Please review her comments above and start discussing the changes in a constructive manner (and hold off on the edit summaries attacking editors. → AA (talk) — 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed twelve sources on how Fatimah died. Maybe you should live with the fact that Umar was a sick murderer and refrain from vandalizing the article by adding things like "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)". KlakSonnTalk 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption by [[User:Klaksonn|Klaksonn]] 

message: I don't think it's appropriate to label a section in an encyclopedia article "Virtues".  Slacker 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would an appropriate heading be? I think the content of the section is valid but maybe with a different heading? Would "Attributes" be any better? → AA (talk) — 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Importance to Muslims", "Significance among Muslims", or something like that?  Slacker 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to "Titles" and restructured the text appropriately. → AA (talk) — 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Virtues"

message: Substituted at 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment