Talk:Twelve Imams

message: I have replaced "Saudi Arabia" with "AlHigaz"since, on a factual level, for a long time after the lives of the subjects Saudi Arabia hasn't existed. This should be the case in similar contexts. --A. Gharbeia (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  not Saudi Arabia 

message: The images on this page keep being removed. Is there a reason why there should be pictures on this page, if it causes repeated editing to remove them? They are modern depictions and so cannot be referenced or sourced. Also the numerals are being removed. I need this number system to be able to place the 12 Imans in sequence, and I cannot understand why they are being removed. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of discussion in this talk page's archives. Also see (by way of example or comparison) the templates at the top of Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. Esowteric+Talk 11:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Also check out google searches to see how hot this topic has been: I randomly picked wikipededia depictions of islamic figures. In view of this, there must surely be substantial discussion or voting on this issue somewhere in Wikipedia. Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This all might need further discussion elsewhere, but I cannot see how having these pictures inproves this article. As far as I can see they are just guys with beards. I could draw a picture of a guy with a beard upload it call it Ali ibn Husayn and it would be as accurate as these pictures. Having the pictures does mean that this page is regularly edited by people offended, who remove the pictures, then I or someone else re-instates them for the whole cycle to begin again. I could understand keeping them if they were accurate or in some way importatnt to understanding the subject, but they are not. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true enough. Esowteric+Talk 12:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are important could we not just create a subpage that contains them (edit: apparently not) or something..? I don't know enough about it to say.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a featured list. Perhaps the matter should be referred to the person/s who were credited with it gaining FL status or to the reviewer who awarded that status?  They may want a say in the matter. See FLC. Enzuru was the main editor for FLC; Sa.vakilian was the reviewer. Esowteric+Talk 12:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Have left a talk page message for Enzuru. Esowteric+Talk 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Have left a talk page message for Sa.vakilian.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These pictures are actually common portrayals of the Twelve Imams in Bektashi and Alevi culture, confined mainly in Albania and Turkey. To be clearer though, the person who first uploaded them online ran a website (perhaps officially) for the Bektashi Sufi Order, and told me he originally found the pictures in Turkey. Depictions in the Arab and Persian world tend to differ, but they certainly do exist. I do think the portrayals do add something to the article (the perception of Alevi in the very least) however it should be noted what they are precisely perhaps in order not to confuse them as common representations of the Twelve Imams among the larger amount of Arab and Persian adherents of Shi'a Islam. --Afghana [talk] 09:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they should be captioned as "common portrayals from Bektashi and Alevi culture" or "Modern portrayals from Bektashi and Alevi culture" --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes I agree, I have edited out the pictures aswell brother. I will add this page to my watchlist also, to make sure no-one reuploads them here.--عيسى (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks brother =) You did a good job. Keeping pictures of the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) is totally wrong also. We should leave that to the Tassawuf.--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Forming a bloc to repeatedly maintain edits that are against Wikipedia policy is just going to get you steamroller'd by a sysop. Unless you are promoting consensus on pages regarding Wikipedia's image policy so that paintings and depictions do not qualify for inclusion in articles (which currently they do on most articles regarding persons from before the time of photographs) until then, these images are acceptable inclusion and I'm re-adding them. I'm not fond of it either, but that's policy. Peter Deer (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical evidence shows that the Imams look nothing like that. They had long beards and short mustaches. For example, if i added a picture of a black Jesus on that page. It would be removed because historical evidence shows he wasn't an african. Same here. Do your research before editing again.--عيسى (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First and foremost, [is a picture of black Jesus on that page] (you seriously didn't even look before using that example?) Secondly, your logic has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. You're forming a bloc and edit-warring, stop this nonsense right now. If you want to develop a consensus on it that's a different manner but you do not just get to disrupt the article in order to assert your personal opinion on the matter. If you revert it again you will be in violation of WP:3RR, so I suggest you consider this reasonably. Peter Deer (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yeah that was a bad example I guess. But I think you get my point. If there is absolutely NO historical evidence to support the depiction. Then it cannot stand, because it gives a false impression of the Imam's appearance to people. Consensus? Well it is currently 2 to 1, so please stop acting like your opinion is somehow superior to 2 other opinions. And please don't threaten me. I will always create another account if i am barred with this one.--عيسى (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not worry brother. My account is less valuable then yours. I only made it a few days ago. Just tell me when the pictures are uploaded and I will remove them Insha'Allah. Exactly, he thinks his opinion about a matter he doesn't understand is worth more then ours combined. I will get the information about the features of the Imams (a.s.) and post it here to prove the depictions are nothing like the Imams (a.s.).