Talk:Fatima

A whole section about the Fatimids

Hi Caliphinspector! While a few lines about the Alid descent of the Fatimid dynasty might be relevant, your recent edit is clearly out of the scope of this article. Am I right in concluding that you have directly imported this long new section without any changes from Fatimid dynasty or Fatimid Caliphate? The new references are also missing from the bibliography, creating about a dozen harv errors at the end of the article. May I please ask you to summarize your content in one or two relevant paragraphs and add your sources to the bibliography? Thank you for your interest in the topic and for your help. Please also see WP:OOS and WP:RELEVANCE and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Albertatiran (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong info about Sayyidah Fatimah ra and her family

Ahlul bayt never put so much hatred for sahabah. Infact Abu Bakr ra is the best and the closest companion of Rasulullah Sollaallahu alaihi wasalam until forever. how is it possible that those who have the purity of heart and sincere faith ​​like rasulullah saw hate the good friend of prophet muhammad???? 121.121.56.61 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is well-known that Sunni tradition has whitewashed the conflicts among early Muslims. Albertatiran (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that, you may put different sections on shia view and Sunni view. WP:NOV 獅眠洞 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Portray

@Albertatiran Hello. I have added a painting of Fatima to the section pertaining to her appearance. In my opinion, the lack of such an image might have been a deficiency in the article. Alongside presenting the beliefs of Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis, incorporating this image by a western painter can enhance the understanding of the topic and contribute to the improvement of the article. But you've deleted this image. I'd be happy to discuss any problem you might have considered. Hosein (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping Hi! thanks for the ping. How do we know that the painting was intended as a portrait of Fatima, the historical figure? Albertatiran (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran We can say that at least allegorically. Jules Lefebvre has painted his works, drawing inspiration from historical figures, biblical characters with mythological and allegorical themes. For example, in 1892, he painted Judith, inspired by this character. The title "Fatima" alone is also attributed to the historical figure of Fatima, and the Arabic motif in the painting further suggests this theme. Hosein (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hosein I'm sorry but this is clearly not convincing. Albertatiran (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran Clearly, "Fatima" means "Fatima," (especially with the Tasbih of Fatimah around her neck in the image) and if you think Fatima alone is not widely recognized by this name, it contradicts the existing consensus about the title of the article. Otherwise, consensus could have been reached on another name for the article, such as Fatima bint Muhammad.

If this is not the case, you should express your dissent more clearly. Especially since the article lacks any portrait of her, especially from western artists, which is a deficiency in this article. It is worth mentioning that it is true that in traditional culture, drawing images of the Prophet of Islam and his relatives was usually prohibited, but this should not be a reason for not displaying portraits that help readers' understanding. Hosein (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that because the necklace is similar to a Tasbih, and because this article is called Fatima (instead of Fatima bint Muhammad), we should put that image in this article.Ghazaalch (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch Firstly, in addition to the Tasbih of Fatimah around her neck in the allegorical painting, even the color of her dress (ghamis or gamis) closely matches the one attributed to her in the Istanbul museum (described as yellowish cream with patterns of blue in certain areas). I'm not certain if the dress truly belonged to her, but I mean the painter attempted to draw the most inspiration from the historical figure.

Regarding the second matter, I didn't quite grasp your point. I didn't suggest that just because the article is titled "Fatima," it must include this painting. My main emphasis is that this painting contributes significantly to broadening the subject for the reader, in terms of her appearance. However, if you intend to argue that she wasn't widely recognized under the name "Fatima," my question was whether there is a consensus that she was widely recognized under this name (the title of the article), and there's no room for debate on this matter. Hosein (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hosein You'll need a reliable sources proving that it depicts this Fatima. One auction catalogue describes it as "The portrait of a handsome Oriental woman"(p.201). Wiqi⁵⁵ 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wiqi55 Usually, images in such articles (including this one) lack support from reliable sources, and I haven't read in WP:IUP that such a requirement exists. However, an auction catalog is also not a reliable source. Such descriptions can often be general and may not fully capture the artist's intended symbolism or historical references. In the case of the painting in question, "Fatima," I think several elements within the artwork strongly suggest its connection to the historical figure of Fatima. Hosein (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Attack on Fatima's house

