Talk:Muhsin ibn Ali

347:((We do not have heirs, "he said Muhammad had told him. "Whatever we leave is alms." Fatima had no alternative but to accept his word for it. Abu Bakr's reputation for probity was beyond question, whatever her suspicions. Sunnis would later hail his stand as affirming the supremacy of the communicty over individual hereditary rights. "You are not the People of the House," Abu Bakr seemed to be saying. "We are all the People of the House." But the Shia would be convinced that Muhammad's closest family had now been doubly disinherited or cheated as the poet would havi it: Ali out of his inheritance of leadership, and Fatima out of her inheritance of property. There was no denying the populist appeal of the message Abu Bakr sent by denying Fatima's claim: the House of Muhammad was the House of Islam, and all were equal within it. But as ever, some were more equal than others. Even as he turned down Fatima, Abu Bakr made a point of providing generously for Muhammad's widows - and particularly for his own daughter Aisha, who received valuable property in Medina as well as on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, in Bahrain. )) pp. 72-73 333:

point. A few weeks later, the fragile Fatima gave birth to a stillborn infant boy. Nobody was sure if the miscarriage was a result of her being knocked down by Omar or whether she was so frail that it would have happened regardless. Either way, some overture might have been warranted from Abu Bakr, or at least from Omar, but there was none. Indeed there was less than none. To add insult to the injury that had already been done her, Fatima would now lose the property she considered hers. Soon asfter her miscariage, she sent a message to Abu Bakr asking for her share of her father's state -date palm orchards in the huge oases of Khaybar and Fadak to the north of Medina. His response left her dumbfounded. The Prophet's estate belonged to the community, not to any individual, Abu Bakr replied. It was part of the Muslim charitable trust to be administered by him as Caliph.»

1766:

impression that material is well cited) such as "Al-Masudi", "Al-Sharastani", "Sibtayn International Foundation", "Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal", "mohamedridha.com", "Tafsir al-Kabir", "Sahih Bukhar" are only a few examples. The article tries to portray that "Muhammad announced Ali's caliphate, and Umar et. al recognized him as such, but after Muhammad's death resorted to violence to deprive Ali of what was his divine right, in so doing they killed the boy. This is perfectly fine for religious blog entry. For an encyclopedia? Certainly not. Muhsin's entry in Encyclopedia of Islam (written by experts in the field and as a matter of fact balanced in all respects) consists of four short paragraphs with all focus on his reputation and reverence among the Shiites. Here it is the other way around. All focus is turned to prove that he was killed by Umar et al.

1025:, article content should be concise. I believe my revision had done this more effectively than the current version. For example, I do not believe a complete quote is necessary to describe Umar giving the order for the attack, let alone three different variations of it. The information is more succinctly conveyed by prose in a single sentence, along with a note that it was reported in several sources. In regards to irrelevant content, as I said earlier, the article should focus on Muhsin himself. Zubayr ibn al-Awam tripping over is not relevant. Neither is Ali being dragged out of the house, nor any subsequent attacks on Fatimah. Similar to what I said earlier, this content is more appropriate for the 4087:"The earliest known reference to a miscarriage appears in the 10th century, three hundred years after Muhsin" and "The earliest known reference of the miscarriage during the altercation only appears in the 10th century, in Ibn Qulawayh Al-Qummi's Kamil al-ziyarat." First, a slightly different version of the Book of Sulaym ibn al-Qays includes a reference to Fatima's miscarriage (Soufi, p. 89). Second, this sentence can be misleading because the evidence in question is a hadith from the Twelver Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148 AH), who lived long after the conflict. Nevertheless, Twelver Imams are viewed as endowed with divine esoteric knowledge and their statements are thus authoritative in Twelver view. 1306:-As for the "Background" section: the context of Muhsin (and, specifically, the attack mentioned in the article) is in the context of the succession to Muhammad, and that issue includes both Ghadir Khumm and Saqifah. Shias believe that the successor to Muhammad was announced at the former, while Sunnis believe that the successor was chosen at the latter -- and, therefore, including the latter event while omitting the former event would be one-sided. The "Background" section does aim to be concise to as not to veer off the point of the article, which is why both Ghadir Khumm and Saqifah are explained at a high-level, rather than getting into the level of detail that is present in the article 3712:) also gives equal weight to the general ideas of violent and nonviolent deaths. However, mentioning each specific violent death would go against this representation. Note that about a paragraph worth of content is devoted in the main article to the notion that the death was natural. Compare that to only a single sentence mentioning a sword-attack. The argument that the latter version should have equal prominence in the lead to the former is therefore nonsensical. Also note that the door version is not even mentioned, so its inclusion in the lead would completely violate 2387:

isolated incident. You are not having liberty to be selective in defining the premises of this discussion. I'm not sure what gives you impression that you can dictate the terms of this discussion (or any for the matter of the fact) and that anyone else is obliged to abide by it (when you yourself have breached previous consensus to which you were party and agreed to it). The least expected was that when you wanted to make changes to a recent consensus you should have proposed it and then did it. But, anyways you have acted

1063:, I have included all significant views regarding the event in what I believe was a fair manner. I have stated the accounts of the attack and acknowledged the different variations. These were followed by reasons given by published sources to have reservations regarding the veracity of the event. I then concluded with a partial quote from another reliable source (a source which you yourself have used in the article) which gave an impartial opinion on the story which did not favour either side. 1414:. The inclusion of the word "reportedly" with a statement is no true alternative to the presence of differing opinions. In spite of your changes, this is still an article which only focuses on a single viewpoint in controversial topic. I had previously given reasons why I think my version of the section is more appropriate, including the fact that it fairly incorporates multiple opinions, and I still stand by that belief. I have also already stated how I believe 1859:. So I am confused about where you got the idea that I am "POV-pushing" and "censoring" content. Especially so considering that the original lead which you have been endeavoring to restore had in fact been written by me. You are therefore making the baffling suggestion that I am censoring my own words. I regularly return to articles I had created or heavily contributed to and tweak my wording with fresh eyes. That was all I had done with that edit. 2123:! Sorry, on the article, my intention was not to editwar but to restore previoys consensus version before any discussion happens on talk page but Alivardi wants non-consensus version yo stay and he is not even willing to discuss about previous consensus and his agreement to it and then subsequent violation of it by him. I still think that before the discussion starts consensus version should be restored but I'll leave that decision to you.-- 2567:

infringement by myself against this consensus can be achieved when one of the two primary parties involved is not present. I obviously cannot stop you from talking about it in your messages, but I do not believe it is appropriate for me to engage in such a discussion until Snowsky Mountain makes an appearance. Though of course I will be perfectly happy to continue talking about the revert for which this discussion was originally started.

343:«she never did recover from her miscariage or from the bitter argument with Abu Bakr. But perhaps most painful of all in those months after the loss of her third son was the ostracism she suffered ordered by Abu Bakr to force Ali into line. When she knew death was close she asked Ali for a clandestine burial Abu Bakr was not to be informed of her death she said. he was to be given no chance to officiate at her funeral.» 328:«Short of actually following through on his threat and killing all of Muhammad's closest family, Omar was left, as he saw it, with only one option. If Ali would not come out, then he, Omar, would have to force his way in. He took a running leap and threw his whole weight against the door, and when the latches and hinges gave and it burst open, all six feet of him came hurtling through, unable to stop as 169: 151: 3479:, in spite of you not having posted in this discussion for nearly 2 weeks or replied to my rebuttal after 23 days, you have continued to edit war to restore your preferred version of the article. This is extremely disruptive behaviour and something which I will not hesitate to report if it continues. I shall therefore ask you this one more time: are you going to continue the discussion and reply to 22: 81: 71: 53: 4043:. In addition to this, the writers do not seem to have been especially notable and are far removed in time from the occurrence of the described event, having lived nearly a thousand years after both it and the lifetimes of every other historian mentioned in the article, thus leading me to question whether including their opinions has any meaningful benefit. 4084:"Similarly, the Shia theologian Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid, when writing his Kitab al-Irshad, makes no mention of violence in relation to Muhsin's death." The source says that al-Mufid mentions the violence and miscarriage in another work but might have avoided this controversial topic in his widely-accessible al-Irshad to avoid the anger of Sunnis. 3796:

apple and some believe it to be an orange', than to say that, 'people believe it to be a fruit', which for the sake of argument is correct but fails to describe the situation. This is what is happening on this article (& may be other articles), this needs to be done away with (word confrontation is being used as fruit in this article).--

