Talk:Muhsin ibn Ali

wow
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...

--Striver 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

POV
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. --Imranal 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You got sources? And again, do not remove material. And do degenerate the article by removing all sections. --Striver 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ambigram?
What is the point of the image of the ambigram 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. Kajmal (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam By Lesley Hazleton, pp. 71-73
The book is a Pen-USA finalist and has been praised by many including Professor Wilfred Madelung

page 71 page 72

[http://books.google.com/books?id=aQgz6SntcewC&dq=Jahiz+umar+fatima&q=pregnant+grandson+bruised#v=snippet&q=pregnant%20grandson%20bruised&f=false «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 '''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.''' 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 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.»]

page 73

«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.»

((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

Kazemita1 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic?
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.64.67 (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Son
Does he have sons?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Academic writers disagree on whether he was a still-born infant or died in a very young age after birth so I presume not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Muhsin ibn Ali
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Muhsin ibn Ali's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Madelung": From Husayn ibn Ali:  From Umar at Fatimah's house:  

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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability
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. --tronvillain (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 the sources that discuss the event. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. --tronvillain (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked the two pages and Umar at Fatimah's house seems to be a WP:CFORK(this article is older); there is no additional information(not surprising in these circumstances) that justifies a standalone article. Umar at Fatimah's house should probably the main topic. However, a merger should be done with all due care; the subject seems to be disputed.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like Umar at Fatimah's house 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. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 Umar at Fatimah's house, 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. --tronvillain (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like combining this article into Umar at Fatimah's house would reduce the visibility of the part about Muhsin ibn Ali, as Umar at Fatimah's house 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 Wikipedia's redirect guidelines. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. --tronvillain (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 Mourning of Muharram). He's also respected by Muslims from other sects as well; his status in Islam has made "Muhsin" 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 Umar at Fatimah's house. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war on the page
I see we have an edit war on this page. Mainly about this attempted insertion of material:. 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 not be inserted into the article?Lurking shadow (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is inserting that comment at odds with the policies of Wikipedia? It seems to be an attempt to follow ATTRIBUTEPOV.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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 contradiction of the rest of the article. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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?Lurking shadow (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a quote in the article from Waafi al-Wafiyyaat (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." Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I now agree that this addition should not be performed.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Safadi's al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyat was misquoted though. He was citing the views of Ibrahim an-Nazzam 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. Wiqi(55) 20:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
As you may have seen, this page recently saw many edits by User:Alivardi. These edits are disruptive for several reasons, including the following: As a result, I have reverted the edits to the previous stable version of the page. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further! Snowsky Mountain (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It removed a great deal of relevant, sourced information relating to the attack in which he was miscarried. Intentionally hiding important information from Wikipedia to advance a specific agenda is a violation of WP:CENSOR. (While I don't agree with that policy 100%, this is a violation of it.)
 * 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 hand.
 * 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 MOS:ALLEGED).
 * The edits removed over 10,000 characters from the article, basically turning it from a fully-featured article into a stub.
 * 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 MOS:LEADLENGTH. Per this policy, having four paragraphs in the lead section is not appropriate for an article of this size.
 * I'll attempt to give my response to each of your concerns separately:
 * It removed a great deal of relevant, sourced information relating to the attack in which he was miscarried. Intentionally hiding important information from Wikipedia to advance a specific agenda is a violation of WP:CENSOR. (While I don't agree with that policy 100%, this is a violation of it.)
 * I do not believe WP:CENSOR 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 miscarriage.
 * 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 hand.
 * 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 for each section:
 * Name: As noted in my previous edit summary, the sole reference for this section, ourbabynamer.com does not seem like an appropriate source as per WP:SOURCE. 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.
 * Background: As noted in my previous edit summary, I believe such an extensive overview of the background goes beyond the scope of this article. As per WP:ROC, 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 Event of Ghadir Khumm, which is only tenuously linked to Muhsin himself. Note that there are articles for the Succession to Muhammad and the attack itself where a extensive discussion of the background is more appropriate. The only background which is directly relevant is Saqifa, the summary of which I had included in my revision.
 * Attack: As noted in my previous edit summary, the content I had removed was repetitive or irrelevant. In regards to the former, as per WP:TERSE, 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 article on the attack itself.
 * Remembrance: As noted in my previous edit summary, this content is completely unsourced as per WP:USI.
 * 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 MOS:ALLEGED).
 * I struggle to see how I have been biased in my revision of the page. As per WP:NPOV, 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.
 * In regards to my use of the word “alleged,” as per MOS:ALLEGED "…alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined…when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." I do not see how I have not met these requirements.
 * 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 neutrality, but it does not go far enough to address this issue.
 * The edits removed over 10,000 characters from the article, basically turning it from a fully-featured article into a stub.
 * 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 Quality scale, which is what the article is currently rated as.
 * 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 MOS:LEADLENGTH. Per this policy, having four paragraphs in the lead section is not appropriate for an article of this size.
 * MOS:LEADLENGTH is not applicable here. As per MOS:LEAD, a lead section is defined "as the section before the table of contents and the first heading." 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 opinion.
 * 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 Admin noticeboard. If not, can you please refrain from making such accusations flippantly. Alivardi (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to discuss this in more detail with me. To address some of your points:
 * Regarding the "Name" section: As the name is an Arabic word, the reliability of previous citations such as ourbabynamer.com can be easily verified using a translator. In addition, the page Muhsin exists on Wikipedia, 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 contents.
 * 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.
 * 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, and that is what the article currently contains.
 * You used WP:TERSE to justify some of the content removal in your edits. WP:TERSE does not say that articles should note include lots of information; rather, it says that sentences should not be unnecessarily wordy. WP:TERSE clearly states, "Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article." That said, however, I did trim some of the extensive quotes by Umar.


 * Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 than via an unreliable website. Here 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. WP:USI still applies to the rest.
 * 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, there's already an article for the Succession to Muhammad. There's no need to discuss it here.
 * I used WP:TERSE 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 house.
 * The rest of my points from my previous post still stand. Alivardi (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * -I made some more updates to the "Name" section that include adding more sources. Hopefully that part shouldn't be a problem anymore!
 * -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 Succession to Muhammad.
 * -I trimmed the "Attack" section further to hopefully make it more focused on the topic at hand. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 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.


 * 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 concerned, I reccomend replacing the "Background" section with the following sentence: "Following the controversial election at Saqifa, Muhsin's father Ali had become alienated from the new Caliph, Abu Bakr."(Fitzpatrick 2014, p.4) I believe this summarises the main point of the background without going into unnecessary detail.


 * 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 WP:NPOV. 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 MOS:ALLEGED allows me to use the wording that I did. These are points which you have not since disagreed with.


 * 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. Alivardi (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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):


 * Muhsin ibn Ali (Arabic: محسن بن علي, also spelled Mohsin ibn Ali) was a son of Fatimah bint Muhammad and Ali ibn Abi Talib. He was reportedly miscarried by Fatimah when their house was attacked by Umar and his supporters shortly after the death of his grandfather, the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Exact details of the event are disputed, with beliefs being primarily split on sectarian lines between the Shia and Sunni denominations (alphabetized -- "Sh" comes before "Su").


 * 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: After the gathering at Saqifah, Abu Bakr ordered Umar to obtain allegiance from Ali. This one complies with WP:TERSE better, and it may have a more appropriate reference. We could add the word "reportedly" to it if you wanted to, though. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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? Alivardi (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 not universally considered legitimate. A group of people supporting Ali as the caliph had gathered in the house of Ali and Fatimah."? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Alivardi (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment
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 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.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of "attack" vs. "confrontation", and accusations of censorship
, in the warning 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 again now after having just been reverted would be to go against the advice of WP:BRD, something which would be best to avoid.

You've stated that the word "attack" doesn't define an incident as physical or verbal, but its definition (as per Wiktionary) 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 WP:NPOV. In contrast, describing it as a "confrontation" has no such problems as the word's broadness also allows the implication of a non-physical encounter.

These are points which I had already explained in both my edit summaries. 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.

I want to again remind you to assume good faith 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 reply. Alivardi  (talk)  01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , FYI, the message on your talk-page is level-2 i.e. caution (same as, what you dropped on my talk-page).
 * Regarding the edit in question, i.e. removal of word "attack" by you from the lead. The word "Attack" has been there in the lead since at least mid-2017 (which is well before your first edit on WP; so, saying that it was written by you, is bit far-fetched.), the word even survived June-2019 over-haul of the article, when propsed the following lead,


 * Which was incidentally agreed by you, saying, "Your proposed edits seem very reasonable and I'd be happy to accept them.", 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)?
 * Clearly, the current version is not the consensus one and should be reverted so that consensus-version of the article is restored.-- Fz t c s 06:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 question? Alivardi   (talk)  09:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the consensus version as per above comments.--2402:3A80:D2B:E065:0:0:157:BA16 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 Snowsky Mountain. If they had a problem with my subsequent edits, allow them to voice it themselves. Alivardi   (talk)  17:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus text.--2402:3A80:D33:C16A:0:0:16C:67D2 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Alivardi! Making changes to consensus text needs discussion on talk page. Discuss and reach new consensus before making the changes.--2402:3A80:D33:C16A:0:0:16C:67D2 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the one making new changes by removing several months of edits. The discussion is currently ongoing. Alivardi   (talk)  18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
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 iaw Wikipedia's guidelines noting verifiability against reliable sources. How do the RS describe it. Please use WP:DR if you can't come to a consensus. Woody (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Woody! 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.--2402:3A80:D33:C16A:0:0:16C:67D2 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 wikipedia's core policies? Woody (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The reference https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2AtvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Muhsin&f=false 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 incident ans recent removal of it is in no way justifiable.-2402:3A80:D1B:A37D:0:0:186:3150 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The reference clearly speaks of death due to violence 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".
 * Attack can also mean verbal attack Addressed in my above comment (see the Wiktionary definition). Alivardi   (talk)  11:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been avoiding the article & talk, as I don't want to get into unnecessary dispute or edit-war. But, just to point out, this section above provides some content which again supports usage of "attack".
 * As far as 's conduct is concerned, it has been questioned earlier 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 references.
 * Hence, IMHO, the usage of word "attack" should be restored.-- Fz t c s 04:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, I wonder if who was part of the earlier discussion has anything to say.-- Fz t c s 09:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 in for over a month.


 * 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? Alivardi   (talk)  11:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A references where it says ,"was miscarried because of a violent entry into their house" and another, this section above provides some content which again supports usage of "attack", have already been provided in above thread.--- Fz t c s 06:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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 boldly, son now we are here discussing what should have done earlier.
 * We are bounded only by WP policies & guidelines,
 * as per WP:Consensus, "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..."
 * also, as per, WP:Consensus "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....an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion."
 * I'll suggest to go thorough WP:Consensus, if it has already not been done.-- Fz t c s 06:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the quotation from that reference. I've previously relayed 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 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.
 * 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"? Alivardi   (talk)  10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 inclusion?
 * Regarding the process argument, you simply can't ignore it because currently not following the process simply suits you. You have violated WP policy WP:Consensus 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 & practice.
 * what is your take on situation?-- Fz t c s 11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said in my original message, as per the Wiktionary definition of "confrontation", it can encompass both violent and non-violent meetings.
 * 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 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. Alivardi   (talk)  11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As pointed earlier, even, attack can mean verbal or physical, as per Wiktionary, an attack,


 * So, why to remove it? Also, even on article Umar at Fatimah's house the word confrontation was added by you recently, so, you are trying to back your one edit with that of another.
 * You say, "I've never wanted to avoid such a discussion", then what was this about, "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.".
 * You are clearly trying to avoid such a discussion, especially now asking that 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 consensus and henceforth breach of it.
 * Your current removal of consensus text and previous consensus are no way isolated, hence, when we discuss later former will also be mentioned.-- Fz t c s 13:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 definition allows its usage? Alivardi   (talk)  23:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The event of Umar at Fatimah's house, was an attack to detract from the worth or credibility of the people of house 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 Attack, 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 try and form a new consensus by discussing what the page should look like, definitively, that too after restoring the article to previous version of consensus (i.e. in this case restoration of word attack in lead and main body of the article).-- Fz t c s 01:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 house". Alivardi   (talk)  02:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

New consensus
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how consensus works and the editing process. There aren't agreements between two editors about text on a page: no one owns 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. Consensus can change: you need to discuss what you think the article should look like now. That will form the current consensus. If you are cannot agree on the text (based on verifiable, reliable sources) then seek dispute resolution. 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. Woody (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. We should try and form a new consensus by discussing what the page should look like now. I appreciate the clarification.
 * Regarding the disagreed text, if you are asking for yourself, this is Faizhaider's suggested version and here is mine. Otherwise, I thank you very much for your input in this discussion. Alivardi   (talk)  00:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in. As, the previous consensus text is being changed by, there should be definitively an effort to try and form a new consensus by discussing what the page should look like 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 attack in lead and main body of the article).
 * Here is the diff of consensus-text and changes made to it by Alivardi (without any discussion, and reaching new-consensus),
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Long standing consensus-text Revision as of 2020-01-19T03:01:52 ! Non-consensus changes made by Alivardi Revision as of 2020-02-04T19:05:40
 * Muhsin died very early in life, with the exact details of his death being disputed and versions being primarily split on sectarian lines between [[Shia ]] and  [[Sunni ]] denominations. Accounts indicate that he was either miscarried by Fatimah when  their  house was  attacked  by  [[Umar ]] and his supporters, or that he had died naturally in later childhood.
 * Muhsin died very early in life, with the exact details of his death being disputed and versions being primarily split on sectarian lines between [[Shia ]] and  [[Sunni ]] denominations. Accounts indicate that he was either miscarried by Fatimah as  a result of  a  confrontation  between his parents and  [[Umar ]], or that he had died naturally in childhood.
 * }
 * Hope this helps.-- Fz t c s 01:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * &, can we move ahead with it? I have been waiting for the comment on it for around 10days now.-- Fz t c s 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. 10 days is enough time for anyone with an issue to respond. Woody (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the reply I posted last week? Alivardi   (talk)  10:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh I missed it. I was expecting a reply here as suggested by Woody, (anyways that conversation is going like running in the circles).-- Fz t c s 06:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh I missed it. I was expecting a reply here as suggested by Woody, (anyways that conversation is going like running in the circles).-- Fz t c s 06:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As of now we have three versions, which are hereunder, 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.-- Fz t c s 06:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Long standing consensus-text mostly by Snowsky Mountain 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 a dozen words, but that does not make them the majority contributor.
 * Non-consensus changes made by Alivardi Use of the word "attacked" was not a specifically mentioned part of the previous consensus.
 * it is better to maintain status-quo 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.
 * I request that you reply to my previous response. Alivardi   (talk)  01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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 my previous response? Alivardi   (talk)  20:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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, seems to be ignoring my discussion with him on my talk page about the edits i made above. User_talk:Abbasgadhia  Abbas Gadhia (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the lead is talking about the death of Muhsin, we should focus on references that indicate that a "verbal" confrontation caused the death 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 Wikipedia’s neutrality policy of not favouring a particular side in a disputed topic) without delving into detail beyond the scope of the lead.
 * Also, Alivardi seems to be ignoring my discussion with him on my talk page about the edits i made above I didn’t notice the first half of your reply there due to it having been posted in the middle of my own message. Please see WP:TPO 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 gender. Alivardi   (talk)  01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. - Abbas Gadhia (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 on.
 * 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 WP:TPG, I have now corrected this layout error. Alivardi   (talk)  21:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * your version of the lead gave disproportionate mention of a violent altercation 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. Abbas Gadhia (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disproportionate 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 see how my saying this suggests that I am "trying to overstate the possibility of a non-violent interaction". Alivardi   (talk)  16:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. 103.51.72.92 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The above was me. Edited as an anonymous user by mistake :) Abbas Gadhia (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not see any issue with the significant discrepancy in both size and focus between the violent and nonviolent descriptions? Alivardi   (talk)  20:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 Abbas Gadhia (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the main article (which the lead should be a summary of) 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 WP:LEAD.
 * 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 summary. Alivardi   (talk)  20:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, version of Abbas Gadhia is the best one.--1.39.167.245 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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).--42.108.5.240 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And regarding violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policy? Alivardi   (talk)  19:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy violations are you talking about? There is nothing that violates WP:LEAD here Abbas Gadhia (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you see my earlier message? Alivardi   (talk)  15:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC?
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. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 content.--1.39.167.245 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Popularity of name
Feel free to carry on edit-warring, but please leave my edit, which has nothing to do with the dispute, out of it. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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?-- Fz t c s 18:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 plausible 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 for its intrinsic meaning.If you really felt that I inappropriately selectively removed content, though, then the solution would have been to remove the rest; restoring the text without a reference is disallowed under WP:BURDEN. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: the opinions of al-Maliki and al-Shami
I had originally removed this edit 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 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 WP:PRIMARY. 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. Alivardi  (talk)  19:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing primary sources
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. Albertatiran (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The article in some places cherry-picks its evidence from its sources instead of surveying the relevant material.
 * "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.
 * "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.

There might also be some justification for separate Sunni and Shia sections to avoid edit wars. Albertatiran (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)