Talk:Hasan al-Askari

Place of burial
I've got no knowledge at all about this article, but made an edit so that it references the Al Askari Mosque article, just as a good gesture kind of thing.

"Hasan was buried in the mausoleum containing the remains of his father, the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra."

I now realise after checking his year of death (874) against the year when the mosque was built (944) that the mausoleum and mosque are most likely two separate entities, although on the same site and/or one is part of the other.

With this in mind, should it be re-worded to something like this instead?

"Hasan was buried in the mausoleum containing the remains of his father, now part of the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra."

Hopefully someone with a bit more knowledge can figure out the correct way to word it :)

JesseLukeWalker 22:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is very biased
"Hassan Al-Askari was like a roaring river of wisdom, which quenched the thirst of those thirsty for it." This article needs a less biased rewrite --FagFaceCow (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please, rewrite it yourself! Research this person and create an unbiased article: that is what Wikipedia is all about. -- Enzuru 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NO U--FragFaceCow (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * O RLY? -- Enzuru 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole article looks like copy&paste from "Shia for dummies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:25F8:4600:ACE0:47BE:85C3:2ADF (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I rewrote this article replacing the material which lacked reliable, verifiable sources with the reliable ones.Hadi (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of "a narrative that says"
That is a huge block of text, much of it not in English, that makes no sense in the context of the article. It is as though someone has decided to put a soup recipe in the middle of the article. It is not a reference. It shows no relation to the rest of the article whatsoever. It is not appropriate to place a huge, apparently irrelevant story in the middle of the article. If there is some relevance, that massive swathe of writing needs reworking to give it context for the reader before it goes into the article. Please either do the work to explain why that text is there and why it is important or refrain from including it, please. Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

== hi,

1- it related to the context. context is talking about "ability to talk foreign language" and added 1st and 2nd arabic text is citing for that.

2- 3rd Arabic text is only complete story from previous version of wiki.

3- 4th Arabic text is shown better fact about his death. it improve this title of wiki.

4- 5th Arabic text is complete narrative of previous version of wiki.

as u see the Arabic text only improve the article. Hasan was in Arabic region and Arabic resources is more reliable of another.

for citing non-English resources in this link said: In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. If the article itself contains a translation of a quote from such a source (without the original), then the original should be included in the footnote. See Non-English sources in the verifiability policy for more information.

please give an wiki rule with reference of ur decision. thanks for improving article. 700ali (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 700ali (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)==


 * No, it is not in context, you're not listening. This article is about Hasan al-Askari, not "ability to talk a foreign language". The Arabic text is not an improvement. People reading an English language encyclopedia expect to read English, not Arabic. They expect some explanation as to why a piece of text is there. You are providing neither of these.


 * The text in question is not a source. Citing sources does  not apply. Please explain to readers why the text is there. Dolescum (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

please calm down and just talk about wiki rules instead of individuals decides.

every person that able to read and understand En, can find my claims.

The Arabic text is for checking the translation. if the translation is ok, so Arabic text should remove and En translation should remain. but if Arabic translation has problem,say it for editing translation.

thnx in advance

700ali (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Article text needs to rely on secondary sources and material has to be summarised, contextualised and integrated into the article. It must not consist of large blocks of translated text, let alone blocks of text which most readers of this particular Wikipedia cannot read. NebY (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear 700ali. Please stop fighting and listen to those who are more experienced than you. Writing a wiki article is not about pouring large bulks of information in a wikipage. You can put al-Askari's quotations here which seems a better place for that kind of information. Regards Hadi (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

hi,

upper 4 no. seems define relation between added text and previous version of wiki. i checked some previous version. just arabic text removed and En translation related to context. 5.52.190.117 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you're trying to say here. I see no reason why this large swathe of religiously motivated text needs to go into the article and the prior summary was insufficient. Even if the text was suitably contextulized, it is still undue weight to have a 1/3 of the article composed of religious anecdotes. We are not a religious text. Dolescum (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jaffar al Zaki or Jaffar-us-Sani
Jaffar also known as Jaffar al Zaki or Jaffar-us-Sani: vide pages 406/407 of book "Riaz-ul Ansab" also known as "Gulzar-e-Naqi" placing therein written verdict of Ayatullah Sayyid Mar'ashi Najafi in Arabic duly stamped, containing advice to all Shia (Imamia) to refrain from saying him as TAWAB/KAZAB (a personal endeavor of the book compiler-Syed Maqsood Naqvi). This matter has already been accepted, and can be seen here (09:24, 5 November 2013‎ 103.8.15.34). Thus rephrasing is made. Nannadeem (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hasan al-Askari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230150214/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f7/v2f7a081.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f7/v2f7a081.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060620171918/http://sufiblog.com/imam-hasan-askari.html to http://sufiblog.com/imam-hasan-askari.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

edit
Editing to improve the articleM1nhm (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Correction
With ref to an old revision of Naqvi page histry as per link disputed words"Ja'far the liar" or the "false Ja'far" should be deleted. According to my view point it is a violation of BLP as more than 70 per cent Naqvis in the subcontinent are descendants of Jafar al-Zaki also known Jafar-e-Sani. Nannadeem (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of October 7, 2018
All of my edits approximately are reverted by you. I am going to explain some of them. For example:  "According to plenty of sources, in 231 or 232 A.H..."Here you removed all my sentences, while it was sourced and  I've added it to improve and balance views. Even if I did not express the reason for Edith, it's clear what I meant because I did not change the subject."==Ancestor== ..." and here I added a chart to better understanding the subject. What were the reasons for your deletion? you say to me " What was added is poorly worded" What is your suggestion? How to fix it?M1nhm (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just seen this. I'll take time to enumerate my objections later. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll address your edits in the order in which they appear in this diff, which may or may not be the order in which they were made. One problem is that you made so many edits (15) with little explanation (only one had an edit summary and that one was vague: "edit for expand views").
 * The edits early in the "Birth and early life" section have too much in the way of "According to plenty of sources..." and, somewhat less vague, "Hans Halm determines the date", which still seems unnecessarily wordy. If those had been the only edit(s), I would probably have copy edited, rather than reverting.
 * I don't know why "imamate" needs to be capitalized here.
 * In the quote that begins "Be away from me..." you interject a "the". Was that in the source (i.e. was it mistrascribed or did you decide it was better English?).
 * In the newly renamed "Family" section, you inserted the commas at the beginning of a quote: "I, therefore, talked..." Were those commas in the source?
 * In the "Imamate" section, your change to "Shia believes" makes the phrase ungrammatical, since "Shia" here is a plural noun that refers to a group of people and takes "believe".
 * in the "Under the rule of the Abbasid Caliphs" section, "He did not allow communication with other..." and ", but some say that due to visits made on his traffic route, at the beginning of Imamate, he had little freedom.Also, he organized the net of lawyers and gathered monies(Khums, Zakat and ...)." are poorly worded ("other" probably should be plural and the latter quoted text puts punctuation after a reference, has poor spacing ("freedom.Also"), and poor diction ("organized the net of lawyers" isn't right and "gathered monies" is dubious).
 * Similarly, "the rebellion of the Alawites and the attributed people to them so he was released al-Askari from prison from 256 to 260 A.H." is so poorly worded it verges on incomprehensibility.
 * Lastly, there are the entire, sourced sections you deleted without telling why.
 * Dhtwiki (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and restored what I found unobjectionable, often making it so with clarifying copy editing. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for carefully reviewing my edits.
 * For Hans Halm, I want success you that I work on the article and finally you do copy edit. do you agree with that?
 * In the "Be away from me..."  what exactly is your mean because I want to check the source.
 * In the “there are the entire, sourced sections you deleted without telling why” give me its link please.
 * In the “he organized the net of lawyers and gathered monies(Khums, Zakat and ...)." are poorly worded ("other" probably should be plural and the latter quoted text puts punctuation after a reference, has poor spacing ("freedom.Also"), and poor diction ("organized the net of lawyers" isn't right and "gathered monies" is dubious)” my mean is: “Hasan al-Askari formed group of lawyers for gathering religious tax such as Khums, Zakat and .... so that I try to edit article by pay attention to your point.M1nhm (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I edited this article to improving and remove its tags. In your opinion which part does need to more concentration?M1nhm (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your last edits seem fine to me. I will try to answer your questions in your previous post in detail later. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing my edits. In your opinion, what should I exactly do to remove article tags?89.198.98.240 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about removing the "Unbalanced" tag at the beginning of the article? That was placed in "March 2016" without any further explanation (a"Bias" tag was placed in March, but it was changed to "Unbalanced" in May). The most recent discussion on this page addressing bias per se was started in 2008, with the most recent post in 2013; and it isn't a very serious discussion. I did a major copy edit in January of 2017, but that would be more for readability without guaranteeing a balanced presentation. You could either start a new discussion regarding bias, perhaps pinging the editor(s) who placed the tag, or boldly remove the tag if you think the article presents a balanced point of view, especially if you compare the present version to that of Spring 2016.
 * As far as the points raised in your 14 October post, which I had meant to address:
 * For Hans Halm... – I think that part has been sufficiently copy edited, for now.
 * In the "Be away from me..." – That was about your copy editing a quote, by injecting an extra "the" that would only belong if you found it in the actual quotation. If you didn't find the word but felt the quote wasn't understandable without it, you could include it in square brackets, as [the]; but I don't think that's necessary.
 * In the "there are the entire, sourced sections you deleted without telling why"... – That you did all or mostly here. That was at least two sections of sourced text removed without any explanation. Did you mean to do it? You need to offer an explanation of why such apparently valid information has to be deleted.
 * In the "he organized the net of lawyers and gathered monies(Khums, Zakat and ...)." – Again, there has been editing, on your part, followed by copy editing, on my part. Now we seem to be talking about Hasan having named one deputy, rather than a group of people, to represent him amongst the faithful. Is that correct? I was mainly objecting to some of the wording before ("net of lawyers" isn't good colloquial English).
 * Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced
The article was reviewed and there was nothing be Due and undue weight, So I removed the Unbalanced tag. If there is any problem, please write here to discuss.Saff V. (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * HassanAskariSVG.svg

Al-Dhahabi and Ibn-Hajar
What is the proof from their books that they believed Hasan al-Askari had a son and that that son was the Mahdi? Only secondhand sources have been referenced. I would like to have quotes from their books that prove that they accepted Hassan al-Askari as the Mahdi! AmirsamanZare (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * :: ? AmirsamanZare (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As in the primary sources? That I may look at, but then, it's not like they are the only non-Twelvers who said that the Mahdi is the son of Hasan. Leo1pard (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

New edits
Copy-edited the article and replaced or removed the numerous unreliable sources. There was clearly some back and forth between various editors in the article which was also replaced with better-balanced content. The article was also restructured with more appropriate titles. In particular, "Non-Twelver views" was removed as it's only marginally related to this article. There is now just one paragraph that summarizes the Twelver doctrine of occultation. Additional details would be better suited for the article about Mahdi. The unreliable content about Sayyad Ali Akbar was removed. Removed broken links, etc. Albertatiran (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)