179: 4038:

because I did not see the benefit of adding the opinion of yet another writer or historian, which would not make any meaningful contribution to the article. I later realised that these were supposed to be the opinion of Sunnis, which in this context made the edit be worth a second look. However, I am

3690:

I dont see any issue with describing what has transpired in history according to the relevant sources. If the sources talk about 2 versions of violence and 1 version of normalcy, then that is how it should be described. Also, i dont see why you would like to equalize them for the sake of equalization

2386:

Also, the purpose of this discussion encompasses anything & everything which is there on the article (including it's history) and all on this talk-page, including the consensus discussion & edits. Your removal of word attack is part and parcel of the whole activity and can't be looked into as

2088:

I have warned you both for edit warring on this page. Rather than fully protect the page I will block either of you from editing this page if you continue. The above discussion seems to essentially be an argument about which is the consensus version rather than the substance of the edits. Please edit

1182:

Regarding the "Background" section: I agree that it is definitely appropriate to include Saqifah in the background for this section. However, it would be one-sided to mention Saqifah without mentioning Ghadir Khumm as well. A brief, high-level overview of both events are appropriate for this article,

972:

I am not certain whether you are referring to the removal of section headings, or that of content from the sections. I removed the headings because following my rewrite, it did not seem necessary to include them, though this is only my own opinion. In regards to the content, I'll explain my reasoning

3795:

If there are two versions of the event, then both should be reported (even in lead) than finding an all encompassing word which rounds-off both versions and fails to describe either, creating more confusion for the mere sake of equalization. It is better to say that, 'some people believe it to be an

3626:

means that something is sized unequally in comparison to something else. This applies to the lead version you are advocating since the passage describing the notion of a violent death is three times longer than that describing a natural one. This is less of an issue in the previous version. I do not

2736:

Apologies for the late reply. Regarding your definition of attack, there was no "attempt to detract from the worth or credibility" in this situation. I don't see how this definition is applicable here. And could I also not ask you in turn why you reverted the use of the word "confrontation" when its

2566:

Regarding the rest of your message, I've never wanted to avoid such a discussion. As I've stated previously, because this consensus was established between myself and Snowsky Mountain, we should both be involved when discussing it. I do not believe that any meaningful discussion regarding an alleged

2307:

As I have stated before, the purpose of this discussion is not the consensus of the one which took place last summer, but rather the revert you proposed. Like I said, the former is one for between me and Snowsky Mountain. You are free to wait for their input, but the fact is that they haven't logged

2700:

should partake in it. Here, we are not talking about any personal feud & agreement, we are talking about consensus of the content of article which is no personal to both of you hence, any agreement thereof in this is also not mutual to both of you, any and all editors have right to question the

2468:

the full quote when replying to the IP user, which stated that the occurrence of violence was disputed. Also note that later in the cited page, it states that "There are multiple renditions of these events, ranging from 'Umar threatening to burn Fatima's door down to actual violent entry into their

2017:

Removing a years worth of edits is a ridiculous action to take. Had you considered that I was not the only editor to make contributions during that time? There was no justification for you to revert every other editors' work. And the consensus you mentioned was established solely between myself and

1251:

Regarding the "Background" section, I've previously said my opinion about the relevance of any background beyond Saqifa. I don't really see how Saqifa can be viewed as one-sided or why that would warrant a paragraph talking about an event which is unrelated to the article subject. As I said before,

640:, and it's not much more than that now. At least this was a merge and redirect, if there are going to be disputes they could be limited to one place rather than two. The current state of the references doesn't make this easy, but then most of them aren't supporting coverage of the subject anyway. -- 547:

I would say it's definitely notable, as Muhsin ibn Ali is one of only three grandsons of Muhammad. There are also some mentions of works that focus on Muhsin, such as the page titled "Mohsin b. Ali - A Victim of Terrorism" in the "Further reading" section. In addition, Muhsin is included in many of

3995:

statements, even if there are no sources at present. (I have no objections to those being removed if someone else wishes to do so.) It's not as clear, however, that this, necessarily, is why the name محسن has become so popular; at least in my personal experience, most people I know choose the name

3533:

As I had previously discussed with Faizhaider, the use of the word "confrontation" does not favour the idea of a verbal nor physical altercation but is instead open to both interpretations. Its use therefore alludes to the ambiguity of the quarrel (thus adhering to Knowledge’s neutrality policy of

1669:

I like your idea of replacing the "Background" section with one sentence at the beginning of the "Attack" section; however, I think that calling Ali "alienated" seems rather biased. Perhaps something like, "Following the gathering at Saqifah, Abu Bakr assumed political power; however, his rule was

1350:

The inclusion of Ghadir Khumm unnecessarily complicates the article, especially considering that the nature of the event itself is disputed. To have a truly unbiased approach to its inclusion would require a mention of the Sunni interpretation of it, and therefore going far beyond its relevance to

1238:

The new sources don't to go far enough. Boozari only states that the word Muhsin means beneficent; the rest is pretty much un-cited. Using another Knowledge article as a source isn't appropriate. And while it's true that a translator can be used as a source, it should be referenced directly rather

332:

Some say she was only badly bruised. Others that she broke her arm as she fell. But all agree that even Omar was stunned by the sight of the Prophet's heavily pregnant daughter doubled over in pain at his feet. As Ali bent over his injured wife, Omar retreated without another word. He had made his

2161:

clearly speaks of death due to violence. This is the only link which can be verified if someone doesn't has library. So, based on this reference usage of attack which even if it means violent attack is justifiable. Attack can also mean verbal attack, so usage of attack is more apt in defining the

2512:

By your logic if attack or violence version is disputed so is non-attack/nonviolence/confrontation too is disputed, one party says attack happened another party says only confrontation happened so both versions are disputed. So why one is worthy of exclusion from article and another is worthy of

1829:

you left on my talk page, you suggested that the edit in question be removed before we have a discussion. I believe that it should remain for now; that edit was not one which I had added recently, but rather had been an established part of the article for nearly half a year. For you to remove it

1765:

According to Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd edition, Vol 7, p.468) existence of this character is indeed disputed. As such, addition of "alleged" is justified. In addition, Snowsky mountain's version contained tonnes of primary, polemic, unscholarly sources (which he always uses copiously to give an

1372:

I can see nothing about Saqifa that is one-sided and favouring a Sunni view. In the present day, having an impromptu election in which a major party was abscent would make its legitimacy questionable. This is something I tried to make clear in my version of the article. However, if you are still

780:

The comment that keeps being trying to be inserted -- that this event is all according to Shia beliefs -- shouldn't be included, in my opinion, because it isn't true. This page contains many references from Sunni sources, so saying in the introduction that it's only according to Shias is a clear

1978:

I am not going to partake in a discussion about whether those two leads have any resemblance at all, nor about the notion that an agreement made over a year ago precludes any further improvements being made to the article. What I do want to know is if you have any comment on the actual edit in

662:

also contains information about events like the issue of Fadak. There are a lot of pages that link to this page with the intention of linking to Muhsin ibn Ali, but if a user clicked a link to "Muhsin ibn Ali" and was presented with a page that talked about Fadak, for example, that may break

1439:

With that in mind, and the fact that my main concern with the article has always been its neutrality, I'll make you a deal. I'm willing to look past any issues I have with the "Name" and "Remembrance" sections, if we can agree to restore my versions of the attack and introductory paragraph.

3644:

The lead should describe in brief all the versions (violent and non-violent). That is exactly what is being advocated. As long as the lead is complying with the guidelines (of brevity), i dont see a reason why you want to further dilute the version that has been described in the article.

