Talk:Fatima/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Year of birth

I see that there appear to be alternative years proposed for her birth, "born c. 605 or 615". The year of her marriage reflects this discrepancy, which is fine, as it was not uncommon in those days. However, being married is one thing, bearing children is another. If she was born in 615, that would mean that she was 8 years old when she conceived Hasan ibn Ali, born in 624; 10 years old when she conceived Zaynab bint Ali and Husayn ibn Ali, both born in 626, according to information of the respective pages. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia: I checked it in other encyclopedias. Per Fāṭima, most probably she was born "[in] the year of the re-building of the Kaʿba, i.e., five years before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission." Per this very entry, she was over 18 when she got married. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:Thanks, Mhhossein. So, can't we use to try and correct the information? Otherwise it really looks odd to have information that amount to saying that she was 8 when she became pregnant. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sure why not? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia: However, this source brings various dates. This encyclopedic source also says various dates. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if seyyed has anything to add. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If more than 10 traditions (statements) do not qualify science (here biology) and one or two traditions qualify the science then it is logical to accept the tradition which meets the science prerequisites. With this explanation, I am of the opinion that we should come forward to settle the DOB. Nannadeem (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: We are not here to judge about the traditions based on the biology. This is against WP:NOR. @Mhhossein and Rui Gabriel Correia: The most common Sunni hadith regarding this issue mentions 605 and the Shia one mentions 615.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not about tradition, after all, this is an encyclopaedia, not an exegesis or tafsir. I am raising an issue of inconsistency in the information that we are providing. If we say that the mother was born either in 605 of 615, then the same dual dates have to be applied to the year of the births of her children and all other elements of her life. Otherwise we have her conceiving her first child at the age of 8; we have a problem with her being married at the age of between 15 and 19, while already having a number of children, etc.. Extrapolating from when she was married, puts her birth in between 603 and 608. So at the very least, it is necessary to add a notes, firstly to this article right at the top explaining the difference and to the infobox of each of the children to indicate this disparity. Finally, it is, yes, about biology — and mathematics: if we are going to say that she was born in 605 and died at the age of 17, she she died in 622, so, she died before her children were born. So, @Sa.vakilian:, I don't where you see WP:NOR in an attempt to address serious inconsitencies. And there are plenty, such as the page on Muhammad stating that Fatimah was born in 597. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes issue is serious and technical. I think, we here at WP page can solve it mathematically keeping in view the religious concern (a branch of social science) and our NPO. We cannot go back to the future to trace out the true year of DOB, so we have to apply statistics which deals such issue by boundaries/period i.e. 1-5 or 5-10. In this manner we may apply a period of 10 or 15 years, which will mechanically satisfy the biological perquisites mathematically. If agreed we may phrase the DOB as born in 605-615 AD period. This will automatically qualify the biological issues. Nannadeem (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia and Nannadeem: I completely disagree with you. If we were historians then we could discuss as you told, but due to the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a primary or even secondary source (WP:PRIMARY), we should not research by ourselves (WP:NOR). We should refer to the reliable secondary and tertiary sources and narrates what they have reported based on the WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. Please, check how the other encyclopedia have covered it: "Her date of birth is variously given as between five years before and two years after the beginning of the Prophet’s mission" (Iranica)--Seyyed(t-c) 03:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."--Seyyed(t-c) 05:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If one source indicates the DOB 605 and other sources provide DOB as 615 then taking both as base is not an OR or a negation to historical data. I with a sense of responsibility attempting/attempted to solve the issue without correcting the history figures, that is why I suggested 605-615 AD period as a year of birth. Yes we are not historian, I also welcome status quo. Seyyed (me lord) it is my personal assurance to you. Nannadeem (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this solution. We can mention 605-615 AD with referring to the reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem and Sa.vakilian: Please note that 605-615 is not right as it includes the years between 605 and 615. Is it really correct? Mhhossein ^talk 10:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia your feedback plz. @Mhhossein plz wait. Nannadeem (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Nannadeem:. I am not concerned about how to indicate the discrepancy, but rather how the manner in which it is done is then replicated throughout the range of articles affected. I am fully aware that it is not an easy task to arrive at a definite date; all that I would like to see is that we make it possible for readers to be able to get the information in a maaner that makes sense — for example a script that pops up wherever required saying that the information that follows depends on wether the calculation is based on 6005 or 615 as the birth year. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia, Sa.vakilian, and Nannadeem: You can see how we dealt with the same issue in articles such as Demolition of al-Baqi and Wahhabi sack of Karbala. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein Pages you referred for similarity do not hold any biological impact; instead they pertain to period (day/month/years). Here I am struggling to satisfy the issue of biology (nothing more). So applying period of years, statistically, will not left lacuna for raising bio-methodology. Furthermore, it will require no changes to pages depend on the page of our Jeddah (biological + mother of friend is mother of friend too) Nannadeem (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nannadeem: As I think we have to stick to the sources for writing the page and also think that using a time period implies that the years between are suggested by sources (which are not as we know), I suggest no to use a time period. Also, I did not understand your last comment completely. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have already told that I would welcome status quo. Therefore avoiding further discussion. Nannadeem (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

chart indicating Fatimid and other Shia Imam in genealogy of Fatema

A chart indicating Fatimid and other Shia Imam in genealogy of Fatema was added in the article. This was undone in context of text length etc. The chart contain important informations and link showing historical lineage and connectivity of Fatema with Shia movement. The chart is as per Template:Shia Imam Chart

Comments invited for the improvement. If the chart is added in the end of the article, the length would be immaterial.--Md iet (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose inclusion. This article is about Fatimah, not her offspring of a gazillion generations later. From my comment on OP's talk page: They are gigantic, ugly, against WP:NOTGENEALOGY and duplicate the goal of {{Shia Imams}}. We already have four articles dedicated to her descendants via Ali (Family tree of Ali, Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Alids, Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali) in addition to the even more monstrous {{Mohammad Family tree}}. Have you ever seen encyclopedias using such extended family trees? I don't think so. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• This sort of chart, as I've said in my edit summaries, is more appropriate to an overview article. The chart's length isn't immaterial if placed at the bottom of the article, as you'd still be in the way of people checking for categories. Have you thought of making such a chart collapsible? That would make a big difference. Another flaw is that the chart is inherently confusing in its inconsistent use of graphics. The rectangles seem to indicate genealogical relationships, but the box at the top is the chart title, not the root ancestor. Other boxes linked to, as if genealogical relationships, indicate branches of Islam instead. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This bulky tree is not really needed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, summarized tree would be prepared, which will indicate and link Fatimid and Shia Imams to Fatema. Aim is to show her role and importance at a glance.Md iet (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tree prepared and placed in a side box. Hope inclusion this time is fruitful to readers and acceptable.--Md iet (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition of {{Fatema , Ali and Shia}} because it is full of mistakes and inconsistent spellings, besides being a downright chaos. For example, why does it look like Husayn is Hasan's son? What is this chart supposed to show anyway? If it means to show imams, then why are some imams included and others not; why is Fatimah in there; why are whole religious groups in there? First define a subject you want to illustrate and then we may continue this discussion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The issues raised by the users should be resolved before the template is restored. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for time taken for review. It would be far better if some constructive suggestions are given. Subject I want to illustrate is pretty clear and spelled in the reference comment given by me in the article.

The chart shows important Shia Imam in the generation of Fatema in historical sequence till date, making it clear that Fatema is real mother as claimed in the article. To make the list short some imam which are not common and not having immediate bifurcation are excluded. Dotted line indicate in between Imams. Whole religious groups are there because they represent all major shia Islam on the date who call fatema their mother. Mistake and spellings can be corrected. This encyclopedia has given a great provisions of making correction to everyone knowledgeable. Hope we will utilize this rather than outright rejection.

Issue raised are explained. Further suggestions to improve are welcome.Md iet (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Subject I want to illustrate is pretty clear and spelled in the reference comment given by me in the article." Did you mean "Shia Imam tree placed below explain above"? For one, it is grammatically incorrect. Secondly, what is the "above" it attempts to "explain"? Thirdly, if it is a tree of Shi'a Imams, then do not include things that are not imams. Finally, if you leave out the imams who "are not common", what are the criteria to decide who is "important" and who does not deserve to be included? --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the matter. Sorry, I am not so good at English, but you can understand me if you bit try. You are always here to correct me I trust. There "above" means :

"Fatimah, regarded as "the Mother of the Imams", plays a special role in the Shia religion. She has a unique status as Muhammad's only surviving child, the wife of Ali, their first Imam, and the mother of Hasan and Husayn. The chapter of Quran on abundance (Sūrat al-Kawthar) mentions the significance of her birth and recognizes her as the only surviving child of Muhammad. The Fatimid Caliphate/ Imamate is named for her." The para is describing Shia view hence it is pretty obvious that 'above' should refer to that only.

If subject is just written as 'tree of Shi'a Imams', it is a brief description pointing toward major constituent and "above" explain further. All the matter need not be described every where. Template: Six Islamic Prophets include Maryum also, which also is right Wiki suppose and surviving. Heading on the chart is clearly written as {{Fatema , Ali and Shia}} and not limiting it to Imams.

