Talk:Marwan I

message: This article is clearly biased against the ummayads. --Bentaguayre (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to Copyvio Detector, the article has copyright violations issue. Also, the lead of article has copyright problem and copy/paste from this site.Saff V. (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since redirectify.com copies its content from Wikipedia, it is not really a surprise that the text on redirectify.com is simply an old version of the Wikipedia article.  Please self-revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please rewrite this section with reliable source.Saff V. (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Marwan I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060222100230/http://www.dartabligh.org:80/books/ebooks/Role_vol1/page139.asp to http://www.dartabligh.org/books/ebooks/Role_vol1/page139.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please could someone clarify which book is referred to by "Bosworth, p. 621" and "Bosworth, p. 622".  We need to know both the title and the edition (pagination is not aways the same in all editions of books).  The author, CE Bosworth wrote more than one book.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries I'll add this today. I had to leave abruptly when I was expanding the article so I just saved what I had. I'll continue working on the article shortly. It's the Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed, "Marwan I b. al-Hakam" article. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Bosworth, p. 621 and 622 

message: Al Ameer Most of the information about Marwan bin Hakim in this article have been copy pasted from different sites and without references.as most of the information is unauthentic and unreliable, so I am putting once again . Beside that I am approached by one of the Sunni group of muslims that the article has been manipulated by Shi'ats group of muslim. So the information needs to be authenticated.
 Every single you thing you just stated is false. If you are referring to the introductory section of the article being unreferenced, it is because we do not add references to this section—it is a summary of the article's body, which, in this case, is completely referenced to scholarly secondary sources. The article is not "manipulated", it is only a balancing of the available secondary scholarly sources which, in turn, reflect their analyses and interpretations of the relevant medieval-era literature (mostly the Islamic traditional sources) as there is no other source material available about this caliph. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Ameer No! All asserted information is copy pasted and have the prove beside, whole article represents the views of a certain entity, who throughout ages have portrait things out of context again the caliph. Scholarly secondary sources of whom? Shi'at Scholars or backed! You should also listen and read about the other group scholars and their narrative about the caliph. "Balancing". A certain medieval era historic book or references is available in plain words,do we suppose to need further interpretations? I don't think so, that source will need further interpretations for  instance"He Is going"..What interpretation it will require?. about 95% of all medieval literature have been translated in plain english language, so it could easily be standardized in light of those source without being biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If we look at this this edit of 15:12, 13 March 2020, the editor removed citation needed tags saying in their edit summary: All of this is already cited to reliable sources.  The paragraph is the second paragraph the lede (i.e. a summary of the contents of the article), so MOS:LEADCITE applies.  can you list any statements in that paragraph that are not covered in later paragraphs by statements with citations? Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to further respond to your wholly unfounded and clearly biased accusation that this article is somehow based on the views of Shia scholars, an assertion far from the reality, but I do want to be clear: there was no copy and pasting done in this article whatsoever and there are no copyright violations, with the exception of some referenced quotations. The text and references meet the FA criterion of being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate", as well as the FA criterion of "presenting views fairly and without bias". --Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I think we should add other views to the statement that he killed Talha. The earliest sources mention two explanations:
# Talha was killed by a stray arrow.
# Marwan deliberately shot Talha.
Here is what al-Tabari wrote in his two accounts of the battle:
* "As for Talha, an arrow from an unknown archer [sahm gharb] pinned his knee to the side of his horse." (SUNY Press, vol. 16, p. 124)
* "After the camel was hamstrung and the force was routed, an arrow hit Talha and killed him. Some say [yazʿamūn] that it was fired by Marwan b. al-Hakam." (Ibid., p. 127)
Both explanations are found in later sources, like this brief summary by Abu Nu'aym.
Modern historians also came up with different conclusions, as Madelung states: "The reports that Talha was killed by Marwan have been dismissed by L. Caetani and other modern scholars as anti-Umayyad fiction." Another example is Ella Landau-Tasering who maintains that "Talhah and al-Zubayr were not killed in battle but repented their move and retreated. They were nevertheless killed by ‘Ali's supporters." There is a report where Imran bin Talha tells Ali "you killed my father" (Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, vol. 3, p.206; see also p.205 where Ali's supporters make the same point).
Since we have multiple views and a number of discrepant reports, we should avoid stating contested assertions as facts. Wiqi(55) 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this detailed breakdown using traditonal and modern sources. I agree that both views should be presented. Please feel free to add; otherwise I’ll incorporate this information tomorrow. Cheers —Al Ameer (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing Talha 

message: I recently changed the short description from  to , which has been reverted by . Explaining my rationale:
*Short descriptions are supposed to be sentence case, and almost never begin with the article "the".
*"Caliph" is not capitalized in the lead here, and I wanted to follow the lead's lead.
*Given that short descriptions are intended to be a disambiguator in search results, not to fully describe the topic, I think it's more important to communicate the historical period with the century than the ordering with "fourth". I'm not fully sure about "7th" vs. "Seventh". Including both would put the description over the 40-character target.
Thoughts?  talk 08:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents: The capitalization and "the" changes are fine, but in my opinion "fourth" is more descriptive than "seventh century", because the former places the subject as one of the early Umayyad caliphs. The Islamic calendar and the start/end of each caliphate are more often used as marker in Islamic history than the Julian/Gregorian year, so I feel that "seventh-century" is not as useful as a descriptor, but maybe it is just me. Using the Islamic calendar directly will confuse many people, so we should avoid that. "Fourth Umayyad caliph" should give a good enough context for people with different backgrounds. HaEr48 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry , I don't normally revert, especially to admirable editors like yourself, I was just concerned that such a change made Marwan the only Umayyad caliph whose short description would be done in that manner. I agree with you and HaEr48 above; the absence of "the" makes sense, as does lowercasing caliph. In my mind using "7th century" is a rather unnatural division for a Dynasty that is not usually seen century by century, numbering may be clearer. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  do you have any thoughts on this? Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fourth Umayyad caliph" is better than "Seventh-century Umayyad caliph", a description which could be equally applied to to Mu'awiya I, Yazid I, Mu'awiya II and partly for Abd al-Malik. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: based on the conversation above, I've adjusted/standardized the short descriptions of the Umayyad calpihs from Muawiyah to Marwan II. Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: Is it true that Marwan killed Talha ibn Ubayd Allah? I don't know the source from Sunni Muslim historians Iylaq (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images