Talk:Family tree of Ali

delete
I would have voted for deleting it. Not that it is bad just too trivial to keep. Lots of people have family trees. Why just show Ali's Kleinecke 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since he is one of the most important men in history.--Striver 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

rv
"Martyr" is NPOV per Christian precedence, see the MOS. --Striver - talk 15:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

keep
This Article provides important and useful information and must be kept. It must not be deleted on the other hand it should be linked with relative articles. The person insisting to delete this article dont know about the great personality of Ali ibn Abitalib.

Merger proposal
I propose that Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali should be merged into Family tree of Ali, the page about his fathers' family tree. I think that the content in the Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali article can easily be explained in the context of Family tree of Ali, and the Family tree of Ali article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 84.13.126.205 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, given that both families are the same, only needing one article. --Erisedstar30259 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For now, a better merge target would be Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib, which is more or less identical to this article. Wiqi( 55 ) 06:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that we also have a third article about Ali's descendants: Alids, but otherwise I agree that there is no need for basically a duplicate of Ali's family tree minus Ali. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib has been merged. Let me look at Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali. Leo1pard (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, for Family tree of Husayn ibn Ali. Leo1pard (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Family and denominations
Instead of leaving it to us to synthesize a conclusion out of a list of google hits, show us one, just one reliable source that explicitly says that family includes sects. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, Hyper examination of material is not required till it is adding value to articles. Perfectness can always be achieved as time passes. Wikipedia is a such a unique platform where improvement is a continuous process. To find out methods of rejections is not a creative approach.

Now examine book: Soc Relign Pt5:Typ Rel Ils 83, Part 5; By Werner Stark; p.429, explicitly writing: "A sect is not like a business partnership; it is much rather like a FAMILY…...",

I am including the material as 'Sects' are 'much rather like' a 'family'. It is as per RS, now first get the consensus here before removal. --Md iet (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Like" is not the same as "is". Again, not every Shi'a Muslim is a greatgrandson of Ali, which is what your addition is now suggesting. please explain to Md iet that it is outright nonsense to add subreligions to a family tree. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Md iet: I think your version is nonsense, too. Followers of a person can't be counted as his descendants and this is what you are trying to do here. -- M h hossein   talk 14:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein: your reply also seems to be nonsense. Read the modified section topic carefully, it define it as 'family of descedants and sect developed'. Sect can be a large family of personality like Ali, definitely can't be his descendants.--Md iet (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to add much more to this discussion. The current consensus is to keep the older version without those sects. Readers will be confused by those extra boxes you added. -- M h hossein   talk 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem, I am always with consensus. Readers are prime for any encyclopedia, without their involvements nothing is successful.--Md iet (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Chart with descendants still linking present denominations
Please have a look at last part of descendants of Ali chart with a different look:


 * Dark green box also indicates existing sects along with respective Imams (originator/last).

This way we can redirect readers to present denominations of Ali without confusing them about descendants. All other shia sects can also be linked similarly.

I think this linking would not confuse Readers as feared for last revision discussed above.--Md iet (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, colours in this family tree are used to represent the descendants of Ali's children (Hasan in light brown, Husayn in light green, etc.). Adding colours to indicate a "special status" as head of a denomination not only does not belong in a family tree, it is also against WP:NPOV and confuses with the use of colours for bloodlines. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Forget about the additional Colour Dark green (light green wrongly indicated), colors used in the tree are already a mess. For example Fatimid are descendants of Husain  but indicated with dark brown. Colors are not at all defined and used without any explanations. So don't talk about colors and WP:NPOV. Special status is not for head of denominations but for a family member only with some additional information. Let me put the information without any change of colors:

Is it OK now? Is there any issue if readers guided toward additional information? If "Fatimid Caliphs" are acceptable as family members, what is issue with "Nizari,Mustali (Hafizi, Taiyabi (Bohras)) Imams" which also indicated all the Imams who belongs to real family members of Fatimids of Ali, still guiding readers toward latest information, if they really want? Now reexamine????--Md iet (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dark brown indicates descent from both Hasan and Husayn through the marriage of Fatimah bint Hasan and Ali bin Husayn... The Fatimids are acceptable because the Fatimids are a dynasty who are all directly descended from Ali. You cannot say the same for all  Twelvers. And why are you mentioning the Nizari, Musta'li, and Tayyabi imams? They are already in there for the same reason as the Fatimids. The Bohra imams are not because they simply do not exist, since the Bohras only have du'ah al-mutlaq. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nizari, Musta'li, and Tayyabi are offspring of Fatimids but they are not already in. Nizar and their further Imams are not counted as Fatimid caliphs. When offspring are known by different names by readers then they should be indicated in family tree to COMPLETE the tree. Please correct your knowledge about Bohras. They first have Imams and Dai-ul-Mutlaq are just functioning  to represent their Imam (who are offspring of Ali, believed to be live) hidden. Now I repeat : "Nizari/Mustali /(Hafizi/ Taiyabi (Bohras)) Imams" are not same as Fatimid caliphs much more then Fatimids still descendants of Ali. Is it OK now?--Md iet (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you even care to look at the current article? The Nizari, Musta'li, and Tayyabi imams are already mentioned in the chart; you put them in there. There is no need to add more complexity to an already difficult to understand box if all Bohra imams are the same as all Tayyabi imams. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me to look at the current article. You look at your objection: "why are you mentioning the Nizari, Musta'li, and Tayyabi imams? ". My reply is to answer this, hope you understood it now.

My latest edition is to redirect readers to Twelvers etcetera. There is need to add these, not to add complexity but to make easy to understand. Ordinary Shia reader do not know about the history of their Imams. Different sects do not know what is common between them and from where they got diverted. An ordinary Twelver do not know ,where from a Taiyabi/ Zaydi/ nizari/Bohra has come and vice versa is also true for all other sects. Shia population is main reader of the article and mention of their sect make them easy to understand the chart. For other readers also, the same is true. --Md iet (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If people want to know about the history of Shi'a denominations, it makes much more sense to look it up under Shi'a Islam, specifically at Shia Islam (hey look, another tree... and wow, all information is already there). Who in their sane minds would think: "Hmmm, I would like to know more about Shi'a sects. Better check Ali's family tree."? Most non-Muslims probably do not even know what the relation is between Ali and Shi'ism. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One can always find an answer to any thing if he wants to argue. Ordinary man generally do not search sensibly. When he looks for Ali, he can link to his family and there if latest information is available prominently, he looks toward it. This way he can be guided toward proper information. You are very much right that the chart should be simple. My intention is that if slight addition can make it more useful, it should be done to make the chart up to date. I request other editors to comment to really know about the consensus.--Md iet (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems there is no objections from other editors for additional links added within brackets to descendants Imams. An ordinary Muslim or non Muslim readers will definitely beneficial when he come across the words connected with  existing person/group/sects for connecting it to main topic of articles here 'Ali'. --Md iet (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still object to including religious denominations and so was Mhhossein in the section above. It is simply not logical to have belief systems in a family tree. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Earlier inclusion was in totally different format affecting the structure of the tree., may please examine and comment to see if any consensus can be reached to further facilitate readers.--Md iet (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Md iet's edits
Hey Could you please take a look at the Md iet's recent edits? Regards. -- M h hossein   talk 13:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look and saw he recently got reported to the same admin who topic-banned him last time. Feel free to join the discussion at User talk:EdJohnston. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I did not know he was TBed. -- M h hossein   talk 14:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits to address the tag
This page is tagged as "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents..." I'd like to try and address that in the next few weeks. Albertatiran (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm preparing to summarize the lede and hopefully remove the current verbose tag of this article. I'd like to ask for your input about the following italicized statement. Does it look correct to you? I collected these names from the present Wiki article and matched them with Shia websites, as I wasn't able to find any reliable sources for the names of Ali's wives and children. If you happen to know of any sources please let me know! It also seems that Khawlah bint Ja'far was a freed slave but I can't find any information about the other concubines. See | here which also lists Ummu-Shu`ayb al-Makhzūmiyyah as a concubine with whom Ali had a child. Thanks!

''After Fatimah's death in 632, over the years, Ali married Umamah, Umm al-Banin, Layla bint Mas'ud, and Asma bint Umais. Ali also had children with Khawlah bint Ja'far, Sahba bint Rabi'ah, Umm Sa'id bint Urwah, and Muhayaah bint Imra al-Qais, who were concubines.'' Albertatiran (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest Albertatiran. I am happy with them if they're supported by the reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 16:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)