'Important' there means important to explain 'above' criteria with making presentation possible in short form. The criteria is further explained by me above. First seven imams which are common to every group are included. After bifurcations some imams in continuous sequence were left out and represented by dotted lines (duly clarified on chart), which seems justified.

Hope this answer your queries. Would you please give further valuable suggestions and remedial action plan. --Md iet (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The chart not only suits to 'Shia view' description but give a general pictorial, at a glance view of Fatima and her relation to Shia Islam up to date, and may be fruitful for general readers.--Md iet (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems there are no further suggestions. The chart is being included, any left out correction can be done by editors as need be.--Md iet (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: Do you agree with the inclusion? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I first want to see the corrections made and then we'll see if the template is appropriate for inclusion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Corrections are made in the Template. All the names of Imams and sects are as per main article names. Imams, sects, Single and multiple decedents are differentiated. Is there any other issue left unanswered? --Md iet (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If this is as small as the chart gets (and it probably cannot get smaller without losing essential information or legibility), I still oppose its inclusion. It is and will remain simply too big in combination with the rest of the article's prose, pushing the main text to all sorts of weird places. Items this big need to be treated on individual pages, which we by the way already have in quadruplicate: Family tree of Ali, Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Alids, Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali. I do not see any added value of having an additional genealogy here, when there are already four to choose from. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for constructive suggestion. The chart is further modified to have bare minimum material to get home the motive. Common imam to all major sects are kept and further steps are minimized to sects levels. Readers interested in sects can always get Imams details in the linked sect articles. Family tree of Ali, Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Alids and, Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali are too much descriptive and one cannot visualize whole up to date world Shia Islam connection at a glance.

