Talk:Battle of Karbala/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of Karbala. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• @HyperGaruda and Sa.vakilian: On the first sentence of the third paragraph in the "political background" section which reads "Later, Husayn ibn Ali did not accept ... ."; Does it mean that Muawiyah asked Husayn ibn Ali to be Caliph after Yazid or ... ? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No I don't think so. It means he opposed to Yazid's succession.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What Sa.vaikilian says. "Did not accept" is used here in the sense of "did not tolerate"/"did not agree with". --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you HyperGaruda & Seyyed. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have merged and condensed all the repeated information into one chronologically ordered chain of unique events. If there are things missing, add them to the correct place within the timeline. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to revert your edits, as they seem a high jump which should in fact occur step by step. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Step-by-step is difficult, if not impossible, when multiple paragraphs and sections are involved. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo, Mhhossein, Sa.vakilian, Wiqi55, Toddy1, Faizhaider, and Emir of Wikipedia: Who is in favour of working from the old, repetitious version and who would like to start fresh from the new, condensed version? You can compare them in this diff: --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• New, because it is much more ordered and makes it easier to add things at the correct place, if necessary. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• New It is written much better and more clearly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• New with detailsI agree with @HyperGaruda: that we should rewrite the article so that the redundant information is removed. On the other hand, I agree with @Mhhossein: that there should be some related details which let reader understand the situation better. As you remember, we had good cooperation in the lead of Ali's article. Therefor, I hope to reach agreement here, as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• New This seems like a slam dunk. The new one is an improvement and doesn't appear controversial; it seems fair to consider that the new consensus and then work on any future additions/changes based on that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• We need more details As I said above, we have to discuss the collection of apparently similar sentences first. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• @HyperGaruda: Note that polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that, apart from you, there is general consensus that it is easier to add your beloved details to the more coherent new version than to the old one. Don't you agree that it is easier to add new furniture to a room when it is cleaned up rather than when it is a mess? --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Those "beloved details" are actually added per their weight and are meant to avoid escaping some deterministic historical facts. Anyway, I prefer to move step by step. As I said, I found some of the sentences repetitious, too. So, I'll act based on the list and will merge dispersed points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, we have a special user warning discouraging incremental editing template:uw-preview, because all those mini edits clog up Special:RecentChanges and the page history. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. I'll stay somewhere between mini and mass edits. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• New, ensuring that no info is lost although the article should be clear but we should ensure that in process of cleanup we don't loose any infromation. New version can be developed in draft space and reviewed, once agreed it can be moved to mainspace--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Mhhossein and HyperGaruda: I suggest both of you write your proposals, then we can discuss about them.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, my proposal (the "new, condensed version") can be found in the page history: Special:Permalink/741324710. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: The new format is suitable I think. Lots of repetitious info is removed and the chronological order is respected. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

HyperGaruda: Any point on this? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo, Mhhossein, HyperGaruda, Wiqi55, Toddy1, Faizhaider, and Emir of Wikipedia: I merged two suggestions. Please write about your ideas: "" Background:During Ali's Caliphate, the Muslim world became divided and war broke out between Ali and Muawiyah I. When Ali was assassinated by Ibn Muljam (a Kharijite) in 661, his eldest son, Hasan, succeeded him but soon signed a peace treaty with Muawiyah to avoid further bloodshed. In the treaty, Hasan was to hand over power to Muawiya on the condition that he be just to the people and keep them safe and secure and that he would not establish a dynasty. This brought to an end the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Hasan and Husayn then moved to Medina. Husayn ibn Ali became head of Banu Hashim after his older brother, Hasan, was poisoned to death in 670 (50 AH). His father's supporters in Kufah gave their allegiance to him, but he told them he was still bound by the peace treaty between Hasan and Muawiyah I as long as Muawiyah was alive.

Contrary to the treaty and the election via a shura, Mu'awiyah appointed his son Yazid I as successor in 56 AH, which transformed the government from a "consultative" from to a monarchy. While Mu'awiyah could get most people to pledge their allegiance, Husayn, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Umar and a few other prominent figures refused to acknowledge Yazid as heir to the throne. The legitimacy of Yazid's succession as well as his "worthiness" for this position was questioned by them. Husayn considered the Umayyads an oppressive and religiously misguided regime. He insisted on his legitimacy based on his own special position as a direct descendant of Muhammad and his legitimate legatees. As a consequence, the situation turned into a political crisis after Mu'awiyah's death which led to a civil war (known as Second Fitna).

The information about what happened after Yazid's succession will move to the next section:Prelude/Events before the battle--Seyyed(t-c) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think the current one is already a merger of the two suggestions and is accepted. No new form is required. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. So, please neglect my suggestion.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Seyyed: Sorry I forgot to thank your valuable effort. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Various forms of Husyan's name is used throughout the article; "Hussein", "Hussayn", and "hossein". We'd better use a consistent form. Which one fits better? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Husayn. We use that for his own article, and it complies with WP:MOSAR. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Husayn. It is used for his own article as stated above, and any discussion to use another variant should take place there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Husayn. I don't think there's any difference in reasoning or opinion here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @MezzoMezzo: I don't think that there was ever any difference in reasoning or opinion. I think they were probably just accidentally used by editors who are used to other spelling variants. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Hussain. In Pakistan (even in India) this style is applied and I think it is equivalent to "Husayn". However, Hussein or Hossein is Persian style spelling per their pronunciation. Nannadeem (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nannadeem: While those are more commons for people in everyday life, that is due to the large population of those countries. The majority of literature concerning this figure comes from other countries, and I don't think it's right to use a spelling variant that is more common generally for a specific case where it isn't. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My comments were just for info. People from different linguistic branches apply their phonetic pattern, that is why we find slightly difference in spelling. I do not hesitate to accept any positive change, however, as pointed above his own article should be given preference. Nannadeem (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And his own article has to be titled based on Wikipedia:Article titles. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: As it appears, "Muawiyah's breaking the treaty" is mentioned by some sources. Also, note that we don't base our edits merely on the Tabari history. I'll try to find enough sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The anti-Umayyad POV is that there was such a clause in the treaty. However Tabari does not mention it, even though sources he used mentioned it. Wikipedia should therefore not make the claim that the supposed clause is a historical fact.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

We'll see what's right, after checking the sources. Btw, Muawiyah assigned his son as his successor while he could not do that, based on the treaty. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I found two reliable sources verifying Muawiyah's violating the peace agreement. " Jointly with the sons of several other prominent Companions of Moḥammad, Ḥosayn resisted Moʿāwia’s demands that they pledge allegiance to his son Yazid, whom he had appointed as his successor in breach of both his treaty with Ḥasan and ʿOmar’s principle of election by the consultation (šurā),[1] and "In his own speech Moʿāwia disowned all his previous stipulations and promises to Ḥasan and others, which were made merely in order to extinguish the fire of rebellion and to cut short the war.[2] I restored the section and will add the materials from both of the above sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this justifies such a POVvy section title (I'd rather go for "Succession to Muawiyah") or even a separate section title in the first place. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What kind of POV do you mean? Was this subject not an important part of the political background for battle of Karbala? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of all the headings you could have chosen, you picked one with a negative tone, because let's face it, breaking a treaty is never a positive thing to do. Adding such a subheading where it is unnecessary, looks like an attempt at introducing even more negativity about Mu'awiyah. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

But the sources say he did break the treaty, I mean he did the negative thing. I have no problem with having a broader discussion over having this subheading or not. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Already found another source verifying the breaking of the treaty by Mu'awiyah. "But Mu'awiya broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succeed him, and convinced Ja'da, Hasan’s wife, to poison the imam."^[1] --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt that Mu'awiyah broke the treaty, but I disagree that it should be highlighted by putting it in a heading, phrased like that. Even if what he did was wrong, that does not mean that Wikipedia should throw away WP:NPOV when there are alternatives. Again, a subheading in addition to "Political background" is unnecessary. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil response HyperGaruda. While I can't understand why you insist on calling this subheading a WP:POV (and I would be thankful if you could say why you call it POV, based on the policies and guidelines), I think we'd better gather more views towards this issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL is the specific part of WP:NPOV (in the sense of "neutrality") about which I am talking. Emphasising the breaking of an agreement is like saying "ooh, look how bad this guy is". That is not neutral. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I still see no problem with the tone, as we are not engaging the dispute. We did not describe something as bad or good, rather we referred to a historical fact. However, I know that a consensus should be built over having such a subheading before doing anything. Pinging @MezzoMezzo and Sa.vakilian: for gathering more views. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wilferd Madelung has clearly mentioned the issue. He says: In his own speech Moʿāwia disowned all his previous stipulations and promises to Ḥasan and others, which were made merely in order to extinguish the fire of rebellion and to cut short the war. His aim had been to seek revenge for the blood of ʿOṯmān, and anyone failing to pledge allegiance within three days would not be pardoned.[3] and Jointly with the sons of several other prominent Companions of Moḥammad, Ḥosayn resisted Moʿāwia’s demands that they pledge allegiance to his son Yazid, whom he had appointed as his successor in breach of both his treaty with Ḥasan and ʿOmar’s principle of election by the consultation (šurā).[4]--Seyyed(t-c) 03:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Seyyed: As you see above, I've already mentioned these quotes and HyperGaruda said that he did not doubt that Mu'awiyah broke the treaty. His objection is against having a subheading entitled "Muawiyah's brekaing the treaty", since he belives that this title is "POVy". What do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer a title like this: "the crisis of Yazid succession to Mu'awiyah" --Seyyed(t-c) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see what HyperGaruda thinks! --Mhhossein ^talk 07:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer no title at all, simply because it is not needed. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, you're ignoring a decisive milestone with a significant impact on the later events. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. Am I to understand that the discussion here is regarding the choices of a) no title, b) title X, c) title Y, etc.? I'm just coming in to this discussion late and I want to be sure that I understand properly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right MezzoMezzo. What's your idea? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: My suggestion is neutral and helps the readers to understand better.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Typically when editors disagree, a good solution would be to return to site policies and guidelines; that way, nobody is taken the side of one person over another, but of the rules of the site.

Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty finding an official answer on when specifically a section/subsection header is appropriate. At MOS:HEADINGS and WP:GOODHEAD we can see rules about how to format section headings, but not when or why. Does anybody know a common outcome or official answer on this issue? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I also could not find an "official" answer. I think such an issue needs to be discussed by editors who use their argument to prove themselves. There are "official" ways for resolving such disputes. I think MezzoMezzo can help much better by bringing his opinion here. If the dispute is not resolved, we can gather more views. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To say "Mu'awiya breaking the treaty" (in Wikipedia's voice) assumes there is an agreed upon text of said treaty. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. According to Tabari, two sets of conditions were given to Mu'awiya by Hasan. Mu'awiya agreed upon one of them (Hasan's first letter) but rejected the other set (written unilaterally by Hasan). Moreover, there is no mention of any condition that limits Mu'awiya's choice of a successor in Tabari's account, which can be read here (vol.18, pp.7-8) [5]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you follow the comments you'll see there are three reliable secondary sources verifying that there were a treaty and Mu'awiyah violated the treaty per those sources. By the way, we don't act based on primary sources such as Tabari. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So what about Ibn Kathir's story? Seems to me that, if Tabari is a primary source, then Ibn Kathir is also a primary source. You should really take a second look at what a primary source actually is. Neither Tabari nor Ibn Kathir were even born at that time, so technically, they cannot be primary sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Indeed, there was a peace treaty. However, its actual text is lost, its conditions differ, and Tabari speaks of two treaties with only one accepted by Mu'awiya. This can be verified by anyone. The source linked also provides secondary material making the same points. For example in the Introduction of volume 19, p.10: According to both Baladhuri and Ibn A'tham, Mu'awiyah had agreed, in the treaty he made with al-Hasan b. Ali on the latter's abdication, that there should be a consultative council [shura] to decide the succession after him. However, Tabari fails to mention this.. Also in note 34 of volume 18 there is a condition that is rarely found elsewhere: According to Balathuri, Futuh, Mu'awiya assigned 'Ayn al-Sayd to al-Hasan in return for the Caliphate). etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid making marginal discussions, we're not here to discuss what conditions the treaty had. Rather we are speaking about the violation of treaty by Mu'awiyah through assigning his son as Caliph, which is verified by both reliable sources and users here. This topic aims to reach a consensus on whether we should have a subheading regarding this violation and Yazid's assignment (which seems to me an effective political factor) or not. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm in agreement with seyyed's suggestion regarding the title and I confess that his proposal was more neutral than mine, I'm waiting for MezzoMezzo's opinion. Up to now, HyperGaruda has disagreed and I can't evaluate Wiqi's exact position. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether the treaty had the condition is very relevant to the discussion. There is a Shia view of history in which Hazrat Muawiyah and his son Yazid are vilified. However, Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, not just a Shia point of view. The view that the treaty had such a condition, and Hazrat Muawiyah allegedly broke it is a significant point of view, and possibly ought to be mentioned. However it is not an absolute fact. Of modern authors, neither Stephen Humphreys' nor Alisha Bewley's biographies of Muawiyah mention this alleged condition of the treaty with Hassan. This suggests that they (like Tabari) regard it as untrue. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we even suppose that "Whether the treaty had the condition is very relevant to the discussion," nothing changes. That authors such as Stephen Humphreys' nor Alisha Bewley's work does not mention the treaty, does not suggest anything. I presented some other credible "modern authors" that mentioned the treaty and said that Mu'awiayah broke the treaty. As you know, we don't act based on our own knowledge/view of things here and have to rely on reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It would only be fair to mention the other considerations mentioned in sources for Hazrat Muawiyah's choice of successor. As for the story of the alleged condition of the treaty, the most that can be done is to say that some sources mention the story and some sources do not. One of the sources you cited was Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. The comments on it by Humpreys (page 73) are that the book is "carefully documented and closely argued" and that "Madelung can be criticized for relying too much heavily on sources of Shi'ite provenance but he brings much new material to the debate and his arguments and conclusions deserve careful consideration."-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of the sources are Shia sources. As for Madelung, I never cited to The Succession to Muhammad, rather I cited two of his Iranica articles. Anyway, Madelung is a well known orientalist. Then what about Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world (cited above), is it another Shi'a source? More can be found by a quick search. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The citation to The Succession to Muhammad with reference to the conditions of the treaty with Hasan is in the second sentence of the "Political Background" section. It reads: "In the Hasan-Muawiya treaty, Hasan ibn Ali handed over power to Muawiya on the condition that he be just to the people and keep them safe and secure and that he not establish a dynasty. Hasan and Husayn then moved to Medina.[12][13] "-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As I already said, please note that the undoubted violation is verified by various sources. Such as those mentioned here. Naturally, any secondary reliable sources claiming that the treaty was not violated are welcome. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Madelung's view shouldn't be accepted uncritically as fact. As explained above, several historians point out that the conditions of this treaty are found in conflicting reports. And Madelung in The Succession cites another historian's view contrary to his: Mu'awiya, according to Lammens, kept word in everything he had promised. (p.331). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You and Toddy1 tend to stick to marginal discussion. You are in fact ignoring that Muawiyah assigned his son Yazid as his successor, the point we were trying to suggest a subheading. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A subheading which, with the current amount of text talking about Yazid's appointment, seems even less necessary than before. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've spent a few minutes trying to catch up on the discussion, but there appears to be a measure of dispute regarding historical events. From what I understand, this dispute is a partial cause over the disagreement regarding the addition of a subheading into the "Political background" section. Is that accurate?

I have my opinions about the state of the article, as well as my own personal views on events, but I'm trying to think of a simpler way of solving the dispute before I start to add my two cents. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was reading through the "Political background" again, when it occured to me that I had seen the latter paragraphs not so long ago in exactly the same sensationalist wording: here. I know that a few years ago, there was an editor who avidly added tens of thousands of bytes worth of content to articles regarding Islam's early history. That content was, however, largely a quotefarm and often included entire sections that were slightly or even not at all relevant to a specific page. The same has happened here, considering the revision history. The whole section after "According to Ibn Katheer..." until the reference is a direct quote (copyvio?) from a translation of Ibn Kathir's history (compare to this page, where the quote markup is still visible).
Frankly, I do not see what the relevance is of those who did not pledge their allegiance (save for Husayn of course), how they spoke and how they were afraid of being humiliated. When condensed to the relevant essence of these paragraphs, not much is left (Mu'awiyah named his son successor to the caliphate, but some people -Husayn among them- disagreed, period; all of which is already told one paragraph earlier) and a separate subheading is even less needed. Yeah, I think I am going to shorten/delete those irrelevant details. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo, HyperGaruda, Sa.vakilian, Wiqi55, and Toddy1: I tweaked the section on the political background and added some info on how the Yazid's succession to Mu'awiyah was an important politico-religious factor catalyzing moving toward the event of Karbala. Meanwhile, I'm suggesting to have a subsection entitled "the crisis of Yazid succession to Mu'awiyah". Please let me know if you think we should not have such a subsection. One thing; Please don't focus on marginal discussions (such as Tabari has not mentioned X or Y, Mu'awiyah never violated anything and etc) and open a separate topic if you feel like doing that. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What you call marginal discussions are not marginal at all. The whole article is appalling biassed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1:Please answer the question here and then make a different section to discuss about your concern. Either the article is biased or not, there was a political crisis which led to second Fitna. Therefor, we can make a subsection and use "the crisis of Yazid succession to Mu'awiyah" as its title.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that the section "Political background" is rather redundant to the subsequent section "Events before the battle", in particular the first paragraph, which nicely summarizes the "Political background" section. --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda and Mhhossein: HyperGaruda has mentioned good point. I prefer long and detailed poltical background in the body of the article. Thus, we can move some part of the "Events before the battle" to the lead. This will solve the problem of redundancy. --Seyyed(t-c) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't been involved enough to comment on the body of the article. However, the idea of a section on Yazid's succession to (or "of"?) Muawiyah sounds interesting. Would this section, if added, be included in the background section? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: You only have to read the section Battle of Karbala#Political background to understand this discussion. @Others: I am not against a paragraph about the succession to Mu'awiyah, but I take great exception to including the same information four times. The paragraphs starting with "The Battle of Karbala took place within the crisis...", "Husayn ibn Ali did not accept the request of Muawiyah...", "In his written instructions to Yazid...", and "Muawiyah I died on Rajab 22, 60 AH (680 AD). In violation..." all say the same thing in slightly different wordings: Yazid became Mu'awiyah's successor, but Husayn and others did not agree with this for various reasons. These paragraphs should be merged and condensed to one paragraph. What is then left, is too short to give a separate subheading under "Political background". --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I think we may remove the repeated sentences, I'm against your approach of removing the details for the sake of avoiding a subsection. All the related details may be added, if they are supported by reliable sources. We've got really different materials in those you just mentioned, how can you call them "the same thing in slightly different wordings"? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to place emphasis on the word "related details". This page is about the Battle of Karbala, not the succession to Mu'awiyah. Also, do I really have to spell it out for you? It seems so. Here is a nice overview of things that are the same in slightly different wordings:

As you can see, much of these paragraphs overlap with each other and should therefore be merged into one coherent piece of text. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting time on this precise collection of sentences. We can now do some trimmings. However, I think you just failed to distinguish between "related details" and repeated sentences. For example, in your "treaty" subsection, we should have the first three and say goodbye to the forth, while in the "Yazid the successor" we may remove more sentences. Anyway, that does not make us ignore the milestone of Yazid's succession to his father. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Faizhaider: Up to now, MezzoMezzo, Seyyed and me were in favor of having a subsection regarding Yazid's succession to Mu'awiyah. What do you think? You can see more details in previous comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As Yazid's succession to Mu'awiyah is what caused Battle of Karbala, it should have detailed explanation of it in relation to the Battle of Karbala. Definitely a subsection regarding Yazid's succession to Mu'awiyah will be best way to do it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Karbala. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ahl-ul-bayt.org/MAGAZINE/English/Thaqalayn27/ch2_1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211012221/http://www.islamonline.net/English/ArtCulture/2004/03/article06.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/ArtCulture/2004/03/article06.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051114091437/http://www.imamalinet.net:80/vigenam/moharam1422/en/e2.htm to http://www.imamalinet.net/vigenam/moharam1422/en/e2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: How is this the Shia view? Not disagreeing, I just want you to give the information to help make the article neutral. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored the POV check banner, because Toddy1 was the one who added this before the renewed discussion about the section header (see section below), so it seems that there are other neutrality concerns. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? "The crisis of..."? You could not just go for a simple, concise and NPOV "Succession to Mu'awiyah"? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• The concept is induced by reliable sources already cited (e.g. see Elbadri, Rachid (March 2009)). The word "crisis" brings no POV with it self, rather it shows how the succession upheavled the political atmosphere of the time. However let's see how others think about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That is a Masters thesis without any shown scholarly impact, and is thus not a reliable source (WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."). "Crisis" is only there to give it extra sensationalism and is completely unnecessary, nor supported by reliable sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The reliability of the thesis can be addressed at WP:RSN and I'll take care of that. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You have still not addressed my "conciseness" concern. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Gathering more views to decide whether we should use the phrase "The crisis of..." at the beginning of the header; @MezzoMezzo, Sa.vakilian, Faizhaider, and Toddy1:. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "Muawiyah succession crisis". To me it is concise and clear. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The succession led the to second fitna. To prove my claim I would like to refer to this reliable source from Encyclopaedia of Islam which says:"Yazīd’s caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna," reassuring that the word "Crisis" best fits the event.--Mhhossein ^talk 06:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, is THAT what you mean by "crisis". Obviously, if it is "commony referred to as fitna", we should use "fitna" and not "crisis". --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggested "Crisis" as a synonym for Second Fitna. I think it is more neutral than Fitna. However, I agree to use Fitna if you think it is a better term.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda and Mhhossein: The POV check tag can be removed if the only problem is "crisis". None of these terms, ie. "Crisis" and "Fitna" , affect the neutrality.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I think the "Fitna" consists a collection of events and is not restricted to the battle of Karbala. So, the word crisis matches better, as the sources suggest. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it correct that both the terms "crisis" and "fitna" are used by reliable sources? And if so, does one predominate over the other? Predominance might not necessarily indicate preferability, but it could be of benefit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo: Thanks for the comment. Yes, both is used. However, per Encyclopedia of Islam, "Fitna" was a "crisis" consisted of a chain of events and is not restricted to the battle of Karbala. So, using "crisis" seems better. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

So you want to use "crisis" to describe the succession, which is not the same as the Encyclopedia's use of "crisis" to describe the whole Fitna. In other words, the source still does not support your intended use of "crisis". What is so wrong with "Succession to Mu'awiyah" that you do not want to use it? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda and Mhhossein: I removed the title and the POV check tag. Let's solve the problem here, then add it to the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• @MezzoMezzo and Faizhaider: I'm going to close this discussion. But I need your views on this before doing anything. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Karbala. 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/20160910230542/http://www.irdc.ir/en/content/25078/print.aspx to http://www.irdc.ir/en/content/25078/print.aspx

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) 12:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: thanks for editing the page, but I see you tend to engage in edit wars with users holding different POVs as yours (take this message as a warning against Wikipedia:Edit warring). Can you please use talk page for showing your objection? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

user:Snowsky Mountain is the second user, after me, whose edits you repeatedly reverted. No idea on this? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Karbala has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph there is a link to "Age of Ignorance" that clearly links the wrong wikipage. This is the one that should be linked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyyah Ethanokoshi (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed, good catch. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Your edits in this article is highly appreciated but there are some points you need to consider. The records shows that you unilaterally changed/removed well sourced longstanding materials which were in the article since 2016 and was a result of back and forth between multiple editors (see Talk:Battle of Karbala#Muawiyah's breaking the treaty). When you do a bold edit and you're then reverted by others, you're advised to engage in discussion, rather keeping on making reverts (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

As for your recent revert, the edit summary includes the following items:

1- "Hasan-muawiya treaty's terms are uncertain and many are fabricated"

2- "Madelung is biased source"

3- "See EI2 for the treaty"

4- "please don't add bogus sources like Nawadir al-Makhtutat and Al-Imamah wal-Siyasah"

Thanks for elaborating on the edit, but your revert had to be done after enough discussions on them. However, find my response to your points:

1- This is not our job to dismiss sourced materials based on our original researches. Three reliable sources ([6], [7] and [8]) say act of Muawiyah was a breach of the treaty, and YOU're just removing it based on an original research. If there's a source having another viewpoint, then add it there, but don' remove the well sourced portion of the article.

2- That "Madelung is biased source" does not make it unreliable. Please note that, per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

3- I don't remember what EI2 says regarding the treaty, but if it's saying something else, you're welcomed to add it here.

4- On what basis do you think 'Nawadir al-Makhtutat and Al-Imamah wal-Siyasah' are "bogus". Can you elaborate on that please?

Moreover, with your recent revert, you removed many other well sourced materials, such as "The legitimacy of Yazid's succession as well as his "worthiness" for this position[12] was questioned at the time,[16][17][18]", "Husayn ibn Ali rejected the caliphate of Yazid,[12] because he considered the Umayyads an oppressive and religiously-misguided regime. He insisted on his legitimacy based on his own special position as a direct descendant of Muhammad and his legitimate legatees" and etc. Please note that I'm ready to discuss every single concern raised by you. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I know the discussion, that you claim had reached consensus. There was nothing like consensus; the participants left in face of your persistence. Of the three RS you link, two are from Madelung (on whom see below), so it is one source not two. The other presents what Shia think of Hasan's treaty, and you are using it in the article to assert it as historical fact. Regarding Madelung, yes he is biased source as evidenced by the reviews of his Succession by Kennedy, Morony, Newman and others. Per policy, that you quoted and which I was unaware of, it at most can be presented as view of Madelung, not as historical fact. EI2, if you can't remember just see article on Hasan in vol 3. It says what I said in the edit summary. Nawadir al-Makhtutat and Al-Imamah wal-Siyasah are bogus as they are not third party scholarly sources published by reputable publishers but written by religious writers with intention of promoting their religious viewpoints. Why do we have to use these when we have scholarly works of academic historians like Wellhausen, Vaglieri, Kennedy, Hawting, Lewis and many others (just see bibliography)? Why do we have to use sources like Luhuf, Ibn Athir, Mukarram, Twelvershia.net, al-islam.org? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Look more carefully, I was not alone in that discussion so please modify the point. Anyway, this is a clear indication of an edit war on your part. As for the biased source, the policy says "Sometimes" those sources are better to be used in their own voice, not 'always'. You said "The other presents what Shia think of Hasan's treaty, and you are using it in the article to assert it as historical fact," which is completely wrong; the source clearly says "But Muawiyah broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succede him..." You also did not say why you removed, without explanation, portions such as "The legitimacy of Yazid's succession as well as his "worthiness" for this position[12] was questioned at the time,[16][17][18]", "Husayn ibn Ali rejected the caliphate of Yazid,[12] because he considered the Umayyads an oppressive and religiously-misguided regime. He insisted on his legitimacy based on his own special position as a direct descendant of Muhammad and his legitimate legatees" which all had reliable sources supporting them. You'll be reverted if you don't have logical response to my objections (note that you're edit warring to remove some sentences which were here since 2016). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

As for sources like Nawadir al-Makhtutat and Al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, now I have no objection against their removal, though I believe they should be taken to RSN to have a stronger consensus over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you weren't alone, else it won't have been a discussion ;) But the fact is that the people opposing your viewpoint left without there being any consensus, and then someone showed up who shared your viewpoint and thus you reached that "consensus". Although it is not edit warring, but if, for a moment, I accept your accusation that it is "clear indication of edit war" on my part, then you better know that I responded to your edit war: you removed my contributions and restored yours, twice. It doesn't matter if it was done through "undo"/"rollback" or manually, effect is the same. I hope you know what parable means? The author calls it a parable. In that parable he also says "imams...having access to the divine meaning of the revelation"; now don't tell me that the author believes in the doctrine of Imamate. You say I didn't explain removal of:

• "The legitimacy of Yazid's succession as well as his "worthiness" for this position[21] was questioned at the time,[24][27][28]"

Would you mind checking what I replaced it with? My version presents the rejection of his nomination by all the prominent guys, and with better sources. Your [27][28] as discussed above are bogus, [24] is on a tangentially related topic, and it says nothing unusual that my sources don't. And since its main focus is not this topic, it omits various important details; for example it omits doubts cast by modern historians on story of Husayn's decision to turn back after knowing of Ibn Aqil's execution. If we go by your way thinking and use such sources, we will have to present material presented by this author as fact. When writing article, always best sources written by scholars working in the field are used. Same goes for [21]. In fact, vast number of sources, including Wellhausen, Donner, Kennedy, and Hawting, explicitly state that Husayn and Ibn al-Zubayr had their own ambitions. Nevertheless, opposition to Muawiya's nomination was principally because of hereditary succession, as the article presently describes.

• Husayn ibn Ali rejected the caliphate of Yazid,[12] because he considered the Umayyads an oppressive and religiously-misguided regime. He insisted on his legitimacy based on his own special position as a direct descendant of Muhammad and his legitimate legatees". Vast majority of sources state that he told Walid to pay allegiance in public and then went to Mecca without paying allegiance. It is only Dakake, AFAIK, which sates that his rebellion was motivated by his satus as Muhammd's grandson. As sated above, most RS state he was motivated by his ambition for the caliphate. It is rather strange that you insist on that these be ignored and view of Dakake be presented. The religious sources don't constitute RS and if you want community input on them, it is your responsibility to take them to RSN, not mine. Something there being since 2016 is no guaranty for it to be correct. We better revert to verisions of article from 2001 then? Also, please threaten and give your ultimatums to somebody else!AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Your comment in a nutshell; you think the True version should be implemented and the rest should be removed, which is against WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." One more thing,SILENCE always implies consent. So, you have acted against a long standing consensus (since 2016), for changing which you needed to make a new consensus. You are then advised to avoid making more reverts unless a new consensus is built. Let me clarify your points; the author of this source never calls Muawiyah's breaking his promise as being "parable" and he clearly says "But Muawiyah broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succede him..." In other parts, though, he uses "parable" to narrate a hadith (which is irrelevant to our discussion). As for questioning sources 12 and 16 in this version, your explanation seems good, but I don't think it justifies removal of these reliable sources. Though you're free to add various other POVs according to their weights. I read your comment word by word, and you repeatedly say "vast majority" of the sources say something else without trying to draft them here. We never remove a well sourced viewpoint solely because there's a counter-viewpoint for that. As the policy says, NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". There's no ultimatums. I don't say we should keep the material just because it's old, I say the material is the result of an older consensus so there should be a newer consensus for changing it. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus? I left the discussion because of the walls of text that went nowhere. It's exhausting to have to discuss every grain of sand, you know... Oh and you are misinterpreting WP:NOTEVERYTHING completely opposite to what it tries to explain, namely that there are limits to the scope of Wikipedia, which is explained in its next line that you conveniently did not mention: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey HyperGaruda, for whatever reason you left, your SILENCE implied the consensus (actually this was not solely your silence with others commenting in the favor of my suggestion). Anyway, thanks to your elaborating on WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I essentially meant the article had to be "...a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

True? When did I say anything about truth and usefulness? I said nothing of the sort. I see it is not only sources, but even my comments whom you are twisting. I talked of RS and proper representation of them. Silence is consent? Absurdity of this is astronomical. So you mean if some vandal (I'm not referring to you as vandal; it is a general statement) vandalizes an article and it remains so for three years, it shouldn't be corrected because it was there for three years? As said before, there wasn't any consensus, and one of the participants has just explicitly said it. I am amazed at how you read sources. He starts with "According to Shia accounts" and then in the very next para calls it a parable structure. Why exactly do we need tangentially related sources when we have sources specifically on the topic? And then you removed sfn and re-added already defined sources in ref tags? Why? And again, you changed to Madelung's view to fact? As for opinions, I have added all the significant opinions in a separate section. Please stop portraying opinions as facts. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

VANDALs are exceptions which are acted against in a totally different manner. Also, SILENCE is an explanatory supplement to one of our policies, so if you have problems with that policy, it is not a suitable venue for expressing that. Instead you can take your voice to the related talk page. As for this source, it is explicitly saying "But Muawiyah broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succede him..." The "according to shia accounts" is totally irrelevant here and your interpretation of the source is not accurate enough. Same goes for "parable" which is regarding the next paragraph and is not affecting anything here. Please stop transforming facts into opinions. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandals are no exception, things are to be seen in view of all the policies of Wikipedia. If something, whether from a vandal or from a discussion, is conflicting with policies of NPOV, RS, Verifiability, it will be challenged and corrected. Also, please do not misquote policies. The policy page you are referring to explicitly denies what you are saying here: "As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like." I am not transforming facts into opinions. What I am saying is that this is not even an "opinion" of the author. You say "But Muawiyah broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succede him..." is the author's view. I am saying it is not his view, he is reporting Shia view. Some examples of why is it so: In the same tone, he says (1) "Hasan was important rawi... of the hadith... reflecting role of the imams in having access to the divine meaning of the revelation", (2) "Hasan was too weak politically to challenge Mua'wiya [who] attempted to have him assassinated", (3) "Mua'wiya promised that leadership would revert to the family of the Prophet", (4) [Mua'awiya] convinced Ja'ada, Hasan's wife, to poison the imam". If the author is not reporting Shia view, then he is accepting the Imamate doctrine, that Hasan abdicated because of his political weakness(and not because he was unwilling to continue the war), that at al-Madain Muawiya, and not Kharijites, attempted to assassinate him, and that Hasan died from poisoning from Ja'da. These are Shi'i viewpoints. Historically, some of these are disputed, and some are flat wrong. It is common in scholarly writing to present someone's views in own voice without explicitly mentioning every time "according to so and so". I am changing facts into opinions? What are facts? Something unanimously held by the experts. This is not the case. Refer to note that I have added to the article. This is not a "fact" that such a clause existed in the treaty. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for picking this up. You can skip sections 6.2, 7.2 and 7.3, as they are still to be rewritten. Thanks. --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: No problem. Thanks. We have worked well together before, so I know that you won't be shy in letting me know if I get anything wrong, or you don't understand why I've done it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yes sure. --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX. I am not sure what is meant by: "Although he was able to defeat Mukhtar, Umayyad Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who assumed power in Syria in 685, eventually defeated and killed him in 692." Could you have a look at it for me please? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a mix of "ibn" and Ibn"; ideally this should be standardised. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think done Gog the Mild. Per sources, in starting it should be "Ibn", when in middle of them name, it should be "ibn". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX. I have finished my first run through. As requested, I have not looked at "Shia writings", "Politics" nor "Literature". I would be grateful if you could run through the changes and flag up anything you are puzzled by, where I have lost the nuance you intended, or where I am now not accurately representing the source. I will then start my second run through. Thanks.

Obviously, when you have completed rewriting 6.2, 7.2 and 7.3 give me a ping and I will look at those for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Doing, will ping you when finished reading. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

1)He publicly announced that he considered himself bound by the peace treaty between Hasan and Muawiyah as long as the latter was alive." These meeting were secret and Husayn didn't say that in public, although Mu'awiya did get information of this anyway.

2)I don't know of any MOS policy on this, but in accordance the sources, I prefer to write "caliphate" instead of "Caliphate".

For most uses you could probably argue that that is reasonable. I'll have a look.

OK. IMO when you write "Umayyad Caliphate" it should be uppercase. For other uses it could be lower case. I have left it like that, but feel free to change the former. And see if your GAN assessor feels that it is a proper noun.

3)Hurr ignored the letters... Since Hussayn wanted to imply that the Kufans, implying men from Hurr's army too, wrote these letter, Hurr and his men denied to have written the letters. So "ignored" is not proper here, I think.

OK. See what you think of this version? "He then showed them letters he claimed he had received from Kufans, including some in Hurr's force. Hurr denied that this was the case and …"

I modified it a bit. Husayn had received letters, it is not just a claim. Although it is uncertain if people in Hurr's army had written any. Hurr denied any involvement with them anyway.

4)and that to compel him Husayn and his companions be denied access to the Euphrates river. Seems some sort of mix up here

Better?

I modified this as well ;)

5)claimed that Husayn had only suggested that he be left alone. Original formatting was not good, I admit, but this one misses the point. The slave claimed that Husayn demanded to be left alone so he would move from here to there until the situation changes (perhaps in his favor). Here is what a source says "to depart and travel the land until the affairs of the people would clarify."

Tweaked.

6)to attack, kill and disfigure him if he was to refuse, as "a rebel,...he was to do no further harm after his death". Perhaps "as he was"?

That wouldn't really go with the start of the sentence; if that is left you could have "as he would then have proved himself to be", but that is getting a bit complicated. I like it how it is. But, obviously, feel free to amend.

7)Husayn told his men that they were all free to leave under the cover of night "they can take his family with them" is significant here, since either it would have made sure the opponents wouldn't pursue them out of respect for the women or it would have made Husayn feel secure about his family.

Added.

modified this as well ;)

8)Zuhayr ibn Qayn attempted to dissuade Ibn Sa'ad from killing Husayn Speech was directed at the opposing army in general.

Done.

9)Shemr wanted to burn that one too, but was prevented by his own commanders. Shemr's companions/comrades dissuaded him.

Done.

10)The Umayyads were hesitant to attack Husayn directly Umayyad army/Umayyad soldiers/Kufans? No Umayyad was present at the scene.

Made it "The Umayyad soldiers".

11)Shemr advanced with a group of foot soldiers towards Husayn who was now almost alone. Husayn didn't start fighting as long as people were fighting on his side and sat in front of his tent. I avoided stating that directly to prevent potential edit war ;) But removal of now prepared to attack as few others were left on his side. carries away even this undertone ;)

Very nuanced. Does "Shemr advanced with a group of foot soldiers towards Husayn, who was now prepared to fight as he was almost alone." work for you?

Modified a bit.

12)The Umayyads then rushed Husayn. As number 10.

Same change.

13)There were eighty-eight dead in Ibn Sa'ad's army. The removed fragment–whom he buried–was to imply, without stating outright (as the sources do), that he didn't bury Husayn and his companions.

I am a bit baffled as to why you don't want to state that about Hasayn and his companions; it is sourced and it is obvious from the following text. Tricky to imply that but I have had a go.

Well, if we write that, someone may complain "where is it stated?"

14)Ibn al-Zubayr started secretly recruiting supporters in Mecca... It wasn't really recruiting; he accepted pledge of anyone who came to him.

Er, that sounds like a dictionary definition of "recruiting". Is there an issue?

Fine, no big deal.

15)After the death of Yazid in November 683, the people of Iraq drove out the Umayyad governor, Ibn Ziyad and Tawwabin called on the people to avenge Husayn's death This gives wrong impression that Ibn Ziyad and Tawwabin both called for revenge. I think a comma after Ibn Ziyad would remove confusion.

Whoops. Sorry. I have gone for a semi colon.

16)[Abu Mikhnaf's] reports are considered to be balanced accounts. This is not entirely correct. The informants were biased. Abu Mikhnaf himself didn't invent much.

OK. I have explicitly said that.

I changed this a bit. I think Wikipedia should not make any suggestions.

17)Shi'a Muslims consider the tomb of Husayn to be a source of divine blessings and rewards. Pilgrimage to.

Tweaked.

The rest is really good. Thank you very much @Gog the Mild:. And yes, after completing these 3 sections, I will inform you. Thank you. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO this is an important article and you need to get it right. So feel free to come back at me with anything where you feel that I am missing nuances that you wish to convey. It is looking coherent and solidly sourced. Nearly ready for GAN I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild. Have just to re-write the remaining two sections. Should be ready then. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Thanks. I should be able to wrap those up later this evening. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I have finished remaining sections, and if you can find some time and copy-edit these, it will be great. Thank you. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: The section numbering has changed; now they are 8.2 and 8.3 (Politics, Literature). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX. I have copy edited both sections. I have been a little bolder than usual, so could you check my edits - as usual. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild for completing the CE. I found a couple typos and fixed them. The rest is, as always, helpful. Thanks again, and I have nominated it for GAN now :) --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

WP has a neutral voice. WP does not sanction one religion over another. The status of Muhammad as a prophet is enjoyed solely by those of the Muslim faith, unbelievers, which include Peoples of the Book, polytheists,agnostics and atheists do not agree. I can only ponder why, the creator of this article did not also include the mandatory pbuh or saaw, behind mention of his name. Recommend that the word prophet be struck as it is not neutral.Oldperson (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PBUH. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't see where is he stated to be a prophet in wikipedia's voice :-/ Providing an example would be more helpful than mere rhetoric. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

[[User:AhmedLX}HyperGaruda|AhmedLX}HyperGaruda]] You should read the article that you are so concerned about. From the lede: "he Battle of Karbala was fought on 10 October 680 (10 Muharram in the year 61 AH of the Islamic calendar) between the army of the second Umayyad caliph Yazid I and a small army led by Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, at Karbala Iraq." I see a quibble coming, none the less Muhammad is referred to as a prophet.Oldperson (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Then you should first check the link provided by HyperGeruda. Desribing him as Islamic prophet Muhammad is what is recommended by MOS. And Islamic prophet is what he is. What do you mean by "so concerned about"? I see it is not any bias on my or HyperGrruda's part. It is that you need to see WP:CIR. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

AhmedLX Copy that understood.Oldperson (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's cool. My apologies on being rude. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to you as well if I offended. FYI, although a kufr I am Islamic friendly (within limits). However I can smell taqiyyah a mile away and have no patience for it. Not accusing you, just giving a little insight.Oldperson (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX:In reference to your latest edit. Are you saying that a cleric cannot be a historian? That being the case then a prophet cannot be a historian, and for that matter if you are correct, then Muslims should not pay any attention to the sunnah and seerah (sira), well at least the sunnah, not sure if Ibn Ishaq was a cleric .. For my edification could you clarify exactly what was wrong or in dispute with the paragraph as regards numbers on each side, and even better why you dispute the information. I have no investment in either side of this (Sunni vs Shia) dispute, given that I am kufr. although well studied in the Q'uran and hadith. However I am simply curious.ThanksOldperson (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I am not concerned with Sunna of the prophet, and if you are concerned with it, its your job, don't tell me that please. Clerics and historians are not the same thing for your info. Baqir Majlisi was a religious cleric and wrote according to his personal religious viewpoint. Other examples like him are ibn Taimiyya, Bukhari, etc. You being well-versed in Quran etc has no bearing on this. In fact, when someone brings in their credentials, it is inherent indication that they realize their point is weak. Again, please keep your kufr stuff to yourself, I have 0 interest in knowing what you believe. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the number of troops, all the historical sources, including Tabari, Baladhuri, Encyclopedia of Islam, Wellhausen and other reputable sources on the subject, mention the number to be 4,000. A credible source on this topic is what is needed to support 3,0000 claim, which is half of entire Iraqi muqatila. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

{{u|AhmadLX). Thanks for clarifying the numbers and your source. I actually have no interest in the Sunnah, that you don't and are Muslim tells me you are Shi'a and as such you have your own POV. As regards kufr. This kufr has no beliefs, opinions aplenty, but not beliefs. Beliefs are beyond reason, they require faith. And as such constitute a part of a persons identity and color their world view. You can't shed beliefs so easily, and those that do, often pick up a new belief and the faithful become extremist converts. Opinions on the other hand are either acquired or arrived at. Acquired opinions require no critical thought, no thinking, simply adopting an opinion from a source that is either feared or exalted. Opinions arrived at require thought, consideration, examination, exposition and are easily set aside when evidence invalidates the opinion. I, hopefully, arrive at my opinions, as I constantly change, if I had beliefs it would not be so easy a task.