3580:

I never said that a verbal altercation resulted in the miscarriage. What I had stated however was that your version of the lead gave disproportionate mention of a violent altercation. However, as stated in the article, it is just as possible that Muhsin had died naturally later

531:

Is this even sufficiently notable to merit an article rather than simply being a redirect? Looking through the references, I'm having trouble finding significant coverage of "Muhsin ibn Ali" as a subject rather than the incident itself, which already has its own article.

3918:

Seeing the history, I do not think even rfc will serve any purpose. The best way is to leave the article esoecially the lead into previous consensus state, which is it currently in. As of now prople ard not even allowing removal of uncited content and addition of cited

3898:

Considering the tense subject matter, I highly doubt that the two or three of you battling it out here is likely to be an effective strategy towards actually achieving a consensus. I think it might not be a bad idea to hold an RfC and advertise it at WikiProject Islam.

1175:

exists on Knowledge, which confirms the translations of the name "Muhsin" that are given in this article. However, as you mentioned, there is a more "reliable" source in that section now, thus eliminating any further controversy over the reliability of that section's

607:

is meant to focus more on the event, as it discusses the aftermath (Fatimah's death) and gives more detail of the event from Sunni sources. I think that more information could be added to this article, however, to better distinguish it from the aforementioned page.

3719:

However, referring to the two base versions of Muhsin's death (violent and non-violent) in general terms (as I am arguing) would be more representative of its depiction in the main article as well as more closely adhering to the requirement that the lead be a

2776:, which has been long used and even survived the previous consensus. It is you, who have made the change, and now, reverting the edits and not allowing the restoration of consensus. As, you are trying to change the previous consensus text, it is up to you to 965:

It removed all the sections from the page except for the "References" and "Further reading" sections. Specifically, the sections that were removed were "Name," "Background," "Attack," and "Remembrance." All four of the sections are relevant to the topic at

891:

692:

This page doesn't reflect it (probably because of POV-related concerns), but Muhsin is an important figure in Shia Islam; he is remembered in at least one Shia supplication, for example, and has been mentioned in lamentations (such as those relating to the

290:

of Muhammad Ali? How does it contribute to the article? While the article has many stylistic and POV problems, the removal of this image should be a no-brainer. It is a good example of an ambigram and would definitely be more appropriate on that page.

4065:

There doesn't seem to be a need for primary sources, even al-Tabari. There are enough good secondary and tertiary sources on this topic, like Khetia and Soufi's theses. I'm planning to hopefully edit this article and will summarize the key changes here.

1123:

My revision did not have a lead, though it did have an introductory paragraph. As noted above, I did not believe the length of my revision of the article necessitated sectioning, thus removing the need for a formal lead, though this is only my personal

2520:

and now you want to avoid any discussion on it. Because your edit was in violation of standing policy, it should be reverted and then your change should be discussed, rather than discussing reversion of your edit which is violation of WP policy &

2946:

before it is actually changed. In given situation, the consensus-text was changed without new consultation, so new-consensus should be done but after restoring the article to previous version of consensus (i.e. in this case restoration of word

1263:

for the removal of repetitive content and to relay it in a succinct manner, not to justify the removal of relevant information. And there are still three separate sentences stating the exact same information about Umar threatening to burn the

1076:

I find these accusations of bias somewhat ironic, given that the current revision of the article completely fails to acknowledge any opposing views, instead giving complete focus to a single narrative. I acknowledge your attempt to introduce

1129:

As a final note, I do not understand how an experienced editor could see my revisions as “biased” or “disruptive”. These are serious allegations and if you really believe they are true, I urge you to report the incidents to the appropriate

958:

is applicable here. No relevant information which may be viewed as objectionable had been removed. The threat made against the house was described, as were multiple accounts of the physical attack on Fatima which resulted in the alleged

1243:

is a template for citing Google Translate; I would have done it myself, but my translations don't seem to be matching the ones in the article. In regards to “Remembrance”, only a single sentence in the entire section is actually cited.

562:

Notability isn't inherited, so being a grandson of Muhammed is completely irrelevant, and being mentioned in sources that discuss the event doesn't establish notability or a need to have anything beyond a redirect to the event itself.