Hope the latest edition of the template have enough value addition capacity. The article is not so big and clumsy, one further template of this size can definitely suitable to fit in.--Md iet (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As there are no further suggestions, the template seems to be justified now. Any comment? else we shall proceed to include it in the article.--Md iet (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no agreement to include it. You haven't addressed all of my issues, the main one being its size. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither do I see any support. Md iet, I warned you about trying to reduce the template even further, because now it just looks even weirder. It does not make sense to fuse a family tree of individual persons and branches of entire denominational groups into one chart as they are two completely different things. Not all Shi'a Muslims are descended from Ali and Fatima, which is what the template suggests now. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fatimah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902023031/http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761553645 to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761553645
• Added archive https://archive.is/20090528032523/http://www.msawest.com/islam/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.FATIMAH_BINT_MUHAMMAD.html to http://www.msawest.com/islam/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.FATIMAH_BINT_MUHAMMAD.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528061043/http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/fatima_the_gracious/index.htm to http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/fatima_the_gracious/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) James (^talk/_contribs) 17:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Fatimah → Fatimah bint Muhammad – (edited) To avoid confusion with Fatima, as well as Fatima (given name), of which Fatimah appears to be a variant spelling. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What does "bint" mean? I shall support the renaming of this page if "bint" means "daughter of". Vorbee (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vorbee: It means exactly that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided so far. How can a claim be made that Fatimah bint Muhammad is not the primary topic for the title "Fatimah"? Try searching for the name in Google Books. Khestwol (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not the relevant guideline here since neither Fatimah nor Fatimah bint Muhammad is a disambiguation page. You want WP:REDIRECT instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fatima" can also refer to a town in Portugal, apparently. "Fatimah" and "Fatima" are not exactly the same word in English. They are two distinct words technically. If one of them ("Fatima") is ambiguous, it's ok that it is a disambiguation page at Fatima. But WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to the clear name "Fatimah". Khestwol (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fátima, Portugal already has a disambiguated title, which in any case is evidently derived from the same word in Arabic (فَاطِمَة) as "Fatima" and "Fatimah". There's only one relevant topic here, hence I think you're looking for WP:COMMONNAME. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Fatimah Fatima distinction is completely arbitrary. There is not reason why one transliteration of the name should lead to a biography and the other to a disambiguation page. Brustopher (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There are two different issues getting mixed up here. The first is whether the ta marbuta at the end of Fatima(h) should be spelled with an "h". These two choices both represent widely adopted transliteration conventions, and there's no obvious reason to favor one over the other, although the proposed guideline WP:MOSAR favors the final "h". The other issue is whether the patronymic should be included in the title. On this point, two standard encyclopedia I just consulted (EI2 and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World) point to a negative answer, as they don't include the patronymic in the title. This is similar to other "canonical" names like Muhammad, Ali and Aisha. Eperoton (talk)
  • I question whether the final -h, which is silent in English, will be enough to distinguish this page from the disambiguation page Fatima for most English-speaking readers of this site when typed into the search bar. The usage of Fatimah in the two encyclopedias mentioned may be clear enough for those works, which are specific to Islam specifically about Islamic studies. However, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and this may be a case where more specificity is needed to avoid confusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sangdeboeuf: The page with no h can be redirected to here. One page being wrong doesn't mean that we should make other pages wrong in order to be consistent, or in other words two wrongs don't make a right. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • For Fatima to redirect here, the contents of that page would have to be moved to Fatima (disambiguation). In fact, I have proposed such a move at Talk:Fatima already, but so far there seems to be little support for it. Anyone who supports such a move is welcome to contribute to the discussion there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC) edited 17:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
        • It's not just encyclopedias in Islamic studies which follow this usage. Britannica calls the article Fāṭimah and at Oxford Reference the patronymic is not in the title in World Encyclopedia, The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, and The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2 ed.). Only The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History has a title with the patronymic. In fact, I think this is a clear case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, as you suggested there, but since the proposal was rejected on the other talk page, we're kind of stuck with the current suboptimal arrangement. Eperoton (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
          • The other discussion is still ongoing; if you believe there is an argument for making Fatima a redirect, by all means propose it there. I notice that Britannica gives "Daughter of Muhammad" as a subtitle. I see no reason why our title shouldn't have similar clarification if it helps readers; we're not "stuck with" the current title by any means. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Consulting a broader range of sources, I'm no longer sure about PRIMARYREDIRECT. If you look beyond the reference works I consulted, there's a clear difference depending on whether your search for the spelling with or without the final "h". So, while the current arrangement is rather contrived, I don't see what actual problems it causes, and I don't think the proposed move would be justified. Eperoton (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Eperoton. The current title about this "canonical" personality is WP:CONCISE, and clear enough. Khestwol (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. فَاطِمَة translates (or is romanised) as Fatima or Fatimah (noted by others above). I don't support the arguement that Fatimah bint Muhammad is the primary topic for Fatima or Fatimah. This article should move to a disambiguated title as proposed, and Fatimah should redirect to Fatima. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Can you please present a valid evidence that Fatimah bint Muhammad is not the primary topic for the title "Fatimah"? Khestwol (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can't understand why avoiding "confusion with Fatima (given name)" can be a suitable reason for changing a title supported by plenty of reliable sources! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason is to help readers find the article they're looking for. But "Fatima(h) bint Muhammad" is also supported by reliable sources; see e.g. von Dehsen (2013), Lives and Legacies of Philosophers and Religious Leaders, and Stanton (2012), Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Those are just two I happened to come across. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • See also The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History that Eperoton mentioned, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, and The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987), which is also cited by several other authors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The fact that someone known mononymously also has a fuller name doesn't mean that the mononym is not the primary topic for that name. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • @Emir of Wikipedia: what's your suggestion for helping readers distinguish between Fatima and Fatimah when searching for a page? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
        • The only thing I could suggest right now is that we don't go through this the move of Fatimah but only the one of Fatima, however that lacks support on the other page . A difficult situation indeed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Well, why not state your case on the other talk page? You might just convince someone to change their mind. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: In view of WP:CONCISE as referenced by Khestwol. Nannadeem (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:CONCISE makes exceptions for biographical articles. Mary, mother of Jesus may be the most notable person named Mary, but the disambiguated title is more useful to readers. The general rule is to use the WP:COMMONNAME. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of birth

Shouldn’t both disputed years of birth be included in the introduction and the infobox? They only list 615 CE, but the “Birth” section makes it clear that many believe she was born in or around 605 CE.

Note: I absolutely do not know enough about the subject to submit an edit request with references; however, just today I’ve read on multiple Wikipedia pages and other websites that the 605 vs 615 discussion is a well-established sectarian debate, with each side being supported in earnest by research, religious texts, historical context-based hypotheticals, etc. It seems both useful to learners and fair overall to include both beliefs in the introductory sections. Mini Inanna (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 october 2019

There is no mention of Fatima's daughter Zaynab, which you talk about on another page (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaynab_bint_Ali). Her role is important in Shi'a history so not mentioning her alongside her brothers, Hassan and Hussein, is an injustice to Muslim women.