In my humble opinion, any source of information on the Sunni-Shia, Arab-Persian conflict is, of necessity, tainted as there is no dispassionate outside witness, so we have endless conflict and possibly edit waring. As I said I really don't care, I was simply interested in what colored your POV. CheersOldperson (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in any editor's belief/disbelief, theological or rational positions. This is an encyclopedia and is supposed to present information as presented by reliable source (you can check what RS are and other related stuff if you want). Anyone with any belief can edit the encyclopedia but when someone attempts to distort facts, synthesize what sources say, use the encyclopedia as propaganda tool, push their beliefs and viewpoints, it conflicts with the mission of this project and is not welcome. This topic area does not attract much attention from unbiased editors who intend to improve the coverage of Islam on this encyclopedia, in last year or so I have been able to identify 8 such editors. As long as I am active on this encyclopedia, I will resist attempts at degrading the the quality of Islam related articles, whether from religious people or from atheist, anti-theist or whatever. We use secondary sources published by modern experts on the subject, who are better equipped to separate fact from fiction and analyze primary sources. My POV is what is POV of the scholarship on the subject. Hope that helps. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You might notice that I have not edited the article, nor do I intend to. I actually have no interest in the debate and various versions. What does interest me is the bias and POV of the editors. And you do have a POV which is not strictly RS. For information sake, although I hold Saudi Arabia and Iran in disdain, for their forms of injustice, beheading, stoning and hanging from cranes, (FYI also critical of the USA for it's criminial injustice system, and it's legalization of slavery (the 13thAmendment legalizes slavery for those convicted of a crime, which as resulted in the re-enslavement of millons of blacks), for their bloodlust and executing innocents In when it comes to the Saudi-Iran conflict. I am in the Iranian corner. I can't foget that on 9-11, the Iranians showed up in the street waving American flags and standing with America, and that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi's and that the Saudi hijackers and Usamah bin Ladin were financed by members of the Saudi Royal family.Oldperson (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not say anything on whether you edited this article. It would be great if you would clarify how my POV is not RS-based. Again, please restrict this to improving articles. You being in Iranian or Saudi camp doesn't interest me, and your insistence on showing yourself to be a rational ideologue only raises suspicion that you are using it as defense. I have come across people who pretend this type of position in order to strengthen their views. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As I have mentioned previously, multiple sources mention the 30,000 figure for the size of the Umayyad army, so it's not a "fringe view" as has been implied. If Baqir Majlisi's claim is reported by multiple sources, then there is no harm in including it in addition to the 4,000 figure already on this page. Many battle pages on Wikipedia have multiple views for army sizes -- see Battle of Gettysburg or Battle of Thermopylae, for example. Therefore, there is a Wikipedian basis for including both army sizes. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae is a bad example to use, it shouldn't even be GA, as it mainly relies on the works of a historian with Greek sympathies who lived in 5th-century BC. As a rule of thumb, ancient historians and especially priestly writers (such as Baqir Majlisi) work should be taken with a grain of salt, as bias is usually apparent. This is what modern sources (by academic scholars who actually specialize in the field) are for. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion it shouldn't be GA. But it is, and it has multiple figures for army sizes. And those aren't the only examples. Other battles with multiple reported army sizes include:

• Battle of the Little Bighorn
• Battle of Fort Sumter
• First Battle of Bull Run
• Siege of Boston
• Battle of Agincourt
• Battle of Ashdown

Would you like me to go on? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That the child who died on Husayn's lap was Ali Asghar is a wrong assertion. His name was Abd Allah, and his age I could not find in any RS. EI2 states that according to Yaqubi it was a newly born child, without giving further detail. Tabari doesn't give age of the child, just that it was a young child. According to Iranica, he was a child, although no age is given. As for Akbar, this is a perfect example of synthesis of sources. Akbar is not reporting history, but is discussing beliefs prevalent in the religious families of Hyderabad India (pp. 14-15). We report what is asserted by best scholarship. WP:UNDUE states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.". Tabari, Encyclopedia of Islam, Wellhausen, Hawting, Donner, Kennedy, Daftary, Rotter, Halm, Lammens, Lewis in their works assert the number to be 4,000. If some author writing on a completely different topic takes 30,000 (which is half of the strength of Iraq's fighting force at that time) from a religious source, it be given besides a tonne of scholarly sources? This isn't even fringe. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that mention his age as six months old, such as the book from Oxford University Press that you removed from the article. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove the source from the article, it is in bibliography. I removed the claim that the child was "Ali Asghar" and that he was "6 months old". As I mentioned above, that that source (Akbar) does not discuss history, but discusses religious rituals and beliefs of the Hyderabadi Muslim community. These beliefs may or may not be historical, but Akbar doesn't make judgement on that. And an indicator that that belief is not historical is that the child is called "Ali Asghar", while the name of the child was Abd Allah (See Iranica, EI2, Tabari). You say why I used Tabari despite him being Sunni; Tabari was not a cleric, he was a hitorian, he wrote to report history not what he believed to suit his beliefs. and for your information, Tabari's source on Karbala is Abu Mikhnaf, who was a Shiite but unlike Majlisi, Abu Mikhnaf reported history. See primary sources section. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I've just realized, isn't Baqir Maljisi the same 17th-century Shia cleric and writer that mass persecuted non-Shia inhabitants in Safavid Iran to the extent that it was ripped apart by revolts? If so, then thats even a bigger no go. HistoryofIran (talk)

It is exactly that Muhammad Baqir Majlisi. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I thought so. Although a little error on my behalf: he wasn't directly behind the revolts (at least the major ones), as he had already died a few years before that, but he was certainly the main instigator behind this persecution/discrimination system that even for Safavid standards were quite overwhelming (for people who are doubting me, see "The Sword of Persia" by Axworthy and the article of Soltan Hosayn in Iranica). Anyhow, guess we can safely move on from this topic. HistoryofIran (talk)

Umayyad Army's strength was 30,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamdar04 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Karbala and Husayn ibn Ali in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought--Seyyed(t-c) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sa.vakilian. These contain some useful info on traditional as well as revolutionary interpretation by the Shiites. Any source which would discuss the general Sunni position on Husayn's motivation? Thank you.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Both of them have focused on Shia's interpretations and remembrance rituals. I have not found a good source for Sunni views yet.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Karbala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs) 05:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this nomination can be accepted after a few modification and correction. First, I mention some clear issues and then check the Good article criteria one by one.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

1. File:Battle of Karbala.jpg This picture's copyright situation is dubious. There is written "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. " Do you have more evidence to support this claim.

   You are right. I hadn't removed it earlier because it was relevant to the text, but yes copyright status is unknown and I don't know who created it and when. Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Dates: In some cases the Gregorian calendar and in some others Hijri have been used.

   Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

3. " Then he sent his cousin Muslim ibn Aqil to assess the situation in Kufa. Ibn Aqil attracted widespread support in Kufa and informed Husayn of the situation, suggesting that he join them there Yazid removed Nu'man ibn Bashir al-Ansari as governor of Kufa due to his inaction, and installed Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, then governor of Basra, in his place. Ibn Ziyad suppressed the rebellion and killed Ibn Aqil.": Please clarify how the situation changed so rapidly.

   Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

4. Infobox: The strength of Yazid's army was too much more. According to File:Battle of Karbala.jpg, it was about 30000 men.

   According to Abu Mikhnaf's rendering in Tabari and Baladhuri and all the secondary sources (pls see biblio), it was 4,000. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

   I think we should check the other sources. However, even in the lead of this article, the strength of army is about 5000.

   "his caravan was intercepted by a 1,000 strong army" and "where a larger army of 4,000 arrived soon afterwards"!--Seyyed(t-c) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

   It is mainly religious sources that assert this number. I haven't come across a credible source on this subject which would report this big number (note that the total number of muqatila in Kufa and its dependencies was 60,000). If it were anything near reality, Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica would at the very least mention that army may have been that big; they don't. If the scholarly sources don't, we too shouldn't. On your second point, yes it is a valid observation. I had thought of making it 4,000–5,000, but didn't because as mentioned above, sources assert it to be 4,000. But I think this much OR is allowed. Will make it 4,000–5,000. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

   Hello. "4,000-strong Kufan army" only were Umar ibn Sa'ad's forces. Also, as of Ansab al-Ashraf and Manaqib Of Ale Abi Talib, Shemr ibn Dhil-Jawshan had 4,000-strong forces, Husayn ibn Numayr Al-Tamimi had 4,500-strong forces which 500 of them were Archers, Al-Hurr ibn Yazid Al-Tamimi had 1,000-strong forces, Shabath ibn Rab'i had 1,000-strong forces, and etc. Total of Umayyad Corps in Battle of Karbala were 30,000–31,000 forces. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

   Manaqib is not RS. If Ansab says this, please bring ref. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yeah, sure. Ansab mentioned some of them at vol. 3, pp. 178–179. Also, Ibn A'tham's report in Al-Futūḥ, vol. 5, pp. 86–90 contains below:

Benyamin-ln (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ansab v 3, p. 178 doesn't contain this. Ibn Atham's account is highly embellished and legendary [9]. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ansab v 3, p. 178. Benyamin-ln (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. @Al Ameer son:, since your Arabic is very good, could you please have a look at this? Thank you. From google translate I could count 10,000. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: I can only read Arabic at a most elementary level unfortunately... there's no English translation? In any case, I'd highly recommend taking any figures directly from the medieval primary sources with a grain of salt as they are often inconsistent or exaggerated. Since this battle is well-covered by reliable, academic secondary sources, the numbers provided by such sources should be used, if available. If unavailable, then the numbers cited by the primary sources like al-Baladhuri and others should be used strictly with attribution. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

How many cited the Shemr's troops by sources? Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer for the response. I had thought you were either an Arab or had a very good command of Arabic ;) AFAIK, there is no English translation of Ansab. I have said this very same thing several times on this issue here and on the article talk. I don't get what is with insistence on 30,000. @Benyamin-ln: I would suggest getting wider input on this (eg. through RFC or talk page), if you think we must add 30,000. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

When you ask the exact address of matter in Ansab and had challenged the address (Ansab v 3, p. 178 doesn't contain this) i had thought you have familiar with Arabic. Doesn't it? However, you can bring amount of Shmer's troops, Hurr's troops and other commanders' troops from every RS that you have access. Regards Benyamin-ln (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I used OCR+Google translate. Number of Hurr's troops, as Sa.Vakilian has noted above, was 1,000 and can be easily found in sources, e.g. EI2, Iranica etc. That is not the case with Shemr. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Y Good. Please add the number to infobox of battle. But number of Shemr's troops is also necessary because his name mentioned in infobox. @Sa.vakilian: Hello. Have you a RS for numbers of other commanders' troops specially Shmer? Benyamin-ln (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I added "at least" to the infobox. We should search more to find more accurate information about the issue. However, I think we can leave it for Featured stage.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Consequence: This battle undermined the legitimacy of Omayyad caliphate. You can find some information in Abbasid Revolution. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks for this. Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

2. "Religious views on motivations and essence of Husayn's uprising": Although you have mentioned some religious views below "Impact", but I think there should be a separate section besides "Modern historical views on motivations of Husayn". There are some religious views, particularly among Shias, which should be discussed in the article. Since 20th century, there has been a severe discussion among traditional, rationalist and modern approaches to interpret the battle and the new understanding which is put forward by some revolutionaries like Ali Shariati had major role in the revolution. While traditional approach insists on divine decree and religious passion, new ones focus on Jihad, political act, etc. You can find more information in these sources: [10], [11], [12]. In fact, Hussayn's uprising and martyrdom is the main justification for Shia activists against quietists. On the other hand, there are some Sunni views about the issue, as well. Some classic scholars like Ghazali have condemned the uprising while some others like Rumi have shown more sympathy with him.

   Thanks for the sources. I have incorporated Shariati's views and modern interpretation in the Iranian revolution section. On Ghazali's opinion etc, I couldn't find much in the sources.Rumi's view is given in the section on Sufi poerty. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

   @AhmadLX: I think we should separate "Religious views on motivations and essence of Husayn's uprising" from political impact. However, we can leave the issue for Feature review.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Sa.vakilian: Yes, I have no objection to making separate section. But I wanted to find more info on Sunni view etc, which I couldn't. Do you have any source in mind which has discussed that or Ghazali's view in detail? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   Let's add it whenever you nominate it as feature article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

3. I think you can add more information about the "Battle" : For example you have mentioned "Ibn Sa'd ordered the tents to be burned" while there is another report which said Husayn ordered his army to gather some plain and burn it to prevent enemies attack from besides and behind.

