Talk:Hasan–Mu'awiya treaty

Primary sources and copy editing

Primary sources in this article can be replaced by reliable secondary sources, see WP:RS and WP:NOR and MOS Islam. The article also seem to need some copy editing, e.g., the double paranthesis or first fitna vs First Fitna, both in the lead. I hope to address these issues in the coming days. I'll discuss any major changes here. Albertatiran (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this article is actually a collection of different views because the primary sources do not have a consensus. I agree with the use of newer sources, such as the book Solh al-Hassan, which mentions these things. This agreement, the violation of which was the beginning of the second sedition, is hardly mentioned at all and has few secondary resources, in which case the primary resources can be used to some extent. M.Nadian (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, M.Nadian. I managed to find the book that you mentioned and it seems very revelant. As my first step, I can replace the primary content that already exists in seconadry sources, e.g., the material from Sahih al-Bukhari. Then it'd be nice to fill in the remaining gaps in the timeline and, perhaps, also add a separate section for Shia views. Albertatiran (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither Sunni nor Shia sources have a consensus, and some Sunni sources quoted unreliable individuals. I think it is better to say the sum of the conditions first and then explain each condition. Or make a table in which sources which conditions are mentioned. (Persian used to be in the first form, now in the second form) M.Nadian (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I see fa, Vaglieri Wilfred Madelong in Hasan ibn Ali and britannica said something about this treaty but I think not enough we need. M.Nadian (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Revised background section: I ended up expanding and rewriting the background section from the same sources used earlier. I think this section in more self-contained and readable now, e.g., has now fewer marginally-related details, e.g., names of those in the convoy. The title Background was also changed to Abdication of Hasan which seems more appropriate. If you don't approve of the new edits, please leave a note here. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@M.Nadian: Hi! I'd like to suggest that Narrations is removed from the article in view of MOS Islam which advises against the use of hadith as a primary source. In this case, various primary sources are surveyed by both Madelung and Jafri, so there is perhaps no need for, for example, Sahih al-Bukhari. Would you agree? Albertatiran (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If all the conditions are said, I agree.

I think Jafari, Madlung and Solh Al-Hassan said all conditiond together.

By the way, I think, after conditions We should to increase the pre-treaty and post-treaty events. M.Nadian (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to see the edits, I agree with them, if the conditions are clearer is better.

The narrations section, it is better to summarize each narration and include more narrations. M.Nadian (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@M.Nadian: Thanks. I have now expanded the post-treaty (see Aftermath) and polished the text in Content of the treaty. I also changed the lede a bit. In particular, I removed the statement that Muawiya's successor should be elected by a shura because there are also other variants of this claim, e.g., [Momen, p. 27]. So it might be best to keep it simple in the lede. I also removed a couple of sentences in the lede that are covered in the next section. Lastly, I removed the long quotes from Narrations. I still think this section is redundant and can be removed since the same material is covered in Content of the treaty. Albertatiran (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

👍👌 M.Nadian (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)