In the first paragraph, "Her husband was Ali, the last of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and her children include Hasan and Husayn the second and third Shia Imams, respectively." ADD: They also had a daughter, Zaynab, who is championed in Shi'a thought as being the reason why the lineage of Imams was able to continue after the massacre at Karbala. Alyshea.Cummins (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Omission of a piece of information is not an injustice, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Moreover, Zaynab already is mentioned later in the article under the Descendants section; there's no need to give WP:UNDUE weight by placing such a prominent (and possibly non-neutral) note in the lead of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, there is an historically incorrect line..."the only child of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and Khadijah who lived to adulthood." As you may know, two daughters were also married to Uthman and died as adults. Please remove this line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.63.40.42 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The lead clearly states that this belief is only among Shi'ites.
Alivardi (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fatimah is Kawthar

This article should include Surat Kauthar in Quran as a reference to Fatima. According to Shia belief [1], when the prophet Mohammad lost his son some Arab ridiculed the prophet that he is "Abtar". Abtar means someone whose tail is cut which in this context means prophets blood will not continue. Arabs of that time and some currently believe only male offspring can continue blood of the family. Surat Kawthar came to prophet and its translation is: 1) We gave you Kauthar, 2) Therefore, pray for your God and be thankful, 3) For sure, the person who called you abtar is in fact abtar. The only way for the prophet to not be abtar is that his blood continues. Prophet had 4 daughters and according to Hadith, Fatima was a unique person in the prophet's eyes [2]-[3]. Shia believes female offspring can continue blood of the family and therefore Kawthar that is given to the prophet to ensure his family continues and he is not abtar is Fatima [1].

[1] https://www.al-islam.org/fatima-zahra-noble-quran-nasir-makarim-shirazi/suratul-kawthar-abundant-good [2] https://www.al-islam.org/fatima-the-gracious-abu-muhammad-ordoni/prophets-love-fatima-az-zahra-sa [3] Sahih al-Bukhari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohassans (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Fatima or Aisha ?

Sunnis definitely do not regard Fatima as the "most significant historical figure" after Khadijah. Aisha is referred to as the mother of all believers and Sunnis argue that 33:33 of the Qur'an ("do not ask of you any reward for it except love for (my) kin") is a direct reference to Muhammed's wives, especially Aisha. The following claim should be reevaluated.

After Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader (Arabic: Sayyidih) of all women in this world and in Paradise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2012

The word 'booty' is wrong

In the chapter of 'Inheritance', the word 'booty' is used for Fadak.

The Oxford dictionary defines 'booty' as:

1. Valuable stolen goods, especially those seized in war. example: ‘the militias supply themselves with booty from the raided civilian populations’

So, 'booty' is seized in the sense of stealing. The example about the militias further explain this sense.

But the first paragraph of the chapter describes the taking of Fadak with this:

The Muhammad had found out that the people of Fadak had collected in order to fight the Muslims alongside the Khaybar Jews. Therefore, he sent Ali to them. The people of Fadak surrendered without a fight, and pleaded for a peace treaty in exchange for giving away half their land and wealth to Muhammad.

So, Fadak was given away in expense of the early intention to fight, and is seized with authority. So the word 'booty' is wrong for it.

These alternatives are suggested:

• 'expense' (a translation of 'فدیه' which is also mentioned in the holy Qur'an)
• 'prize'
• 'confiscation'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaaq (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

death

According to Sunnis , they have firm believe that hazrat Fatimah (R.A) wasn't killed by any of the caliph.It was a false news spread by the people specifically the sect Shia . Mai nai bataunga (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion on page title

Interested editors may want to see the RfC at Talk: Fatima that continues some of the discussion from the move request above. —23:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Tagging previous contributors Vorbee, Emir of Wikipedia, Khestwol, Brustopher, Eperoton, Shhhnotsoloud, Mhhossein, and Nannadeem. All are welcome to contribute. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf I deem your move as an attempt to violate the former consensus built on the most related page. That you pinged us 7 days after that RFC, is another point to think about. The proposal is already rejected. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The proposal was not rejected; the result was "no consensus". Therefore there was no "former consensus built on the most related page". I placed the above link to the new discussion on the same day it was started. Anyone following the discussion on this page would have seen it clearly. I reject the insinuation that I'm trying to violate consensus and remind the above editor to please assume good faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I certainly see your faithful attempt at resolving the current situation (please see Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith.) However, every body here knows that, that proposal of moving was rejected in practice (there's absolutely no difference between 'no consensus' and 'opposing the move'). This means that any further proposals with same justifications behind, would be an attempt to GAME the former discussion and those who were involved. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Its all false said by shia that Hazrat Fatimah was killed by Hazrat Umar (MahazAllah) Mai nai bataunga (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low?

Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request 6 August 2020

Replace all of the content above the section "Life before the death of Muhammad" with the wording in sections 34 - 38 of Special:Permalink/971189240 commencing with "This page is about Muhammad's daughter" and ending with "while Fatimah was alive.[36][35]". In inline citation [33], replace "|" at the end with "}}". This request has been peer-reviewed by a registered editor. 2A00:23C7:C987:DF00:90C8:8B55:70B2:3170 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no actual peer review here. Does the current wording "The actual date of the marriage is unclear" not reflect sources? – Thjarkur (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

According to all sources, (which are cited in the submission), two months after the Battle of Badr (17 Ramadan AH 2), thus in Dhu al-Qadah, Ali asked Muhammad for his daughter's hand in marriage. On the last day of the month Muhammad arranged a wedding banquet - the ceremony was the following day. The date is recorded at Dhu al-Hijjah#Shi'ite - its authenticity has never been challenged. Some bright spark added the qualifier "2 years before the Hijrah" on 12 December 2009. This is impossible - the marriage was celebrated in Medina, which Muhammad moved to only in 622, and the food was prepared by Aisha, but in 620 Aisha was only six. 2A00:23C7:C987:DF00:8533:2B67:4F51:9C6F (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cuparsk:, @Faizhaider: who might have some perspective on this.VR _talk 12:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove edit privacy

I want to edit this article false accusements on beloved companions of holy prophet plz remove its edit privacy Freekinuser (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

change of 1 letter

Peace be upon you. I wanted to say that if I'm not wrong, it would be right to write "Fatimah ibnat Muhammad" instead "Fatimah innat Muhammad" at the beginning of the text. Maybe because b and n letters are placed adjacently in a keyboard, the writer did a small error. if I'm wrong i would be glad if you would give me an explanation for writing "innat" instead of "ibnat". Thank you in advance, wish you success in your life and works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.253.237.45 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably a typo, now corrected. Thanks.
Alivardi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Fatima or Aisha ?

Sunnis definitely do not regard Fatima as the "most significant historical figure" after Khadijah. Aisha is referred to as the mother of all believers and Sunnis argue that 33:33 of the Qur'an ("do not ask of you any reward for it except love for (my) kin") is a direct reference to Muhammed's wives, especially Aisha. The following claim should be reevaluated.

After Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader (Arabic: Sayyidih) of all women in this world and in Paradise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2012

Aisha and Hafsa have been criticized by God in Surah Tehreem in the beginning. So Fatima is needed to be considered as the most significant historical figure after Khadija. Here is the reference Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1474[1]--Shabie14 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sunni vs Shia

The bolded part of the lede here is unclear:

Fatimah bint Muhammad... was the youngest daughter of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and Khadijah, according to Sunni Muslims, but according to Shia Muslims, their only child who lived to adulthood, and therefore part of Muhammad's household."

Is it supposed to say "according to Sunni Muslims, but not according to Shia Muslims..."? Or do Sunnis believe she was the youngest daughter but the Shia believe she was the only one who lived to adulthood? Or something else? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: The second one; Sunnis think she's the youngest daughter, Shia think she's the only one. There's some disagreement between the groups about whether her elder sisters were biological or adopted.
Alivardi (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Alivardi, Thanks. I made the change. Will you please check to ensure I reflected the disagreement accurately? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: Yeah seems fine. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Death Of Hazrat Fatimah :

According to Sunni ,they Believe that Hazrat Fatimah was not killed by Hazrat Umar neither Hazrat Abu Bakr. Its only the believe of shia people which is not acceptable though. Mai nai bataunga (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

True Mai nai bataunga (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hazrat Fatima (a.s) was not killed neither umar bin al khitttab nor abu bakr ...its only a false belief of dishonest kafir humans..umar and abu bakr was the respectable companions of holy prophet..they are not to blame for this never... Freekinuser (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Request from you that the date of death of Hazrat Bibi Fatima in the post is wrong or not, check it once Bakali Mohammad (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

typo in married life section

Under "Married Life" in the letter from Ali to Muawiya, I think there is a typo:

"Human beings have received and will receive perfection through us. The perpetual supremacy and inherent superiority do no prevent us from making contact with human beings or with your clan, and we have married amongst you and have established family connections with your clan, though you do not belong to our class. How can you be our equal when the Holy Prophet belongs to us and Abu Jahl, the worst enemy of Islam, was from amongst you"

it should be do not prevent instead of do no prevent

2601:1C0:6A01:5DE0:E816:D902:F624:C845 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It's part of a quote, where normally we'd make allowances for anomalous usage; but "do no prevent" is more than that. So, I've changed it. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Also in this section: "Mosvar, at a time a minor, is the sole narrator of that public feud." Should it read, "at the time a minor?" 173.75.218.69 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

