Hi Albertatiran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).
It might be better if you could cite your claims and add your argument to the talk page or, better yet, to the wiki page. Removing the other side's view would not help us create an unbiased article. Thank you. I'll copy this on Hasan's talk page as well.
Ali revertion
Hello, just wanna to give info for ur good faith revertion, that Ibn Sa'd were not a primary source, as he's only quoted from older chroniclers such as Waqidi or Al-Maqrizi, while also actively giving commentary about their major works. meanwhile, also per WP:PRIMARYCARE ruling if even it is using a primary source, its still fair use as it only for straight information about sons of Ali. regards from me Ahendra (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahendra: See MOS:ISLAM. Primary sources are to be used when secondary sources don't exist. The article already has over a dozen secondary RS. In the future, I suggest using Ali's talk page for transparency. Albertatiran (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Nahrawan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
@M.Nadian: But it's there! :) It's mentioned in the section In the modern culture. I think I just removed the conversion table and one sentence that wasn't reliably sourced. Please edit or let me know here if you think the table is necessary. Albertatiran (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I see that you are leaving useful edit summaries. I suggest that you also use the talk pages of the articles concerned to explain your objections to the edits that you consider problematic.[1][2][3]-- Toddy1(talk)21:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
In this article and some another if you see Persian Translation is useful. (in Persian this is good article and ref was checked.)
Google Translation is good between fa and en, if in some sentences translated wrong I can fix. M.Nadian (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. BTW I am going to change the title of the article and add more information to it. Would you be able to do your work after the changes are implemented. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertarian; Thank you for helping me improving "Political Hypocrisy". It was a lot of work and you did well. I would like working with you on Shia Imams articles too, and we could nominate them together when they are good enough. As for Hasan ibn Ali, we could withdraw it from the nomination page, if you need time to improve it. And you can start working on it from now. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch! Sorry for the slow reply. Please don't consider this discussion to be in any way a criticism of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and, in particular, Shia articles. The following gives a couple of examples to support my earlier comment. An earlier version of the Hasan article included the passage: "According to Madelung, Hasan criticized his father, Ali, for not doing enough to defend Uthman. Jafarian, however, writes that such reports about Hasan's alleged Uthmanid stance are not consistent with his widely reported involvement in Ali's military campaigns and the fierce opposition of the Banu Umayyad to the burial of Hasan next to Muhammad." The criticism of Ali by Hasan is derived from Sunni sources and, sadly, there is no western academic source that includes the Shia counter-argument, hence the use of Jafarian's Hayat-e fikri wa siyasi-e imaman-e Shia. However, this counter-argument was removed later in the process of preparing the article for GA. As another example, the current article includes the sentence "Hasan was present at the Battle of Siffin against the army of Mu'awiya I, though the former reportedly took no active part in the battle." Again, there is no Shia counter-argument and it's also not possible to remove the sentence from the article, considering that it comes from a reliable source, which was nevertheless heavily influenced by early Sunni historians. I guess my point is that 1) the GA process invites considerable attention and interest from (hopefully well-meaning) Sunni editors who rewrite the article from their own point of view without including the Shia views, and 2) this process is often irreversible. To summarize, if one's goal is to offer a fair and unbiased view of key Shia figures, then a GA article seems to fail to achieve that goal since the end product is more or less the usual Sunni propaganda. In any case, these are my personal views, nothing more. Thanks again for your contributions to Shia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran. I've left se messages on the articles talk page. You added a lot of {{sfn}}s to this article, put you've not added the full cites they need to link to. Also they lack page numbers, without full details these references are not complete. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix the broken ones. If a page number is missing from a SFN, then it's given in "Sources", e.g., an encyclopedia article. It's unlikely that any of the page numbers are missing but I'll check anyway. Albertatiran (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites "Glassé 2001", "Kofsky 2002", "Algar 1984", "Goldziher et al", "Esposite 2003" but no such sources are listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•322:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you think this article is roundabout ready for a GA nomination at this point, or, if not, is there anything in particular that jumps out at you as needing improvement? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertatiran! While the sock puppeteer you've been dealing with a lot recently (here and here) does indeed push a Sunni religious point of view, I've been a bit worried about your comments relating to Sunni propaganda or Sunni agenda on Wikipedia.
It's true that historically, Orientalists have studied Sunni Islam a lot more than Shi'i Islam, which up until the 1970s was often treated by scholars as some kind of 'non-orthodox' curiosity rather than as a serious subject of study. This may still cause a slight slant towards Sunni points of view in reliable sources (to cite just one example, the use of the religious Sunni term Rashidun as an objective historiographical category), but generally there has been much progress, and Shi'i Islam is now perhaps even more intensively studied by scholars than Sunni Islam.
In my view, closely following reliable sources per Wikpedia's policies and guidelines should produce a fairly unbiased view of Shi'i figures and subjects. There are always editors around here who push all sorts of agendas, but the best way to deal with that is to focus on the sources, which will always show the POV-pushers wrong in the long run. Anyways, I know they can be a pain to deal with, so I hope you'll be relieved from this particularly persistent one at least for a while now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)21:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Apaugasma! Thanks very much for identifying and reporting the sock puppeteer (and for the above comments). To complement what you said, I feel that orientalists often have a hint of disdain for their subject and that's even more pronounced towards Shia Islam, e.g., the sometimes condescending tone of Donaldson in his The Shi'ite religion. That said, I completely agree with you about the importance of following Wikipedia's guidelines. (And hopefully, I've become much better at respecting and enforcing these standards in my own edits.) Albertatiran (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Donaldson' book you're referring to dates from 1933! That's almost a century ago. I recommend you to seek out the works of scholars like Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Etan Kohlberg, Robert Gleave, Farhad Daftary, Najam Haider, and others. Since the 1970 publication of Le Shî'isme imâmite, a true revolution has occurred in Shi'i studies; I would say that for Wikipedia's purposes there's no need to read anything older than that, except perhaps Marshall Hodgson. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertatiran. Thank you for your great help in the past. Again would you have some time to take a look at this one too and help me write it an encyclopedic way? No need to go into details; just let me know which parts are more problematic; and I would rewrite them. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran, I was wondering if you could continue and complete my work on this new article - I began work on it ages ago and it has sat in my sandbox unfinished and unpublished. I can't work on it or write on Wikipedia much these days, but I really wanted an article on the movement to be added to Wikipedia - it would be a major contribution to the collection of articles on Shi'a Islam. Some sources I have used I have included on there and many more exist and can be implemented in the article. If you need help I am sure other task force members will be available to lend a hand.
Hi, ParthikS8! Thanks for reaching out. The topic is indeed interesting. If someone prepares an initial draft, I'd be very happy to help copy-edit the article. Alternatively, if you could give me somewhat specific sources (e.g., pages 1-5 of book x and journal y), then I can also read and summarize them. Otherwise writing that first draft for the article would be difficult for me since the topic is far outside of my comfort zone. The most 'modern' topic I've edited on Wikipedia (as opposed to just copy-edit) is Major Occultation! Albertatiran (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source.
