Talk:Birthplace of Ali

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-22. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Start

This discussion has migrated all over the place. I'm making an article for it. It still needs lots of work, but it's late and I'm tired. Will try to work on it tomorrow. Zora 12:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver

Do not just move pages like this. This talk page is for discussion. I am sorry that your edits got mangled but when you start moving pages all of the place the only way I can fix them is just bringing it back to an older version before your arbitrary moves. If you have comments / complaints bring them here. If you want to address Hakim more do not move the page to a new title that will address him. Thank you. gren グレン 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article up for deletion

My first entry said that the article was a placeholder and not very good. On looking at it again, I agree that it needs a lot of work. I had just forgotten to come back to it. However, I don't think it needs to be deleted. Give me a day or two to work on it and I'm sure I can improve it.

Striver is trying to get this article removed so that his version of this same controversy, People reported to be born in the Kaaba, is the only one left standing. Clearly, the two articles should be merged. They should not be merged under "People reported to be born in the Kaaba", as that is ungrammatical. Nor is it a good representation of the controversy.

The use of the term "report" suggests eyewitness reports. But the "reports" were in fact recorded 200 to 300 years after the supposed event, after having been passed down as oral traditions for hundreds of years. Moreover, they were recorded at a time when the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam were "settling out" as religious sects rather than political parties. Proto-Shi'a were already making extensive claims for Ali's exalted status, birth in the Kaaba, semi-divinity. etc.

Hadith are a vast corpus of contradictory materials. Even Muslim scholars agree that many of them are not reliable. Non-Muslim scholars treat them as so much fable, or use them with extreme caution. By treating 200-300 year old rumors as "reports", Striver is pushing his Shi'a POV, in which Ali is a perfect human being, without sin or error, and must therefore have been born in a way befitting his exalted condition.

When I picked the title "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib", I was trying hard for a non-POV title. I think the title I chose is non-POV, in that it doesn't take any stand on where Ali was born. If other editors can think of a different, better, title, I'd be OK with that too.

If the two articles are merged, the resulting article is going to be the scene of intense controversy and many revert wars, I'm afraid. But I suppose that's OK, since what I was trying to do was take the controversy out of the Ali ibn Abi Talib article, where it has been simmering ever since Striver started editing there. If the controversy has its own article, there should be room to lay out all the arguments, references, etc. Zora 08:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted, it's not important enough to be given its own article. DigiBullet 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zora that it completely skews Ali having a debate about place of birth in the article. gren グレン 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with her in that it should not be done in the Ali article.I argue it should be done in the article about People reported to be born in the Kaaba. --Striver 08:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted but surely needs lots of work. The stories mentioned here are widely mentioned in arabic books. 129.130.15.91 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But when the editors involved don't speak Arabic and don't have access to those books, it is very difficult to consult them! I hope to learn Arabic but right now, I'm stymied. It is possible that there are articles in learned journals on this subject, but I can't find anything through my Questia account or through Google Scholar. If you could provide cites, dates, and translations, that might help -- but then there's the issue of the trustworthiness of the translations. We are getting into "original research" territory here. Zora 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New version

I've revised the page. I'm unsure of one section, re Sunni views on Ali's birthplace. I couldn't find any Sunni source that mentioned the "born in the Kaaba" theory, but I know that Striver believes strongly that Sunnis believe this, and gave some references at one point. He completely (and unilaterally) reorganized the Ali talk page, so I'd really prefer not to hunt for the references, but wait for him to supply them again. Zora 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, look at People reported to be born in the Kaaba for a sunni biography that tells it. Your version as is is both pov and inaccurate. It claims that no Sunni belives in it. Then why would they include it in their biography? It claims no Sunni scholars belives in it. Then why insert it in a alledged all-authentic collection? As is now, it also starts to talk about the Kaaba and the other guy, and has lost its focus on the birthplace of Ali,starting to talk about sources, shi'a hajj customs, Sunni reports of people being born there, Non-Muslim scholars view of people born in the Kaaba... the article is no longer about the birthplace of Ali, its about People reported to be born in the Kaaba. Just admit it and merge it to the article with the correct name. --Striver 08:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

The first section looks adequate. The later parts are problematic. I suggest giving the dates and citations of the earliest sources that do mention this tradition, and which parts of it come from what sources. It's better to note the chronology and its gaps neutrally than to comment: the facts speak for themselves. Best wishes. Durova 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I don't have access to the sources. I don't read Arabic. (If I did, there's an online repository of classic Arabic texts that might have the works.) All I have is what one website cited as the sources. I have some, but not all, of the earlier sources (Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd) and a fairly large selection of academic references that merely demonstrate the ABSENCE of this story. Citations from Arabic texts would be problematic in any case, as English-speaking readers would have no way of checking any translation given, or checking quotes against original sources.

This would actually be a fascinating research topic -- history of Muslim beliefs about Ali. But unless I did the original research and then published it <g>, there's nothing I can cite.

Help from any Arabic-speaking editors would be welcome. Zora 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051124095940/http://www.witness-pioneer.org:80/vil/Articles/companion/01_ali_bin_talib.htm to http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/01_ali_bin_talib.htm#Birth%20of%20Ali

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]