Talk:First Fitna

message: It's awesome that we've got some actual arabic written on the page, but would it be possible to have it in English as well?  Or perhaps the arabic belongs on the arabic translation page?  It's just that you rarely see THAT much of a foreign language on an english wiki page.  But I could be wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.122.138 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  arabic writing / english?? 

message: BTW, please take care not to accuse any of the sides with bad wordings, as both sides were Sahabes and were and are precious people for many muslims.
i.e. you must not call the wive of the Prophet (PBUH) as a "rebel", but maybe use "opposition" instead.
As this is an article about a faith, just take care not to insult people's beliefs and loved ones. 85.105.68.49 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Care in Wording 

message: Forgot to tag my edit, so thought I'd leave a comment here instead.
All I did was add an infobox and clean-up the introduction a bit. Haven't really got the time to go through the entire article. --Yenemus (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up 

message: The introduction gives a good overview of the situation but the article sort of falls apart after the Battle of Nahrawan section.  There are very few details given about the actual circumstances of Muawiyah's final victory.  In particular, there is absolutely no mention of the circumstances leading to or terms of the treaty between Hassan ibn Ali and Muawiyah and the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate.  In fact, if I were just reading the last half of the article I would conclude that Hassan ibn Ali had won.  In addition, the article needs significantly better background and better transitions between sections.  As it is, the information is very hard to follow.  That said I am not qualified to make the changes so I leave it to whoever wrote the original.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.188.24.26 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider a serious rewrite? 

message: The article suffers from several issues. The style and tone is more those of a story told to school children not an encyclopedia. There are too much unnecessary content like what Umar did and how a good person he was etc. which are not directly related to the topic. There is tone of conspiracy present in the article. Finally, the article is written as if to justify that everyone was good and nice and promote a particular perspective and does not follow NPOV: this is a major disputed event in the history of Islam and one of the main contention points between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The article needs a major rewrite. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent additions are greatly exacerbating these problems. The amount of detail is utterly preposterous and non-encyclopedic.  Entire conversations set forth; expansive detail on minor points; punishingly long passages pasted in with no narrative flow. It is becoming a literature compilation rather than an encyclopedia article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

text: It is horrible. Constantly repeating unnecessary things. Sentences like "Ali got along with Abu, who is cousin to Ali, well after the battle and Abu, who is cousin to Ali, got along well with Ali after the battle". That's not a direct quote but that sums it up. The whole thing just sounds like religious propaganda written by stupid people for even stupider people, unless Muslims were and are mostly simpletons and this is the best that they could do. 2601:244:8300:E073:A054:1D6B:3B81:B2D7 (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs a major rewrite 

message: The section titled "After the peace treaty with Hassan the siege of Constantinople" and everything after it is copied from the Muawiyah article (I see this has been discussed from a copyright pov already and I don't know enough to comment on that). While I can see the relevance of most of that to the article on Muawiyah, I don't at all understand its relevance to an article on the First Fitna. The material concerning the appointment of Yazid as heir belongs in an article on the Second Fitna! The material on Umar II is even later. Furius (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter Part of this article 

message: I've just found this important article needs a lot of improvements. Most of the problem is the result of a wrong merging:
* Moving irrelevant information to the related articles: There are a lot of irrelevant information in this article which confuses the reader. I moved some of them to Arab–Byzantine wars and Muslim conquests. But it is not sufficient. After the peace treaty with Hassan the siege of Constantinople and the other conquests are almost completely irrelevant!!! Many years later: Marwan and Kharijites rule relates to the Second Fitna. Reforming the Umayyad rule peacefully from the inside relates to Umayyads. 
* The secondary source should be added: Some parts does not have any source while some others have primary source such as Hadith collection!
* Structure: The structure should be reviewed. The reader may be surprised when finds family tree in the middle of the article! or "Sunni view of Uthman" below "Sabaites, Qurra and the Kharijities"!!!
* some information about the main issues such as the Kharijites should be added.
--Seyyed(t-c) 00:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Review: Suggestions to improve the article

message: Which is a shame both because it's an interesting topic and because the talk page clearly shows that all the issues are extremely long-standing.
The article does not need multi-paragraph narrative quotations from the principal actors. It does not need long Quranic quotations to explain people's behaviour. It does not need Arabic translations. It does not need tangential anecdotes about travelling Jewish apostates. It does not need to be so long.
And that is ONE family tree, by the way, not two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.120.12 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is terrible 

message: Everything the article says about the "Qurra" is rubbish. The Bukhari Hadiths quoted refer to the qurra, plural of qari reciter (of the Quran). There is absolutely no connection between these and the Khawarij. Pjstewart (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Qurra" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on First Fitna. 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/20131031224027/http://quran.com/18 to http://quran.com/18
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031221518/http://quran.com/63 to http://quran.com/63
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on First Fitna. 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/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html
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) 03:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on First Fitna. 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/20130507092829/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72 to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212719/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php
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) 11:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'll hopefully replace the unreliable sources in the article with better content. Albertatiran (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: Recently,  has begun going over my recent contributions on Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation, e.g., my recent edits discussed in Talk:Ali#Proposed_changes_to_Death_and_Burial. This can be traced back to a dispute Talk:Muhammad's children (which makes for an interesting read). Albertatiran (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark that vandalism tag on your actions. I did gave explanations and none of them had anything to do with what u did in another page. If that was the case then I would've done so in many other pages.  Ishan87 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Your suspicion is only result of your paranoia. I've no other IDs, I don't have the time or interest to make another ID just deal with some obsessed fools in the internet. Do not accuse others without evidence. For now I'm gonna allow your edits to stay bcz I'm bored. Ishan87 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ishan87 or thanks for nothing.    Sorry you are too lazy.  This article needs a lot of work - not based on my comments but from very many more. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: @Albertatiran and other editors of this article: the lead was rewritten by block evading sockpuppet Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24 in this December 2021 edit. Would you please take a good hard look at it and remove and change things as necessary? It may be useful to know that the sockmaster generally edits from a tendentious anti-Shia point of view. Also please check the accuracy of this and this edit (Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24 is another range they've used). If you don't know that it's accurate and don't feel like verifying it, please just remove it. I personally lack the necessary background knowledge here. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention, Apaugasma. I hope to address these issues over the weekend. Albertatiran (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The article lead certainly needed to be expanded. In that sense, the edits from this ip address here were perhaps justified though not everything in the lead can be paired with the cited content in the body of the article. They probably look ok for now but I also hope to edit/revise this and related articles in the coming months. I couldn't verify this edit, so this was undone for now (until a closer look during the revision). The addition of the Kharijites as a combatant here might also pass as ok. Albertatiran (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead was rewritten by block-evading sockpuppet