This does not mean that the draft should be spun off, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun off. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Ali. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article and does not satisfy a special notability guide, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Election of Ali and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Albertatiran and thanks for helping me. Would you like working together and make Shia imams articles good? I think we should start with shorter ones such as Muhammad al-Jawad and Musa al-Kazim. What do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ghazaalch! You're welcome. Good idea about the good articles! Any initiative to improve Shia articles is something I'd be happy to support. Either article is fine for me to begin with. What's your plan of attack? Albertatiran (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could add material from new sources and then you revise and summarize them and we can find someone else to review them for good article criteria. Someone who is both interested and expert in Shia thought and has enough time to cooperate with us for a long period. This reviewer could also suggest new sources for us to add. I could add some material from new Persian sources but we need more from English and other languages too . Ghazaalch (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch, this all sounds good and I'd be happy to copy-edit the content that you add. I can also help by adding/editing content from English sources in general. (In particular, I happen to have access to a university library here and they seem to have a generous policy for ordering new books and articles.) Any suggestions for the reviewer? If none, then I guess we can probably worry about that part later. Albertatiran (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran. It is great that you have access to a university library. Feel free to add from the sources; or send them to me if you don't have enough time. As for the reviewer I guess we should be worried about it from now as it has been the main obstacle. I know @Sa.vakilian: who reviewed the Battle of Karbala for example but I guess they don't have enough time to stay with us all through the Shia Imams articles that might last a couple of years or more. Do you have anyone in mind for the reviewer? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ghazaalch! Alternatively, if you couldn't find a source, give me a try. I also can't think of a referee. Could it be one of us? (I have no idea how the review process works on Wikipedia but I'll try to find out this weekend.) Albertatiran (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks. As for the referee, I don't know if one of us can act as a referee or not. Please let me know when you find out; thank you very much. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran. How are you? I have added some information to Muhammad al-Jawad. Feel free to modify them, or ask me to do it for you. Since I guess you cannot be very engaged in the article if you want to serve as a referee too.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran! Thanks for asking, but I fear I don't nearly have enough time to help with this. It would be good to recruit as many editors as possible for this, however, they will be needed. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cplakidas has a lot of experience with Islamic bios and from what I gather at least some interest in Shi'ism, so perhaps he would like to help. Especially our articles on the Shi'i Imams are in a disgraceful state given their importance.
I will be forthright though and say that earlier work by Ghazaalch in this subject area, such as for example on Ja'far al-Sadiq, is very subpar. We can't be writing articles from a Twelver Shi'i religious point of view, we need to start from the highest-quality academic sources. In particular, we need to keep in mind that before ca. 900 CE there was no such thing as Twelver Shi'ism, and that a proper historiographical approach to the Shi'i Imams largely consists of 'de-twelverizing' reports from later sources. I mean, our reliable sources do this as a matter of course, but if editors aren't aware of it articles still end up being hagiographies rather than pieces of 'good' encyclopedic writing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)19:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested as a reviewer, as I definitely don't have nearly enough time to do the subject justice as an editor; I can also provide access to a lot of good sources. But I also agree 100% with Apaugasma on the need to avoid hagiographic perspectives, or at least place them in proper context, and separate biography and history from later traditions. There is also a number of other highly-experienced users active in the early Islamic period, who have inter alia contributed some excellent biographic articles, like AhmadLX and Al Ameer son. Constantine ✍ 20:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Albertatiran,@Apaugasma and Cplakidas: I think as Cplakidas said we could separate hagiographic part from biography or history. That is why I recently reorganized this article for example and put the contents that are similar to hagiographic under the title Imamate and the biography under the title life. Hagiographic part could also go under the title Shia view as we could see in the other Shia imams articles. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shia view is not a category used by scholars. There are all kinds of ghulat/early Shi'i, Isma'ili, Zaydi, Twelver, etc. views, which themselves are sometimes classed into different subcategories (like rationalist Twelver views vs traditionist Twelver views, a distinction traced by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi to the very origins of Twelver Shi'ism). The assumption itself that Shi'a = Twelver, or that Twelver Shi'ism is some kind of monolithic and 'orthodox' Shi'ism, is unscholarly and if held by editors will introduce unhelpful religious overtones in our articles. Yes, we should present historical (post c. 900 CE) Twelver Shi'i views in a section that is separate from the biography, but only as part of a wider analysis of later views held by different currents and sects (of which Twelverism is only one of many). Moreover, this analysis should expose and explain hagiographic views as non-historical and essentially religious in nature (i.e., depending on belief), not reproduce them in WP:WIKIVOICE.
I think it takes a deep interest in the origins of Shi'ism and a thorough grounding in the scholarly literature to be able to write from this perspective, which nevertheless is universal among scholars and therefore the only one suited to Wikipedia. My suggestion would be to read more books by experts on early Shi'ism such as Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Etan Kohlberg, Robert Gleave, Farhad Daftary, Najam Haider, etc. (I lazily copied these suggestions from another section on this talk page, but of course there are others), and only then come back to improve Wikipedia articles. It's a win-win situation: as a student of Shi'ism you learn a lot, and in the long term it will hugely benefit Wikipedia if you can bring the knowledge gleaned from reading these experts to our articles. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma, I agree with you that it's always good to read more. I think that applies to all of us, especially myself. At the same time, I don't know about the recent edits, but I think Ghazaalch has a very good track record on Wikipedia, better than mine for sure. Flaws and shortcomings, despite one's best efforts, is not a barrier against contribution here. My view, here and elsewhere, is that of 29:69, "...وَٱلَّذِينَ جَـٰهَدُوا۟ فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا" No PhD required! :) So I fully support the renewed efforts by Ghazaalch to improve the Shia articles and plan to help/contribute as best I can. We won't get an EI-quality article at the end but we'll very likely end up with something better that what we now have. Albertatiran (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support it wholeheartedly, and agree that everyone should help/contribute as best they can. I just think the best way to do that in this particular case is to read more books on the relevant subjects before diving in. It's what I would do, too. I think it's also the way that Cplakidas, AhmadLX and Al Ameer son work, who write multiple GAs/FAs each year. It's hard to communicate this in an encouraging rather than a discouraging way, but I honestly believe that this approach is what would benefit Wikipedia the most: take more time to read up on the scholarly literature, and you will actually be able to write more good articles faster. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:NUR02847J1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article Muhammad al-Jawad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Muhammad al-Jawad for comments about the article, and Talk:Muhammad al-Jawad/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For transforming the article on Muhammad al-Jawad out of recognition and bringing it to GA status, and hopefully as a harbinger of much more fine work to come, I award you this token of sincere appreciation. Constantine ✍ 13:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
