Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Twelve Imams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

[edit] Twelve Imams

It's a complete, well referenced and useful list.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a good list. A few comments:
  • ) Can any images be possibly added to it?
  • ) Please replace "Martyred" with "Killed" per WP:MOS
  • ) Please check the reference for "Sacrificing himself and his family at the Battle of Karbala for the sake of a true Islamic polity" I couldn't map it to Britannica.
  • ) Possibly add a famous saying for each Imam.
  • ) Please fix "Suny press" to "SUNY Press".
  • ) A few sentences are not sourced, please fix them.
--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • ) A shrine of Imam Hussain has been added to it.
  • ) Fixed.
  • ) Fixed.
  • ) Will in a moment. On second thought, I don't believe this would be a good idea, as the list is saturated enough. I can do it if you feel it to be really necessary however.
  • ) Fixed.
  • ) Will soon.
--Enzuru 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good idea to add few sentences from each Imam. It's not Wikiquote article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • The first sentence of the page is very long and heavy. It should be broken into at least two, and also referenced.
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of "or Ithna Ashariya", it should be "(Language used: Ithna Ashariya)"
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why "'Ali" and not "Ali"?
Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Should "jurispudence" be "jurisdiction"?
"jurisprudence" is correct.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done I omitted that part.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurispudence on all matters" is repetitive and heavy
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The final sentence of the first Lead paragraph is also long and heavy.
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "An Imam ," stray space
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "successors to Muhammad.[1]" → "successor to Muhammad.[1]"
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead needs an explaination of what an Imam is.
There is an explanation:there is an infallible and knowledgeable male descendant of Ali and Fatimah at any given time who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurisprudence on all matters of faith and law in the Muslim community.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't say that this is Iman. It just says it's some guy -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would use a proper wikitable to make the table
  • Ali ibn Abu Talib seems to link to two different people
Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What does CE and AH mean in the "Lifespan (CE/AH)" column
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't lifespan usually mean the number of years someone is alive, rather than the actual years they were born and died in?
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All the years should be displayed as "600–661", not "600 – 661"
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is 600–661 BC or AD? I think it should be specified as this isn't a subject many English Wikipedia users will be familiar with
Y Done (BC is CE) --Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What is "BH"?
Before Hijra.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That needs to be expressed, then, with an explaination of what Hijra is. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008
Is it acceptable to write [[Islamic_calendar#Chronology|BH]]--Seyyed(t-c) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for all, and if there is some terms or jargon that the regular reader doesn't understand, it needs explaining or at worst a simple Wikilink -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:08, 25 March, 2008
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's probably better to split the Lifespan column into two separate columns; one for Gregorian calendar dates and the other for Muslim calendar dates
I disagree, I feel it is clean like this. --Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Birth" → "Birthplace" Also include the country
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • " 57 or – 114" 57 or what?
Y Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The info about Muhammad ibn al-Hassan makes him sound almost Godlike. He has to have physically died, whether the people believe it or not.
As Henry Corbin describes in his work, History of Islamic Philosophy, it doesn't make him sound almost Godlike. I can't add different viewpoints in the list. It should be mention in the article. I tried to write something which is acceptable for Shias who believe he's alive and non-Shia.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But a belief that he's alive in some sort of spiritual form, or even a belief that he's actually alive isn't the same as truly being alive. There's no way that a person can be alive from the year 800AD, and no amount of faith can turn that into fact. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008
How can I explain the issue in the list? I think even I can't explain it in the footnote. There is another article for it Muhammad al-Mahdi#The Occultation. Of course we should add some explanation in that article like what Corbin has described in his book. (The Hidden Imam and Eschatology pp. 68 - 73) or what Allama Tabatabaee explains in Si'ite Islam --Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would try to find a definitive date of death first, although I do understand that this may be difficult if the Shias think of him as still alive. Then I would have the notes explain that in the belief system he is still alive. If no date can be found, keep the "Unknown" but obviously make it clear that while he can't be alive, he is in their beliefs. I also noticed one capitalised version of "He", as opposed to "he" throughout the rest. I don't know if this is like the "He" of the Christian god, or just a typo. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:06, 25 March, 2008
I corrected that H. I've never seen any date of death. Most of the non-Shia academicians and historians don't believe in his existence at all. Some of them believe that he was born but they don't believe he's still alive. There are some non-Shia who have mystic viewpoint such as Henry Corbin who believe he's born and he's still alive. But in this viewpoint he rule over the time and time doesn't affect him.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont think the point here is really about whether Mahdi ibn Hasan lives or not. We are talking about a religious belief not unsimilar to what we have in "mashiyach nagiyd" in Jewish eschatology and Messianic prophecy in Christianity. This too runs along the same lines.--Zereshk (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For the title, I would do "Arabic title (Turkish tr.)", place the Turkish translation in parentheses, and remove the lines
They aren't translations, Turks and Arab-rite Shi'ah have different names for them, but since they are such a big population and spread out in many countries, we gave attention to them. --Enzuru 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Same with name
  • I also think the table could be presented better, and perhaps with some sortable fields.

