Talk:Battle of Karbala

Number of Yazid troops, number of killed from Yazid corps

According to historical documents 30000 person شیخ صدوق، الامالی، مجلس ۲۴، ص۱۷۷، ح ۳ و مجلس ۷۰، ص۵۴۷، ح ۱۰. سید ابن طاووس، اللهوف، ص۷۰ 22000 person ابن اعثم، همان، ج۵، ص۸۴ ـ ۹۰ و ص۱۰۱، خوارزمی، همان، ج۱، ص۳۴۱ـ ۳۴۵. ابن عماد حنبلی، شذرات الذهب، ج۱، ص۶۷، مجلسی، همان، ج ۴۴، ص۳۸۶ عمدة الطالب فی أنساب آل ابی طالب، ص31000۱۹۲ خصیبی،الهداية الكبری،51000۲۰۲ Which is an average of 30,000 people. No strong historical document has given the exact number of casualties of Yazid Corps.

If anyone has a document to the contrary, leave it here Thanks M.Nadian (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you have been sufficiently notified that you are edit warring and this could result in you being blocked from editing. It is not Wikipedia policy to go by primary sources (i.e. the "historical documents") when there appears to be plenty of high quality, academic secondary sources available about the subject. The burden is on you to reach a consensus by discussion or drop the stick. Al Ameer (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I discuss in the context of Wikipedia. You have no documents. I brought secondary documents and primary documents. This is a war with the truth! Please bring your documents and not undo whiout source. M.Nadian (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! Haider1111321321123 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Peace treaty

Was it only Madelung saying Yazid's nomination by his father was violation of the peace treaty? The current wording of the article ("a move labelled by...") conveys this impression which I think is wrong. More sources can be found: "But Mu'awiya broke his promise by appointing his son Yazid to succeed him, and convinced Ja'da, Hasan’s wife, to poison the imam." I would like to hear from others. @M.Nadian, Ghazaalch, AhmadLX, Albertatiran, and Sa.vakilian: and others. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. of course, Mu'awiyah violated more conditions. M.Nadian (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This suggests that Muawiya did not abide by the succession by shura requirement of the peace treaty: Jafri, S.H.M (1976). Origins and early development of Shia Islam. London: Longman. pp. 112, 119. Albertatiran (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein and friends. What exactly do you want to achieve? I see constant insistence on tiny and trivial issues here on this article. You want to emphasize that Muhammad's family members were innocent and cheated by Mu'awiya? Or what else? There was long campaign on 30,000 as if 4,000 weren't seemingly enough to slaughter 70 men. Now this. If Madelung and Jaffri, of the works of these two see what their peers have said, say that Mu'awiya violated the treaty, there are others who say no term existed in the treaty. Still others who emphasize that Mu'awiya's nomination of Yazid was in view of the stability of the empire etc. Unless you wish to make this article into debating mess of Hasan's treaty with Mu'awiya, just drop the stick. Also, you reinserted the unfounded claim that Husayn's son was one month old--see the pattern? Insistence on innocence, again. The article already mentioned that a young son of his was killed in an arrow shot. Where do you get that he was 1 month. I'm undoing your edit. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Here we discuss solely based on the reliable sources, so I'd like to ask you avoid other irrelevant topics like "trivial", "pattern" and etc. This is a GA article so let's avoid inaccuracies, AMAP. The current wording is not in anyway accurate because even you agree it is not only Madelung mentioning the violation. Do you have any suggestions as to how this issue may be resolved with the knowledge that we don't have much room for maneuver? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, but when discussing a controversial issue, all viewpoints from RS are evaluated impartially. Now, doing this in this article would require adding Lewis, Hinds, Shaban, Kennedy, Vaglieri, and Marsham (and perhaps more) in addition to Madelung and Jafri; which is not needed in this article. This is not an article about Hasan, nor about Hasan-Mu'awiya treaty. In its current state, the article mentions briefly Madelung's view and in the relevant footnote discusses Vaglieri's and Jafri's position on the terms of the treaty; which is enough for this article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ali Asghar's death