February 2023
Hello, I saw that you already made a lot of reverts in the article Ja'far al-Sadiq and I just wanted to make sure you know that violating 3RR rule is against policy. I don't question the validity of your argument--I know you support your edits by reliable sources--but wanted to alert you to the issue, as it is better to report a disruptive user who violates policy than get caught up in edit warring.Ppt91 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Albertatiran It's easy to miss or forget about it in the heat of the moment: WP:EW and WP:3RR. Three reverts are sufficient basis for another editor to submit a block request, so always best to be careful. Happy I could be of help! Ppt91 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Muhammad al-Jawad
On 25 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad al-Jawad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Muhammad al-Jawad was the ninth of the Twelve Imams and, with his unexplained death at about twenty-five, the shortest-lived? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad al-Jawad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Muhammad al-Jawad), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The article Ali al-Hadi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ali al-Hadi for comments about the article, and Talk:Ali al-Hadi/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For transforming the article on Ali al-Hadi out of recognition and bringing it to GA status, and hopefully as a harbinger of much more fine work to come, I award you this token of sincere appreciation. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch! Thank you! In fact, I was about to thank you with a barnstar for your commendable initiative to improve vital Shia articles and your nice work on the said article. But you beat me to it :) Looking forward to the next article. Albertatiran (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch! I'm ok, hope you're doing well too. I skimmed the article with its many quotes. There are some unsourced or poorly-sourced claims therein that one could easily remove. One could also tag the article for its lack of neutrality. Otherwise, editing the article, in its entirety, would be a monumental task. As a priority, perhaps one could add counter-views to balance the criticisms of the Quran and the prophet Muhammad. In any case, if you end up editing the article, I'd be happy to support the initiative by proofreading your texts, etc. Albertatiran (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertatiran. I have been working on the article for a while and summarized and reorganized it while adding new information. I think it is easier to navigate now. Would you have the time to copy-edit it? The lead would probably need to be rewritten. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ali al-Hadi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the restricted life of the Shia imamAli al-Hadi under Abbasid surveillance ended the imams' direct leadership of the Shia community? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ali al-Hadi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ali al-Hadi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi – thanks for all the work you're putting into improving Wikipedia! :-)
In April, you added citations to the Encyclopedia of Imam Husayn to some articles (Special:diff/1147665483, Special:diff/1149493850, Special:diff/1149769276, Special:diff/1150153788). You specified the ISBN as 9789644931, which isn't a valid ISBN. I've looked into this and I think I identified the correct ISBN; I just wanted to check with you to make sure it refers to the right version of the book (the one that your page numbers refer to).
You specified the language as Persian, but I can't find a version of the book that's only in Persian. My impression is that you're referring to Volume 1 of this Persian-Arabic set, whose ISBN that page specifies as 978-964-493-462-9. (It also has the invalid ISBN 9789644931 in the infobox.) The corresponding WorldCat entry says "In Persian; translated from Arabic, Arabic and Persian text on facing pages". This scan of Volume 1 also contains that ISBN (on p.2 and on p. 4, along with another ISBN for the entire set).
At Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn I already fixed the ISBN and added Arabic as a language for the book citation, but before I do this on all the other pages I wanted to make sure that this is indeed the version of the book that you were referring to. Joriki (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joriki, thank you for this level of attention to the details. It's much appreciated. The Persian version I used is this ebook which lacks the publisher's info. The incorrect ISBN I gave was indeed sourced from the infobox in the link you gave. It gets even more interesting because I just realized that the ebook in this link is actually in Persian (and not in Arabic and Persian on facing pages). (The same is true for the last link you sent.) To summarize, it seems that your correction to the ISBN is spot on but the language of the corresponding version of the book is Persian. Albertatiran (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting you on the succession of Muhammed article
Hello. I see you reverted me. I'd usually not immediately revert back, but I wanted to note that we shouldn't use wiki voice to call anyone righteous. It gives the article a religious tone instead of an encyclopedic tone 107.127.35.46 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit to your argument here. However, you left a misleading edit summary (removed sensitive content instead of actually editing it) from an IP address. This well justified undoing your edit. Albertatiran (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The newer revision is better. But for what its worth, IPs are allowed to edit, and are not a lower class of editor. Thus, being an IP should not have weighed in on your decision at all. Also, no sensitive content was removed. C/E means copy edit, and removing what seems like an extraneous phrase is in fact, copy editing. Thank you 107.127.35.46 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have a discussion with you regarding Vinay Khetia. I made an edit to the article titled Attack on Fatima's house.
As you know, the event is widely disputed. Among Sunni scholars, it is categorically rejected as a fabrication. Only leading Shi'a scholars believe in the event's historicity.
The article references Vinay Khetia 24 times. As such, he's quite important in the article's construction.
Khetia isn't merely an academic. He himself is a Shi'a sheikh.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] He is a graduate of a Shi'a seminary.[11] He is the academic director at the Shi'a Research Institute in Toronto, Canada.[12][13] He was chosen by the Shi'a site Al-Islam.org to answer several questions about belief and fiqh.[14]
This isn't to cast doubt on his accomplishments. He has a Master's in Philosophy of Religion from Concordia University and a PhD in Religious Studies from McMaster University.
But Khetia isn't different from, say, Christian or Jewish graduates of seminaries. If you look at articles of biblical scholars who are graduates of Christian seminaries, you'll see that Wikipedia has tagged them properly. Richard Simon was a priest who practiced biblical criticism. Dale Allison is labeled as an "American Christian theologian." Daniel J. Harrington is tagged as a "21st-century American Roman Catholic theologian." And Amy-Jill Levine is tagged as a "21st-century Jewish biblical scholar."