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:49, 25 March, 2008

Which field can be sorted in the table?--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would choose to do name, title, years and birthplace. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:13, 25 March, 2008
I can't understand correctly. They have more than one title. Also ten out of twelve have the same birthplace. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. OK I see your point :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:28, 25 March, 2008

Question) The article says the following about the 4th Imam: "According to some Shia scholars he was poisoned on the order of Caliph al-Walid I in Medina, Saudi Arabia." Is this the view of some Shia scholars or all of them? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The majority. Consider it fixed. --Enzuru 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. For my own information, is there any Shia scholar who thinks otherwise? What is the view of minority? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not too familiar with the historicity of the subject of their deaths, but Seyyed might know. My perception is that the majority of scholars and laymen have the position that all the Imams were poisoned aside from Ali, Husayn, and al-Mahdi, by the reigning caliph. --Enzuru 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
According to western historians such as Madelung some of them have dead naturally. But even in this case they disagree with each other. For example while Madelung think Imam Reza died naturally, Petrushevsky disagrees. Thus in the cases which western academicians have different ideas I wrote According to Shia. God willing, I will check the Shia sources for other reports.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I check there are too few Shia scholars who disagree with it and we shouldn't mention it per Undue weight.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Commment

Lead I think we should work on the lead. Please refer to the talk page of the article for more discussions.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More

  • I think the table would be better presented as a Wikitable
  • I made the table headers bold, but the headers cells could do with shading, too, IMO
  • Those notes underneath the table need attatching to the text
Y Done I moved them to the footnotes. Does it satisfy you?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that I'm going to stay neutral on this one. It seems to meet the criteria and MOS, but I can't bring myself to support something that I just can't understand. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:26, 27 March, 2008

Please explain what can't you understand.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Interesting list! I do have a few suggestions, though. And I admit to knowing almost nothing about the topic, so excuse any ignorance on my part:

  • I too would suggest converting the table to a wikitable, as it simplifies markup and makes for a more consistent encyclopedia.
  • The sources/foototes are a little messy. A random article I found that did a good job of juggling it all is Thoughts on the Education of Daughters.
Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The list/table itself should be in its own section.
Y Done by Sephiroth BCR--Seyyed(t-c) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For someone like me who doesn't know much about the Twelvers, the lead doesn't explain everything. For example, why 12? Why isn't there Imams to this day? Or is Muhammad ibn al-Hassan an Imam to this day? Which makes me even more confused: is an Imam a physical being or a spiritual being? Mortal or immortal? Like I said, I know nothing at all about the topic, and the list makes me interested, but I'm left with more questions than answers. Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Twelvers, a branch of Shia Islam, has twelve Imams while seveners have seven ones. However I think who wants to know more should refer to Imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine) and I added some external links for whoever wants to know more. This is just a list and it's not appropriate place to explain the doctorine completely. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a few things are fixed:
    • answers.com is an unacceptable source... luckily it is citing from Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia so we need to track down original page numbers and bibliographic data from the encyclopedia. This is definitely necessary... and it would be nice to get some paper sources for the books hosted on balagh.net... mainly because websites even of notable institutions change... but, it's not something I'd oppose for
I think this is the real source--Seyyed(t-c) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Citation style is somewhat messy... for the Tabatabae you should used the proper citation for an online book... that includes using the original SUNY edition information but also the website information. Also, for the footnotes I would only link pp. ##-## and not the book's title... It's somewhat a hodge podge of styles where you have some form under References but not necessarily the editions linked under the footnotes (if something is an online edition and you link to it then the reference should also show that it's an online edition). Because, I now see you reference a Ansarian Publications version and not a SUNY one... it's somewhat misleading to link to the SUNY one... I understand university press gives more authority while online gives greater ease but there is a better and less misleading way to do taht I'm sure. --gren グレン 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Y DoneI remove all of the links which refer to online version of Tabatabaei's book. As I checked their page number are similar. I add the online version as an external link.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh...shallow copy-editing at best. I think another set of eyes would be nice for the prose. The table also needs to be fixed (I'm crappy at layout), and some of the referencing styles still need work I think. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • support, it seems that most of the concerns about this list have been resolved. I think it is ready for featured status. Pejman47 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I really like the formatting of the table, and I believe the prose is now at a sufficient level. -- Scorpion0422 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I also support this article for FA status. It would be good to also show picture of Mashhad.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I read thru it. I think the article is good to go.--Zereshk (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This looks like a good read and deserves the star. Good job! Gary King (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.