   It is mentioned in the article: "ditch was dug behind the tents and filled with wood ready to be set alight in case of attack." AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

4. "Primary sources" is sufficient for this stage , but if you want to reach FA criteria, it should be improved. There are some authentic works about history of "Maqtal al-Husayn" in Persian, however I do not know about Arabic or English. However, As I know, there are some renowned Maqtals which should be mentioned among primary and classic sources including Kitab al-Irshad, Maqtal al-Husayn by Ibn A'tham, Ibn Sa'd, al-Kharazmi, Ibn Tawus, etc. You can, at least mention their names and dates.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

   Purpose of the section is to list and discuss earliest historical sources. I have now added names of authors of some earliest monographs as listed by Fihrist of Ibn Nadim and others. The other ones you list are either secondary or are religious books rather than historical documents. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

   They are important sources, primary or secondary, which should be mentioned somewhere in the article. However, we can leave the issue for Feature review.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   Sure, Mufid's Irshad can be added, as can be Ibn Ath'am and Ibn Sa'd. Problem, however, again is the same: finding a source that lists these. I can find something on Mufid's work, do you know of any sources which would mention the other two? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   Added some more secondary works. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, there is a good Persian encyclopedias and books. I will use it to add their names.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: The sources section is now complete. I have incorporated Mufid and Ibn Atham, although on Ibn Sa'ad I couldn't find anything. However, comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Do you intend to continue the review? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Final assessment:

1. Well written?: I prefer a native speaker assess this issue.

2. Factually accurate?: Yes. Of course.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very well.

4. Neutral point of view?: Completely neutral.

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: No problem.

Excuse me for delay. My review has been completed. Just one minor issues has remained. Madelung is not the only academician who has mentioned Muawiya violated the peace treaty by chossing Yazid. For example there is another one in this source.[13] I suuggest to ask another reviewer to check lingual aspects of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sa.vakilian. The article was recently copy-edited by GOCE volunteer, so I think prose-wise it is good enough. On the second point, I don't want to go in debate mode here (;)), so please see Talk:Battle_of_Karbala#Recent_changes_in_the_article, where I have argued that the author of that article has presented the religious claim, rather than his own point of view. Nonetheless, if you find it unconvincing, sure tell me and I will add this too. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: I am the GoCE volunteer. I usually copy edit pre-FAC articles, but given the importance of this topic I picked it up immediately pre-GAN. At that point its prose was well up to that required for GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seyyed, I notice that you haven't edited for a while. Could you let us know what the status of this assessment is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. Seyyed finished review and passed the article almost a month ago, but it seems he missed to update this page. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations AhmadLX, and apologies Seyyed. The bot seems to have missed archiving this page. I have reported it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Karbala has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The number of the Umayyad Caliphate belligerent was at least 10,000 and many traditions say 50,000. Not 4,000 to 5,000.

The number of losses of the Umayyad Caliphate belligerent was at least 500. Many traditions state it was up to a 1,000. You have 88? It is stated that Al-Abbas and Hussein killed 80 plus by themselves.

These numbers in the table must be changed. Alibaker111 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

​We try to reflect reliable secondary sources (scholarly sources are ideal), if you could point to some better sources than we're currently using that'd be good. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In its current form, the article is nothing more than anti-Shia propaganda and its clearly written based on the Sunni point of view backed by some Western sources that reaffirm it because it is “the opinion of majority.” The article tries to suggest that before 680, Shias did not exist and only from the on “Shia Islam arose from a political movement”, which is not true at all. Shias can claim that Sunni Islam also never existed and arose from the rule of the Umayyad Caliphs who ruled I opposition to the Prophet’s family. This is a Sunni propagated view to strip Shias of any legitimacy as being “non orthodox” and “political rather religious movement.” More propaganda includes notion that Hussein had an “army”, while Karbala was an ambush massacre of Prophet’s grandson and the people that accompanied him. Hussein didn’t stand up to Sunni Umayyads because of politics and lust for power, but from religious convictions and moral justice etc. The current article is clearly bias and one sided with thinly veiled Sunni point of view on things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:835:201:D979:5249:4EC8:8C54 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not for the discussion of the topics, but for the use of Reliable Sources being addressed for the betterment of the articles. Your rant is in clear violation of WP:FORUM 50.111.19.2 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I didn't speak well to AhmadLX, and he didn't well treat whit me either.

During this two-day opportunity, after speaking with my friend, I have a suggestion to end this discussion.

In all articles, written alongside each minimum numbers write maximum numbers. The number of 30,000 people in the book Hussaini Encyclopedia (wrote by Mohammad Reyshahry in 10 years,16 books, has 138 unit. Finished in 22 years ago),writer is approved by the Encyclopaedia Islamica(one of my friend say this is wrote in this but I don't see.). nafas almahmom (Its source is 18 first-hand sources like lohof and tabari.author has removed the unsubstantiated and fake narrations by comparing the sources.).

Reflection on the Ashura movement (by Rasul Jafarian)﴾an analytical history of Shia and Sunni resources.﴿

The Price of Freedom: The Unfinished Diary, Volume 1(by Hasan Muhammad Tiro) Your Questions Answered volume VIIBy (by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi) Know and Follow the Straight Path: Finding Common Ground Between Sunnis and Shi’As (By Tallal Alie Turfe p 364. 2015) also write this number.

The Comprehensive an Persian academic website has an article on this subject http://ensani.ir/fa/article/46129/%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85, The author reviews various historical resources. which also mentions this number.

Next to the number 88 people, number 250 people should be added, which is the maximum amount. I see more but I think this is true.

(If after this you still say it just for shia the minority of the individuals is also written in all articles.)

This can slove the difference between ar & ur & fa (of course fa wrote 8000~30000) Wikipedia With en Wikipedia.(I think this is bad.)

Like this happend in bn & hi & ru Wikipedia.

thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is good that you are willing to discuss. Now, scholarly value of a source is not determined by how many years it took the author to complete it and how many volumes it contains. You clearly haven't read WP:RS, or haven't been paying close attention. So please read it, also read WP:Primary, and WP:OR. A nutshell is given here: Wikipedia uses neutral, third-party, reliable sources, published by reputable publishers. The sources you cited above are neither neutral nor third-party. Know that all religions and sects have their books, written by their "scholars", who justify their POVs. If we use these, we will end up in a mess. Because they don't agree with each other, that's why they are different. That's why we require publications by third party (that means non-involved) authors, who are not out there to prove their beliefs and POVs. The sources of highest RS category have been now added to infobox. You are encouraged to check them out. Note that they are not all. There are more, but 5 should suffice as a sample. The journal article that you link, although seemingly neutral, does not appear so after close inspection, as it looks at the subjects with reverence. Even if we consider it RS, it is a single exception against an overwhelming consensus, and would fall under WP:Fringe.

Arabic and Persian Wikipedias are not a reference standard for English Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia version has its own guidelines and policies. Arabics Wikipedia's articles on Early Islamic Period are often atrocious. Their article on Kharijites is a polemic, whereas their Battle of Karbala article was promoted to FA status, according to its own talk page, without a review. What other Wikipedias do is of no relevance at all. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My source aren't just these, I find these, Number of source don't necessarily indicate superiority.I'm not say delete 4000, I say add 30000, and for this I just need comes good source.

All of this book are secondary source and true in WP:SECONDARY and they WP:NOR.

The author of Nafs al-Mahmom is mostly a religious scholar, and isn't WP:RS also Rizvi.

But

Rasul Jafarian is history researcher. He is now a professor history of Tehran University, head of the Specialist Library of Islam and Iran, and head of the Central Library of Tehran University. In the year 1397, Rasoul Jafarian one of members of the General Assembly of Sciences, and joint conference of IRI Cultural Association. He is know teaching in Tehran University. He is book is WP:RS and between secondary and Tertiary sources.

Muhammad Tiro aren't shia and I think he is researcher not religious scholar. I think He is book is WP:RS.

I think Tallal Alie Turfe also aren't shia and religious scholar but I'm not certainly. I think He is book is WP:RS but I'm not certainly.

Reyshahry is a religious scholar but also researcher. Can WP:RS because he aren't alone in writing this book.

Of course, it doesn't matter whether they are Shia or not, Seyyed Hussein Nasr is Shia, but because he has international prestige, has written for Britannica , his prestige goes beyond the religious point of view.

This website is Tertiary sources, with discount can give WP:RS.

I didn't main en Wikipedia follow other languages, I mean, it was better to resolve the dispute.

I think this is enough, true? Thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In the passage after {where a larger Umayyad army of 4,000 arrived soon afterwards.}

Add (According to other source, in this 8 days some arms came to Karbala. (A total of 30,000 people.))

and after

{On the following day, a 4,000-strong Kufan army arrived under the command of Umar ibn Sa'd. He had been appointed governor of Rayy to suppress a local rebellion, but then recalled to confront Husayn. Initially, he was unwilling to fight Husayn, but complied following Ibn Ziyad's threat to revoke his governorship.}

Add under picture File:Battle of Karbala (Without written version).jpg ( According to other source in this 8 day 10 arms total 30000 troops come.)

Because that written once in above, I think it's better to come in the corner with pic.

My wording isn't good, better be add with better wording. Thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

So I looked into Jafarian's book today. Although I don't consider it an RS, Jafarian does not state that the army was 22,000. He only writes that Ibn Atham Kufi has reported 22,000. Now, I know what Ibn Atham has written. Please refer to I.K.A Howard's commentary on primary sources on Karbala event (see Bibliography: I.K.A Howard: Commentary on the accounts of Martyrdom in Arabic sources). Ibn Atham's is the most exaggerated account of all the primary sources. Baladhuri, who was a great historian by the standard of his time, has also reported some large number, I don't remember how high, but we didn't include even that, for as I have mentioned a number of times before, secondary RS all talk about 4000 people. On the other sources, I have already said good deal above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

1. He's book is completely RS.

2. He is researcher, He in 4 page of this book says about Atham and his books and after all accept Atham.

3. You don't read the book completely, he wrote three different numbers and for it from three books, you just saw once. between 22000 to 28000 and Last number is between 28000 to 35000.

4. I say another sources (except 2 or 3 of them) I say, are accept all of wiki law (secondary and RS and NOR), but this book is better other ones.

5. Your sources says (1000 hur and 4000 omar = at least 5000)

6. I comes 3 or 5 source have all of wiki law, for adding in this article, I just need one source, Because I don't want delete your source I want add another things and you aren't see this.

I think this is enough for adding. Thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

1.Where does he state that they were 22,000 or 28,000 or 35,000? He attributes them to Ibn Atham, and he himself adds that many of them would have escaped on the way.

2. Jafarian himself states that embellishments of Ibn Atham lower the value of his book, and considers reliable material that is corroborated by other sources. You have been misrepresenting him.

3. He is not RS because he is a cleric, and writes from a religious point of view. He refers to Muhammad as PBUH, Husayn as AS, Umayyads as Cunning people, Some of the Sunnis as Fanatics, and so on. What parts of RS page you don't understand? A source from a academic historian, not a cleric like Jafarian who was trained in the Qum Seminary as Hujjat ul Islam wal-Muslimeen, published by an academic publisher is needed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I say today to one of my friend search for another source have all wiki law if he can I give you.

His book is an analytical and examines various narratives. He analys 7 sources about ashura and 2 source about arbaeen and after that write stoty of Ashura.

I said that he has 2 another sources for numbers, (I think he him self believe 22000, for this website he wrote: https://www.khabaronline.ir/amp/389672/ )

He critique to Ibn Atham, but he doesn't rule out him and confirms at total, and say: atham has good and new between another but his sources should comparison and extract by another source. When he says in p 96 (in Persian book, 2007) atham, wrote more accurate others number of yazid troops.

he teaches at the university. He said, he learn a little history by hoze, he learn more him self by reading and searching and university accept him and his books. His good for his academic, not religious scholar. Reyshahry and sheikh abas qumi are religious scholar and haven't academic and haven't RS but jafarian have.

What about that website? It can give RS with discount. (If you think website can give, add with this source)

Tallal Alie Turfe isn't religious scholar, I see him on one website. (On that pic he stand with an sunni religious scholar.) This website says he is dr.Tallal Alie Turfe.

An magazine (The Minaret: The Islamic Magazine, Volume 24 by Islamic Center of Southern California., 2002) I think writer is sunni but not certainly.

Thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

For better getting solution, I ask Seyyed to help us in this talk.M.Nadian (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it would be better if Sa.vakilian would advance your position (if he agrees with it) as he knows the policies and guidelines. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 09:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think sa.vakilian aren't come. I want to summarize my contents, I find some new source.

1. Henry Munson{Ph.D., Social/Cultural Anthropology, University of Chicago, 1980},Islam and revolution in the Middle East publisher Yale University Press.

2. writer of that website {PhD Student History}.

3. Reflection on the Ashura movement Rasul Jafarian(2800)

4. Jalal Moughania Husayn: The Saga of Hope.

5. Tallal Alie Turfe{president of Premier Health Group LLC and a professor of management and religious studies at several universities} Know and Follow the Straight Path: Finding Common Ground Between Sunnis and Shi’As.

at least 4 of them is true, and for adding one of them is enough. thanksM.Nadian (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Its ok? can I add? M.Nadian (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I have been quite busy lately. Give me a couple days to find and check these sources. If you have soft copies, or links, please share. Thanks. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 05:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. 1.page23 https://books.google.com/books?id=K50_EAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Islam+and+revolution+in+the+Middle+East&hl=fa&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAg_Te_fjyAhUd_rsIHTBZDT8Q6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=thirty%20thousand&f=false 2.http://ensani.ir/fa/article/46129/%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85 3.his finally view in this website https://www.khabaronline.ir/amp/389672/ 4.https://books.google.com/books/about/Husayn.html?id=mo6UzgEACAAJ 5.https://books.google.com/books?id=3zr9CAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Know+and+Follow+the+Straight+Path:+Finding+Common+Ground+Between+Sunnis+and+Shi%E2%80%99As&hl=fa&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi54_ng__jyAhXJgP0HHVWFAPAQ6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=30000&f=false

Thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Nadian: I looked into the books. Munson's work is certainly RS of high standard. The others are non-RS. Now, Munson expressly states (cf. pp.7, 17) that he is reporting the believers' perspective. Nonetheless, I am willing to compromise on this, as the source is high quality, and also to put the issue to rest. You should add this as "30,000 according to the Shi'a sources.[Reference of Munson here]" Make sure to follow the citation style: source in the bibliography section using appropriate template (i.e. cite book), and {{sfn|Munson|1988|p=23}} as inline citation. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Can I add 30000 next to 5000 in the infobox? realy my tring is for this. In my opinion, at least Jafarian and Ph.D. student also has RS.M.Nadian (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

thanks. but Why you add 30000 in the note in top of it(in text), many people aren't see that.