I agree that Khetia's academic work and insight should be used for this article, and I appreciate that there's some English-speaking academic who can speak about the historicity of the attack on Fatima's house. However, to leave out his background as a graduate of Shi'a seminary and as a Shi'a sheikh can be misleading to readers. I find the best compromise is to mention that he is a Shi'a academic scholar and sheikh. FlantasyFlan (talk) FlantasyFlan (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ab.Saleem, thanks for the question. It's indeed disputed which of the two sons was older but the majority of early sources suggest that Ali al-Akbar was the eldest son; see the second paragraph of Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn#Birth. Madelung's Iranica article doesn't discuss this matter in any depth and simply states that Ali Zayn al-Abidin was the eldest. Ideally, his opinion should be added to Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn#Birth for completeness, and perhaps the lede should be changed a bit to reflect that the matter is disputed, e.g., maybe the lede could say that Ali al-Akbar was likely the eldest son or something similar. Albertatiran (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, Ab.Saleem. I'll edit Ali al-Akbar according to our conversation in the coming days. However, edits for Husayn ibn Ali might have to wait longer. I think either Ghazaalch or perhaps myself would revise the whole article some time in the near future, and almost surely this discrepancy between the articles would also be resolved then. Albertatiran (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ab.Saleem, you might be right but the problem is the following: Sakina, the daughter of Husayn who lived until old age, most certainly existed. But there is understandably much less evidence about a daughter of Husayn who died in her childhood shortly after Karbala. In particular, her name is not certain. For us, Sakina bint Husayn already has a see also in the beginning that directs to Ruqayya bint Husayn. I don't know what else we should do. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Albertatiran (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Shi'te Encyclopedia site WikiShia states both Sakina bint Husayn and Ruqayya bint Husayn as two different persons. Wikishia says that Sakina's real name was Āmina or Amīna. but I heard a lot of Shi'a telling that both Sakina and Ruqayya are same. they label the daughter whose death occurred in prison, is none other than Sakina. some say Fatima al-Kubra as Sakina Ab.Saleem (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ab.Saleem, sorry for the late reply. Ok, thanks for the info. Maybe the ideal solution would be to find a reliable source that mentions this ambiguity. As the second-best solution, there is a sentence in Zaynab bint Ali#Other episodes about the small child of Husayn who died in captivity that we can probably copy into Ruqayya bint Husayn and its lede. I'll try to do that in the coming days... Albertatiran (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
İmam Jafar As Sadiq (Alaihis Salam) among the 4 Imams who were buried in Jannatul Baqi
Hello,you recently removed my edit about İmam Jafar being one of the 4 Imams who were buried in Jannatul Baqi, however I have sources for each İmam who was buried in the cemetery:
İmam Hasan: Jaʿfarīyān, Ḥayāt-i fikrī wa sīyāsī-yi imāmān-i Shīʿa, p. 168-169.
İmam Ali Ibn Hussain (Zayn Al Abidin):Mufīd, al-Irshād, vol. 2, p. 138.
Imam Muhammad İbn Ali:Jaʿfarīyān, Ḥayāt-i fikrī wa sīyāsī-yi imāmān-i Shīʿa, p. 286.
Imam Jafar As Sadiq:Jaʿfarīyān, Ḥayāt-i fikrī wa sīyāsī-yi imāmān-i Shīʿa, Imam Sadiq section.
Hi Salman Cooper Mapping, you're welcome to add or edit the article but you'd need to cite reliable secondary sources for your claims. This usually means academic articles or books published by academic publishers (Princeton University Press, for example). Please see WP:CITE and the related Wikipedia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article Musa al-Kazim you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Musa al-Kazim for comments about the article, and Talk:Musa al-Kazim/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zaynab bint Ali into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I hope you will forgive me for leaving you the templated message here, but it gives instructions on how to correctly attribute material that's been copied within Wikipedia. In addition, the content that you copied to Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin uses shortened footnotes, so you need to also copy the long-form references from the bibliographies on that page. If you edit articles including shortened footnotes you will probably find this script invaluable – it highlights any errors caused by missing or duplicated sources. Best,Wham2001 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was unjustifidly reverted by another editor. Can you check it.
In the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam article, I removed 4 as they did not had the WP:RS and WP:OR sources. First one: Nargis, in her article, I can't see any info regarding her conversion to hinduism in fact opposite "she expressed her wish to be buried following the Islamic rites, Sunil and Sanjay eventually offering the Islamic funeral prayer" in the Personal section.
Another is Khusro Khan, his Religion section explicity states that "Barani's narrative is unreliable, and contradicted by more reliable sources. Khusrau Khan wished to be seen as a normal Muslim monarch, and had the khutba in the mosques read in his name." Hence including him on the list severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:Fringe.
Another case is of two brothers, Harihara I and Bukka Raya I, both articles explicity state that their early life is "unknown and most accounts are based on various speculative theories" the same paragraph that conjecture their religion. So we need stronger and more WP:Reliable sources to make them in the list.
@Albertatiran:, hello! I have seen that you worked on Shia Islamic-related articles such as Ahl al-Bayt, Twelve Imams and especially Rafida etc. Similarly, can you please make an article of Nawasib, the term used for rejectors of Imam Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt. I would recommend the highly scholarly work Opposing the Imam: The Legacy of the Nawasib by Nebil Huseyn if you would like to make an article on Nawasib. Thanks!
At least one or more of your edits in the page "Rafida" have been reverted. It's difficult to distinguish your behaviour from Disruptive Editing since you have persistently removed large amounts of sourced content and reliable sources, in addition to inserting unsourcedPOV contents. To help other editors understand your concerns, you should communicate properly in the talk page.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Ignoring minor points of contention, the crux of the dispute is that I've given several reliable academic sources for the basic fact that most Shia Muslims condemn the first three successors of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Shadowwarrior8 claims the opposite without yet providing any reliable sources. He/she started this edit war (see here and here and here) and has been outright lying and making accusations, under the guise of which he has been pushing his sectarian POV and adding false information to Wikipedia. I think I did my best to focus on content rather than his behavior, and to resolve the dispute through talk page discussion (see here and here and here) and dispute resolution (see here), all to no avail. It's unfortunate that I lowered myself to his level and engaged in edit warring but how else can I deal with this unpleasant and dishonest character? I think there should be a difference between me and Shadowwarrior8, a professional edit warrior and POV pusher. I'd like to ask for a shorter block, perhaps 24 hours. Thank you for your consideration. Albertatiran (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Nothing here indicates you understand how to resolve your conflict without edit warring. In fact, it strongly indicates your block needs to be extended as you see no other alternative but to engage in edit warring. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi Albertatiran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).
It might be better if you could cite your claims and add your argument to the talk page or, better yet, to the wiki page. Removing the other side's view would not help us create an unbiased article. Thank you. I'll copy this on Hasan's talk page as well.
Ali revertion
Hello, just wanna to give info for ur good faith revertion, that Ibn Sa'd were not a primary source, as he's only quoted from older chroniclers such as Waqidi or Al-Maqrizi, while also actively giving commentary about their major works. meanwhile, also per WP:PRIMARYCARE ruling if even it is using a primary source, its still fair use as it only for straight information about sons of Ali. regards from me Ahendra (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahendra: See MOS:ISLAM. Primary sources are to be used when secondary sources don't exist. The article already has over a dozen secondary RS. In the future, I suggest using Ali's talk page for transparency. Albertatiran (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Nahrawan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
@M.Nadian: But it's there! :) It's mentioned in the section In the modern culture. I think I just removed the conversion table and one sentence that wasn't reliably sourced. Please edit or let me know here if you think the table is necessary. Albertatiran (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I see that you are leaving useful edit summaries. I suggest that you also use the talk pages of the articles concerned to explain your objections to the edits that you consider problematic.[15][16][17]-- Toddy1(talk)21:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
In this article and some another if you see Persian Translation is useful. (in Persian this is good article and ref was checked.)
