Talk:The Fourteen Infallibles

Fatimih bint Musa-Kazim
Why is it that Fatimih, daughter of the seventh Imam, Musa-Kazim, bears the epithet Ma'sumih, though she is not one of these fourteen? J S Ayer (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Book references
"Ordoni, Abu Muhammad; Muhammad Kazim Qazwini (1992). Fatima the Gracious. Ansariyan Publications. ISBN B000BWQ7N6."

This is not an ISBN, it is an ASIN. Can anyone supply the actual ISBN? KConWiki (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Article promotion
The article needs to be promoted. I'm going to add some materials and edit the existing ones so that it qualify the criteria of featured list. The "background" section is the first part to be edited. Then I'll complete the list and edit the lead based on the changes. Mhhossein (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

At the moment I'm working on Footnotes and references. Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi You've added a reference authored by Mashita, 2002. what are the charcteristics of this reference? is it a book? What's its URL? Mhhossein (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

?
salam. u want to have a background for ismah or for 14 inafallibles? Salman mahdi (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lambton's vs Madelung's claim
According to Ann Lambton the concept of ismah does not exist in the Qur'an. While according to Wilferd Madelung this concept exists in the verse of purification.. We should add both claims in the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * that's it. I agree with you on adding Madlung's point.Mehdi ghaed (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging "Arguments for Ismah" to Ismah
I think the detailed information which has been described in the Arguments for Ismah section is not suitable for this article and should be moved to the main article, Ismah. This article is a list of "The Fourteen Infallibles " not an article about Ismah.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I ✅ with Seyyed, this article is just a list! Mhhossein (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I too ✅ with Seyyed-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seyyed in a way . I suggest that we summarize the reasons here as far as possible and transfer the whole discussion to the page of Ismah..m,sharaf 08:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi ghaed (talk • contribs)


 * @Mehdi ghaed@Sa.vakilian I think Mehdi is right when he says we should summarize the reasons here while we don't have to present a broad paragraph. So, I reckon some of the arguments should be here in a brief form. Mhhossein (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Structure of 14 Infallibles?
would u please specify the structure of this article?Salman mahdi (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Sa.vakilianThe first paragraph of Isma is speaking about the necessity of ismah rather than the concept of isma!!!!! perhaps it must be merged to isma.Salman mahdi (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it not suitable. We need paragraphs which describe what Ismah of The Fourteen Infallibles means, why Shia believe in such idea and how it has been formed during the history.(what, why and how) Of course, it should be described briefly in two or three paragraphs. -- Seyyed(t-c) 15:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The new list
@User:Sa.vakilian I had already edited the references based on Harvard citation style. By replacing the list, in fact, you have disturbed the former mentioned edition. Is there any significant difference between the former List and the new one? If the answer is no, then we can modify the former (without the need to replace it by a new one). Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The new list has a better structure. In addition the former table based on some irrelevant sources which are not reliable. Therefor we should check and compare them one by one.-- Seyyed(t-c) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing the table
I rewrote the table based on the Twelve Imams which is a featured list. The articles of the britanica which has been developed by the online editors are not reliable. Therefor we should add some reliable source to the table.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Last Changes
I found sources for all referenceless materials. I changed the appearance (fonts) of the article and made it a little tidier.--Salman mahdi (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I made same editions. The list still needs to be edited. some references are not reliable which should be replaced by reliable ones. Mhhossein (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Arabic Words
We need to add Arabic translations of the words, because eng words can not carry the exact meaning. For example THe Calm is not a suitable translation for الکاظم. The second matter is where to place the arabic words; either at the article( the page will be very untidy & confusing) or add a note?.--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * you'd better open a section at the bottom of the article, before the "footnotes".Mhhossein (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation
I translated Umm Abiha as The Mother for her father. while somewhere I saw it was traslated as a Mother of her father.I think "of" is used for expressing blood (nasab) relationships;while here it wants to express the maternal kindness of Fatima to her father. I would be grateful to have the idea of others.--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Correcting the URL and the title (omitting pluralizing 's' from the adj. 'Infallible')
I think the URL and the main title of this page should change from "The Fourteen Infallibles" to "The Fourteen Infallible" omitting the pluralizing 's', as adjectives are not made plural in English. I have already made this edit to all occurrences throughout the page but editing the URL and title apparently demands consensus by contributing users. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a smart point. As it seems, we need to move the page. I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this back to the correct version of The Fourteen Infallibles. While adjectives are not pluralised, nouns are, and the reliable sources make it clear that the this is the case. (In popular culture, think of the film The Untouchables (film), where the adjective became a noun). - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Steps toward featured list criteria
The article is a featured list candidate. As mentioned there, the language needs to be enhanced. I'd like to ask strivingsoul to perform the copy editing. Mhhossein (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

FL discussion now closed
I noticed that Crisco 1492 had closed the discussion which we had for promoting the article to a featured one. I appreciate your efforts for reviewing the article but I was surprised to see the discussion quenched and archived. I tried to prosecute the issue with Crisco 1492 but he still believes that the discussion is outdated and hence should be closed. Considering the amount of time you spent on this article and the time it took for the first response (almost two month), I suggest to keep on the current discussion and not put it for a later time. Mhhossein (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Crisco was entirely correct in closing the list because of the lack of consensus to promote. In terms of my oppose, the text was not up to Featured standard, and most of my comments are still valid. The page needs a good copy edit from a native English speaker, and a number of the wiki-errors (spaces before refs, unused books in the sources etc) all need to be sorted out.
 * In terms of the article name, this page was recently changed from a correct version to something incorrect. While an adjective cannot be pluralised, it can when it is used as a noun, which his the case here. Consider the similar situation of "untouchable": he is untouchable, they are The Untouchables – have a glance at the disambig page to see the various examples. A search of Google books showed a number of texts referring to "The fourteen infallible ones", or "the fourteen infallible human beings", but reliable sources show the term pluralised when used as a noun. – SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to solve the mentioned problems. Please check if any other problem is seen. I don't know how can I have a native english speaker copy-edit the article! By the way, thanks for your useful comments. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Superiority of the Fourteen
The article lead references that Shias consider the Fourteen to be superiority to the rest of creation. This is not discussed in the article body. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Someone needs to add this to the body. Do you care to, ? Bapehu (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your copy-eds. You are the third one copy-editing the article and we aim to make it a featured list. Btw, I'll take care of that problem. Mhhossein (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for copy edit help
@Mhhossein: salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakaatuhu: If you have an issue with some part of the edits that I made, then change that. But to revert all the edits is just inappropriate. The lead as it is written does not respect very aspects of MOS - comma usage, capitalization, overlinking, etc. You disagree with one aspect of my edits, so you revert everything? To be blunt, this article as it stands is a long ways from featured just as per WP:MOS. I'm not interested in collaborating with someone who would just wipe out a good deal of work because he disagrees with one portion of that work. If you are looking for help but wish to work that way, you'll have to find someone else. Bapehu (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not not intend to revert everything. You had omitted much of the article without any consensus and discussion. This behaviour seems annoying to other editors. Regarding the copy edition according to MOS - comma usage, capitalization, overlinking, etc, we do really need your help, but you'd better let other editors know before you alter the materials. As you know, many editors were involved in writing the article in the present style so we have to work together and inform them if we're going to perform mass rewritings.Mhhossein (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear wa alaykum salaam wa rahmatullah wa barakaatuhu: Thanks for your attempt to improve the article, however there are some changes which should be discussed here.