Please Change it.M.Nadian (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Because lead section is for giving an overview of the most important points of the topic. See MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok I agree. Thanks 🙏. M.Nadian (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Was it only Madelung saying Yazid's nomination by his father was violation of the peace treaty? The current wording of the article ("a move labelled by...") conveys this impression which I think is wrong. More sources can be found: "But Mu'awiya broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succeed him, and convinced Ja'da, Hasan’s wife, to poison the imam."^[1] I would like to hear from others. @M.Nadian, Ghazaalch, AhmadLX, Albertatiran, and Sa.vakilian: and others. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. of course, Mu'awiyah violated more conditions. M.Nadian (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This suggests that Muawiya did not abide by the succession by shura requirement of the peace treaty: Jafri, S.H.M (1976). Origins and early development of Shia Islam. London: Longman. pp. 112, 119. Albertatiran (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein and friends. What exactly do you want to achieve? I see constant insistence on tiny and trivial issues here on this article. You want to emphasize that Muhammad's family members were innocent and cheated by Mu'awiya? Or what else? There was long campaign on 30,000 as if 4,000 weren't seemingly enough to slaughter 70 men. Now this. If Madelung and Jaffri, of the works of these two see what their peers have said, say that Mu'awiya violated the treaty, there are others who say no term existed in the treaty. Still others who emphasize that Mu'awiya's nomination of Yazid was in view of the stability of the empire etc. Unless you wish to make this article into debating mess of Hasan's treaty with Mu'awiya, just drop the stick. Also, you reinserted the unfounded claim that Husayn's son was one month old--see the pattern? Insistence on innocence, again. The article already mentioned that a young son of his was killed in an arrow shot. Where do you get that he was 1 month. I'm undoing your edit. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Here we discuss solely based on the reliable sources, so I'd like to ask you avoid other irrelevant topics like "trivial", "pattern" and etc. This is a GA article so let's avoid inaccuracies, AMAP. The current wording is not in anyway accurate because even you agree it is not only Madelung mentioning the violation. Do you have any suggestions as to how this issue may be resolved with the knowledge that we don't have much room for maneuver? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, but when discussing a controversial issue, all viewpoints from RS are evaluated impartially. Now, doing this in this article would require adding Lewis, Hinds, Shaban, Kennedy, Vaglieri, and Marsham (and perhaps more) in addition to Madelung and Jafri; which is not needed in this article. This is not an article about Hasan, nor about Hasan-Mu'awiya treaty. In its current state, the article mentions briefly Madelung's view and in the relevant footnote discusses Vaglieri's and Jafri's position on the terms of the treaty; which is enough for this article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If I am reverted only because I mentioned was 6 months (where did I say 1 month???), then I don't insist on this figure. We can just say he was an infant or so. According to Vaglieri "...it had just been born", or this book published by the New York University press just says on P.110 that he was an infant. Why not referring to –Haider, Najam I. (4 May 2016). al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_30572. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |website= ignored (help)–? There are other sources like this saying he was a baby. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry fo "1 month"; I misread it. But that's beside the point. The thing is that there is no credible evidence that the boy was an infant. Infact, his name was not even Ali, but more likely Abd Allah, hence Husayn's Kuniya Abu Abd Allah. Vaglieri doesn't say the child had just been born. She says that Yaqubi claims as such. Hyder's EI3 article I don't have access to. If you could quote him, that would be great. The other source is non-RS-- title: "For the Love of Husayn (AS)". The other point is that the current article doesn't say he was not a child. The article does specifically state he was a young child of Husayn. It just doesn't state exact age, as there is no good evidence for it. If an RS or two of the standard used in the article state that (by stating I mean the author giving his/her personal analysis, and not plain statement of what believers think), we can sure add that. Third: not in the lead; lead is for a brief overview of the most important points of the article. This is not one of the most important points of article. Hope that explains my position. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your real issue with adding the child of death to the lead. First you mention the age, and now after seeing the sources, you say we don't know if he was an infant and that the lead is for a brief overview. As you have already said, be it an infant or a child, death of his youngest child has been mentioned in numerous sources, proving it's significance. Najm Haider writes as such in EI3" "The sources report the deaths of important individuals, particularly members of al-Ḥusayn’s household, including his eldest son (ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Akbar), his infant son (ʿAbdallāh b. al-Ḥusayn), ...". The fact that his infant/child was killed by the enemy is of course of the most important points of this incident. In almost every such incidents, it's a very common practice to report women and children causalities. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

My real issue is—I mentioned it above as well, maybe you didn't read it carefully—that you want to emphasize that Muhammad's family was persecuted by their enemies. What part of MOS:Lead you don't understand? It was a battle, and a boy died in the battle. So what? It might be a serious atrocity in your view, but it has little for a non-partisan person, certainly not enough to warrant a place in lead. The fact that his infant/child was killed by the enemy is of course of the most important points of this incident. Who says so? Of course it is most important for you. Are we going to write Wikipedia from your perspective then? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Karbala has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

109.171.133.190 (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Their are some incorrect information in this page such as The ummuyad army having 4,000–5,000 solders while they had 30,000 and The ummuyad army had loses are unknown and it wasn't 88 and this is a fact which is agreed upon In general Muslims..............

Try reading Tabari's history. It would give you a more accurate idea about what happened than you have now. There are books with fantasy versions of the battle, in which Husayn's retinue kill thousands of people. If you compare the battle to say the Battle of Rorke's Drift (156 defenders killed 351) or the Battle of Omdurman (20,000 defenders killed 12,000), you can see how silly the fantasy versions are. (By the way, the defenders at Rorke's Drift and Omdurman had better weapons than the attackers. That was not the case for Husayn's retinue.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There are two important things in this battle which defines Yazeed's mindset. (1) The child named Alian Asghar son of Husyan age of only six months was killed for political purpose. (2) Daughter of Husyan named Sakina age of four years was also arrested along with family of Husyan. These acts were anti Humanity. On the other hand if we study history of Islam since birth of Husyan grandson of Muhammad it was instructed by the Prophet Muhammad to sport Husyan. That's why a large number of people believe in Islamic ideologies protest against this act and still trying to notify that they are not with Yazeed's ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azhargullkhan (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ishan87: Please do not throw random accusations of 'vandalism' just because I don't agree with your edit. You are disrupting a GA article by adding the citation needed bracket, even though the statement is well sourced, just like any other place in the article. Hence why it's GA (Wikipedia:Good articles). Curiously enough, you only added the bracket for the lost numbers of the Umayyads. If you do not revert yourself and reach WP:CONSENSUS, I will report you to WP:ANI for WP:TENDENTIOUS. I would highly advise you to read the Wiki guidelines, including Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, MOS:LEAD and WP:CITE. EDIT: The fact that you write 'Husain(R)' really says it all [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

An edit war that you started and yourself continuing for no reason. You're removing my fully reasonable edits, that is vandalism. Now you removed my added discussion(the 2nd one) from your page as well without any excuse, maybe even without reading it? So here's the copy of it: "Honestly, I really wanted to read a source about the war that gives an actual reliable figure of casuality of the forces fighting against Hussain(R), no better way to find it then putting a tag on the article itself. You know very well that what I asked for is well within Wikipedia rulebook. But instead you chose to start an unconstructive edit war that leads to nothing. What is your issue with a citation requirement tag anyway?" Ishan87 (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, per the rules you have to reach WP:CONSENSUS if your edit(s) gets reverted. My talk page is not a place for you to write about this topic. And what rulebook is that? Why was the article made GA then? And why did you only add it on the Umayyad bit in the infobox? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Did I say anything about feelings? Are you here for a discussion or drama? If you're unable to have a decent conversation then keep your immature behavior to yourself. Literally every Wikipedia article has some citations in the boxes, so don't act like you've no idea. Asking for sources is allowed everywhere in Wikipedia, so get over it. Ishan87 (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, but you didn't answer mine. Ishan87 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC) @Vice regent and Toddy1: guys can you tell me if my edits were right or are they against WP:CONSENSUS like he's claiming?

Why are you asking them? Why not read the guideline yourself? This seems like a clear lack of WP:CIR to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ishan87, the information is also in the body of the article and a citation is provided for it there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

By they way, warning messages on your talk page serve to alert people that you might need help. So removing them is self-defeating.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay I noticed it now. That's all I wanted in tge first place bro. There was no need of that edit fight. But instead of pointing it out he kept removing all my edits. Anyway thank u Toddy1 Ishan87 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I have no hard feelings for you. Hope we can have a better understanding next time Ishan87 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you resume your edit warring right after your block? Even it's 80% of it [15]. If you continue this pattern, I will report you to WP:ANI. Also, if you think that I am socking [16] then please do file a sockpuppet report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wearing with u dude. I'm just doing my own thing. It's got nothing to do with you or anybody. Instead of mentioning terms can you elaborate and explain these terms and stuff in easy language so that I understand what exactly is the problem with my other edits? I'm still not familiar with all these WP terms and reading them doesn't explain much. Ishan87 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Instead of mentioning terms can you elaborate and explain these terms and stuff in easy language so that I understand what exactly is the problem with my other edits?"

I can not speak for HistoryofIran, but you added Qasim ibn Hasan who is not mentioned and clearly not sourced in this article. And instead of explaining your edit and why it should be changed you continue to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Qasim is mentioned in Tabari which's already linked Ishan87 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

But not in the article, which is why you should be discussing this not edit warring.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I also wrote a discussion about that.

they are just Anti-Shia Editors!  Haider1111321321123 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

According to historical documents 30000 person شیخ صدوق، الامالی، مجلس ۲۴، ص۱۷۷، ح ۳ و مجلس ۷۰، ص۵۴۷، ح ۱۰. سید ابن طاووس، اللهوف، ص۷۰ 22000 person ابن اعثم، همان، ج۵، ص۸۴ ـ ۹۰ و ص۱۰۱، خوارزمی، همان، ج۱، ص۳۴۱ـ ۳۴۵. ابن عماد حنبلی، شذرات الذهب، ج۱، ص۶۷، مجلسی، همان، ج ۴۴، ص۳۸۶ عمدة الطالب فی أنساب آل ابی طالب، ص31000۱۹۲ خصیبی،الهداية الكبری،51000۲۰۲ Which is an average of 30,000 people. No strong historical document has given the exact number of casualties of Yazid Corps.

If anyone has a document to the contrary, leave it here Thanks M.Nadian (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you have been sufficiently notified that you are edit warring and this could result in you being blocked from editing. It is not Wikipedia policy to go by primary sources (i.e. the "historical documents") when there appears to be plenty of high quality, academic secondary sources available about the subject. The burden is on you to reach a consensus by discussion or drop the stick. Al Ameer (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I discuss in the context of Wikipedia. You have no documents. I brought secondary documents and primary documents. This is a war with the truth! Please bring your documents and not undo whiout source. M.Nadian (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! Haider1111321321123 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ummayad forces were 30,000 References: شیخ صدوق، الامالی، مجلس ۲۴، ص۱۷۷، ح ۳ و مجلس ۷۰، ص۵۴۷، ح ۱۰. سید ابن طاووس، اللهوف، ص۷۰ Sadooq, Al-Amali, Majlis 24,Page 24 & Vol. 3 , Majlis 70,Page 547 Ibn-Taoos,Al-Lahoof, Page 70

And the real strength of Imam hussain was 70! Why? Because, others were women and children.

And the Ummayad Casulaties were 1950! Reference: ابن شهر آشوب، مناقب، ج۴، ص۱۱۰. Ibn-Shahr-e-Ashoob, Manaqib, Vol. 4,Page 110

I request authorized editors to edit it🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haider1111321321123 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Haider1111321321123: the sources you name and used here (al-Shaykh al-Saduq and Ibn Shahr Ashub) are primary sources. Such sources are not considered reliable for the type of information you would like to add: please see WP:PSTS. We need a reliable, secondary source (see WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I knew that was skipped quotation. But I didn't check it from the source. In case of previous skipped quotation, I took for so on (...): 'Come to us, for we have no imam...' was better than 'Come to us, for we have no imam.' ...

Because ... represents the skipped quotation of people by Husayn (as in former case) not of Husayn (as shown in latter case which was there before I edited). By the way, can we've a content named "Husayn and Christ" (p.125) on the article of Husayn ibn Ali. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, to do this right it would need to be 'Come to us, for we have no imām [...]' [...] Therefore, if you give me what you guaranteed (given that "Since this was your view, I have come to you" was also skipped), but since that looks awful I decided to just include the whole thing. Anyway, please never edit quotes without looking at the source. Quotes are very different from normal wiki-text: they needed to be preserved absolutely literally.

As for the source you linked (and added to the article here), it's published by Lulu.com, which provides no editorial oversight and thus as a publisher fails WP:RS. This kind of source is what we call self-published, which is always questionable but may be used when it can be established that the author is a recognized expert in their field (having published with reliable publishers, being widely cited by other scholars in reliable sources, etc.). I highly doubt, however, that this is the case for S. Manzoor Rizvi: Google Scholar only turns up the self-published book, whose title Unique Sacrifice of Imam Hussain for Humanity, by the way, is not proper English. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you read: Ali and Mu'awiya in Early Arabic Tradition: Studies on the Genesis and Growth of Islamic Historical Writing until the End of the Ninth Century by Erling L. Petersen (1964). He wrote (page 19) that Tabari's histories were published in Western languages between 1879 and 1901, and their publication changed scholastic perceptions. They revealed that "the legendary 'Ali figure , which the Arab - and particularly the Shi'i - tradition operated with, has nothing in common with the 'Ali of real life. Neither he nor his descendants were distinguished by such political sagacity as would qualify them to occupy that headship in Islam to which the Shi'a considered them entitled." The authors of non-scholastic self-published books are probably not aware of this. It is only meaningful to quote people like Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens if you explain why scholars no longer think as they did.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If a person has a particular opinion, it must be explained why others don't think like him? I haven't seen anything similar on the wiki. And who said that the reason for the difference in the opinion of these two person is that they don't read that book? M.Nadian (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. What Toddy1 means is simply that when historical figures (19th-century) have an opinion that significantly differs from the opinion of 21st century scholars, and when this difference in opinion is due to the advancement of knowledge and scholarship, the historical opinion should not be presented as authoritative. This is a basic WP:DUE question. The fact that the historical figures are wrong in such cases is not due to a lack of diligence or intelligence on their part, but simply that they can't be expected to have read the scholarly books written a century after their death, like Charles Dickens (1812–1870) couldn't possibly have read Petersen 1963. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, Dickens and Carlyle were not historians of early Islam. Their opinion on early Islam has little weight as compared to that of professionals in the field. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't check whether the source was self published or not. What about the quotations here with mentioned book citations for content Historical Analysis. If anyone have access to the books mentioned there? Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Haven't we already answered that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@IAmAtHome: it's disappointing to see you suggest this after what's been written above. On Wikipedia, we summarize what modern expert scholars write about a subject, nothing less and nothing more. A compilation of praise for a subject by historical figures produced by Unknown/al-Islam.org is very far from that.