Google Translation is good between fa and en, if in some sentences translated wrong I can fix. M.Nadian (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. BTW I am going to change the title of the article and add more information to it. Would you be able to do your work after the changes are implemented. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertarian; Thank you for helping me improving "Political Hypocrisy". It was a lot of work and you did well. I would like working with you on Shia Imams articles too, and we could nominate them together when they are good enough. As for Hasan ibn Ali, we could withdraw it from the nomination page, if you need time to improve it. And you can start working on it from now. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch! Sorry for the slow reply. Please don't consider this discussion to be in any way a criticism of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and, in particular, Shia articles. The following gives a couple of examples to support my earlier comment. An earlier version of the Hasan article included the passage: "According to Madelung, Hasan criticized his father, Ali, for not doing enough to defend Uthman. Jafarian, however, writes that such reports about Hasan's alleged Uthmanid stance are not consistent with his widely reported involvement in Ali's military campaigns and the fierce opposition of the Banu Umayyad to the burial of Hasan next to Muhammad." The criticism of Ali by Hasan is derived from Sunni sources and, sadly, there is no western academic source that includes the Shia counter-argument, hence the use of Jafarian's Hayat-e fikri wa siyasi-e imaman-e Shia. However, this counter-argument was removed later in the process of preparing the article for GA. As another example, the current article includes the sentence "Hasan was present at the Battle of Siffin against the army of Mu'awiya I, though the former reportedly took no active part in the battle." Again, there is no Shia counter-argument and it's also not possible to remove the sentence from the article, considering that it comes from a reliable source, which was nevertheless heavily influenced by early Sunni historians. I guess my point is that 1) the GA process invites considerable attention and interest from (hopefully well-meaning) Sunni editors who rewrite the article from their own point of view without including the Shia views, and 2) this process is often irreversible. To summarize, if one's goal is to offer a fair and unbiased view of key Shia figures, then a GA article seems to fail to achieve that goal since the end product is more or less the usual Sunni propaganda. In any case, these are my personal views, nothing more. Thanks again for your contributions to Shia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran. I've left se messages on the articles talk page. You added a lot of {{sfn}}s to this article, put you've not added the full cites they need to link to. Also they lack page numbers, without full details these references are not complete. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix the broken ones. If a page number is missing from a SFN, then it's given in "Sources", e.g., an encyclopedia article. It's unlikely that any of the page numbers are missing but I'll check anyway. Albertatiran (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites "Glassé 2001", "Kofsky 2002", "Algar 1984", "Goldziher et al", "Esposite 2003" but no such sources are listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•322:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you think this article is roundabout ready for a GA nomination at this point, or, if not, is there anything in particular that jumps out at you as needing improvement? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertatiran! While the sock puppeteer you've been dealing with a lot recently (here and here) does indeed push a Sunni religious point of view, I've been a bit worried about your comments relating to Sunni propaganda or Sunni agenda on Wikipedia.
It's true that historically, Orientalists have studied Sunni Islam a lot more than Shi'i Islam, which up until the 1970s was often treated by scholars as some kind of 'non-orthodox' curiosity rather than as a serious subject of study. This may still cause a slight slant towards Sunni points of view in reliable sources (to cite just one example, the use of the religious Sunni term Rashidun as an objective historiographical category), but generally there has been much progress, and Shi'i Islam is now perhaps even more intensively studied by scholars than Sunni Islam.
In my view, closely following reliable sources per Wikpedia's policies and guidelines should produce a fairly unbiased view of Shi'i figures and subjects. There are always editors around here who push all sorts of agendas, but the best way to deal with that is to focus on the sources, which will always show the POV-pushers wrong in the long run. Anyways, I know they can be a pain to deal with, so I hope you'll be relieved from this particularly persistent one at least for a while now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)21:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Apaugasma! Thanks very much for identifying and reporting the sock puppeteer (and for the above comments). To complement what you said, I feel that orientalists often have a hint of disdain for their subject and that's even more pronounced towards Shia Islam, e.g., the sometimes condescending tone of Donaldson in his The Shi'ite religion. That said, I completely agree with you about the importance of following Wikipedia's guidelines. (And hopefully, I've become much better at respecting and enforcing these standards in my own edits.) Albertatiran (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Donaldson' book you're referring to dates from 1933! That's almost a century ago. I recommend you to seek out the works of scholars like Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Etan Kohlberg, Robert Gleave, Farhad Daftary, Najam Haider, and others. Since the 1970 publication of Le Shî'isme imâmite, a true revolution has occurred in Shi'i studies; I would say that for Wikipedia's purposes there's no need to read anything older than that, except perhaps Marshall Hodgson. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertatiran. Thank you for your great help in the past. Again would you have some time to take a look at this one too and help me write it an encyclopedic way? No need to go into details; just let me know which parts are more problematic; and I would rewrite them. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran, I was wondering if you could continue and complete my work on this new article - I began work on it ages ago and it has sat in my sandbox unfinished and unpublished. I can't work on it or write on Wikipedia much these days, but I really wanted an article on the movement to be added to Wikipedia - it would be a major contribution to the collection of articles on Shi'a Islam. Some sources I have used I have included on there and many more exist and can be implemented in the article. If you need help I am sure other task force members will be available to lend a hand.
Hi, ParthikS8! Thanks for reaching out. The topic is indeed interesting. If someone prepares an initial draft, I'd be very happy to help copy-edit the article. Alternatively, if you could give me somewhat specific sources (e.g., pages 1-5 of book x and journal y), then I can also read and summarize them. Otherwise writing that first draft for the article would be difficult for me since the topic is far outside of my comfort zone. The most 'modern' topic I've edited on Wikipedia (as opposed to just copy-edit) is Major Occultation! Albertatiran (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source.
This does not mean that the draft should be spun off, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun off. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Ali. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article and does not satisfy a special notability guide, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Election of Ali and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Albertatiran and thanks for helping me. Would you like working together and make Shia imams articles good? I think we should start with shorter ones such as Muhammad al-Jawad and Musa al-Kazim. What do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ghazaalch! You're welcome. Good idea about the good articles! Any initiative to improve Shia articles is something I'd be happy to support. Either article is fine for me to begin with. What's your plan of attack? Albertatiran (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could add material from new sources and then you revise and summarize them and we can find someone else to review them for good article criteria. Someone who is both interested and expert in Shia thought and has enough time to cooperate with us for a long period. This reviewer could also suggest new sources for us to add. I could add some material from new Persian sources but we need more from English and other languages too . Ghazaalch (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch, this all sounds good and I'd be happy to copy-edit the content that you add. I can also help by adding/editing content from English sources in general. (In particular, I happen to have access to a university library here and they seem to have a generous policy for ordering new books and articles.) Any suggestions for the reviewer? If none, then I guess we can probably worry about that part later. Albertatiran (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran. It is great that you have access to a university library. Feel free to add from the sources; or send them to me if you don't have enough time. As for the reviewer I guess we should be worried about it from now as it has been the main obstacle. I know @Sa.vakilian: who reviewed the Battle of Karbala for example but I guess they don't have enough time to stay with us all through the Shia Imams articles that might last a couple of years or more. Do you have anyone in mind for the reviewer? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ghazaalch! Alternatively, if you couldn't find a source, give me a try. I also can't think of a referee. Could it be one of us? (I have no idea how the review process works on Wikipedia but I'll try to find out this weekend.) Albertatiran (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks. As for the referee, I don't know if one of us can act as a referee or not. Please let me know when you find out; thank you very much. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran. How are you? I have added some information to Muhammad al-Jawad. Feel free to modify them, or ask me to do it for you. Since I guess you cannot be very engaged in the article if you want to serve as a referee too.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Albertatiran! Thanks for asking, but I fear I don't nearly have enough time to help with this. It would be good to recruit as many editors as possible for this, however, they will be needed. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cplakidas has a lot of experience with Islamic bios and from what I gather at least some interest in Shi'ism, so perhaps he would like to help. Especially our articles on the Shi'i Imams are in a disgraceful state given their importance.
I will be forthright though and say that earlier work by Ghazaalch in this subject area, such as for example on Ja'far al-Sadiq, is very subpar. We can't be writing articles from a Twelver Shi'i religious point of view, we need to start from the highest-quality academic sources. In particular, we need to keep in mind that before ca. 900 CE there was no such thing as Twelver Shi'ism, and that a proper historiographical approach to the Shi'i Imams largely consists of 'de-twelverizing' reports from later sources. I mean, our reliable sources do this as a matter of course, but if editors aren't aware of it articles still end up being hagiographies rather than pieces of 'good' encyclopedic writing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)19:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested as a reviewer, as I definitely don't have nearly enough time to do the subject justice as an editor; I can also provide access to a lot of good sources. But I also agree 100% with Apaugasma on the need to avoid hagiographic perspectives, or at least place them in proper context, and separate biography and history from later traditions. There is also a number of other highly-experienced users active in the early Islamic period, who have inter alia contributed some excellent biographic articles, like AhmadLX and Al Ameer son. Constantine ✍ 20:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Albertatiran,@Apaugasma and Cplakidas: I think as Cplakidas said we could separate hagiographic part from biography or history. That is why I recently reorganized this article for example and put the contents that are similar to hagiographic under the title Imamate and the biography under the title life. Hagiographic part could also go under the title Shia view as we could see in the other Shia imams articles. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shia view is not a category used by scholars. There are all kinds of ghulat/early Shi'i, Isma'ili, Zaydi, Twelver, etc. views, which themselves are sometimes classed into different subcategories (like rationalist Twelver views vs traditionist Twelver views, a distinction traced by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi to the very origins of Twelver Shi'ism). The assumption itself that Shi'a = Twelver, or that Twelver Shi'ism is some kind of monolithic and 'orthodox' Shi'ism, is unscholarly and if held by editors will introduce unhelpful religious overtones in our articles. Yes, we should present historical (post c. 900 CE) Twelver Shi'i views in a section that is separate from the biography, but only as part of a wider analysis of later views held by different currents and sects (of which Twelverism is only one of many). Moreover, this analysis should expose and explain hagiographic views as non-historical and essentially religious in nature (i.e., depending on belief), not reproduce them in WP:WIKIVOICE.
I think it takes a deep interest in the origins of Shi'ism and a thorough grounding in the scholarly literature to be able to write from this perspective, which nevertheless is universal among scholars and therefore the only one suited to Wikipedia. My suggestion would be to read more books by experts on early Shi'ism such as Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Etan Kohlberg, Robert Gleave, Farhad Daftary, Najam Haider, etc. (I lazily copied these suggestions from another section on this talk page, but of course there are others), and only then come back to improve Wikipedia articles. It's a win-win situation: as a student of Shi'ism you learn a lot, and in the long term it will hugely benefit Wikipedia if you can bring the knowledge gleaned from reading these experts to our articles. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma, I agree with you that it's always good to read more. I think that applies to all of us, especially myself. At the same time, I don't know about the recent edits, but I think Ghazaalch has a very good track record on Wikipedia, better than mine for sure. Flaws and shortcomings, despite one's best efforts, is not a barrier against contribution here. My view, here and elsewhere, is that of 29:69, "...وَٱلَّذِينَ جَـٰهَدُوا۟ فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا" No PhD required! :) So I fully support the renewed efforts by Ghazaalch to improve the Shia articles and plan to help/contribute as best I can. We won't get an EI-quality article at the end but we'll very likely end up with something better that what we now have. Albertatiran (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support it wholeheartedly, and agree that everyone should help/contribute as best they can. I just think the best way to do that in this particular case is to read more books on the relevant subjects before diving in. It's what I would do, too. I think it's also the way that Cplakidas, AhmadLX and Al Ameer son work, who write multiple GAs/FAs each year. It's hard to communicate this in an encouraging rather than a discouraging way, but I honestly believe that this approach is what would benefit Wikipedia the most: take more time to read up on the scholarly literature, and you will actually be able to write more good articles faster. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:NUR02847J1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article Muhammad al-Jawad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Muhammad al-Jawad for comments about the article, and Talk:Muhammad al-Jawad/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For transforming the article on Muhammad al-Jawad out of recognition and bringing it to GA status, and hopefully as a harbinger of much more fine work to come, I award you this token of sincere appreciation. Constantine ✍ 13:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
February 2023
Hello, I saw that you already made a lot of reverts in the article Ja'far al-Sadiq and I just wanted to make sure you know that violating 3RR rule is against policy. I don't question the validity of your argument--I know you support your edits by reliable sources--but wanted to alert you to the issue, as it is better to report a disruptive user who violates policy than get caught up in edit warring.Ppt91 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Albertatiran It's easy to miss or forget about it in the heat of the moment: WP:EW and WP:3RR. Three reverts are sufficient basis for another editor to submit a block request, so always best to be careful. Happy I could be of help! Ppt91 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Muhammad al-Jawad
On 25 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad al-Jawad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Muhammad al-Jawad was the ninth of the Twelve Imams and, with his unexplained death at about twenty-five, the shortest-lived? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad al-Jawad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Muhammad al-Jawad), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The article Ali al-Hadi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ali al-Hadi for comments about the article, and Talk:Ali al-Hadi/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For transforming the article on Ali al-Hadi out of recognition and bringing it to GA status, and hopefully as a harbinger of much more fine work to come, I award you this token of sincere appreciation. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch! Thank you! In fact, I was about to thank you with a barnstar for your commendable initiative to improve vital Shia articles and your nice work on the said article. But you beat me to it :) Looking forward to the next article. Albertatiran (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghazaalch! I'm ok, hope you're doing well too. I skimmed the article with its many quotes. There are some unsourced or poorly-sourced claims therein that one could easily remove. One could also tag the article for its lack of neutrality. Otherwise, editing the article, in its entirety, would be a monumental task. As a priority, perhaps one could add counter-views to balance the criticisms of the Quran and the prophet Muhammad. In any case, if you end up editing the article, I'd be happy to support the initiative by proofreading your texts, etc. Albertatiran (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Albertatiran. I have been working on the article for a while and summarized and reorganized it while adding new information. I think it is easier to navigate now. Would you have the time to copy-edit it? The lead would probably need to be rewritten. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ali al-Hadi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the restricted life of the Shia imamAli al-Hadi under Abbasid surveillance ended the imams' direct leadership of the Shia community? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ali al-Hadi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ali al-Hadi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi – thanks for all the work you're putting into improving Wikipedia! :-)
In April, you added citations to the Encyclopedia of Imam Husayn to some articles (Special:diff/1147665483, Special:diff/1149493850, Special:diff/1149769276, Special:diff/1150153788). You specified the ISBN as 9789644931, which isn't a valid ISBN. I've looked into this and I think I identified the correct ISBN; I just wanted to check with you to make sure it refers to the right version of the book (the one that your page numbers refer to).
