Talk:History of hadith

Direction?
I do not see the need for dividing all pages relating to hadith into distinct topics with an overwelming amount of overlap. There are pages for hadith, science of hadith, history of hadith... this seems very unnecassary especially when each is incomplete. This page is very similar to the history section on the hadith page. Also, I am very curious to see the reference to the claim that Uthman was the first to order the writen recording of hadith. This is also mentioned at the hadith page... Supertouch (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity?
This article reads like Muslim propaganda. It uses Hadith to argue for the existence of early Hadith. The question is, what is the earliest evidence for the existence of Hadith? And by that I mean something physical that exists which can be dated. Qomak (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, why is there no documentation of Caliph Hisham's reversal of the ban on writing hadith? Or the burning of hadith by the Prophet's companions?

Why is the other side, backed up with historical documents, not given a say on a public encyclopedia? One just needs to see the references in books by Daniel Brown, Aisha Musa and Kassim Ahmed to understand the debate on historicity.

13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan Hadith (talk • contribs)

Sources of your claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.106.25 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Daniel Brown, Aisha Musa and Kassim Ahmed are some of the favorites of the Quranism movement. Obviously if reliable sources can be found then that can be shown as well, but it needs to be made very clear when doing so that such individuals represent a specific viewpoint per WP:NPOV. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs additional citations?
It has more than the average article -Aquib (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article was tagged due to the importance of the subject - it certainly needs more than the average article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Two suggestions regarding the lead
First I would like to ask why the hadith template is left open for all drop-down menus to be seen. If a reader would like to see what's in those drop-down menus, they can click on them individually. Otherwise, it seems like clutter. Secondly, I am concerned about this sentence: "This article goes through the historical evolution of the hadith literature from its beginning in the 7th century to present day." I really don't think that kind of language is typical for leads on Wikipedia - it reads more like narrative form rather than informative. I'd be interested in seeing what others think about this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
Content was added in this edit. it would be ideal if editors knowledgeable in this area could look at that submission and see what remains, checking in what remains to see if it was pasted from that source or otherwise follows it too closely. Copied content can be rewritten or simply removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, the 2008 edit only restored copied content to publication. It is actually foundational, having been placed by User:Striver who is the subject of a contributor copyright investigation - Contributor copyright investigations/Striver. It can be demonstrated that he copied content from the flagged source, and his content is scattered throughout the article. I'm afraid that it needs a substantial rewrite if we are to retain it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)