1866:

when interacting with other editors. Accusing me, in our very first interaction, of POV-pushing is not conducive to the collegial attitude editors are expected to have with each other. I hope you bear that in mind when writing your

1557:

As far as your paragraph on the attack (the third paragraph in your version), I think it would be better to replace your first sentence (the one with the citation from Sahih Bukhari) with the first sentence that was in my version:

243:

I must say im surprised, i thought this article would be a Vfd the same second you saw it, dissmised as "non-sense shia pov proletizing bs"... i was wrong! You actully contributed to it and even added some shia pov! wow, cool...

3548:

in regards to talk page etiquette, which advises that "generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points". I would also request that you not make assumptions about my

3435:

Actually it was mostly written by me. Note that in my discussion with Snowsky Mountain, the agreement was to maintain "my versions of the attack and introductory paragraph". Yes Snowsky Mountain had suggested the changing of

2885:. Looking at the wall of text above, I still can't work out what specific text editors think should be used. Is there a version a and version b? That is usually a good starting point if the discussion is getting bogged down. 2691:"I am not going to partake in a discussion about whether those two leads have any resemblance at all, nor about the notion that an agreement made over a year ago precludes any further improvements being made to the article." 2242:

too, after which a great deal of discussion took place and consensus was reached which included usage of word "attack" in body as well as the lead of the article, which as shown above by IP editor too is supported by the

2816:

In the main article, the alleged verbal altercation is stated as being Umar threatening to burn Ali's house down. I do not see how this can be viewed as Umar "detract(ing) from the worth or credibility of the people of

2412:"Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.... 1841:) clearly depicts a physical nature. The word's inclusion in the lead would therefore make it favour the idea that the incident was physically violent, thus showing bias to one side in a contested issue, violating 943:

It removed a great deal of relevant, sourced information relating to the attack in which he was miscarried. Intentionally hiding important information from Knowledge to advance a specific agenda is a violation of

883:

677:

It would be reduced slightly, but then the subject appears to be only be known for two things: being conceived by Ali and Fatimah, and dying. It could be a redirect to a subsection of any of the relevant pages.

3608:

I dont think it gives disproportionate attention since the subsequent part already mentions that he could have died naturally. I think you are trying to overstate the possibility of a non-violent interaction.

796:

Could be. Do you have any sources outside of these from the Shia belief(biased sources, anyways, but there is very likely nothing based on sources that are not biased) that say that the miscarriage happened?

1615:

Your proposed edits seem very reasonable and I'd be happy to accept them. And yes, I would prefer to keep the word "reportedly." What are your thoughts regarding my suggestion for the "Background" section?

3452:

The "status quo" would be to maintain my suggested version, which had been present for about half a year prior to your revert. Note that this is nearly as "long standing" as the version you are advocating.

1947:, so, why an year later you breached the consensus & your agreement to it and decided unilaterally without any heads up and discussion decided to the lead (& may be other part of the article too)? 3566:

Please understand that all i am asking for is for a reference to prove that a verbal confrontation caused the death. If you cannot provide that reference, then the text currently stands valid. -

327: 636:

That's potentially something, but it's not a terrible to simply be featured in an article rather than being the subject. As it was, the article was nothing but background and the incident that

3506:

Since the lead is talking about the death of Muhsin, we should focus on references that indicate that a "verbal" confrontation caused the death. So far, I havent' seen such a reference. Also,

1483:

I would be willing to take a closer look at your version of the introduction and "Attack" sections with a few changes. This would be my proposed edits to your introduction (changes in bold):

1102:

The edits made it so that all of the content was in the lead section. Previously, the lead section consisted of one paragraph, followed by several other sections, roughly complying with

909:

The edits made it so that all of the content was in the lead section. Previously, the lead section consisted of one paragraph, followed by several other sections, roughly complying with

368:

This article is extremely off topic. There is more information about Ali, Abu Bakr etc. and about their struggles to find the righteous successor if Muhammad than about Mohsin ibn Ali.

330:

he slammed full force into the person who happened to be on the other side of the door at that moment. That person was Fatima, several months pregnant with the Prophet's third grandson.