Here's an easy rule for you: if it's not a monograph published by an academic press, an article in an academic journal or an edited volume, or an entry in a scholarly encyclopedia, it's very probably not appropriate to cite in our historical articles on Islam. The kind of source we need for this type of article is also summarized at WP:TIER1. I hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But I was not talking about adding the quotations by citing unreliable site (al-Islam.org). I was talking about the books mentioned there, if there is an access to them so that they can be checked for citation. IAmAtHome (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but just imagine if someone would come up with a website compiling negative quotes about al-Husayn, full of criticism and derision, and asked whether maybe we could find the books cited there and use them in our article. That's just not how we work here. We don't start from a certain point of view (either positive or negative) and then go look for reliable sources to back that point of view up, we start from reliable sources and then faithfully represent whatever point of view we find there. Please go read a scholarly book or paper about the Battle of Karbala. For example, this one, which I randomly picked from Google Scholar (making sure the name of the publisher had 'University Press' in it though; there's also a lot of junk on Google Scholar). If that's not something you feel like doing, then this is just not the right website for you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I already knew the book you mentioned. I have only read some starting pages of it before. I'm quite busy in these days. But I'll check it when I'll be free. IAmAtHome (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

IAmAtHome: Consider that the content should be given due weight according to the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox currently has an image which is not intended to be a realistic depiction of the battle. It's from the late 19th and early 20th century as well, so it doesn't reflect contemporary perceptions of the battle. I'm all for including much later works of art depicting historical events, but only if they're supposed to illustrate it's legacy, perception, symbolism, etc. Otherwise, it is simply WP:UNDUE.

MOS:PERTINENCE says that should primarily be informative, not decorative. "Any image is better than no image" is not a thing.

Why should the Abbas Al-Musavi painting be included at all in the article? Which part of the article is it supposed to illustrate? Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the legacy of the Battle of Karbala, which through the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali is one of the central events in the Shi'ite collective memory, and perhaps the single most important object of Shi'ite religious devotion (comparable to the crucifixion in Christianity). The painting also depicts other figures who play an important role in the religious narratives surrounding this battle. To quote from its entry on the Brooklyn Museum's website:

This painting commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad and the third imam, or leader, of the Shi'a Muslims. Husayn was killed by the forces of the Umayyad caliph Yazid I (r. 680–683) in the desert of Karbala in central Iraq in 680 c.e. This battle emphasizes the divide between the Sunni and Shi'a branches of Islam; Husayn led a resistance against what the Shi'a Muslims believed was the Umayyads’ illegitimate rule. The focus of this painting is Husayn’s half brother, Abbas, mounted on a white horse as he stabs a member of Yazid’s army. Individual episodes related to the agonies suffered by Husayn and his companions leading up to and during the battle are illustrated in smaller-scale vignettes on the left. The hereafter is shown at the right, with Husayn and his companions in heaven above and their opponents in hell below. [...] This account of Husayn’s martyrdom inspired annual reenactments through ceremonial processions and the ta'ziya, the ritual theater of Iran.

I'm going to be generous and assume that if you would have read that link when I first gave it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This painting is all about illustrating the Battle of Karbala's legacy, perception, symbolism, etc. in Shi'ite Islam.

Just in case you're not convinced though, I feel I need to point out that your argument here is more or less like arguing that File:Crucifixion Strasbourg Unterlinden Inv88RP536.jpg does not belong in the Crucifixion article, or that File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg does not belong in the Jesus article, because these images are non-contemporary imaginings that are not intended to be realistic depictions (the first image features 15th-century clothing; the second image has Jesus holding a Gospel book, while the Gospels were written decades after he died). It's frankly ridiculous to argue that images should be realistic and reflect contemporary perceptions to be pertinent and illustrative: in pre-modern historical contexts, most images actually used in high-quality reference works are neither realistic nor contemporary.

Of course 19th/20th century is not ideal here and a somewhat older image would better illustrate the subject's legacy, but traditional Islamic iconoclasm means that for Islamic subjects good images are much harder to find. I assure you though that academic monographs about Islamic historical subjects often do feature images on their cover, much like the one we are now discussing often not quite as old or famous as images used for books on non-Islamic subjects, but still illustrative of the subject and of its legacy. A better lead image for this article could and should be found (it's extremely likely that Safavid-era depictions do exist, though probably not available on the internet), at which point the current one should be moved to Battle of Karbala#Impact (where it absolutely does belong!), but as long as we do not have an earlier depiction the current one should suffice. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A battle infobox is about an actual historical event with agreed-upon facts. It is not intended for statements relating to legacy or theological details. You can't compare this with Jesus any more than you can compare it with Muhammad or Buddha. Those are all theological figures whose later depictions (or lack thereof) have an importance that completely overshadow them as strictly historical persons.

What external sources say about images in a Wikipedia article is not something you can fall back on. Like it says in MOS:PERTINENCE: images are supposed to be illustrative of article content. And there's nothing in the article currently that explains how this particular painting is actually important to the article topic. The painting also doesn't illustrate a historical event but the perceived legacy of the battle and is focused on martyrdom. I see no problem with including the image in the article if this is clearly stated in article prose. But including it in the infobox is not appropriate and WP:UNDUE.

And again, "any image is better than no image" is not a thing. There are tons of historical events that simply can't be depicted directly for all kinds of reasons. If you can't abide an imageless infobox, just use a location map. Peter ^Isotalo 01:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The crucifixion of Jesus also was a historical event. Like is the case with later religious narratives about the crucifixion, later Shi'ite religious conceptions of Husayn ibn Ali and his companions completely overshadow their significance as historical persons and events. At the time of the battle (680), Shi'ism as we know it did not even exist yet, and this was merely one among many skirmishes between the Umayyad and Alid factions. Yet this battle is now reenacted by thousands of Shi'ite Muslims every year in the passion play known as Ta'zieh (compare yearly reenactments of the crucifixion).

See also the Mourning of Muharram, which for Shi'ite Muslims is of similar significance as Easter is to Christians: the Mourning of Muharram (quoting from our –admittedly very paltry– article:) "marks the anniversary of the Battle of Karbala [...] The commemoration of this event [...] serves to define Shia communal identity. [...] Storytelling, weeping and chest beating, wearing black, partial fasting, street processions, and re-enactments of the Battle of Karbala form the crux of the observances."

Why do you think people painted stuff like File:Iran Battle of Karbala 19th century.jpg (see left)? It may seem a bit strange for those who are not familiar (as would surely a crucifixion to those who would not be familiar with that!), but in Shi'ism a military battle is the focal point of religious devotion. The fact that people made paintings about this more than a thousand years later, paintings which are held by such places as the Brooklyn Museum, illustrates the battle's religious and historical significance. Such a painting is significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative (MOS:PERTINENCE). It is the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works (MOS:LEADIMAGE). It shows that the topic is an important and notable one.

Your lack of knowledge about this particular subject seems to stand in the way of an accurate evaluation. Perhaps the low-quality coverage of the subject in our own articles (including in this one) is also partly to blame for that, although their sheer quantity should indicate something about the religious –rather than purely military or factual– significance of these events. If you're still unconvinced, please inquire about this with other editors who have some understanding of this and similar subjects. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Tone down the personal comments, please. We're disagreeing on content, not ideology. You're not winning any arguments by making assumptions about my understanding of the topic.

As with Jesus, articles about his crucifixion as a historic event are completely overshadowed by theology. A battlebox should in my view strictly be limited to agreed-upon historiography, not matters of faith, aesthetics or it's legacy. It's the same reason I would strongly object to an infobox on Jesus that included, say, "Number of people fed per fish: 2,500" or "Material of execution: cross". But I see no problem with the minimalist infobox right now, or the pantocrator-style image that corresponds to the most common visual perception of Jesus among most Christians.

I don't see any problem with including the painting in the article as long as it's explicitly connected to a religious context. I have not disputed this use. I believe you should focus your attention on adjusting this in the article, not poking me for perceived ignorance. Not talking about creating a separate section to explain the painting, just adding something along the lines "this is a depiction devoted to the religious significance of the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali" and not to place the image next to content focused on historical events. Peter ^Isotalo 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Any disagreement with Isolato, no matter how politely expressed, tends to be taken as a "personal comment" etc. The views expressed in his first paragraph are not widely shared, but he has been doing a number of edits at various old battles removing images he doesn't like, without discussion. I'm fine with this image, though the tradition and iconography of it and the similar Tropenmuseum one below would make a good article. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Karbala has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change

"The Battle of Karbala galvanized the development of the pro-Alid^[a] party (Shi'at Ali) into a unique religious sect with its own rituals and collective memory."

to

"The Battle of Karbala further deepened the rift between the pro-Alid^[b] party (Shi'at Ali) and the Sunni sect, solidifying the distinctive identity of the former as a unique religious sect with its own rituals and collective memory."

The change removes the implication that the Shia sect emerged LATER than the Sunni sect {which is debated between Sunni and Shia) and instead conveys the solidifying of the Shia identity due to the Battle of Karbala. MomoTheGr8 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Nowhere does the article imply that Sunnis emerged earlier than Shi'is, nor should it since Sunnism was the last major historical sect to emerge. So your suggestion to talk about rift between pro-Alids and Sunnis is anachronous. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear MomoTheGr8, AhmadLX is correct. Sunnism developed in the late 8th/early 9th century, so to speak about "the Sunni sect" in the context of the Battle of Karbala (late 7th century) would be rather anachronistic. Of course, this is not present in the sources cited. If you want to edit Wikipedia, please closely read the sources and only report what they are saying, nothing else. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Karbala has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

223.123.19.240 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as it is not clear what changes you want to do.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

data is not collected properly and words used are also not suitable 119.157.85.33 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Karbala has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the family of rasoolallah won the war, not the umayyad caliphate 148.252.128.76 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 21:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Revised the section to provide a concise and balanced overview of scholars' views on Husayn's motivations. Removed direct quotes like "reaches out to the moon like a child" and "convinced that he was in the right, stubbornly determined to achieve his ends" that may be seen as subjective. Replaced them with a more neutral presentation of their perspectives. The streamlined content maintains the scholarly viewpoints in a proper manner. StarkReport (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

StarkReport, in my view your proposed revision (here) is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel.

I agree though that the quoted views from Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 ("reaches out to the moon like a child", "a person who disturbs public peace"), which I can only describe as character judgments, feel very outdated and out of place. I think these views should either be contextualized and more strongly juxtaposed to recent views (I can't imagine that later scholars wouldn't have reacted to moralizing pronouncements like these?), or simply removed (do they really add anything of importance? can we agree that even though they were mainstream 100 years ago in the context of great man theory-esque historiography –or in this context, 'small man historiography'–, they are not so anymore?). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@StarkReport and Apaugasma: Instead of relying so much on the outdated Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 (WP:DUE?), perhaps we could add the more recent views that are missing, e.g., those of Moojan Momen in An Introduction to Shi'i Islam or Najam Haider in EI3. I'd welcome their addition to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want to have a go at it that would be great. Personally I won't be working on this or any other Wikipedia article, but I'm willing to review your proposal to revise the text if you should make one (the easiest way is to edit the article and directly self-revert). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else would like to take the lead and I'd be happy to support them as much as possible. @StarkReport: I hope you're still interested in revising the views section... Albertatiran (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read both of your replies, so here's what I came up with: The first paragraph could be written as:

"Wellhausen and Lammens, have characterized Husayn's revolt as a premature and ill-prepared campaign led by an ambitious individual. They argue that Husayn made significant demands but failed to take substantial action, relying on others to handle the situation. Moreover, they view Husayn's actions as leading to disturbances in public peace. According to Heinz Halm, Husayn's revolt can be understood as a struggle for political leadership among the second generation of Muslims. Fred Donner, G. R. Hawting, and Hugh N. Kennedy see Husayn's revolt as an attempt to regain what his brother Hasan had renounced."

As for the second paragrpah:

"On the other hand, Vaglieri interprets Husayn's motivations as being driven by ideology. He posits that the available historical materials suggest Husayn was deeply convinced of being in the right and was resolutely determined to achieve his objectives.[90] Similarly, Madelung contends that Husayn was not a "reckless rebel" but instead a religious man, motivated by pious convictions. According to him, Husayn was convinced that "the family of the Prophet was divinely chosen to lead the community founded by Moḥammad, as the latter had been chosen, and had both an inalienable right and an obligation to seek this leadership." He was, however, not seeking martyrdom and wanted to return when his expected support did not materialize. Maria Dakake holds that Husayn considered the Umayyad rule oppressive and misguided, and revolted to reorient the Islamic community in the right direction. A similar view is held by Mahmoud Ayoub. S. M. Jafri proposes that Husayn, although motivated by ideology, did not intend to secure leadership for himself. Husayn, Jafri asserts, was from the start aiming for martyrdom in order to jolt the collective conscience of the Muslim community and reveal what he considers to be the oppressive and anti-Islamic nature of the Umayyad regime."

I tried to present the scholars' viewpoints without relying on direct quotes while ensuring that the content wasn't excessively condensed.

While I have not read An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, it is likely to contain information about Husayn that may reveal the author's view. Currently, there is a mention of Moojan Momen's perspective on Husayn in the article ^[1], where Momen briefly discusses Husayn while criticizing Iran's policies towards Baha'is. So how about we include his view in the second paragraph as:

"Moojan Momen emphasizes Husayn's actions within Shia beliefs, stating that being persecuted, martyred, and displaying resilience, as exemplified by Imam Husayn, is considered essential markers of true faith."

Might I suggest incorporating the views of German scholar and Orientalist annemarie schimmel on Husayn.^[2][3] StarkReport (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi StarkReport, thanks for the drafts. For the record, I think you're doing great. Here are some thoughts and suggestions: 1) I also support removing Wellhausen and Lammens, and replacing them with more timely views, say, that of Donner or someone else. 2) Here is a summary of what Momen says in his Introduction in pages 31–32, "Momen sides with Jafri, adding that Husayn was warned about the collapse of the Shia revolt in Kufa. Instead of changing his course, however, he pressed on toward Kufa, urging his supporters to leave him and save their lives on multiple occasions." 3) You can access many of these sources on Internet Archive for free. You can also access Brill Reference works through the Wikipedia library; please see here. In particular, Haider's EI3 article about Husayn can be found here. If anything else comes to mind, I'll update my response here. Albertatiran (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that is really a bit off with the current revision is the outdated and therefore perhaps wp:undue nature of Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views. Summarizing these rather than quoting doesn't really solve that.

With regard to Momen's view, encyclopedias do not make pronouncements on what are "essential markers of true faith", and so this seems out of context here. This is probably due to the source being used (iranwire.com), which is not a reliable source for historical subjects on Wikipedia. Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources. The sources proposed for Schimmel's views, al-islam.org and hawzahnews.com, also do not meet this requirement.

With regard to al-islam.org, this is a religious organization promoting Shi'i views, and so is not a reliable source for any kind of subject on Wikipedia. Please never use it here. StarkReport, if you're not familiar with scholarly sources it might be a good idea to avoid editing historical and religious topics on Wikipedia, and spend some time with such sources instead. When editing Wikipedia it's very important to have some experience with the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable for any given subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing Momen's perspective. Also, would it be appropriate to integrate his contribution without explicitly using the term 'Islamicist,' as it might inadvertently introduce unnecessary labeling? StarkReport (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the concerns about the notions of Wellhausen and Lammens, which may seem somewhat out of place and gratuitous in the current context. Given the evolving scholarship and focus on more recent perspectives, it might be appropriate to consider removing these views to ensure the section remains balanced and relevant to modern understanding.

As for annemarie schimmel views, would newspaper like Dawn or The Herald be suitable as sources: ^[1][2] StarkReport (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No, newspapers are generally not reliable for historical subjects. Wikipedia content should be based on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources, which in the context of historical subjects are sources coming from academic publishers (e.g., Cambridge University Press, Brill, De Gruyter, etc.). This generally includes monographs, academic journals, edited volumes, encylopedias and other reference works, all published by such academic publishers. The Wikipedia Library offers free online access to many of these sources to long-term editors, so be sure to try that out. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thanks for opining here. I generally hold your opinion in high esteem, however this time I believe your position is wrong. The section is dedicated to assessment of Husayn's motivation and would obviously contain "character judgments", so remarks like "which I can only describe as character judgments" are perplexing. Moreover, Wellhausen and Lammens, along with Goldziher, are among the founders of critical study of Islam. Their views on a range of things are reported on a variety of a our articles, but more importantly in the professional academic literature. Wellhausen's Arab Kingdom is used a textbook on Umayyad history, whereas his Oppositionsparteien was the first critical of study of Shi'im and Kahrijism (although on Kharijism Brünnow's work was a bit earlier). Lammens' Le Califat is to-date the only dedicated study of Yazid's reign and he is a middle-link between Goldziher and Schacht in the field of academic hadith criticism. Regarding Wellhausen and Lammens irrelevant and their views out of place simply shows, sadly, that one needs to acquaint oneself a bit more with the academic study of Islamic history. Adding views of more scholars is, of course, welcome. But in the end, one always needs to select a sample from each camp of views, while giving due weight (which is what the section currently does). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean character structure (i.e., a person's general psychological characteristics, both positive and negative), but moral character (i.e., a person's virtues: empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, loyalty, etc.). With "character judgment", I mean a negative evaluation of a person in relation to these virtues: Husayn failed because he was too childish and lacked the humility and fortitude to carry through.

Of course Wellhausen and Lammens are highly –and I mean highly– respectable scholars. It's just that 100 years ago scholars in general tended to more easily ascribe historical events to the moral character –or the lack thereof– of its actors. This approach is generally outdated: one will not find recent scholars proclaim that Husayn acted "like a child". Nor would they assume that an analysis of this type, even if it were possible given the state of the sources, would explain anything.

Old sources can often be valuable, and in the case of Islamic studies they are not rarely better than newer ones. But they should also be used with caution, which often means: selectively. When they go all preachy and judgmental about morals and personal virtues, they are often better left aside for an instant. In my experience, modern academics generally either do just that and ignore moralizing views in older but respected literature, or they directly criticize them. It would be good for us to follow suit and either pick up on such criticisms if they exist, or simply ignore the older views. But that's just my opinion; there's nothing so problematic here that we couldn't just agree to disagree on that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Wellhausen is sure old, but not too old/outdated to be ignored. In fact, as Halm puts "[oppositionsparteien] is still the most authoritative work on the subject to date" (Halm, Shi'ism, 2nd ed., p.3. this was written in 1991 and I suppose you won't label that is too old too). As for moral character judgments are concerned, that is not for an encyclopedia to decide which RS to choose from based on their moral declarations. As late as 1997, Madelung wrote of Mu'awiya as an "odious little imposter" and what not. Does that make him irrelevant for the article on Mu'awiya? Certainly not. But based on your position, we ought to delete to his criticism from Mu'awiya's article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the point you are trying to make here is largely rhetorical, but I'm not sure that description of Muawiyah is character judgment - the man's actions themselves were odious enough without one needing to guess at his moral character. Converting the caliphate into a dynastic property and generally opposing if not outright murdering members of the prophet's family were hardly the actions of a devout convert true to his outward professions of fealty and faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that so? Then describing an unplanned expedition against an empire as childish desire is also not moral judgment too. Hope that helps. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The salient point here is that modern scholars generally don't regard Mu'awiya's moral character, however they may judge it, as a relevant explanatory factor for historical events. Madelung is being rather old-fashioned in making such moral pronouncements, and is precisely rejected by other scholars to the extent that he uses these as 'evidence' for his political and military analysis. I linked above to 'great man theory', which regards important historical events as due to the personal virtue of some men and the moral degeneracy of others. This approach has persisted in some circles throughout the 20th century, but it has been gradually abandoned, and in 2023 it really is completely out of date –or so I believe. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

AhmadLX, I certainly hope we don't quote Madelung on that?! But that just means that we are being selective, and that we do practice editorial discretion. DUE is all about being selective in RS. Now I'm talking from a general experience of reading 100+ years old academic literature, which has that certain moralizing tendency. It is this tendency, not specific scholars like Wellhausen or Lammens, or these two scholars' views in general, that is outdated. I say this as a historian. But maybe you've got a different experience, or just don't see what I see, and that's fine! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That would certainly apply if we were to make declarations in Wikipedia's voice. But that is not what we are doing. We are reporting what two scholars think of his rebellion. And in reality, all views presented in the section are character judgments. Summarizing top scholarship on a subject is what we do. It is simple as that. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If it were as simple as that, almost no discussion would ever be needed here on WP (bless me, if it only could be so). But what actually is top scholarship in any particular case is not something self-evident, unfortunately. That's why we are all the time discussing on WP the quality and relevance of any particular source with regard to any particular subject or statement. Calling one's preferred source in a specific case "top scholarship" is just begging the question. To be clear: though I appreciate other opinions, and though I do regard Wellhausen as a top scholar, it is my editorial opinion that the specific quote we are giving from Wellhausen is not top scholarship. It's severely outdated. You disagree, it seems, because Wellhausen is just top of the line in everything he writes, and you don't see any particular problem here? As I said, that's fine, and I understand.

I can also see your point: the rest of the paragraph does contain some further 'moral analysis' (not accidentally, it seems, by Madelung!), so why not include all of it? Then again, maybe only the moralizing stuff can be trimmed? On the other hand, maybe the whole paragraph is wp:undue. If the question of Husayn's "motivations" comes down to the question of whether he was a reckless rebel or a pious hero (Madelung's framing), I don't see much value in it, and I refuse to believe that recent top scholarship regards the question of Husayn's motivations in that way (both images are stereotypes which only exist in the moral imagination and as such explain nothing about historical reality).

But I also see why other editors would take that latter opinion of mine with a grain of salt: perhaps it's too colored by my own views on proper historiography, or on what can reasonably be regarded as knowable given the state of our primary sources. It's also important to note that I'm by no means an expert on this subject, and that I did not read the relevant secondary sources. But merely the fact that an editor like me brings up something as possibly wp:undue is not to be dismissed with an argument which regards everything as due for inclusion if it's RS, because that simply is not how WP works. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well you know what? Wellhausen's being top scholarship doesn't need anyone's certificate here. His peers views are what matters. You wanna show his work reflects that theory you have been consistently pointing to, you gotta show that from RS, not from your personal opinions. How can you stereotype scholars without even reading them? That some folks from the 19th century believed in the theory doesn't mean all disciplines of history were plagued with that. As a true history student, you gotta do better than that. If Vaglieri writing for EI2 quotes Wellhausen and Lammens, and Halm calls Wellhausen's work among the best on the subject, we don't really need OR-based opinions. You gotta problem with Wellhausen's assessment, then show from RS that this assessment is outdated/wrong/ whatever. If not, you are welcome to start RFC, instead of patronizing. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing. I might be completely wrong, but I don't believe that the specific 100+ year old views we are discussing here are still taken very seriously by recent scholars. If you want to look to peer review (a good idea of course, scholars discussing scholars' views are effectively wp:tertiary, which "may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other"), the onus to show from tertiary sources/statements that these specific views are still being discussed would be just as much on you as it would be on me to show that they are not. If Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views are explicitly discussed by other scholars, we should include what other scholars are saying about them in our article (as I said above, juxtapose and contextualize, that would be a fine approach and discussion here could end immediately). On the other hand, if they are not discussed by other scholars, we have no 'peer review' basis to go on.

If there is no 'peer review' basis to go on, all we can do is evaluate as editors. Are Wellhausen's and Lammens' specific views here about Husayn having acted "like a child" still upheld by anyone? Does anyone still take it seriously enough to even mention it (we are mentioning it!)? It's not because Vaglieri or Halm still extensively rely on Wellhausen that they agree with everything he ever said. Respect is often shown by passing over outdated or obsolete elements in silence. The general good reputation of a scholar does not guarantee that every last thing they have ever written is still regarded as valuable, that should be obvious. Questioning whether an individual and specific statement of an old but well-respected scholar is still taken seriously in modern scholarship is not OR, that too should be obvious. I think it's perfectly fine to answer the questioning with 'yes the source is old, but I don't agree that moral judgments are somehow outdated (Madelung's still doing it), and so this is not a sufficient reason for exclusion'. We can agree to disagree on that matter. But what I do take great exception to is the idea that Wikipedia editors should not even question sources in the first place, that this should be somehow illegitimate.

As someone who both does original research and edits Wikipedia, I'm well aware of the different norms and standards that apply. One of the big differences is that in the former, one is generally expected to be habitually skeptical and critical about other scholars' views, while in the latter it is generally expected to simply follow scholarly views without too much criticism. But Wikipedia policy would be crazy if it were to disallow all forms of source criticism, and so fortunately, it does not. More than that, it specifically prescribes source-critical norms such as WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:BESTSOURCES, etc. It also encourages WP:CONSENSUS-directed discussion about the contextual reliability and relevance of sources, and it puts the WP:ONUS to get consensus for inclusion on those who want to include a source (that would be you here). I'm sorry for all the wiki-lawyering (I'm really sorry to be arguing with you at all in fact), but since you seem to believe our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of policy, I felt I should clarify that I do understand policy.

That said, I don't think an RfC is a good idea, at least not yet. First someone should create an alternative revision with a proposed text that we can put up for a RfC. A possible RfC question could be "Should the section on the motivations of Husayn contain text A, B, or C?" If A would be the current revision, B and C could be alternative proposals. But these proposals should be well worked out and at least have a chance of being accepted. At this moment, I still support the current revision, which while not ideal is fine really. There's not often an occasion to say things like this, so I will say it here: I think you've done a great job with this article and other WP articles. I truly appreciate it, that's also why your articles are on my watch list and why I tried to help out here with explaining to StarkReport why their initial efforts were unacceptable. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

While the 'Modern historical views on motivations of Husayn' section is tempting, its inclusion deviates from the primary focus of the 'Battle of Karbala' article, which aims to provide a historical account of the battle itself. Moreover, the existing 'Historical analysis' section already covers significant modern perspectives on Husayn as well as the battle, reducing the necessity for a separate section.

Consolidating key insights from the 'Modern historical views' section into the existing 'Historical analysis' section can maintain coherence, readability, and minimize potential disputes among contributors. This approach allows us to present a well-rounded account of the Battle of Karbala without compromising the central narrative and relevance of the article.

Also, no one is dismissing Wellhausen or Lammens. However, including their views on Husayn's motivations, which appear outdated or tangential to the central narrative, could detract from the article's primary focus. Their assessments are perceived as character judgments rather than direct analyses of Husayn's motivations within the context of the battle. It definitely seems to introduce bias or undue emphasis on certain perspectives.

With regards to WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, we all know that Mu'awiya I is infamous for his controversial actions. The comparison to other historical character judgments, such as Madelung's view on Mu'awiya, may not be entirely analogous, as the context and relevance of character judgments can vary significantly between different articles. In the case of the 'Battle of Karbala,' the focus is on Husayn's motivations in a particular historical event, and character judgments from sources outside that specific context might not directly contribute to understanding his motivations.

How about bringing other editors and seeking broader consensus to evaluate whether the "views" section is necessary and if it aligns with the article's primary focus. Maybe we can initiate a formal voting process to gather input. StarkReport (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@StarkReport: I see your point about a vote but a consensus seems out of reach, either way. At the same time, there are many related articles that are in desperate need of major revision to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. I'm slowly working on Ashura and Mourning of Muharram, and haven't even checked Tasu'a, Muharram, Ta'zieh, to name just a few. Albertatiran (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand your perspective on the consensus issue. Indeed, finding a common ground can sometimes be challenging. StarkReport (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

https://minorityrights.org/minorities/zaydi-shias/#:~:text=The%20Zaydis%2C%20known%20as%20Fivers,than%20to%20Shi'a%20Islam.

Zaydism#:~:text=Unlike the Twelver and Isma,ʻAlī or Husayn ibn ʻAlī. 2601:285:103:1D70:3472:DAAD:AD6C:54CA (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).