You specified the language as Persian, but I can't find a version of the book that's only in Persian. My impression is that you're referring to Volume 1 of this Persian-Arabic set, whose ISBN that page specifies as 978-964-493-462-9. (It also has the invalid ISBN 9789644931 in the infobox.) The corresponding WorldCat entry says "In Persian; translated from Arabic, Arabic and Persian text on facing pages". This scan of Volume 1 also contains that ISBN (on p.2 and on p. 4, along with another ISBN for the entire set).
At Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn I already fixed the ISBN and added Arabic as a language for the book citation, but before I do this on all the other pages I wanted to make sure that this is indeed the version of the book that you were referring to. Joriki (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joriki, thank you for this level of attention to the details. It's much appreciated. The Persian version I used is this ebook which lacks the publisher's info. The incorrect ISBN I gave was indeed sourced from the infobox in the link you gave. It gets even more interesting because I just realized that the ebook in this link is actually in Persian (and not in Arabic and Persian on facing pages). (The same is true for the last link you sent.) To summarize, it seems that your correction to the ISBN is spot on but the language of the corresponding version of the book is Persian. Albertatiran (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting you on the succession of Muhammed article
Hello. I see you reverted me. I'd usually not immediately revert back, but I wanted to note that we shouldn't use wiki voice to call anyone righteous. It gives the article a religious tone instead of an encyclopedic tone 107.127.35.46 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit to your argument here. However, you left a misleading edit summary (removed sensitive content instead of actually editing it) from an IP address. This well justified undoing your edit. Albertatiran (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The newer revision is better. But for what its worth, IPs are allowed to edit, and are not a lower class of editor. Thus, being an IP should not have weighed in on your decision at all. Also, no sensitive content was removed. C/E means copy edit, and removing what seems like an extraneous phrase is in fact, copy editing. Thank you 107.127.35.46 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have a discussion with you regarding Vinay Khetia. I made an edit to the article titled Attack on Fatima's house.
As you know, the event is widely disputed. Among Sunni scholars, it is categorically rejected as a fabrication. Only leading Shi'a scholars believe in the event's historicity.
The article references Vinay Khetia 24 times. As such, he's quite important in the article's construction.
Khetia isn't merely an academic. He himself is a Shi'a sheikh.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] He is a graduate of a Shi'a seminary.[25] He is the academic director at the Shi'a Research Institute in Toronto, Canada.[26][27] He was chosen by the Shi'a site Al-Islam.org to answer several questions about belief and fiqh.[28]
This isn't to cast doubt on his accomplishments. He has a Master's in Philosophy of Religion from Concordia University and a PhD in Religious Studies from McMaster University.
But Khetia isn't different from, say, Christian or Jewish graduates of seminaries. If you look at articles of biblical scholars who are graduates of Christian seminaries, you'll see that Wikipedia has tagged them properly. Richard Simon was a priest who practiced biblical criticism. Dale Allison is labeled as an "American Christian theologian." Daniel J. Harrington is tagged as a "21st-century American Roman Catholic theologian." And Amy-Jill Levine is tagged as a "21st-century Jewish biblical scholar."
I agree that Khetia's academic work and insight should be used for this article, and I appreciate that there's some English-speaking academic who can speak about the historicity of the attack on Fatima's house. However, to leave out his background as a graduate of Shi'a seminary and as a Shi'a sheikh can be misleading to readers. I find the best compromise is to mention that he is a Shi'a academic scholar and sheikh. FlantasyFlan (talk) FlantasyFlan (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ab.Saleem, thanks for the question. It's indeed disputed which of the two sons was older but the majority of early sources suggest that Ali al-Akbar was the eldest son; see the second paragraph of Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn#Birth. Madelung's Iranica article doesn't discuss this matter in any depth and simply states that Ali Zayn al-Abidin was the eldest. Ideally, his opinion should be added to Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn#Birth for completeness, and perhaps the lede should be changed a bit to reflect that the matter is disputed, e.g., maybe the lede could say that Ali al-Akbar was likely the eldest son or something similar. Albertatiran (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, Ab.Saleem. I'll edit Ali al-Akbar according to our conversation in the coming days. However, edits for Husayn ibn Ali might have to wait longer. I think either Ghazaalch or perhaps myself would revise the whole article some time in the near future, and almost surely this discrepancy between the articles would also be resolved then. Albertatiran (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ab.Saleem, you might be right but the problem is the following: Sakina, the daughter of Husayn who lived until old age, most certainly existed. But there is understandably much less evidence about a daughter of Husayn who died in her childhood shortly after Karbala. In particular, her name is not certain. For us, Sakina bint Husayn already has a see also in the beginning that directs to Ruqayya bint Husayn. I don't know what else we should do. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Albertatiran (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Shi'te Encyclopedia site WikiShia states both Sakina bint Husayn and Ruqayya bint Husayn as two different persons. Wikishia says that Sakina's real name was Āmina or Amīna. but I heard a lot of Shi'a telling that both Sakina and Ruqayya are same. they label the daughter whose death occurred in prison, is none other than Sakina. some say Fatima al-Kubra as Sakina Ab.Saleem (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ab.Saleem, sorry for the late reply. Ok, thanks for the info. Maybe the ideal solution would be to find a reliable source that mentions this ambiguity. As the second-best solution, there is a sentence in Zaynab bint Ali#Other episodes about the small child of Husayn who died in captivity that we can probably copy into Ruqayya bint Husayn and its lede. I'll try to do that in the coming days... Albertatiran (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
İmam Jafar As Sadiq (Alaihis Salam) among the 4 Imams who were buried in Jannatul Baqi
Hello,you recently removed my edit about İmam Jafar being one of the 4 Imams who were buried in Jannatul Baqi, however I have sources for each İmam who was buried in the cemetery:
İmam Hasan: Jaʿfarīyān, Ḥayāt-i fikrī wa sīyāsī-yi imāmān-i Shīʿa, p. 168-169.