--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two people saying "we're going to continuously revert everyone else's edits" is not consensus for changing image policy. As for personal attacks regarding my motives and opinion, as I have already stated I agree with your opinion, however your edits are in violation of policy. Peter Deer (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I think we can get pictures of a kind of caligraphy for each one. I think I have seen them somewhere. I will ipload them when I find them. That way, everyone is happy as you say ;-)--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I am upholding the previous edit where someone removed the pictures. They are not real pictures of the Imams. This website is for REAL information, not fantasies.--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, I have edited out the pictures aswell brother. I will add this page to my watchlist also, to make sure no-one reuploads them here.--عيسى (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks brother =) You did a good job. Keeping pictures of the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.) is totally wrong also. We should leave that to the Tassawuf.--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Forming a bloc to repeatedly maintain edits that are against Wikipedia policy is just going to get you steamroller'd by a sysop. Unless you are promoting consensus on pages regarding Wikipedia's image policy so that paintings and depictions do not qualify for inclusion in articles (which currently they do on most articles regarding persons from before the time of photographs) until then, these images are acceptable inclusion and I'm re-adding them. I'm not fond of it either, but that's policy. Peter Deer (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical evidence shows that the Imams look nothing like that. They had long beards and short mustaches. For example, if i added a picture of a black Jesus on that page. It would be removed because historical evidence shows he wasn't an african. Same here. Do your research before editing again.--عيسى (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First and foremost, [is a picture of black Jesus on that page] (you seriously didn't even look before using that example?) Secondly, your logic has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. You're forming a bloc and edit-warring, stop this nonsense right now. If you want to develop a consensus on it that's a different manner but you do not just get to disrupt the article in order to assert your personal opinion on the matter. If you revert it again you will be in violation of WP:3RR, so I suggest you consider this reasonably. Peter Deer (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yeah that was a bad example I guess. But I think you get my point. If there is absolutely NO historical evidence to support the depiction. Then it cannot stand, because it gives a false impression of the Imam's appearance to people. Consensus? Well it is currently 2 to 1, so please stop acting like your opinion is somehow superior to 2 other opinions. And please don't threaten me. I will always create another account if i am barred with this one.--عيسى (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not worry brother. My account is less valuable then yours. I only made it a few days ago. Just tell me when the pictures are uploaded and I will remove them Insha'Allah. Exactly, he thinks his opinion about a matter he doesn't understand is worth more then ours combined. I will get the information about the features of the Imams (a.s.) and post it here to prove the depictions are nothing like the Imams (a.s.).--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two people saying "we're going to continuously revert everyone else's edits" is not consensus for changing image policy. As for personal attacks regarding my motives and opinion, as I have already stated I agree with your opinion, however your edits are in violation of policy. Peter Deer (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: If people are so desperate for pictures. We can add pictures of their shrines. That way, these are factual pictures, and everyone is happy!--عيسى (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can get pictures of a kind of caligraphy for each one. I think I have seen them somewhere. I will ipload them when I find them. That way, everyone is happy as you say ;-)--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Visuality

message: Imamah (Shi'a doctrine) is an article and this is a list. We can use a summary of this list in that article, but it's not good suggestion to merge them.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging tag removed

message: It would help the reader if the article would explain why eleven of the twelve Imams were killed. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were they killed? 

message: Some cells are missing in the middle Imams. Can someone check this please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong with the table 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose, with the admission that I'm not too knowledgeable about the subject. The proposed title makes it sound like the imams themselves are Twelvers; I'd expect a List of Twelver imams to be a list of imams of this branch, something akin to List of Methodist theologians. Assuming these were historical leaders later venerated by a religious branch, the current title seems more accurate. Or have I misread the situation? --BDD (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Twelve Imams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329020223/http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia/10.htm to http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia/10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618012237/http://www.ummah.net/khoei/imam.htm to http://www.ummah.net/khoei/imam.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: name Nadeem Sarwar 5 years old 22 
muharram to birth day 17:04:2003 
Baba blo new Muhammad munazil 
Family Happy 2405:201:5506:6025:8861:22E6:8D70:1F98 (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad munazil