 * 1) Lead: Why did you removed "The literal meaning of Ismah is protection, and in theological application it refers to a special grace—lutf—bestowed by God upon a person which enables them to abstain from sin by his or her own free will. Such a person is called Ma'sum."?
 * 2) In the first paragraph you replaced "members of society should have a right understanding of the world and mankind, as taught by Islam, in order to identify and fulfill their obligations.  On the social level, fulfilment of these obligations is enabled by the implementation of Islamic rulings by a religious government, resulting in a society of believers who worship God only and enjoy justice and freedom on both the personal and social level. These ends can only be accomplished under the rule and guidance of a person who does not err and is protected by God from commission of fault." with "individual virtue rests upon a just state. The just state is that which implements God's sacred law, making clear the obligations and prohibitions incumbent upon individuals.  This state needs a just and infallible ruler, or Imam, who is free from sin or error so that he can interpret the Divine law with certainty." While the later one is not wrong, it omits individual aspect of the former. It does not cover the importance of Ismah for the authentic interpretation of Quran, divine guidance towards God and teaching religion. (هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ )-- Seyyed(t-c) 12:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Seyyed: wa alaykum as-salaam wr wb. Thanks for your comments.
 * 1. I removed that line because I thought it could be incorporated into the first sentence. There is no mention of free-will and lutf in the body of the article, where I believe it belongs. My version follows:
 * The Fourteen Infallibles (معصومون Ma‘sūmūn) in Twelver Shia Islam are fourteen infallible human-beings, who are specially protected (عِصْمَة `ismah) by God from error and sin.
 * 2. You are right. But the former version fails to clearly mention your three points as well. To the extent that it does mention them, they are lost in the wordiness of, e.g., "On the social level, fulfilment of these obligations is enabled by the implementation of Islamic rulings by..." So let's work on it, because the version that I was trying to correct is almost unreadable. I am happy to contribute, but for a fellow editor, who appears to be something of the curator of the page, to just revert all my edits because he disagrees with some part of them leads me to believe that it will be a waste of time for me to continue working on this article. Bapehu (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is room for other copy-editors here, is there? ~ P-123 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear P-123: Not sure that I understand, but other copy editors are most welcome. I had a notice up on the talk page the day that I started editing indicating that I was copy editing the page and requesting that other editors hold off on changes for a few days until I was done. My gripe was just that my fellow editor disagreed with some of the condensing I did and then rolled back all of the changes I had made. It seems like you have brought out something more balanced. Thanks for that. I since found your back and forth with user:Mhhossein on one of your talk pages, and now understand that you were in the midst of copy editing the page before I began. I then removed my notice and decided to leave it. A friendly piece of advice would just be to keep such discussion, or at least a reference to it, on the Talk page of the article so that third parties know that you're in the middle of something. Regardless, I am very new here, and I am sure that I am stepping on peoples toes without even realizing it. Thanks again for everyone's contributions and ongoing patience with this newbie. Bapehu (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bapehu: Thanks.  I am sorry I didn't look at the Talk page before starting to copy-edit; I had no idea what was going on.  I responded to Mhhossein's request for edit help on their Talk page and started copy-editing immediately.  I am fairly new to Wikipedia as well and have never been in a situation like this before.  There have clearly been some misunderstandings!  ~ P-123 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * dear [user:P-123] and other editors- no worries, and do pardon me for being so brash about it. Bapehu (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is that P-123 is an experienced copy-editor with whom I used to work in ISIS. I asked him to help us promoting The Fourteen Infallibles and he accepted my request, as you know. Now the problem is that there are some different viewpoints in some editing areas. I think we should let one of the copy editors complete his job and other editors maintain their arguments (if there's any) in the talk page so that we can so that we can reach an consensus. It is clear that the selected copy editor should explain his major alterations in the article talk page. May be Seyyed can help us solving this problem. Mhhossein (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that at all. If someone is in the midst of copyediting the page, then have at it. But perhaps it makes sense to post a notice on the talk page saying, "I'm performing a thorough copy-edit on the page at present. Please hold off on your edits until I am finished." Or something to that effect. Thanks again for your hard work on the article. Bapehu (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have copy-edited the article as far as I can. My main problem is that I am severely hampered by my limited knowledge of the subject, which is practically non-existent, though I have looked at some of the linked articles to help with certain words, e.g. Imamah. Basically, it means that I can only copy-edit what is there, by improving syntax, etc. An example of this difficulty is the sentence beginning "On the social level ...". It obviously needs attention, but I cannot copy-edit it because I have no idea what it means! Another example is the sentence about Ahl al-Bayt, which I cannot understand at all. I was the editor responsible for copy-editing the first version, by the way, by "translating" the text into better English. Apologies for my first comment. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As Bapehu said, we had to determine in the article talk page that P-123 is copy-editing and now we'd better let him pass the way up to the end. Considering the last comment by P-123 we, as Muslims, may help in areas when he needs help in the fundamental understanding of the translations. Of course Bapehu (and any other editors) may express their opinion so that we can reach a consensus when a dispute is encountered. The clarifications for the sentences P-123 had not understood are written in separate sections. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @P-123: re that sentence. I really don't mean to be rude, but I condensed that sentence and the others because they didn't seem to mean much of anything or, alternatively, because the degree of detail in the treatment is too much (e.g. from what I could make of it, it might mean: individual virtue requires right government; right government requires a just ruler for reason 1, reason 2, reason 3; all of these reasons require that that ruler be infallible -- thus my attempt to rewrite for clarity's sake). Likewise I removed the point in the lead about the ma'soom person still having free-will because (1) from what I recall there was no treatment of it in the body and (2) it is a fine point the arguments for which are detailed, and I believe beyond the scope of the section - more appropriate for the article on `ismah. I think it definitely makes sense to present this part of the doctrine in a simple declaration, but to get into the arguments for it would be too involved - though perfect for the main `ismah article. That's why I would cut the argumentation in general: to give a complete account on that basis requires too much detail. As the article stands it gets into this detail in one respect, if I understand it correctly. But then glaringly leaves out the logical proofs to account for the details I've discussed below. The section should be either  a summary of the points of the doctrine or a summary of the arguments for the logical necessity of the doctrine. I think for this latter option to be done properly, it would exceed the scope of a introductory section and be better placed in the full article on the subject. Bapehu (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is all right. I don't take offence at your comment at all.  I agree that that sentence didn't seem to mean much!  As I said, all I felt I could do with my limited knowledge was copy-edit the text into what I saw as better English.  What is then done with that text is for more knowledgeable editors to decide, so if any of what I copy-edit is cut out, I am fine with that. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On the social level...
This sentence might be explained as such:"On the social level, if the obligations (which is already mentioned in the last sentence) are going to be obeyed (or respected) there must be a religious government who implements them. The existence of such a government which implement the obligations will lead to a society of believers who worship God only and enjoy justice and freedom on both the personal and social level." Is it clear now? Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My urge to strike this line or condense was because this argument seems appropriate to an article or section on imamah but not on `ismah. Or in other words, that `ismah fulfills the requirements of imamah but that is not its essential quality (i.e., from my limited understanding, Sayyida Fatimah's `ismah is not for the sake of 'imamah).
 * I would also just reiterate that if this section on `ismah is going to include or be primarily made up of arguments for `ismah (i.e., instead of just a description of `ismah), then there needs to be some account for how these arguments work when applied to the majority of the the relevant historical period, i.e. since the greater occultation. If I'm reading arguments for the necessity of `ismah, and they fail to account for these two points, the arguments seem strikingly incomplete. To my mind, we either need to include a robust set of arguments that accounts for these obvious questions or -- what seems more appropriate for an introductory section that a link to a whole article on the subject for -- would be a description of `ismah rather than the arguments for its logical necessity. Bapehu (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bapehu: The "on the social level.." line is expresses the necessity of Ismah from the Imamah aspect. It does not mean that only Imams should be infallible. Besides, I believe that the section needs to be a brief mixture of description and argument so that one can gain enough information quickly and without being forced to read the Ismah main article. Mhhossein (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Following this debate and the former one on the first paragraph of "The Shia concept of infallibility or Ismah", I suggest to move this paragraph to the lead of Ismah and replace it with an abstract of Ismah.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the first part but agree with the second part.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving "The Shia concept of infallibility or Ismah" to the lead of Ismah requires epanding it in the body of the article. Is it already explained there? Mhhossein (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Seyyed: So the only thing we need here is an abstract of Ismah, don't we? Let's see if Salman mahdi is wiling to make a draft. Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seyyed: So we need no arguments in this article. We're going to have concepts only? Mhhossein (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can move the arguments. Seyyed(t-c) 09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The arguments exist in related articles.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the required changes.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of Madelung's view
Do you still have problem with understanding the meaning of "Islamic scholar Wilferd Madelung claims that the purification of Ahl al-Bayt—the family of the Prophet Muhammad—is guaranteed by The verse of purification in the Quran"? I think I explained it before, didn't I? There is verse in the hily Quran book which says, "Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification." Madelung argues that according to this verse we can say that certainly Ahl al-Bayt are pure! Mhhossein (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You did explain, but I still couldn't understand the sentence! I think I understand it now. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another problem with this sentence is that it can leave readers with the sense that this claim -- that a proof for this doctrine is in the Qur'an itself and in that verse's exoteric meaning in particular -- is somehow Madelung's or peculiar to him. Perhaps Madelung endorses the claim himself, which I doubt given his status as a religious studies scholar and not a Muslim jurist; more importantly though, my suspicion is that this claim has been endorsed by the vast majority, if not all, Shia scholars treating this subject over history. This is the more salient point: i.e., we need more sources and need to rephrase the claim to be more general. e.g. 'Shiite scholars point to the verse of purification as a proof of this doctrine.'' Bapehu (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's unclear, "Madelung's" point is that Shia's affirm that this doctrine is proven by a verse of the Qur'an. Algar's point is that historical evidence for the assertion of this proof dates from such and such date. i.e. it's not a contrasting position but rather a separate point- Bapehu (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could see that they were completely separate points when copy-editing. At the time I was just puzzled by what the first one meant! ~ P-123 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Shia concept of infallibility or Ismah
I think the historical material of the second paragraph of this section is not related to this article.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not say the material of the second Paragraph, I think we'd better remove the following:"According to another scholar Hamid Algar, this idea is encountered as early as the first half of the second century in the Islamic calendar. The Shia scholars of the fourth and the fifth centuries in the Islamic calendar defined the infallibility of the Prophet Muḥammad and the Twelve Imams in increasingly stringent form, until the doctrine came to exclude their commission of any sin or inadvertent error, either before or after their assumption of office."
 * This part is historical and as Salman mahdi said, we don't need it here. Btw, I removed one of the sentences. Mhhossein (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Article promotion
The article needs to be promoted. I'm going to add some materials and edit the existing ones so that it qualify the criteria of featured list. The "background" section is the first part to be edited. Then I'll complete the list and edit the lead based on the changes. Mhhossein (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