If I am reverted only because I mentioned was 6 months (where did I say 1 month???), then I don't insist on this figure. We can just say he was an infant or so. According to Vaglieri "...it had just been born", or this book published by the New York University press just says on P.110 that he was an infant. Why not referring to –Haider, Najam I. (4 May 2016). al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_30572. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |website= ignored (help)–? There are other sources like this saying he was a baby. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry fo "1 month"; I misread it. But that's beside the point. The thing is that there is no credible evidence that the boy was an infant. Infact, his name was not even Ali, but more likely Abd Allah, hence Husayn's Kuniya Abu Abd Allah. Vaglieri doesn't say the child had just been born. She says that Yaqubi claims as such. Hyder's EI3 article I don't have access to. If you could quote him, that would be great. The other source is non-RS-- title: "For the Love of Husayn (AS)". The other point is that the current article doesn't say he was not a child. The article does specifically state he was a young child of Husayn. It just doesn't state exact age, as there is no good evidence for it. If an RS or two of the standard used in the article state that (by stating I mean the author giving his/her personal analysis, and not plain statement of what believers think), we can sure add that. Third: not in the lead; lead is for a brief overview of the most important points of the article. This is not one of the most important points of article. Hope that explains my position. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your real issue with adding the child of death to the lead. First you mention the age, and now after seeing the sources, you say we don't know if he was an infant and that the lead is for a brief overview. As you have already said, be it an infant or a child, death of his youngest child has been mentioned in numerous sources, proving it's significance. Najm Haider writes as such in EI3" "The sources report the deaths of important individuals, particularly members of al-Ḥusayn’s household, including his eldest son (ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Akbar), his infant son (ʿAbdallāh b. al-Ḥusayn), ...". The fact that his infant/child was killed by the enemy is of course of the most important points of this incident. In almost every such incidents, it's a very common practice to report women and children causalities. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

My real issue is—I mentioned it above as well, maybe you didn't read it carefully—that you want to emphasize that Muhammad's family was persecuted by their enemies. What part of MOS:Lead you don't understand? It was a battle, and a boy died in the battle. So what? It might be a serious atrocity in your view, but it has little for a non-partisan person, certainly not enough to warrant a place in lead. The fact that his infant/child was killed by the enemy is of course of the most important points of this incident. Who says so? Of course it is most important for you. Are we going to write Wikipedia from your perspective then? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

@Ishan87: Please do not throw random accusations of 'vandalism' just because I don't agree with your edit. You are disrupting a GA article by adding the citation needed bracket, even though the statement is well sourced, just like any other place in the article. Hence why it's GA (Wikipedia:Good articles). Curiously enough, you only added the bracket for the lost numbers of the Umayyads. If you do not revert yourself and reach WP:CONSENSUS, I will report you to WP:ANI for WP:TENDENTIOUS. I would highly advise you to read the Wiki guidelines, including Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, MOS:LEAD and WP:CITE. EDIT: The fact that you write 'Husain(R)' really says it all [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

An edit war that you started and yourself continuing for no reason. You're removing my fully reasonable edits, that is vandalism. Now you removed my added discussion(the 2nd one) from your page as well without any excuse, maybe even without reading it? So here's the copy of it: "Honestly, I really wanted to read a source about the war that gives an actual reliable figure of casuality of the forces fighting against Hussain(R), no better way to find it then putting a tag on the article itself. You know very well that what I asked for is well within Wikipedia rulebook. But instead you chose to start an unconstructive edit war that leads to nothing. What is your issue with a citation requirement tag anyway?" Ishan87 (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, per the rules you have to reach WP:CONSENSUS if your edit(s) gets reverted. My talk page is not a place for you to write about this topic. And what rulebook is that? Why was the article made GA then? And why did you only add it on the Umayyad bit in the infobox? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Did I say anything about feelings? Are you here for a discussion or drama? If you're unable to have a decent conversation then keep your immature behavior to yourself. Literally every Wikipedia article has some citations in the boxes, so don't act like you've no idea. Asking for sources is allowed everywhere in Wikipedia, so get over it. Ishan87 (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, but you didn't answer mine. Ishan87 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC) @Vice regent and Toddy1: guys can you tell me if my edits were right or are they against WP:CONSENSUS like he's claiming?