Hello There is a huge mistake in the information regarding Fatima D/O Muhammad (PBUH) She wasn't killed by Hazrat Umer Ibn Khattab , Her reason of death was deep sorrow after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) left this world, Umar ibn Khattab was 2nd Caliph of Islam and was the close friend of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) Please take a look upon this request Wajeehkhan90 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Take A Look Upon The Information Regarding Death Of Fatima D/O Muhammad (PBUH) Wajeehkhan90 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello There is a huge mistake in the information regarding Fatima D/O Muhammad (PBUH) She wasn't killed by Hazrat Umer Ibn Khattab , Her reason of death was deep sorrow after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) left this world, Umar ibn Khattab was 2nd Caliph of Islam and was the close friend of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) Please take a look upon this request Wajeehkhan90 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Truth929 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

Change the pronouns he/his used for Fatima to she/her 84.255.184.157 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It appears the pronouns are correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I fixed a few of them in the article. (his-->her) Albertatiran (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

typo

God's Apostle foretold that Fatimah will the first person to enter Heaven, while a Shia hadith adds that Fatimah will take with her to Heaven everyone who loved her and lived righteously like her.

the first clause of the sentence above seems to be missing a verb LeesOtter (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed! Albertatiran (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A daughter or The daughter

Some Shia editor wrote 'the daughter' of Khadija.... instead of 'a daughter'. It is to be noted that Khadija had three more daughters Umm Kulthum, Ruqayyah and Zaynab. Calling Fatimah a daughter is a clear POV Shia view. The view is not even found in any Shia hadith. Sunnis, Zaydi Shias and Historians agree that Khadija had four daughters so calling Fatimah 'a daughter' is wrong. 6:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I'll clarify in the lead that there are two views about the matter and add sources for both views tomorrow, I hope. However, the claim that the current view is not supported by Shia hadith is false and that'll become clear with the new sources. Albertatiran (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Albertatiran, Al-Saaba. 6:25, 20 October 2021

New edits

In the next few weeks, I'll hopefully add new sources (more modern ones), fix capitalization issues, improve readability, etc. I'll discuss any major changes here first. Albertatiran (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased

The article is biased a lot against Abu Bakr and Umar.

I've broken down your comments below which I hope you don't mind. Basically, I'll hopefully work on the article in the coming weeks which will address some of these concerns. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, it says Abu Bakr assumed power and 'seized' Fadak from Fatimah whereas he didn't.

"Assumed power" is not a biased choice of words. The takeover of Fadak appears in Sahih al-Bukhari, among many other sources. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It also says Ali regarded Abu Bakr as a 'liar' and 'traitor' which are completely POV views.

This claim appears in Sahih Muslim. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The article says Umar made a 'raid' on the house whereas he just went to the house, asking allegiance.

Multiple Sunni sources, listed in the article, report that that the confrontation escalated. I'll add more sources soon, especially modern ones. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, what are these 'discussion' sub-headings? Wikipedia's talk pages are for discussion, not the actual articles. These lines 'Here "we" summarize Fatimah's own account of what happened. When Omar and his aides arrived to take Ali away by force, Fatimah firmly refused to open the door. Instead, from behind the door, she repeatedly implored Omar to leave them alone and reminded them of the sanctity of her home in the Quran. Unfortunately, the confrontation escalated rapidly: An enraged Omar kicked the door open, pinning Fatimah behind the door, which was aflame by now. When Fatimah continued to resist the intruders, Omar physically assaulted her with his sheathed sword and (or) a whip. Some accounts have that, at this point, Ali managed to intercept Omar before being overpowered by Omar's aides' is so biased.

The article is clear that this is the Shia point of view. I'll improve the presentation add more sources soon. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost the entire article has dead links such as ذهبی. میزان الاعتدال vol. 1. p. 139.

Thanks for catching this. I'll hopefully fix that and add modern sources whenever possible. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

These types of lines 'As a result, this question has loomed large ever since: Fatimah was Muhammad's daughter and extremely dear to him. Why was she buried secretly? Why do we not know where her grave is?'

This should be fixed and I'll hopefully take care of that. Albertatiran (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Like, at this point, this article starts to frustrate me about how biased it is against Umar and Abu Bakr. Since my edits are usually reverted, Albertatiran I hope you change these issues. Thanks. Al-Saaba 20:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

First paragraphs

The first paragraphs makes no sense. It says 'According to Sunni Muslims, Fatimah was the youngest of their daughters, whereas Shia Muslims maintain that Fatimah was the only biological child of the couple who lived to adulthood'. The comparision makes no sense. For example, if it was written Sunni Muslims believe she was the youngest daughter whereas Shia Muslims maintain she was the eldest. Then the line would make sense. Its like saying Sunni Muslims believe Ali was the fourth caliph whereas Shia Muslims maintain Ali was the eldest son of Abu Talib. Does this make any sense? Al-Saaba 20:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"A believes in X whereas B believes in Y" is a valid sentence. Basically, the Sunni view is that they had four daughters together whereas the Shia view is that Muhammad and Khadija had only one daughter, Fatimah, and the other girls were Muhammad's stepdaughters who were adopted by the couple after Khadija's sister died. In the next few weeks, I'll also hopefully improve the readability of the article which would hopefully address this and similar concerns. Albertatiran (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

References

This is a note to say that there are now two references in the article named ":27", with different lists of sources. Could the editor(s) that added them please disentangle which set of sources is supposed to belong with which statement and rename (at least one of) them? In my opinion it's better to give references more descriptive names where possible to avoid such problems (or, for an article like this which uses shortened footnotes, just write the {{sfn}} out again; it's not many extra characters and it's much clearer to future editors). Thanks in advance, Wham2001 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. I'll hopefully implement that. Albertatiran (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Questionable content

@PZMir: Hi, I have trouble finding your recent claim about Uthman in the two sources you have provided. Could you clarify this by adding the page numbers and publishing info? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@PZMir: Hi again, as I asked you above, I'd again encourage you to clarify your source for the claim above. Your claim does not appear in the sources you have provided, i.e., Rogerson and Rahman. Unless you can provide a reliable source, we'd need to remove them. If this behavior persists, we'd also need to inform a few of the admins. I'd also invite you not to use false labels, e.g., "disruptive edit" for removing unsourced material. Albertatiran (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Waiting to see a response here. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@PZMir: Thanks for replacing your source. However, note that the new source (which uses honorifics, e.g., "Hadrat") does not meet the standards of Wikipedia for a reliable secondary source, i.e., published recently by a reputable publisher with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This criterion excludes sources that are written from a religious point of view and lack objectivity. Per MOS:ISLAM, we should later remove/replace unreliable secondary sources, e.g., your new source or موسوعة التاريخ الاسلامي, and primary sources, e.g., الطبقات الكبرى. There is more info about what constitutes a reliable secondary source in WP:RS and WP:NOR. Albertatiran (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• @PZMir: You are making edits which are challenged by the involved users. Besides the content issues, you have used sources which are deemed not be reliable for the purpose of adding those content. As per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You are expected to actively participate the talk page discussions (which you have not shown to be able to do so far). From the other hand, it is you who should show the used sources are reliable (per WP:BURDEN). I am going to revert your recent changes based on the issues discussed here and you are expected to enter the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Albertatiran: and @Mhhossein:, can you explain what is the problem with my latest edit? Now I provided a reliable secondary source and it is again removed. Can I finally get a consensus on this issue. PZMir 10:00, 6 Janiary 2022 (UTC)

@PZMir: From my limited experience, the gold standard seems to be an accredited Western university press, though most non-independent Western publishers also pass the bar if the authors are considered to be experts. (Usually, that means academics.) This can be seen in the present article and most high-profile Wiki articles. This also doesn't mean that other publishers are necessarily unacceptable but it is more difficult for a non-expert, such as myself, to ascertain their credibility. This is the situation for your new source. I really don't know and I wonder if Mhhossein or Apaugasma might have better suggestions. (Also the page number or a searchable quote are missing, see WP:V.) However, it is worth noting that there are currently a few unreliable sources in the article, which are occasionally used to support uncontroversial details which were hard to find elsewhere. Please also refrain from sensitive edits without discussing them here, e.g., the Brill article about Fadak writes that Fatimah's agents were expelled by Abu Bakr, hence the current wording "seized". Albertatiran (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The publisher (Pustaka Nasional) is quite clearly not an academic publisher and as such cannot guarantee reliability in this context. But this would not necessarily be a problem if the author were an independent expert (while most reliable publishers are indeed Western, there are many non-Western experts out there!). But this does not appear to be the case: googling M. R. M. Abdur Raheem does not yield a university page, bibliography, or any other way to check their credentials, and putting his name in Google Scholar shows as a first entry a blurb from the preface of his book (that can be further read on Google Books), which clearly shows that the book is written from a religious Islamic, in-universe, and therefore non-independent perspective. Such non-independent sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia.

@PZMir: the fact that your source is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards does not mean that what it says is not true. But it is imperative that you seek out reliable literature (anything "... University Press" will do) and read that, because you can only successfully edit here on the basis of such literature. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I should add that being from a western publisher is not a guarantee nor it is a criteria. We'd better look if the publisher and/or author are experts in the field. By the way, reliability is not an absolute concept and largely depends on the context, content and the page under discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

I want to report this page as this page contain some very wrong information about the beloved Fatimah (RA) life and death Thank you 91.227.24.171 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)