Talk:Abu Hanifa

Changing his date of birth in Gregorian Calender only

His date of birth in the infobox was 80 Hijri and 699 AD. but as we all know that the difference between Gregorian and Hijri date is 621 or 622 years because our Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) made Hijrat in 622 A.D. so the correct Gregorian date will be 622+80= 702 A.D and similarly his death date should be 150 Hijri or 150+622=772 A.D.

More recent changes

Template:Ping you removed multiple sections and useful well-sourced information. Additionally, the introduction is now worse and fails to conform to other articles of this style (see WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and WP:Manual of Style/Arabic). You also removed the native name, more accurate birth date, children, Arabic module, several individuals from influences (all of whom were sourced), and the entire sections on name and appearance details, as well as citations, grammar fixes, addition of details, and general corrections throughout the article.

For example, Abu Hanifa wasn’t a “Hanafi”; it was a school named after him, which was also removed from notable ideas. He also never founded a “school of theology”; his followers only came to follow the Maturidi school, which came centuries later without him taking any part in the creation of. You also removed details from the introduction, although I admittedly should've wrote "al-Dhahabi named him as…" to make it sound more neutral; either way, simply quoting someone is not bias, and this is done on dozens of articles.

There are also several grammar and romanization mistakes again which fail to conform to the MOS (such as capitalizing the definite article al-, which should be lowercase except at the beginning of a sentence, several words such as “Zūtā”, which should be “Zuta” unless strict romanization is necessary, and dozens of other examples). Additionally, the article returned to non-neutral wording against Wikipedia’s policy, such as “Imam Al-Shafi’i” and “Imam Malik”. (What’s amazing is the introduction says he’s “known reverently as Imam Abu Hanifa”, while using this exact reverent title in the infobox next to it for others. Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be neutral? As for titles such as Shaykh al-Islam, these are already indicated to be reverent titles.)

I put a now-deleted citation needed template for some blatantly uncited information in the text (which was kept, yet cited information removed). Also deleted are several citations I put which improved the article, and fixes to other citations already in the article by getting rid of terrible spelling and grammar and adding the template. The infobox went back to using commas, despite infoboxes needing flatlist and plainlist templates for lists. You also removed two entire sections which gave good information: name and appearance, and the text is now rampant with grammatical errors again which I had sorted out.

There are many examples of such mistakes; the article is now worse, less consistent, and doesn’t conform to Wikipedia rules. If you have problems with the article, discuss them here before rolling-back to an old revision without a word of explanation or reasoning, and in the process wiping away hours of work and good changes to the article. The only thing I agree with is shortening the occupations. Yasinzayd (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

AI generated pictures and sourcing

I don't think AI generated pictures should be used in articles, unless they're articles about AI generated pictures. It's difficult or impossible to assess the accuracy of them, and what sources they draw upon, and it comes close to AI-assisted original research. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

New Source For Article

As-Salamu Alaykum to the Muslim users, and hello for everyone else!

I have found a book source that I think would be perfect for this article,

This is a translation of a medieval classical work, by Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami. If not already used in the article, then its addition would definitely benefit the article.

I may also cite it in the future myself! MarjanTheCoralStone (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent changes to the side bar image

Hello All. I've noticed that there appears to be some type of editorial dispute/warring with regards to the side bar image. Namely, it changes between a calligraphic seal and no image. It has made sense to me that a picture of his tomb would be most appropriate. As it is, however, the seal seems to be the popular choice and is then removed by editors who cite MOS:calligraphy. I don't think the recent incarnation of the seal violates MOS:calligraphy because it is not "user generated", it is a digital reproduction of the seal in masjid nabawi. I realize that some editors may still consider that as user generated, and that is the very discussion which recently took place regarding the policy which ended without consensus. i.e. There is no consensus on whether the policy prohibits a digital reproduction such as the one recently used. Photographs of the seal can be found, but they are typically of very poor quality because of the location of it within masjid nabawi coupled with the fact that photography is generally prohibited there.

So, for the editors who keep removing the image because of MOS:calligraphy, I ask

1. Is the problem that the people who keep putting the digital reproduction there that they fail to properly label it in any way as a reproduction of the seal?

2. If your answer is "no" to question 1, would you be satisfied with a low quality photograph?

3. Do you think a picture of his tomb would be better/appropriate?

4. If the answer to all of the above is "no", what do you think would make for a better image? A15730 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)