Why are you asking them? Why not read the guideline yourself? This seems like a clear lack of WP:CIR to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ishan87, the information is also in the body of the article and a citation is provided for it there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

By they way, warning messages on your talk page serve to alert people that you might need help. So removing them is self-defeating.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay I noticed it now. That's all I wanted in tge first place bro. There was no need of that edit fight. But instead of pointing it out he kept removing all my edits. Anyway thank u Toddy1 Ishan87 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I have no hard feelings for you. Hope we can have a better understanding next time Ishan87 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you resume your edit warring right after your block? Even it's 80% of it [2]. If you continue this pattern, I will report you to WP:ANI. Also, if you think that I am socking [3] then please do file a sockpuppet report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wearing with u dude. I'm just doing my own thing. It's got nothing to do with you or anybody. Instead of mentioning terms can you elaborate and explain these terms and stuff in easy language so that I understand what exactly is the problem with my other edits? I'm still not familiar with all these WP terms and reading them doesn't explain much. Ishan87 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Instead of mentioning terms can you elaborate and explain these terms and stuff in easy language so that I understand what exactly is the problem with my other edits?"

I can not speak for HistoryofIran, but you added Qasim ibn Hasan who is not mentioned and clearly not sourced in this article. And instead of explaining your edit and why it should be changed you continue to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Qasim is mentioned in Tabari which's already linked Ishan87 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

But not in the article, which is why you should be discussing this not edit warring.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I also wrote a discussion about that.

they are just Anti-Shia Editors!  Haider1111321321123 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

109.171.133.190 (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Their are some incorrect information in this page such as The ummuyad army having 4,000–5,000 solders while they had 30,000 and The ummuyad army had loses are unknown and it wasn't 88 and this is a fact which is agreed upon In general Muslims..............

Try reading Tabari's history. It would give you a more accurate idea about what happened than you have now. There are books with fantasy versions of the battle, in which Husayn's retinue kill thousands of people. If you compare the battle to say the Battle of Rorke's Drift (156 defenders killed 351) or the Battle of Omdurman (20,000 defenders killed 12,000), you can see how silly the fantasy versions are. (By the way, the defenders at Rorke's Drift and Omdurman had better weapons than the attackers. That was not the case for Husayn's retinue.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No title

There are two important things in this battle which defines Yazeed's mindset. (1) The child named Alian Asghar son of Husyan age of only six months was killed for political purpose. (2) Daughter of Husyan named Sakina age of four years was also arrested along with family of Husyan. These acts were anti Humanity. On the other hand if we study history of Islam since birth of Husyan grandson of Muhammad it was instructed by the Prophet Muhammad to sport Husyan. That's why a large number of people believe in Islamic ideologies protest against this act and still trying to notify that they are not with Yazeed's ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azhargullkhan (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

False Information

Ummayad forces were 30,000 References: شیخ صدوق، الامالی، مجلس ۲۴، ص۱۷۷، ح ۳ و مجلس ۷۰، ص۵۴۷، ح ۱۰. سید ابن طاووس، اللهوف، ص۷۰ Sadooq, Al-Amali, Majlis 24,Page 24 & Vol. 3 , Majlis 70,Page 547 Ibn-Taoos,Al-Lahoof, Page 70

And the real strength of Imam hussain was 70! Why? Because, others were women and children.

And the Ummayad Casulaties were 1950! Reference: ابن شهر آشوب، مناقب، ج۴، ص۱۱۰. Ibn-Shahr-e-Ashoob, Manaqib, Vol. 4,Page 110

I request authorized editors to edit it🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haider1111321321123 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Haider1111321321123: the sources you name and used here (al-Shaykh al-Saduq and Ibn Shahr Ashub) are primary sources. Such sources are not considered reliable for the type of information you would like to add: please see WP:PSTS. We need a reliable, secondary source (see WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

@Apaugasma: I knew that was skipped quotation. But I didn't check it from the source. In case of previous skipped quotation, I took for so on (...): 'Come to us, for we have no imam...' was better than 'Come to us, for we have no imam.' ...

Because ... represents the skipped quotation of people by Husayn (as in former case) not of Husayn (as shown in latter case which was there before I edited). By the way, can we've a content named "Husayn and Christ" (p.125) on the article of Husayn ibn Ali. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, to do this right it would need to be 'Come to us, for we have no imām [...]' [...] Therefore, if you give me what you guaranteed (given that "Since this was your view, I have come to you" was also skipped), but since that looks awful I decided to just include the whole thing. Anyway, please never edit quotes without looking at the source. Quotes are very different from normal wiki-text: they needed to be preserved absolutely literally.