4039:

now seeing some issues which may make its inclusion problematic. For instance, both citations used are ancient primary sources which lacked a reputable publisher, therefore violating

1179:

Regarding the "Remembrance" section: I added a source for that section. Your main objection to that section seemed to be that it was unsourced, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

999:, the focus of the article should be on the article subject and any background should be directly relevant to him. The major content I had removed from this section was regarding the 2403:"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines..." 2163: 2124: 2051: 2037: 2000: 3991:

Because I found that to be the most dubious part: Shi'is mourning his death and reciting eulogies for his mother (رضي الله عنهما), and both schools revering him, are at least

2873:

a page or is required to participate in discussion. Editors who are interested in a page can and will change: 2 editors doesn't meet any semblance of quorum for consensus.

850:

and he censures Nazzam for holding such views. Clearly shouldn't be used to claim a Sunni support for a Shia narrative. We need other sources, preferably secondary sources.

4119: 127: 2472:

In regards to the rest of your message, are you just going to ignore Woody's advice that we "stop arguing about the process" and deal with the "substance of the issue"?

2182:

As per the source you mentioned: "A fifth, Muhsin, either died in early childhood or, as many Shi'as claim, was miscarried because of a violent entry into their house".

1134: 512:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.

2317:

Neither you nor the IP user have provided a meaningful rebuttal to continue using the word "attack". I ask again, do you have anything to say about the topic at hand?

1351:

the article. This is ignoring the fact that the section itself is worded in a way that favours the Shia narrative, i.e referring to disputed events as absolute facts.

989:. I note that you have since added what appears to be a less objectionable source to this section, yet the original citation and its corresponding content remains. 742:. Not good. Please cease edit warring immediately. And now I want to hear some explanations. Why should this be inserted into the article? and... Why should this 701:" a relatively popular name among Muslims. I'll try to find more references for this and add it to the page so that there's a better distinction between this and 2138:

I think my sentiments are pretty clear: stop arguing about the process and get on with dealing with the substance of the issue. Why are your edits valid against

622:

Update: I updated the introduction to state that Muhsin is considered as a martyr by Shia Muslims (with a reference). Hopefully this helps with the notability.

1410:

In regards to the "Attack" section, while I do appreciate your attempts to correct it, a lot of my concerns still go unaddressed, particularly in relation to

443: 4114: 1131: 1092:

Addressed in my above explanations. For the record, in my experience, I believe that my revision of the article would have been rated “Start-Class” in the

1071:"…alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined…when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." 2772:

by Umar & his team, which apart from other things, resulted in the miscarriage of Fatima (and death of Muhsin ibn Ali). And, I'm restoring the word

1925:

miscarried by Fatimah when their house was attacked by Umar and his supporters shortly after the death of his grandfather, the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

1516:

miscarried by Fatimah when their house was attacked by Umar and his supporters shortly after the death of his grandfather, the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

1198:

clearly states, "Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article." That said, however, I did trim some of the extensive quotes by Umar.

1093: 814:(which is by a Sunni) that's directly in the article, for example, that states, "Umar hit Fatimah (sa) on the stomach such that child in her womb died." 261:

This article is has POV written all over it. How about the sunni view! According to the sunnis this never happend. Muhsin ibn Ali died in his infancy. --

1049:

The edits introduced a great deal of bias into the page, such as saying that his death in 632 was "alleged." This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV (see

3401:

We may have to pick one of these or come-up with the new version. Until new consensus is reached it is better to maintain status-quo in the article.--

2639:

An attempt to detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault.

2128: 2055: 2041: 2004: 3966:

I have added cn tag to the long-standing non-referenced sentences. BTW, why only selective/partial removal of part of the non-referenced sentences?--

3584:

Also, I had just told you that you should not interleave your replies in other editor’s text. Yet you did it once again to that very message. As per

2516:

Regarding the process argument, you simply can't ignore it because currently not following the process simply suits you. You have violated WP policy

2469:

house". Note that other sources cited in the article also discuss the idea that an actual attack was only one possible outcome of the confrontation.

447: 2350: 2158: 4134: 4129: 197: 3331: