Talk:Mukhtar al-Thaqafi

Passing through
I translated the text I found into English and, so far as i know, made no changes in meaning. Some day I may come back and consider the quality. DKleinecke 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Musa'ab was not Umayyad. He was killed by them! --Islamic 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC) >Your new edits make the article significantly more difficult to understand. >I appreciate your interest and contribution, but I am not sure the edits should be kept... >RE: Musa'b b. Zubayr...I changed the citation to "government forces" because I don't know >if it's worth getting into a discussion of Zubayr's "caliphate" in the article...

this little article shows why Wiki sucks
wow this is an amazing example of Wiki quality reversion. Look at the way I wrote it a couple of years ago, and the way it is now. It has been wikifically transformed into unreadable crap by a succession of well-meaning people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbrown (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

this page should be linked 2 battal of kabala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.42.11 (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

'''The common belief and the most common narrated story about The Battle of Karbala is that Mohammed b. Al-Hanafiyyah, the brother of Al-Husayn from the father side, was sick at the time of the movement of Al-Husayn from Medina to Karbala, and he did not accompany his brother to there. He also was in Medina to receive the news and the survivors of the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelytj (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better now than when you edited it as the mistakes have been cleared up. I even looked at past revisions of the article.--84.13.162.50 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Title correction
I changed the title to Mukhtar al-Thaqafi because that is the most common name used in English sources. Zabranos (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV
This article is heavily biased and lacks real reference. The references presented are that of biased Shias lacking credibility. Even entire passages are copied from Shia blog Al-Islam.org. Phrases like "Fought Bravely" speaks of the bias. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article as of 2024 had become more secular biased. I've adopted the legacy section to take on a more objective perspective comparing tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.32.148.243 (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi.jpg

For novices
I would suggest you put in some background info in the first paragraph. People who are reading the lead should not have to follow wikilinks in order to see if they are interested in reading the whole article.

Possibly something like this (in italics):
 * ...who led a rebellion against the Umayyad Caliphate in 685 CE and ruled over most of Iraq for eighteen months during the Second Islamic Civil War after the death of Muhammad.

Just a suggestion. I don't like to edit today's FA on my own. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * and others: Al Ameer son reverted my edit in the first paragraph that said "...for eighteen months during the Second Islamic Civil War after the death of Muhammad.
 * I meant that this civil war was the second in a series of four periods of conflict which established successor caliphates. Readers who know nothing about early Islamic history (such as me) won't be able to put Mukhtar's rebellion in context -- that this rebellion was a fairly important event in the Islamic succession. And that is dependent on knowing what the Second Islamic Civil War was. That's all I meant.
 * Put yourself into this novice's position. How can we express that this article is about something that happened in the early history of Muhammad's succession without this phrase or something like it? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the suggestion. It is hard to describe every aspect in detail in lead section. Background section, which treats this in adequate detail, was included just for that purpose while the article was at FAC. Nonetheless, the second paragraph in lead section does in fact connect the events with Muhammad: "Born in Ta'if, Mukhtar moved to Iraq at a young age and grew up in Kufa. Following the death of Husayn ibn Ali, a grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, at the hands of the Umayyad army in the Battle of Karbala in 680, he allied with the rival caliph Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr in Mecca, but the alliance was short-lived." Hope to have clarified the issue. Thanks.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and others: Your sentence in the second paragraph would be fine if we were editing the Arabic version of Wikipedia. Then most readers would know before reading the article that the Umayyad dynasty formed the second caliphate about 30 years after Muhammad's death.
 * The average English reader wouldn't know what the Second Islamic Civil War was. It might be important to the early succession to Muhammad or it might be some trivial war in some backwater region in the middle east. Without knowing when Muhammad died (was it in the 6th century or the 7th?) or what the Second Islamic Civil War was, we wouldn't know if Mukhtar al-Thaqafi was notable. And, in my opinion, you should establish the subject's notability in the first paragraph and you shouldn't use wikilinks to do so.
 * For example, if the first sentence read like this:
 * XXX was a pro-blahblah revolutionary based in Kufa, who led a rebellion against the XYZ Kingdom in 685 and ruled over most of Iraq for eighteen months during the Second Blahblah War.
 * If you were a novice on Islam, would you know whether or not XXX was notable? I'm merely saying that most of the editors of this article know Islamic history while most of the readers do not. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

EI3
Thanks for adding the source. I, unfortunately, don't have access to it. I had bought one-day subscription some time ago and regret not downloading many articles that I now need-this one among them. Do you have access? PS. ping template doesn't work inside edit summary. If you want someone's attention in there, just wikilink the username in the normal way. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "(...) this one among them"
 * Brill only published this entry as of today, so no fault on your part ;-)
 * "Do you have access?"
 * Yes I do; just sent it to you. If you need more entries from EI3 (or stuff from Brill's journals, etc.), please don't hesitate to let me know.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think 19-April that it shows there is access date. Anyway, thanks a lot. Do you have Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah and Uthman b. Affan/Siege of Uthman too? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)