At the moment I'm working on Footnotes and references. Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi You've added a reference authored by Mashita, 2002. what are the charcteristics of this reference? is it a book? What's its URL? Mhhossein (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

?
salam. u want to have a background for ismah or for 14 inafallibles? Salman mahdi (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lambton's vs Madelung's claim
According to Ann Lambton the concept of ismah does not exist in the Qur'an. While according to Wilferd Madelung this concept exists in the verse of purification.. We should add both claims in the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * that's it. I agree with you on adding Madlung's point.Mehdi ghaed (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging "Arguments for Ismah" to Ismah
I think the detailed information which has been described in the Arguments for Ismah section is not suitable for this article and should be moved to the main article, Ismah. This article is a list of "The Fourteen Infallibles " not an article about Ismah.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I ✅ with Seyyed, this article is just a list! Mhhossein (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I too ✅ with Seyyed-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seyyed in a way . I suggest that we summarize the reasons here as far as possible and transfer the whole discussion to the page of Ismah..m,sharaf 08:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi ghaed (talk • contribs)


 * @Mehdi ghaed@Sa.vakilian I think Mehdi is right when he says we should summarize the reasons here while we don't have to present a broad paragraph. So, I reckon some of the arguments should be here in a brief form. Mhhossein (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Structure of 14 Infallibles?
would u please specify the structure of this article?Salman mahdi (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Sa.vakilianThe first paragraph of Isma is speaking about the necessity of ismah rather than the concept of isma!!!!! perhaps it must be merged to isma.Salman mahdi (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it not suitable. We need paragraphs which describe what Ismah of The Fourteen Infallibles means, why Shia believe in such idea and how it has been formed during the history.(what, why and how) Of course, it should be described briefly in two or three paragraphs. -- Seyyed(t-c) 15:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The new list
@User:Sa.vakilian I had already edited the references based on Harvard citation style. By replacing the list, in fact, you have disturbed the former mentioned edition. Is there any significant difference between the former List and the new one? If the answer is no, then we can modify the former (without the need to replace it by a new one). Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The new list has a better structure. In addition the former table based on some irrelevant sources which are not reliable. Therefor we should check and compare them one by one.-- Seyyed(t-c) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing the table
I rewrote the table based on the Twelve Imams which is a featured list. The articles of the britanica which has been developed by the online editors are not reliable. Therefor we should add some reliable source to the table.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Last Changes
I found sources for all referenceless materials. I changed the appearance (fonts) of the article and made it a little tidier.--Salman mahdi (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I made same editions. The list still needs to be edited. some references are not reliable which should be replaced by reliable ones. Mhhossein (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Arabic Words
We need to add Arabic translations of the words, because eng words can not carry the exact meaning. For example THe Calm is not a suitable translation for الکاظم. The second matter is where to place the arabic words; either at the article( the page will be very untidy & confusing) or add a note?.--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * you'd better open a section at the bottom of the article, before the "footnotes".Mhhossein (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation
I translated Umm Abiha as The Mother for her father. while somewhere I saw it was traslated as a Mother of her father.I think "of" is used for expressing blood (nasab) relationships;while here it wants to express the maternal kindness of Fatima to her father. I would be grateful to have the idea of others.--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Correcting the URL and the title (omitting pluralizing 's' from the adj. 'Infallible')
I think the URL and the main title of this page should change from "The Fourteen Infallibles" to "The Fourteen Infallible" omitting the pluralizing 's', as adjectives are not made plural in English. I have already made this edit to all occurrences throughout the page but editing the URL and title apparently demands consensus by contributing users. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a smart point. As it seems, we need to move the page. I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this back to the correct version of The Fourteen Infallibles. While adjectives are not pluralised, nouns are, and the reliable sources make it clear that the this is the case. (In popular culture, think of the film The Untouchables (film), where the adjective became a noun). - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Steps toward featured list criteria
The article is a featured list candidate. As mentioned there, the language needs to be enhanced. I'd like to ask strivingsoul to perform the copy editing. Mhhossein (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

FL discussion now closed
I noticed that Crisco 1492 had closed the discussion which we had for promoting the article to a featured one. I appreciate your efforts for reviewing the article but I was surprised to see the discussion quenched and archived. I tried to prosecute the issue with Crisco 1492 but he still believes that the discussion is outdated and hence should be closed. Considering the amount of time you spent on this article and the time it took for the first response (almost two month), I suggest to keep on the current discussion and not put it for a later time. Mhhossein (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Crisco was entirely correct in closing the list because of the lack of consensus to promote. In terms of my oppose, the text was not up to Featured standard, and most of my comments are still valid. The page needs a good copy edit from a native English speaker, and a number of the wiki-errors (spaces before refs, unused books in the sources etc) all need to be sorted out.
 * In terms of the article name, this page was recently changed from a correct version to something incorrect. While an adjective cannot be pluralised, it can when it is used as a noun, which his the case here. Consider the similar situation of "untouchable": he is untouchable, they are The Untouchables – have a glance at the disambig page to see the various examples. A search of Google books showed a number of texts referring to "The fourteen infallible ones", or "the fourteen infallible human beings", but reliable sources show the term pluralised when used as a noun. – SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to solve the mentioned problems. Please check if any other problem is seen. I don't know how can I have a native english speaker copy-edit the article! By the way, thanks for your useful comments. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Superiority of the Fourteen
The article lead references that Shias consider the Fourteen to be superiority to the rest of creation. This is not discussed in the article body. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Someone needs to add this to the body. Do you care to, ? Bapehu (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your copy-eds. You are the third one copy-editing the article and we aim to make it a featured list. Btw, I'll take care of that problem. Mhhossein (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for copy edit help
@Mhhossein: salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakaatuhu: If you have an issue with some part of the edits that I made, then change that. But to revert all the edits is just inappropriate. The lead as it is written does not respect very aspects of MOS - comma usage, capitalization, overlinking, etc. You disagree with one aspect of my edits, so you revert everything? To be blunt, this article as it stands is a long ways from featured just as per WP:MOS. I'm not interested in collaborating with someone who would just wipe out a good deal of work because he disagrees with one portion of that work. If you are looking for help but wish to work that way, you'll have to find someone else. Bapehu (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not not intend to revert everything. You had omitted much of the article without any consensus and discussion. This behaviour seems annoying to other editors. Regarding the copy edition according to MOS - comma usage, capitalization, overlinking, etc, we do really need your help, but you'd better let other editors know before you alter the materials. As you know, many editors were involved in writing the article in the present style so we have to work together and inform them if we're going to perform mass rewritings.Mhhossein (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear wa alaykum salaam wa rahmatullah wa barakaatuhu: Thanks for your attempt to improve the article, however there are some changes which should be discussed here.