As for the source you linked (and added to the article here), it's published by Lulu.com, which provides no editorial oversight and thus as a publisher fails WP:RS. This kind of source is what we call self-published, which is always questionable but may be used when it can be established that the author is a recognized expert in their field (having published with reliable publishers, being widely cited by other scholars in reliable sources, etc.). I highly doubt, however, that this is the case for S. Manzoor Rizvi: Google Scholar only turns up the self-published book, whose title Unique Sacrifice of Imam Hussain for Humanity, by the way, is not proper English. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you read: Ali and Mu'awiya in Early Arabic Tradition: Studies on the Genesis and Growth of Islamic Historical Writing until the End of the Ninth Century by Erling L. Petersen (1964). He wrote (page 19) that Tabari's histories were published in Western languages between 1879 and 1901, and their publication changed scholastic perceptions. They revealed that "the legendary 'Ali figure , which the Arab - and particularly the Shi'i - tradition operated with, has nothing in common with the 'Ali of real life. Neither he nor his descendants were distinguished by such political sagacity as would qualify them to occupy that headship in Islam to which the Shi'a considered them entitled." The authors of non-scholastic self-published books are probably not aware of this. It is only meaningful to quote people like Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens if you explain why scholars no longer think as they did.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If a person has a particular opinion, it must be explained why others don't think like him? I haven't seen anything similar on the wiki. And who said that the reason for the difference in the opinion of these two person is that they don't read that book? M.Nadian (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. What Toddy1 means is simply that when historical figures (19th-century) have an opinion that significantly differs from the opinion of 21st century scholars, and when this difference in opinion is due to the advancement of knowledge and scholarship, the historical opinion should not be presented as authoritative. This is a basic WP:DUE question. The fact that the historical figures are wrong in such cases is not due to a lack of diligence or intelligence on their part, but simply that they can't be expected to have read the scholarly books written a century after their death, like Charles Dickens (1812–1870) couldn't possibly have read Petersen 1963. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, Dickens and Carlyle were not historians of early Islam. Their opinion on early Islam has little weight as compared to that of professionals in the field. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't check whether the source was self published or not. What about the quotations here with mentioned book citations for content Historical Analysis. If anyone have access to the books mentioned there? Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Haven't we already answered that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@IAmAtHome: it's disappointing to see you suggest this after what's been written above. On Wikipedia, we summarize what modern expert scholars write about a subject, nothing less and nothing more. A compilation of praise for a subject by historical figures produced by Unknown/al-Islam.org is very far from that.

Here's an easy rule for you: if it's not a monograph published by an academic press, an article in an academic journal or an edited volume, or an entry in a scholarly encyclopedia, it's very probably not appropriate to cite in our historical articles on Islam. The kind of source we need for this type of article is also summarized at WP:TIER1. I hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But I was not talking about adding the quotations by citing unreliable site (al-Islam.org). I was talking about the books mentioned there, if there is an access to them so that they can be checked for citation. IAmAtHome (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but just imagine if someone would come up with a website compiling negative quotes about al-Husayn, full of criticism and derision, and asked whether maybe we could find the books cited there and use them in our article. That's just not how we work here. We don't start from a certain point of view (either positive or negative) and then go look for reliable sources to back that point of view up, we start from reliable sources and then faithfully represent whatever point of view we find there. Please go read a scholarly book or paper about the Battle of Karbala. For example, this one, which I randomly picked from Google Scholar (making sure the name of the publisher had 'University Press' in it though; there's also a lot of junk on Google Scholar). If that's not something you feel like doing, then this is just not the right website for you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I already knew the book you mentioned. I have only read some starting pages of it before. I'm quite busy in these days. But I'll check it when I'll be free. IAmAtHome (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

IAmAtHome: Consider that the content should be given due weight according to the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Abbas Al-Musavi painting

The image under discussion, somewhat enlarged

The infobox currently has an image which is not intended to be a realistic depiction of the battle. It's from the late 19th and early 20th century as well, so it doesn't reflect contemporary perceptions of the battle. I'm all for including much later works of art depicting historical events, but only if they're supposed to illustrate it's legacy, perception, symbolism, etc. Otherwise, it is simply WP:UNDUE.

MOS:PERTINENCE says that should primarily be informative, not decorative. "Any image is better than no image" is not a thing.