This Article presents the supposed attack as a FACT and continues to elaborate about it and only disputes the details Kelcoz (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz As mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be anything concrete about your claim so far. Quote from the article and give us specific details. Albertatiran (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, as the one who changed the article, you (not me), when challenged, need to present your case and establish a consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. Albertatiran (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

the article presents the attack from the Shia point of view and disputes some details but doesn't give any other point of view, Kelcoz (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Abu Bakr terminated the status of purity of Muhammad's kin by forcing them to rely on general alms which the prophet had forbidden for them in his lifetime.[77]

the article mentions the "Sermon of Fadak" and the "the status of purity of Muhammad's kin" alot and relies on them many times even though they are only present in shia scriptures Kelcoz (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz First off, the article follows reliable sources, i.e., academic sources written by known Islamicists, including the quote from [77] or purity of Muhammad's kin. This doesn't immediately imply neutrality but it's a key requirement of it. As another instance, the article does mention the sermon of Fadak but also makes it clear that Sunnis reject it. This perfectly meets the criteria for neutrality. What else? Albertatiran (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

the page needs more clarification or a complete separation of the two view points, i support the latter solution Kelcoz (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz I see here that you put back the POV template. Wikipedia edits (that is, any change to the article) should be constructive and slapping a template on an article without providing any concrete reason is not. It's even worse to hide behind semantics to start an edit war over a template. At any rate, what's written on a template maintenance page is not a Wikipedia guideline to be followed. I think you should quote from the article and work in good faith with other editors to assess their neutrality. Only if attempts to fix instances of POV fail that you should go ahead and insert the POV tag.

Template:Ping In the past, you have significantly contributed to this article (and its talk page). Are you available to have a quick look at this thread and give us your feedback? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

it was a mistake sorry, i was supposed to send this this link anyways thanks for telling me about the issue Kelcoz (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz Re your idea of splitting the historical narratives into Shia and Sunni, that can be put to vote for sure. However, note that this doesn't have a precedent in Wikipedia (that I know of), e.g., see Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, etc. There could be something like "Shia views" and "Sunni views" sections added to the article focused on respective polemics of both sects. Albertatiran (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to add a hijri date

the article is related to Islamic history but it doesn't mention the date in Islamic calendar, which may concern for those who are much more familiar with hijri calendar like me when study Islamic history. 獅眠洞 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Explanation/reasons for replacing the Qajar era image

Proportional and Visual Integrity

• The old image lacks proportional accuracy and visual clarity — hallmarks of Qajar-era romanticized illustrations.
• The new image, retains consistency in figures, spacing, and composition, presenting a clearer and more balanced scene.

"Emphasis on Visual Symbolism over Literal Representation"

• The old Qajar-style image adopts Westernized proportions and material culture (e.g., Qajar robes, decorative settings), which may misrepresent the 7th-century Hijazi context.
• The new image prioritizes symbolism, such as abstracted backgrounds and sacred elements, resonating with the way early Islamic art avoids direct representation and emphasizes metaphysical meaning.

Relevance to the Article’s Narrative

• The previous image (The Marriage of 'Ali and Fatima, Iran, ca. 1850) is an artistic interpretation rooted in Qajar-era aesthetics, emphasizing visual beauty rather than historical or didactic accuracy. Its primary purpose appears to be art appreciation, not factual representation.
• The proposed image (Marriage of Fatimah bint Muhammad and Ali ibn Abi Talib) was likely created with didactic or explanatory intent, aiming to visually summarize the event in a manner that aligns more closely with the narrative tone of the section on Fatima’s (RA) marriage in the article.

Educational and Cultural Neutrality

• The new image presents a more universal Islamic visual language that avoids cultural biases, making it more acceptable to a global audience.
• The Qajar-era image embeds specific Persian royal aesthetics that may not resonate with all viewers and could be misinterpreted as historically accurate for the 7th century.

Most importantly

• It serves more as a decorative artwork, appropriate for display in art collections or discussions of Persian art history.
• In contrast, the proposed image, adopts a more abstract and symbolically respectful approach, and may have been created for educational contexts such as:
  • Religious textbooks
  • Visual guides in Islamic studies
  • Curricula focused on early Islamic figures

This approach aligns more appropriately with Wikipedia’s mission as a neutral, educational platform, aiming to inform rather than to display or curate historical art for aesthetic purposes. Eaglet of the East (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

None of those reasons are sufficient for replacing an historically significant museum piece with an example of pop art with no provenance, no era, no scholarly analysis, unlike the one you are trying to remove. Your own opinions about artistic proportions, clarity, universality, speculation about what it "may represent" or why it was "likely" created or "may have been created", and other personal interpretations that aren't backed up by scholarly sources, are meaningless here.

Stop edit warring about this. The replacement image you propose is merely decorative without any historical significance. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)