 * 1) Lead: Why did you removed "The literal meaning of Ismah is protection, and in theological application it refers to a special grace—lutf—bestowed by God upon a person which enables them to abstain from sin by his or her own free will. Such a person is called Ma'sum."?
 * 2) In the first paragraph you replaced "members of society should have a right understanding of the world and mankind, as taught by Islam, in order to identify and fulfill their obligations.  On the social level, fulfilment of these obligations is enabled by the implementation of Islamic rulings by a religious government, resulting in a society of believers who worship God only and enjoy justice and freedom on both the personal and social level. These ends can only be accomplished under the rule and guidance of a person who does not err and is protected by God from commission of fault." with "individual virtue rests upon a just state. The just state is that which implements God's sacred law, making clear the obligations and prohibitions incumbent upon individuals.  This state needs a just and infallible ruler, or Imam, who is free from sin or error so that he can interpret the Divine law with certainty." While the later one is not wrong, it omits individual aspect of the former. It does not cover the importance of Ismah for the authentic interpretation of Quran, divine guidance towards God and teaching religion. (هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ )-- Seyyed(t-c) 12:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Seyyed: wa alaykum as-salaam wr wb. Thanks for your comments.
 * 1. I removed that line because I thought it could be incorporated into the first sentence. There is no mention of free-will and lutf in the body of the article, where I believe it belongs. My version follows:
 * The Fourteen Infallibles (معصومون Ma‘sūmūn) in Twelver Shia Islam are fourteen infallible human-beings, who are specially protected (عِصْمَة `ismah) by God from error and sin.
 * 2. You are right. But the former version fails to clearly mention your three points as well. To the extent that it does mention them, they are lost in the wordiness of, e.g., "On the social level, fulfilment of these obligations is enabled by the implementation of Islamic rulings by..." So let's work on it, because the version that I was trying to correct is almost unreadable. I am happy to contribute, but for a fellow editor, who appears to be something of the curator of the page, to just revert all my edits because he disagrees with some part of them leads me to believe that it will be a waste of time for me to continue working on this article. Bapehu (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is room for other copy-editors here, is there? ~ P-123 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear P-123: Not sure that I understand, but other copy editors are most welcome. I had a notice up on the talk page the day that I started editing indicating that I was copy editing the page and requesting that other editors hold off on changes for a few days until I was done. My gripe was just that my fellow editor disagreed with some of the condensing I did and then rolled back all of the changes I had made. It seems like you have brought out something more balanced. Thanks for that. I since found your back and forth with user:Mhhossein on one of your talk pages, and now understand that you were in the midst of copy editing the page before I began. I then removed my notice and decided to leave it. A friendly piece of advice would just be to keep such discussion, or at least a reference to it, on the Talk page of the article so that third parties know that you're in the middle of something. Regardless, I am very new here, and I am sure that I am stepping on peoples toes without even realizing it. Thanks again for everyone's contributions and ongoing patience with this newbie. Bapehu (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bapehu: Thanks.  I am sorry I didn't look at the Talk page before starting to copy-edit; I had no idea what was going on.  I responded to Mhhossein's request for edit help on their Talk page and started copy-editing immediately.  I am fairly new to Wikipedia as well and have never been in a situation like this before.  There have clearly been some misunderstandings!  ~ P-123 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * dear [user:P-123] and other editors- no worries, and do pardon me for being so brash about it. Bapehu (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is that P-123 is an experienced copy-editor with whom I used to work in ISIS. I asked him to help us promoting The Fourteen Infallibles and he accepted my request, as you know. Now the problem is that there are some different viewpoints in some editing areas. I think we should let one of the copy editors complete his job and other editors maintain their arguments (if there's any) in the talk page so that we can so that we can reach an consensus. It is clear that the selected copy editor should explain his major alterations in the article talk page. May be Seyyed can help us solving this problem. Mhhossein (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that at all. If someone is in the midst of copyediting the page, then have at it. But perhaps it makes sense to post a notice on the talk page saying, "I'm performing a thorough copy-edit on the page at present. Please hold off on your edits until I am finished." Or something to that effect. Thanks again for your hard work on the article. Bapehu (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have copy-edited the article as far as I can. My main problem is that I am severely hampered by my limited knowledge of the subject, which is practically non-existent, though I have looked at some of the linked articles to help with certain words, e.g. Imamah. Basically, it means that I can only copy-edit what is there, by improving syntax, etc. An example of this difficulty is the sentence beginning "On the social level ...". It obviously needs attention, but I cannot copy-edit it because I have no idea what it means! Another example is the sentence about Ahl al-Bayt, which I cannot understand at all. I was the editor responsible for copy-editing the first version, by the way, by "translating" the text into better English. Apologies for my first comment. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As Bapehu said, we had to determine in the article talk page that P-123 is copy-editing and now we'd better let him pass the way up to the end. Considering the last comment by P-123 we, as Muslims, may help in areas when he needs help in the fundamental understanding of the translations. Of course Bapehu (and any other editors) may express their opinion so that we can reach a consensus when a dispute is encountered. The clarifications for the sentences P-123 had not understood are written in separate sections. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @P-123: re that sentence. I really don't mean to be rude, but I condensed that sentence and the others because they didn't seem to mean much of anything or, alternatively, because the degree of detail in the treatment is too much (e.g. from what I could make of it, it might mean: individual virtue requires right government; right government requires a just ruler for reason 1, reason 2, reason 3; all of these reasons require that that ruler be infallible -- thus my attempt to rewrite for clarity's sake). Likewise I removed the point in the lead about the ma'soom person still having free-will because (1) from what I recall there was no treatment of it in the body and (2) it is a fine point the arguments for which are detailed, and I believe beyond the scope of the section - more appropriate for the article on `ismah. I think it definitely makes sense to present this part of the doctrine in a simple declaration, but to get into the arguments for it would be too involved - though perfect for the main `ismah article. That's why I would cut the argumentation in general: to give a complete account on that basis requires too much detail. As the article stands it gets into this detail in one respect, if I understand it correctly. But then glaringly leaves out the logical proofs to account for the details I've discussed below. The section should be either  a summary of the points of the doctrine or a summary of the arguments for the logical necessity of the doctrine. I think for this latter option to be done properly, it would exceed the scope of a introductory section and be better placed in the full article on the subject. Bapehu (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is all right. I don't take offence at your comment at all.  I agree that that sentence didn't seem to mean much!  As I said, all I felt I could do with my limited knowledge was copy-edit the text into what I saw as better English.  What is then done with that text is for more knowledgeable editors to decide, so if any of what I copy-edit is cut out, I am fine with that. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On the social level...
This sentence might be explained as such:"On the social level, if the obligations (which is already mentioned in the last sentence) are going to be obeyed (or respected) there must be a religious government who implements them. The existence of such a government which implement the obligations will lead to a society of believers who worship God only and enjoy justice and freedom on both the personal and social level." Is it clear now? Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My urge to strike this line or condense was because this argument seems appropriate to an article or section on imamah but not on `ismah. Or in other words, that `ismah fulfills the requirements of imamah but that is not its essential quality (i.e., from my limited understanding, Sayyida Fatimah's `ismah is not for the sake of 'imamah).
 * I would also just reiterate that if this section on `ismah is going to include or be primarily made up of arguments for `ismah (i.e., instead of just a description of `ismah), then there needs to be some account for how these arguments work when applied to the majority of the the relevant historical period, i.e. since the greater occultation. If I'm reading arguments for the necessity of `ismah, and they fail to account for these two points, the arguments seem strikingly incomplete. To my mind, we either need to include a robust set of arguments that accounts for these obvious questions or -- what seems more appropriate for an introductory section that a link to a whole article on the subject for -- would be a description of `ismah rather than the arguments for its logical necessity. Bapehu (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bapehu: The "on the social level.." line is expresses the necessity of Ismah from the Imamah aspect. It does not mean that only Imams should be infallible. Besides, I believe that the section needs to be a brief mixture of description and argument so that one can gain enough information quickly and without being forced to read the Ismah main article. Mhhossein (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Following this debate and the former one on the first paragraph of "The Shia concept of infallibility or Ismah", I suggest to move this paragraph to the lead of Ismah and replace it with an abstract of Ismah.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the first part but agree with the second part.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving "The Shia concept of infallibility or Ismah" to the lead of Ismah requires epanding it in the body of the article. Is it already explained there? Mhhossein (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Seyyed: So the only thing we need here is an abstract of Ismah, don't we? Let's see if Salman mahdi is wiling to make a draft. Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seyyed: So we need no arguments in this article. We're going to have concepts only? Mhhossein (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can move the arguments. Seyyed(t-c) 09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The arguments exist in related articles.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the required changes.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of Madelung's view
Do you still have problem with understanding the meaning of "Islamic scholar Wilferd Madelung claims that the purification of Ahl al-Bayt—the family of the Prophet Muhammad—is guaranteed by The verse of purification in the Quran"? I think I explained it before, didn't I? There is verse in the hily Quran book which says, "Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification." Madelung argues that according to this verse we can say that certainly Ahl al-Bayt are pure! Mhhossein (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You did explain, but I still couldn't understand the sentence! I think I understand it now. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another problem with this sentence is that it can leave readers with the sense that this claim -- that a proof for this doctrine is in the Qur'an itself and in that verse's exoteric meaning in particular -- is somehow Madelung's or peculiar to him. Perhaps Madelung endorses the claim himself, which I doubt given his status as a religious studies scholar and not a Muslim jurist; more importantly though, my suspicion is that this claim has been endorsed by the vast majority, if not all, Shia scholars treating this subject over history. This is the more salient point: i.e., we need more sources and need to rephrase the claim to be more general. e.g. 'Shiite scholars point to the verse of purification as a proof of this doctrine.'' Bapehu (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's unclear, "Madelung's" point is that Shia's affirm that this doctrine is proven by a verse of the Qur'an. Algar's point is that historical evidence for the assertion of this proof dates from such and such date. i.e. it's not a contrasting position but rather a separate point- Bapehu (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could see that they were completely separate points when copy-editing. At the time I was just puzzled by what the first one meant! ~ P-123 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Shia concept of infallibility or Ismah
I think the historical material of the second paragraph of this section is not related to this article.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not say the material of the second Paragraph, I think we'd better remove the following:"According to another scholar Hamid Algar, this idea is encountered as early as the first half of the second century in the Islamic calendar. The Shia scholars of the fourth and the fifth centuries in the Islamic calendar defined the infallibility of the Prophet Muḥammad and the Twelve Imams in increasingly stringent form, until the doctrine came to exclude their commission of any sin or inadvertent error, either before or after their assumption of office."
 * This part is historical and as Salman mahdi said, we don't need it here. Btw, I removed one of the sentences. Mhhossein (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the section because List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). Manual_of_Style/List_articles--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy-editing latest version
I am copy-editing this again and as said before have extemely limited knowledge of the subject, so can speak on behalf of the uniformed reader. There is the obvious point that the Lead overlaps much of the first section, which I am sure someone can straighten out, but there are some words, phrases and sentences I cannot understand: ~ P-123 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "Tabatabaei states that the root of every deed is a knowledge in the psyche that its effects protect the infallibles from committing sins." What does this mean?
 * 2) "According to Nasir al-Din al-Tusi the infallibility of the infallibles do not deny their capacity to commit sins." Which infallibles?  The Fourteen Infallibles?  There are also references to "infallibles" later on.  These cannot refer to the 14, but it is not explained anywhere who these other infallibles are.  Clarification is needed.
 * 3) "According to Nasir al-Din al-Tusi the infallibility of the infallibles do not deny their capacity to commit sins ."  What does this sentence mean?
 * 4) "The literal meaning of Ismah is protection, and in theology it refers to a special grace— lutf —bestowed by God upon a person which enables them to abstain from sin by his or her own free will. Such a person is called Ma'sum.[2] Al-Shaykh al-Saduq argues that Ismah is a state of immunity to sin resulting from the nature of the infallibles, which is a miraculous gift from God." Is al-Saduq's view an interpretatation? This is what "argues" suggests. Or is he basically saying the same thing as is said in the sentence before?  The reader will be puzzled.
 * 5) "Ismah is a state of immunity to sin resulting from the nature of the infallibles, which is a miraculous gift from God". What does this mean? Clarification is needed.
 * 6) "Ismah is a state of immunity to sin ...". What does that mean?  Does it not mean immunity from the commission of sin'?
 * 7) (Another version of the earlier sentence) "Tabatabaei claims every characteristic as a kind of knowledge which is deeply rooted in the psyche, creating its own effects which protects the infallibles from committing sins."  Every characteristic of what?  Again, the meaning of this whole sentence is obscure.
 * 8) "Allamah Majlesi states that through reason and intellect, through steadfastness in prayer and fasting, and by God's guidance, a person reaches a state that he or she has no desire except God's desire. Does this mean that the person no longer has desires of their own, but only God's desires and wishes?
 * 9) "...because of the infallible's excessive love, shame, and fear before his beloved...". What does "shame" mean here?
 * 10) "Nasir al-Din al-Tusi has said that the infallibility of the imam does not deny his capacity to commit sins." This is the first time "imam" is mentioned as opposed to the "Twelve Imams".  If this means imams in general, it has to be explained how this idea of infallibility applies to them as well, i.e. more on the theology is needed.
 * 11) Nasir al-Din al-Tusi has said that the infallibility of the imam does not deny his capacity to commit sins." What does this mean?
 * 12) I looked up "Tabatabaei" in order to give the name a wikilink, and there are many Tabatabaeis. Who is the Tabatabaei referred to in this article?
 * 13) Ismah and infallibility are mentioned in the first two sentences of the Lead but there is no link made between them. The reader will be puzzled by this.
 * P-123, you can choose an article of which you have extremely extensive knowledge.I know this must be "extemely" difficult for you, but there are millions of articles on Wikipedia. 23.27.248.184 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 23.27.248.184: I have copy-edited this article in a former version, at the request of Mhhossein, and what I did was satisfactory. It has changed since then and Mhhossein has asked me to copy-edit work on it again. ~ P-123 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be told what to do. You should choose your own articles. This way you can avoid the possibility of tag teaming. 23.27.248.184 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein wrote this article I believe. I was asked as a native English-speaker to help out with general copy-editing some time ago. Please refer to Mhhossein. ~ P-123 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact I did not write the article but I asked P-123 to copy-edit the article as native speaker of english. Every one is free to edit what he likes based on the rules. Many others are editing here. I don't know what the IP is talking about? Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein: I have just discovered this. The IP is blocked for disruptive editing. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

With my great thanks, Please ask me if more explanation or help is needed. Again great thanks.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a vision behind every behaviour or attribute; your knowledge about the hot water makes u take care of it; so this knowledge specifies ur behaviour.
 * 2) According to shia the number of the infallibles is just 14 and all the infallibles refer to 14 infallibles.
 * 3) It means that although infallibility is a kindness of God toward the 14 infallibles, but it does not prevent the infallibles from committing error, e.g they do have power to make mistakes, but they do not make any error or sin.
 * 4) Al-Saduq describes the concept theologically; Ismah means that a person in immune to every kind of error.
 * 5) It means that the creation of the infallibles is in such a way that they do not commit any sin or even an error.
 * 6) yes
 * 7) As I mentioned it means that every deed or action that you commit is based on a knowledge inside you e.g. your behaviour is according to your vision or a vision and knowledge is behind your every behaviour or attribute.
 * 8) Somehow yes, they act exactly according to God's orders and desires e.g. the obedience is so precise that you reckon that thay have not any thing to do with themselves, suppose that if one day God wanted to be in human form, it would be like the 14 infallibles in every age.
 * 9) It means that the infallibles are ashamed of doing disobediances before and in the presence of thier love, God.
 * 10) Every attribute such as Infallibility which is specific for an Imam, is considered for all the Twelve Imams.
 * 11) That is the infallibility of the imam does not prevent Imam from comitting sins.
 * 12) Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i
 * 13) I did not get What do u mean?

With thanks for ur participation, deleting Mohammad makes a contradiction because he is one of major prophets too, infallibles, one of them is Mohammad is better than all the major prophets that one of them is Mohammad too. Isn't it so, Hum? Salman mahdi (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Salman mahdi: Thanks for your help with those queries! Just two points:
 * In the sentence "Nasir al-Din al-Tusi has said that the infallibility of the imam does not deny his capacity to commit sins.", the reference there to "imam" is to one of the Twelve Imams, isn't it?
 * You asked what I meant about infallibility and Ismah in the first two sentence of the Lead. In the wiki article on Ismah it says that infallibility and Ismah are the same thing: "‘Iṣmah or ‘Isma (Arabic: عِصْمَة‎) literally means protection. In Shia doctrine, it means infallibility or "the ability of avoiding acts of disobedience, in spite of having the power to commit them".  I thought perhaps the Lead should explain why "infallible" and "Ismah" are linked, otherwise after the first sentence, the second sentence looks like a non sequitur!
 * I understand what you mean about Muhammad, but I thought the reader would pick up that "the major prophets" would not include Muhammad, as he has already been listed as one of the Fourteen Infallibles. Perhaps "even the other major prophets"?  That is a little clumsy, so perhaps the original version is best. :)
 * ~ P-123 (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * P-123 By Shia theology, there are twelve imams with exactly the same qualities and attributes. What is attributed to one of them concerns all of them. Is it clear?

About the second point, the first sentence names the list of the infallibles and the second sentence defines Ismah. They are two different desciptive sentences.Salman mahdi (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for joining late to this discussion. I oppose to adding the theologians name in this article. The main article (Ismah) describes the issue completely. I think we should follow The Twelve Imams article as a model. We should write the main idea in brief without mentioning the details because this is a list of The Fourteen Infallibles not an article on Ismah.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Salman mahdi (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is a large part of the Lead repeated in section 1? Do others agree with what Seyyed says? ? ~ P-123 (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It could have been an defective attempt to summarize the article in the lead. What's your suggestion ? I agree with Seyyed, we'd better not go through the details. Mhhossein (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the duplication, it is an impossible situation! If it is in the article, it has to be summarized in the Lead, but that part of the article has now been boiled down to absolute essentials, so there is no way to summarise it except by repeating it!  ~ P-123 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * P-123: When you say it can't be summarized, it can't be summarized. Mhhossein (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salman mahdi: What does "perception in the realm of cognition" mean?  It is not very clear.  I think this is your edit. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are the Infallibles spoken of in the present tense in the first part of the article, as in "They are immune from error in practical matters ...", for example? This will be confusing for the uninformed reader  (as it was for me when I read this article in an earlier version.  I thought "infallibles" must mean others and not just the 14 Infallibles).  To speak in the present tense when talking about the past may be an accepted convention in Arabic, I don't know, but it is not in English!  ~ P-123 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to copy-edit the latest version of the beginning of the article, but again, because of my lack of knowledge in this area, I do not know if I have accurately reflected its intended meaning. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

P-123: You did it well. To solve the matter of the tenses we'd better check the references and see how they have mentioned the infallibles. Is there any opinion by Salman mahdi and seyyed? Mhhossein (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

With thanks for ur copy-edits, I guess that we can use the present tense, because one of the infallibles, the last one, is present and is living in our time.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured list review
Is the article ready to be nominated as featured list?-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The structure has been changed based on recent discussions and some copy edits are done to enhance the language. The last thing is to check the "table" against FL criteria, although I've edited that many times. So, If the structure and the language is suitable and enough materials are inserted, the last remaining item is the table. Can you find any problems with it? Mhhossein (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is suitable. Is there any issue in the former reviews which may have not be solved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seyyed: A discussion happened here to investigate the remaining issues. I think there's nothing left, but lets ask Salman mahdi if there's anything to be done. Mhhossein (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Tha last issues are applied, but it needs a new review.Salman mahdi (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two options for having the article reviewed; you can ask SchroCat or nominate it at here and ask others to review it against FL criteria (as I did it once before the previous nomination). Mhhossein (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We've spent enough time to improve the article. I think it is ready to nominate in Featured list candidates.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for the table
I commend the effort editors have invested in this project. Great job! I just wanted to suggest making the table columns a fixed width (logos centered, text align left) to better accommodate for word breaks. As it is now, the text doesn't have a balanced flow which makes it somewhat difficult to read. Kind regards, Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * With thanks, I think you are right, please do as you wish.--Salman mahdi (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not always the best idea: multiple screen sizes (from a small mobile up to a widescreen) now mean that forcing the size of the column makes that table look awkward in some formats, but not others. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought of the mobile devices and varying screen sizes, but I'm not sure if WP has a way to compensate. I'm concerned the list may not pass FA review if something isn't done to resolve the readability issue. I will ping and see if he can advise us on the best approach. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend changing it from: to: Which will make the text feel a little less cramped and make it a little more esthetic. —  20:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

you never cease to amaze me!! You're a genius!! Thank you!!! Boy what a difference that made!! Atsme &#9775;  Consult  20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes: it will now fail because of WP:ACESS issues. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the table by on an iPhone 4s, and the original iPad - both were excellent and well balanced.  The original table above his table required scrolling and again, the text was hard to read.  Not sure what your concerns are with regards to accessibility.  Each device should be able to accommodate accessibility needs.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's nothing to do on how it looks: it's to do with computer readers being confused by the Rowspan/Colspan. If they are included the list will not pass at FLC. You'd probably be best getting rid of the number column and shrinking the image to half the size to give more space. After that, trim the word count used in the descriptions. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, . I am looking forward to see how it all turns out.  Great work!!  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , Historically and for ages, in family tree's have both hosted both birth date and death date related information. The only thing I can find that would even suggest that this would be acceptable on Wikipedia is Family tree. This not a policy though but a how to guide. Would moving this information to the family tree and removing it from here the other list be acceptable under featured article standards? Also would it be acceptable to put 'Cause and place of death' and pair it place of burial information? Finally is the rowspan code unacceptable or is the proposed example unacceptable?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Example table- Perhaps it's not the material but the specific way you are trying to show it. Some of the material could perhaps be grouped together to free up space. In the above example I included Muhammad full name, is birth and death related information, Where he was born, where he was buried, along with his importance. Instead of looking to chop information just, change how it is represented. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but is the number necessary? Is Muhammad ibn Ali/Abu Ja'far referred to as "the Seventh Infallible", or a connection made between him and the number seven in any way? I'm not a big fan of lumping all the information into one super cell. To my mind that tends to miss the point of a table, but there is a lot of information to present here (several different date styles, several different name styles etc), although I see that much of this has been trimmed from the example above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no familiarity of the subject. The naming information was taken from Muhammad wikipedia page. As I understand this page is directly about Shia Islam. I don't know if that actually naming convention relates to Shia Islam. I also don't have any information with regard to the numbering. The main focus of the effort here was accessibility over numerous devices related to potential rendering and accessibility in regards to use of Colspan and ectspan, to remove possible confusion. As only an example the specific fineries of wording are for someone more specifically aware of the subject. I'm not sure if it's important that Muhammad fell ill and died in Medina and that should be included in such a table. I'm not sure that it's important to say more than he was Buried in Medina, should it also mention the Hejaz region and the Arabian peninsula? Really the question would be of the possibility of this style format becoming a featured list or should effort be moved to something else? Another possible suggestion could be forgoing the table and forming a paragraph for each with the photo's being placed to the right. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The number is not necessary for the infallibles but as all the tables has the number column, it has too; perhaps we could delete the photograghies.Salman mahdi (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * not all tables have numbers. It's very easy to remove the numbers. See now above the example I last posted. Why remove the pictures?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To have more space for the table.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So I delete the column of numbers.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The criticism above seems to be more related to having all of this information lumped into a table. Taking away the pictures doesn't really do much in that regard. What information is choppable? Is it particularly important to list cause of death? I would assume the cause of death is the same in Shia Islam as it is in the rest of Islam. The main articles on these listed people should already contain this, so is that absolutely necessary? Since the focus here is Shia Islam a mention of their importance to shia Islam would seem important. I wouldn't rush to deleting the images without considering exactly what can be removed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to mention the cause of death and I'm also against removing the pictures. Mhhossein (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see it as important since it will be in the parent article. Perhaps this can be moved to a reference text citation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent copy-editing and further auditing of sources
I've finished my copy-editing. One thing that I didn't do was audit the sources generally, to make sure all statements are supported. I did find one statement in the list, under Fatimah, that didn't seem to support the statement as written. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With my great thanks for your copy-edits, I will check it.--Salman mahdi (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dhtwiki: Lots of efforts are done to provide the sources and materials. Please be very careful while editing the article and discuss them here. Btw, could I have the statement not supported by the sources? Mhhossein (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting change here. Unreferenced material. It is sourced to 'A Shi'ite Anthology'. On page 137 it mentions that she is the mother of Shi'ite Imams then lists those Imams.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was my wrong and I corrected it.--Salman mahdi (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have seemed rude, and I may not have read the sentence in your source. However, one of my contentions was that the statement makes no sense taken as a statement of fact. Fatimah wasn't the mother of her husband, nor of any Imam but the two who were her sons. If it were an honorific or meant metaphorically, it would have been phrased differently: Mother of Shi'ite Imams, Mother of Imams, etc., but not Mother of All Imams, or of the Imams, as that wouldn't be accurate. I think that the source is not reliable on this point, and that the text needs to be revised, unless a good explanation can be given for why it's correct. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IS there any problems with "the mother of the Twelve Imams"? By the way, Do you mean that this source is not reliable here? Mhhossein (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to back up a page to get to the relevant passage, but, yes, the statement is nonsense, especially as Fatimah is the much younger wife of the first Imam, Ali. So, the Wikipedia article should be changed somehow, even though it's sourced. It's obvious that Fatimah is the *ancestor* of eleven of the twelve. If the book had omitted a "the", then "mother of Shi'ite Imams" might have been an acceptable statement as metaphor. However, I didn't see that as one of her many honorifics, which suggests that the statement in question could be deleted altogether. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, she is the mother of 11 Imams, because the first is her husband, but how can we express this metaphoric expression in your opinion?Salman mahdi (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We are speaking about 12 Imams. Shia Muslims recognized Ali as their 1st Imam, his wife is Fatima the daughter of Prophet Muhammad.  Am sure there is no controvercy for any encyclopediac content. Also there is no problem if this couple is called the “family of Imam”, irrespective of implied or expressed burden and distinction.  We are unable to point out any other  family except this one that is recognized as family of Imam(s) by billions of human beings . This Family of Imam is also called Family of  Prophet Muhammad, Am sure there is no rebuttal considering biogenesis.


 * Biologically *ancestor* is applied for more than one or for a specie. Thus we cannot apply ancestor.  Per monotheism  we say Mother Hawwa (Eve) Baba (father) Adam.  Generally we call them parents of all mankind.  Normally parents mean wife-husband and mother-father. Thus, logically and rationally questioning at “Mother of Imam(s)” is beyond comprehension. Nannadeem (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Mother of Imams is better than Mother of 12 Imams, which is what I'm contesting. But is Fatima(h) referred to that way in scripture or literature. I don't see a similar title in her main article. I suggest we find a substitute for "mother of (12) Imams" that is rooted in scripture/literature. Perhaps the source referenced has some clue as to how the author came by his questionable description. Otherwise, there must be plenty of other titles/descriptions to choose from, given such a venerated person as we're dealing with. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this sentence is in Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, "Fat��ima is the numinous female figure of Islam." Is it good to replace it?Salman mahdi (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that that's an excellent sentence to include. You might also find an equally appropriate sentence that would be equivalent to Mother of Imams, without being as puzzling as what is there now. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dhtwiki Please see page Fatimah (Section Title & Talk page of the article). "Umm-ul-Aaima” (which is also Kunniyat for Fatimah) i.e. mother of Imams. Am sure you would be satisfied. Nannadeem (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the mention on Talk:Fatimah, but I haven't seen a source mentioned there or on the related list. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for attention. Please see page Fatimah its second Section "Titles" and its last two lines.   You may also see it here (at alphabetical serial number 36).  Besides on 12 June, 2015 I also added “Umm-ul-Aaima” as fifth Kunniyat in the info box for Fatimah).Nannadeem (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I found these two sources which call her "Mother of the Imams". Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Nannadeem (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Those seem to be good scholarly sources, especially the first one, and I think "Mother of the Imams" is now attested to as a metaphorical honorific. The "the" in the phrase makes it still seem too comprehensive to me, but I can't object to it as much as I could to "Mother of 12 Imams". Better still would have been to see an explanation as to how the phrase came to be. All the sources I've seen merely state it, without giving any history of its origins. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dhtwiki: I think they call her that because all the Imams after Ali ibn Abitaleb are considered her sons, grandsons and etc. Anyway, I think now we can change the honorific "Mother of the 12 Imams" to "Mother of the Imams" considering the sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is edited based on those sources. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Needed
Is this page really necessary?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no question in the notability of the subject.--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not?--Iady391 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not what? Mhhossein (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit by GOCE
Baffle gab1978 made some copy edits per my request at WP:GOCE. Mhhossein (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hat note
Given that some people mistake this article with Twelve Imams, do you still think that the hatnoe has to be removed ? Mhhossein (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, a hatnote should be used, of course. Feel free to return the link to Twelve Imams with eg.Template:Distinguish. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 05:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on The Fourteen Infallibles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006183739/http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/general/ahl_al-bayt/ to http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/general/ahl_al-bayt/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150220041813/http://maaref-foundation.com/english/index.htm to http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140816062439/http://www.maaref-foundation.com:80/english/library/pro_ahl/imam04_sajjad/zayn_al_abidin/index.htm to http://maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam04_sajjad/zayn_al_abidin/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140713121545/http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam09_jawad/the_life_of_imam_jawad/index.htm to http://maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam09_jawad/the_life_of_imam_jawad/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. These links look to be very useful (e.g. subpages, or the few I've tried, seem to be linked as well). Dhtwiki (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone provide do a section of the evidence of the The Fourteen Infallibles please.
Would be great for neutral readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)