İmam Ali Ibn Hussain (Zayn Al Abidin):Mufīd, al-Irshād, vol. 2, p. 138.
Imam Muhammad İbn Ali:Jaʿfarīyān, Ḥayāt-i fikrī wa sīyāsī-yi imāmān-i Shīʿa, p. 286.
Imam Jafar As Sadiq:Jaʿfarīyān, Ḥayāt-i fikrī wa sīyāsī-yi imāmān-i Shīʿa, Imam Sadiq section.
Hi Salman Cooper Mapping, you're welcome to add or edit the article but you'd need to cite reliable secondary sources for your claims. This usually means academic articles or books published by academic publishers (Princeton University Press, for example). Please see WP:CITE and the related Wikipedia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article Musa al-Kazim you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Musa al-Kazim for comments about the article, and Talk:Musa al-Kazim/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zaynab bint Ali into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I hope you will forgive me for leaving you the templated message here, but it gives instructions on how to correctly attribute material that's been copied within Wikipedia. In addition, the content that you copied to Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin uses shortened footnotes, so you need to also copy the long-form references from the bibliographies on that page. If you edit articles including shortened footnotes you will probably find this script invaluable – it highlights any errors caused by missing or duplicated sources. Best,Wham2001 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was unjustifidly reverted by another editor. Can you check it.
In the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam article, I removed 4 as they did not had the WP:RS and WP:OR sources. First one: Nargis, in her article, I can't see any info regarding her conversion to hinduism in fact opposite "she expressed her wish to be buried following the Islamic rites, Sunil and Sanjay eventually offering the Islamic funeral prayer" in the Personal section.
Another is Khusro Khan, his Religion section explicity states that "Barani's narrative is unreliable, and contradicted by more reliable sources. Khusrau Khan wished to be seen as a normal Muslim monarch, and had the khutba in the mosques read in his name." Hence including him on the list severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:Fringe.
Another case is of two brothers, Harihara I and Bukka Raya I, both articles explicity state that their early life is "unknown and most accounts are based on various speculative theories" the same paragraph that conjecture their religion. So we need stronger and more WP:Reliable sources to make them in the list.
@Albertatiran:, hello! I have seen that you worked on Shia Islamic-related articles such as Ahl al-Bayt, Twelve Imams and especially Rafida etc. Similarly, can you please make an article of Nawasib, the term used for rejectors of Imam Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt. I would recommend the highly scholarly work Opposing the Imam: The Legacy of the Nawasib by Nebil Huseyn if you would like to make an article on Nawasib. Thanks!
At least one or more of your edits in the page "Rafida" have been reverted. It's difficult to distinguish your behaviour from Disruptive Editing since you have persistently removed large amounts of sourced content and reliable sources, in addition to inserting unsourcedPOV contents. To help other editors understand your concerns, you should communicate properly in the talk page.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Ignoring minor points of contention, the crux of the dispute is that I've given several reliable academic sources for the basic fact that most Shia Muslims condemn the first three successors of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Shadowwarrior8 claims the opposite without yet providing any reliable sources. He/she started this edit war (see here and here and here) and has been outright lying and making accusations, under the guise of which he has been pushing his sectarian POV and adding false information to Wikipedia. I think I did my best to focus on content rather than his behavior, and to resolve the dispute through talk page discussion (see here and here and here) and dispute resolution (see here), all to no avail. It's unfortunate that I lowered myself to his level and engaged in edit warring but how else can I deal with this unpleasant and dishonest character? I think there should be a difference between me and Shadowwarrior8, a professional edit warrior and POV pusher. I'd like to ask for a shorter block, perhaps 24 hours. Thank you for your consideration. Albertatiran (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Nothing here indicates you understand how to resolve your conflict without edit warring. In fact, it strongly indicates your block needs to be extended as you see no other alternative but to engage in edit warring. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nearly done. Please note that the sources I added to the article were not necessary in my opinion, but I had to add them due to the comment by AirshipJungleman29 here that pointed out to the "poor prose quality and the lack of sources". So please try to keep them while summarizing the content.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghazaalch I think auto-confirmed users can skip the review step but I'm not sure... It's a good topic, currently absent, and so I hope it goes through without any issues. Albertatiran (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:AirshipJungleman29 proposed that the article be merged to another article. Can we draftify it again in order to work on it a bit more? AirshipJungleman29 draftified it the first time.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghazaalch Hi! I think we can 'move' the article to the draft space. The problem is that I can't find the 'move' button in the mobile app. I'll check the desktop website later today or tomorrow... Albertatiran (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't know what else needs to be done to satisfy AirshipJungleman29, who I think is stonewalling. So I guess we'll have to wait and see what the other people I pinged here have to say.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you familiarize yourself with the sources for the content on Siyyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi, you'll find they directly support how I summarized them. The onus is on you to prove they don't. What I wrote is consistent with a wide range of scholarship on this issue. Please note that the prior paragraph is not only inaccurate, with spelling errors, run on sentences, and grammatical issues, it also doesn't even get his name right AND doesn't cite a single source. The burden is on you to show how the fair and diverse sources I quoted do not justify the clear revision I made. These revisions bring a greater consistency in how this topic is address in other, well-written and well-informed wiki articles on this topic. Please do not revert unless you can replace it with a better written and more inform write up. I am more than happy to discuss suggestions you'd want to make! Aliyeen (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shiqshiqiyyah Sermon Revert
Hello,, Albertatiran!
Could you please explain in details what I've done wrong?
Or at least edit the article to replace other "shaqshaq" with "shiqshiq" ("a" with "i"; because shaqshaqa has another meaning).
Hi, you reverted my edit on Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari because of weak sources, however the hadith is completely sahih according to multiple scholars and I don’t believe there was any reason to revert them. Please let me know a better page to access hadiths if not the website dedicated completely to collecting hadiths, thank you Kayennepepper (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please do not delete that hadith from Shia sources. Do you recognize which source is authentic for the Shiites or themselves? Sulaym is one of the most reliable sources among Shiites! And I did not say that this is the absolute truth. I said this is the "narration of the Shiites". Please do not delete... .Clop Sq4 (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehrhashtom As a rule of thumb, a reliable source in this context is an article of book authored by an Islamicist and published by an academic publisher or a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. Please help me out: Which source are you referring to in your comment above? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clop Sq4 Hi, I think they best way to contribute to this article is by reading and summarizing what academic sources say about him. The best place to start is the sources already cited therein. Albertatiran (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
