Talk:Abu Bakr

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

The last paragraph of first section "Sunni Muslims revere Abu Bakr as the first of the rightly-guided caliphs and the greatest individual after the prophets and messengers. Shia tradition considers Abu Bakr an usurper of the caliphate and an enemy of the ahl al-bayt." is proposed to be shifted at the top introduction paragraph to start the introduction by mentioning opinion of different sects, and not by one sect. Dr. Ilham Zaidi (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the Template:Tlx template. PianoDan (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Abu Bakr's love and respect for Ahle Bayt

This thread is dedicated to discussing the edit on Abu Bakr's relationship with Ahle Bayt, which was reverted by @Albertatiran The purpose of this discussion is to examine the accuracy and relevance of the information and come to a consensus Umayyad-387 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources are not reliable for this type of information, nor is a technically secondary source like the sixteenth-century Islamic scholar Mulla Ali Qari.

What we basically need is a modern reliable academic source conforming to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, in order to establish that the information is WP:DUE to include here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

i had added three references from Tirmizi, which is considered a verified book of Hadiths. Notably, there are already numerous references on Abu Bakr's page from Tirmizi, Sunan Abu Dawood, Tabaqat Ibn Saad, and other Hadith books. I'm unclear as to why the Tirmizi reference is being rejected now.

if Wikipedia no longer wishes for users to add new information, i will refrain from editing the page further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umayyad-387 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

As I've explained to you before, hadiths like those from al-Tirmidhi, as well as any type of religious commentary on these hadiths, are primary sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The reason why editors should not use primary sources for anything that involves interpretation is that Wikipedia cannot allow its editors to post their own non-expert, non-scholarly, and often non-independent (i.e. religiously motivated) points of view on Wikipedia. Instead, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia needs to represent the points of view of modern academic secular scholarship.

It is true that this article and many others do contain information based purely on primary sources like you mention. If you wish, you can remove some of that information where appropriate, citing the WP:NOR policy in your edit summary. Eventually all original researched information like that should be removed from Wikipedia, although ideally the information should be replaced by information based on modern academic secondary sources. One thing you should not do, as you also did on Umar, is to add information purely based on primary sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2025

You Jaywalker372 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2025

The citation for the following sentence "Additionally, he purchased the land for Al-Masjid al-Nabawi" is https://www.dawateislami.net/magazine/en/pages-of-the-history/masjid-e-nabwi-construction Jetsetter84 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

His date of birth

I wonder how did you get his date of birth - October 27th 573. What is your source? I cannot find it anywhere else. The most you can find in the books is the year - 573. 2A02:AB04:37B9:B400:DC73:8ABD:AD81:B016 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)