Why should the Abbas Al-Musavi painting be included at all in the article? Which part of the article is it supposed to illustrate? Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the legacy of the Battle of Karbala, which through the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali is one of the central events in the Shi'ite collective memory, and perhaps the single most important object of Shi'ite religious devotion (comparable to the crucifixion in Christianity). The painting also depicts other figures who play an important role in the religious narratives surrounding this battle. To quote from its entry on the Brooklyn Museum's website:

This painting commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad and the third imam, or leader, of the Shi'a Muslims. Husayn was killed by the forces of the Umayyad caliph Yazid I (r. 680–683) in the desert of Karbala in central Iraq in 680 c.e. This battle emphasizes the divide between the Sunni and Shi'a branches of Islam; Husayn led a resistance against what the Shi'a Muslims believed was the Umayyads’ illegitimate rule. The focus of this painting is Husayn’s half brother, Abbas, mounted on a white horse as he stabs a member of Yazid’s army. Individual episodes related to the agonies suffered by Husayn and his companions leading up to and during the battle are illustrated in smaller-scale vignettes on the left. The hereafter is shown at the right, with Husayn and his companions in heaven above and their opponents in hell below. [...] This account of Husayn’s martyrdom inspired annual reenactments through ceremonial processions and the ta'ziya, the ritual theater of Iran.

I'm going to be generous and assume that if you would have read that link when I first gave it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This painting is all about illustrating the Battle of Karbala's legacy, perception, symbolism, etc. in Shi'ite Islam.

Just in case you're not convinced though, I feel I need to point out that your argument here is more or less like arguing that File:Crucifixion Strasbourg Unterlinden Inv88RP536.jpg does not belong in the Crucifixion article, or that File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg does not belong in the Jesus article, because these images are non-contemporary imaginings that are not intended to be realistic depictions (the first image features 15th-century clothing; the second image has Jesus holding a Gospel book, while the Gospels were written decades after he died). It's frankly ridiculous to argue that images should be realistic and reflect contemporary perceptions to be pertinent and illustrative: in pre-modern historical contexts, most images actually used in high-quality reference works are neither realistic nor contemporary.

Of course 19th/20th century is not ideal here and a somewhat older image would better illustrate the subject's legacy, but traditional Islamic iconoclasm means that for Islamic subjects good images are much harder to find. I assure you though that academic monographs about Islamic historical subjects often do feature images on their cover, much like the one we are now discussing often not quite as old or famous as images used for books on non-Islamic subjects, but still illustrative of the subject and of its legacy. A better lead image for this article could and should be found (it's extremely likely that Safavid-era depictions do exist, though probably not available on the internet), at which point the current one should be moved to Battle of Karbala#Impact (where it absolutely does belong!), but as long as we do not have an earlier depiction the current one should suffice. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A battle infobox is about an actual historical event with agreed-upon facts. It is not intended for statements relating to legacy or theological details. You can't compare this with Jesus any more than you can compare it with Muhammad or Buddha. Those are all theological figures whose later depictions (or lack thereof) have an importance that completely overshadow them as strictly historical persons.

What external sources say about images in a Wikipedia article is not something you can fall back on. Like it says in MOS:PERTINENCE: images are supposed to be illustrative of article content. And there's nothing in the article currently that explains how this particular painting is actually important to the article topic. The painting also doesn't illustrate a historical event but the perceived legacy of the battle and is focused on martyrdom. I see no problem with including the image in the article if this is clearly stated in article prose. But including it in the infobox is not appropriate and WP:UNDUE.

And again, "any image is better than no image" is not a thing. There are tons of historical events that simply can't be depicted directly for all kinds of reasons. If you can't abide an imageless infobox, just use a location map. Peter ^Isotalo 01:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The crucifixion of Jesus also was a historical event. Like is the case with later religious narratives about the crucifixion, later Shi'ite religious conceptions of Husayn ibn Ali and his companions completely overshadow their significance as historical persons and events. At the time of the battle (680), Shi'ism as we know it did not even exist yet, and this was merely one among many skirmishes between the Umayyad and Alid factions. Yet this battle is now reenacted by thousands of Shi'ite Muslims every year in the passion play known as Ta'zieh (compare yearly reenactments of the crucifixion).

See also the Mourning of Muharram, which for Shi'ite Muslims is of similar significance as Easter is to Christians: the Mourning of Muharram (quoting from our –admittedly very paltry– article:) "marks the anniversary of the Battle of Karbala [...] The commemoration of this event [...] serves to define Shia communal identity. [...] Storytelling, weeping and chest beating, wearing black, partial fasting, street processions, and re-enactments of the Battle of Karbala form the crux of the observances."

Why do you think people painted stuff like File:Iran Battle of Karbala 19th century.jpg (see left)? It may seem a bit strange for those who are not familiar (as would surely a crucifixion to those who would not be familiar with that!), but in Shi'ism a military battle is the focal point of religious devotion. The fact that people made paintings about this more than a thousand years later, paintings which are held by such places as the Brooklyn Museum, illustrates the battle's religious and historical significance. Such a painting is significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative (MOS:PERTINENCE). It is the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works (MOS:LEADIMAGE). It shows that the topic is an important and notable one.

Your lack of knowledge about this particular subject seems to stand in the way of an accurate evaluation. Perhaps the low-quality coverage of the subject in our own articles (including in this one) is also partly to blame for that, although their sheer quantity should indicate something about the religious –rather than purely military or factual– significance of these events. If you're still unconvinced, please inquire about this with other editors who have some understanding of this and similar subjects. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Tone down the personal comments, please. We're disagreeing on content, not ideology. You're not winning any arguments by making assumptions about my understanding of the topic.

As with Jesus, articles about his crucifixion as a historic event are completely overshadowed by theology. A battlebox should in my view strictly be limited to agreed-upon historiography, not matters of faith, aesthetics or it's legacy. It's the same reason I would strongly object to an infobox on Jesus that included, say, "Number of people fed per fish: 2,500" or "Material of execution: cross". But I see no problem with the minimalist infobox right now, or the pantocrator-style image that corresponds to the most common visual perception of Jesus among most Christians.

I don't see any problem with including the painting in the article as long as it's explicitly connected to a religious context. I have not disputed this use. I believe you should focus your attention on adjusting this in the article, not poking me for perceived ignorance. Not talking about creating a separate section to explain the painting, just adding something along the lines "this is a depiction devoted to the religious significance of the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali" and not to place the image next to content focused on historical events. Peter ^Isotalo 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Any disagreement with Isolato, no matter how politely expressed, tends to be taken as a "personal comment" etc. The views expressed in his first paragraph are not widely shared, but he has been doing a number of edits at various old battles removing images he doesn't like, without discussion. I'm fine with this image, though the tradition and iconography of it and the similar Tropenmuseum one below would make a good article. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

change

"The Battle of Karbala galvanized the development of the pro-Alid party (Shi'at Ali) into a unique religious sect with its own rituals and collective memory."

to

"The Battle of Karbala further deepened the rift between the pro-Alid party (Shi'at Ali) and the Sunni sect, solidifying the distinctive identity of the former as a unique religious sect with its own rituals and collective memory."

The change removes the implication that the Shia sect emerged LATER than the Sunni sect {which is debated between Sunni and Shia) and instead conveys the solidifying of the Shia identity due to the Battle of Karbala. MomoTheGr8 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Nowhere does the article imply that Sunnis emerged earlier than Shi'is, nor should it since Sunnism was the last major historical sect to emerge. So your suggestion to talk about rift between pro-Alids and Sunnis is anachronous. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear MomoTheGr8, AhmadLX is correct. Sunnism developed in the late 8th/early 9th century, so to speak about "the Sunni sect" in the context of the Battle of Karbala (late 7th century) would be rather anachronistic. Of course, this is not present in the sources cited. If you want to edit Wikipedia, please closely read the sources and only report what they are saying, nothing else. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

223.123.19.240 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as it is not clear what changes you want to do.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

the family of rasoolallah won the war, not the umayyad caliphate 148.252.128.76 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 21:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

false information

data is not collected properly and words used are also not suitable 119.157.85.33 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimming needless details.

Revised the section to provide a concise and balanced overview of scholars' views on Husayn's motivations. Removed direct quotes like "reaches out to the moon like a child" and "convinced that he was in the right, stubbornly determined to achieve his ends" that may be seen as subjective. Replaced them with a more neutral presentation of their perspectives. The streamlined content maintains the scholarly viewpoints in a proper manner. StarkReport (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

StarkReport, in my view your proposed revision (here) is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel.

I agree though that the quoted views from Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 ("reaches out to the moon like a child", "a person who disturbs public peace"), which I can only describe as character judgments, feel very outdated and out of place. I think these views should either be contextualized and more strongly juxtaposed to recent views (I can't imagine that later scholars wouldn't have reacted to moralizing pronouncements like these?), or simply removed (do they really add anything of importance? can we agree that even though they were mainstream 100 years ago in the context of great man theory-esque historiography –or in this context, 'small man historiography'–, they are not so anymore?). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@StarkReport and Apaugasma: Instead of relying so much on the outdated Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 (WP:DUE?), perhaps we could add the more recent views that are missing, e.g., those of Moojan Momen in An Introduction to Shi'i Islam or Najam Haider in EI3. I'd welcome their addition to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want to have a go at it that would be great. Personally I won't be working on this or any other Wikipedia article, but I'm willing to review your proposal to revise the text if you should make one (the easiest way is to edit the article and directly self-revert). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else would like to take the lead and I'd be happy to support them as much as possible. @StarkReport: I hope you're still interested in revising the views section... Albertatiran (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read both of your replies, so here's what I came up with: The first paragraph could be written as:

"Wellhausen and Lammens, have characterized Husayn's revolt as a premature and ill-prepared campaign led by an ambitious individual. They argue that Husayn made significant demands but failed to take substantial action, relying on others to handle the situation. Moreover, they view Husayn's actions as leading to disturbances in public peace. According to Heinz Halm, Husayn's revolt can be understood as a struggle for political leadership among the second generation of Muslims. Fred Donner, G. R. Hawting, and Hugh N. Kennedy see Husayn's revolt as an attempt to regain what his brother Hasan had renounced."

As for the second paragrpah:

"On the other hand, Vaglieri interprets Husayn's motivations as being driven by ideology. He posits that the available historical materials suggest Husayn was deeply convinced of being in the right and was resolutely determined to achieve his objectives.[90] Similarly, Madelung contends that Husayn was not a "reckless rebel" but instead a religious man, motivated by pious convictions. According to him, Husayn was convinced that "the family of the Prophet was divinely chosen to lead the community founded by Moḥammad, as the latter had been chosen, and had both an inalienable right and an obligation to seek this leadership." He was, however, not seeking martyrdom and wanted to return when his expected support did not materialize. Maria Dakake holds that Husayn considered the Umayyad rule oppressive and misguided, and revolted to reorient the Islamic community in the right direction. A similar view is held by Mahmoud Ayoub. S. M. Jafri proposes that Husayn, although motivated by ideology, did not intend to secure leadership for himself. Husayn, Jafri asserts, was from the start aiming for martyrdom in order to jolt the collective conscience of the Muslim community and reveal what he considers to be the oppressive and anti-Islamic nature of the Umayyad regime."

I tried to present the scholars' viewpoints without relying on direct quotes while ensuring that the content wasn't excessively condensed.

While I have not read An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, it is likely to contain information about Husayn that may reveal the author's view. Currently, there is a mention of Moojan Momen's perspective on Husayn in the article , where Momen briefly discusses Husayn while criticizing Iran's policies towards Baha'is. So how about we include his view in the second paragraph as:

"Moojan Momen emphasizes Husayn's actions within Shia beliefs, stating that being persecuted, martyred, and displaying resilience, as exemplified by Imam Husayn, is considered essential markers of true faith."

Might I suggest incorporating the views of German scholar and Orientalist annemarie schimmel on Husayn. StarkReport (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

The only thing that is really a bit off with the current revision is the outdated and therefore perhaps wp:undue nature of Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views. Summarizing these rather than quoting doesn't really solve that.

With regard to Momen's view, encyclopedias do not make pronouncements on what are "essential markers of true faith", and so this seems out of context here. This is probably due to the source being used (iranwire.com), which is not a reliable source for historical subjects on Wikipedia. Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources. The sources proposed for Schimmel's views, al-islam.org and hawzahnews.com, also do not meet this requirement.

With regard to al-islam.org, this is a religious organization promoting Shi'i views, and so is not a reliable source for any kind of subject on Wikipedia. Please never use it here. StarkReport, if you're not familiar with scholarly sources it might be a good idea to avoid editing historical and religious topics on Wikipedia, and spend some time with such sources instead. When editing Wikipedia it's very important to have some experience with the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable for any given subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)