Talk:Khadija bint Khuwaylid

message: There are several english mistakes in the introduction. As I am neither a native speaker nor particularly knowledgeable on the subject of Muhammed's wives, I don't dare to correct them myself: "Khadijah was the closest to Muhammed and [he?] confided in her the most out of all his following wives." ("following" seems wrong here too. Either write "he confided in her the most out of all his wives" or "he confided in her more than in his later wives".)
"She is regarded as one of the most important women in Islam and certainly the [one?] classed as [the?] most important, in terms of the progression of Islam, out of all [of?] Muhammad's wives." (I'm also not sure what the phrase "in terms of the progression of Islam" is supposed to mean.) 
An unrelated issue: The excerpts from the hadiths are badly formatted. Furthermore, I don't see why they were included in the first place. Is this supposed to add some 'muslim flavor' to the text? They certainly add color to the article, but I would recommend moving that kind of material either to a footnote to the sentence "It is narrated in many hadiths that Khadijah was Muhammed's most trusted and favourite among all his marriages" or---even better---to a separate subsection. The introduction to an article in an encyclopedia should IMO be as terse as possible, and this is frankly clutter. TheseusX (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. That second part of the introduction is one big opinion piece violating multiple Wikipedian principles like WP:NPOV, WP:NOTQUOTE and WP:ISLAMOR. I will get rid of it accordingly. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed a bit of messiness re DOB and puncutation (missing parenthesis), etc. so cleaned that up a bit, and changed the infobox to match. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction  

message: I notice that the title of the article does not accord with the spelling of her name in the lead, and the spelling is inconsistent throughout the article. I don't know whether or not the "h" at the end should remain, but either way the alternatives need to be stated in the lead, and then the dominant one should remain consistent through the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on the romanization system, specifically regarding the letter ة or tāʼ marbūṭa. Most schemes transliterate it as "h" or "t", depending on the grammatical context. "H" denotes a weak h sound, which is why less strict ways of romanization sometimes omit the letter altogether. If we were to follow WP:MOSAR, Khadijah would be the preferred spelling. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I have now standardised all of the spelling within the article to accord with the lead and your opinion, i.e. Kadijah - but this also raises the question as to whether the article needs to be moved to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid (currently a redirect page) to accord with this? I'd like to hear from others on this before proposing such a move. I have no expert knowledge but do think that the name needs to be the same throughout, one way or another. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of her name

message: Hi.
If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc: Why participation of  Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low? 

message: Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,  
Bookku (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus.
Unfortunately, as was also the case in the previous RM, the two participating editors reasonably disagree, so there's no consensus.
(non-admin closure)  Havelock Jones (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Khadija bint Khuwaylid →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME (Google Ngram). The suggested name is already a redirect to this page, as she is the most notable individual associated with this name and the earliest notable usage of the name comes from the subject of this page. The move would also satisfy the criteria set by WP:TITLECON, as pages about other prominent figures from her era are titled only by their first names, including Muhammad, Aisha, Ali, Fatimah, Omar, Uthman, etc. Keivan.fTalk 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion.  ASUKITE 02:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know how Ngrams work. As a matter of fact, searching for Muhammad would also take into consideration the results that are not necessarily about the Islamic prophet. The whole purpose of the search is to show that the spelling is common and the name has been used within established sources. And your statement that there are a great number of other Khadijas has no influence on what the name of this page should be. There are tons of people named Aisha, Ali or Fatimah, yet that hasn’t prevented us to have the pages about the most notable individuals with those names designated as the principal targets. The suggested title doesn’t violate any of the criteria set by WP:COMMONNAME and is in line with WP:CONCISE. It is my understanding that you are in support of having the pages titled by these individuals’ full names. Well, that hasn’t been discussed with the community and until the matter is settled by a general RM covering all these pages, the best approach would be to take WP:TITLECON into consideration and not leave this page as an exception. Personally I don’t think people will agree to have Jesus moved to Jesus of Nazareth (which is in complete contrast to the mononymous format used for other prophets, including Muhammed, Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc.) or Ali to Ali ibn Abi Talib. And I find comparing ancient historical figures to modern-day people such as Mahatma Gandhi pretty pointless. People from recent eras are referred to by their surnames (ex. Obama, DaVinci, Shakespeare, etc.) A figure such as Khadija who lived 1,000 years ago and didn’t have any surnames cannot be put into the same category as these people. Keivan.fTalk 04:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ngram comparing the prevalence of "Khadija bint Khuwaylid" with simply "Khadija" is misleading and irrelevant, because comparing a longer with a shorter name will always show the shorter name to be vastly more prevalent, and because the great majority of hits for the shorter name will refer to someone else than we are envisioning. The rest of what I wrote is a personal preference for which I have explained my reasoning, and how I think it should be grounded in policy. I've considered for a while that maybe this should be decided by RfC and that we should follow WP:TITLECON in individual cases for the time being, but then I realized that whether to use a WP:SINGLENAME or not depends on very specific arguments pro and contra for each individual case. I will !vote in every specific case for what I believe to be the best solution, and I'm sure that other !voters will do the same. I sincerely hope that more !voters will come to this RM, and perhaps support your well-reasoned proposal. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It wasn’t necessarily my intention to say Khadija bint Khuwaylid is not common at all. But you got the point. I respect your opinion, and I wish more people join the discussion so that we can get a clear consensus that satisfies all the naming requirements and guidances. Let’s see what happens. Keivan.fTalk 23:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 August 2021