Talk:Fatima

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

I want to report this page as this page contain some very wrong information about the beloved Fatimah (RA) life and death Thank you 91.227.24.171 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

In the first main paragraph after the introduction, change "Fatimah occupies a similar position in Islam that Mary, mother of Jesus, occupies in Christianity." to specify that this is only the case in Shia Islam. 185.241.227.154 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply.

One reference is the same as the one provided for the same line, Fitzpatrick & Walker (2014, p. 183). Page 183 states "Sunnis and Shi'as do not agree on who to declare the most honored woman of early islam." The paragraph continues to explain that Shi'ites favour Fatima.

The source can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/muhammadinhistor0000unse_h4s1/page/182/mode/2up

Further, Fitzpatrick & Walker (2014, p. 182) provided originally as a reference doesn't contain any evidence supporting the original sentence and at the least should be removed.

I will try to find more sources and reply. 185.241.227.154 (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the sources:

• "With such titles as Al-Mubarakah (the blessed), Az-Zakiyah (the virtuous), As-Siddiqah (the righteous), Ar-Radiyah (the satisfied), Al-Muhaddithah (the eloquent), Az- Zahra (the blossomed) and al-Tahirah (the pure), it is easy to see how the cult of Fatimah has often been compared to that of the Virgin Mary. The analogy is all the more potent because they have many similarities: Fatimah, just like the Virgin Mary, has a revered mother (Khadijah to the Virgin’s mother St Anne) and gives birth to a beautiful boy child destined for a heroic sacrificial death (Husayn and Jesus) while another child is fated to survive (Hasan and St James) and father children."
• "Fatima is often compared to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and both are mentioned by Muhammad ... as the most perfect women of all time."
• "Scholars have compared her role in Shi‘ism to the position of the Virgin Mary for Roman Catholics."
• The Encyclopedia of Quran lists the verses that connect Fatima and Mary, and adds that "Shia literature elaborates the connection of Mary with Fatima, viewing both as women of suffering".
• "In Shi'i literature, Fatima is compared to Mary the mother of Jesus because of the violent deaths suffered by each of their sons."
• The comparison between Fatima and Mary is not mentioned in Fitzpatrick & Walker 2014, p. 182 but it's cited probably because it's a thorough list of her virtues in the Islamic literature. This was removed.
• Citing Aslan 2011, pp. 185, 186 seems to be a mistake. This was removed.
• "Sunnis and Shi'as do not agree on who to declare the most honored woman of early islam" doesn't contradict the sentence in the article.

Based on the above, the sentence was changed to "Fatimah has been compared to Mary, mother of Jesus, especially in Shia Islam." As a side note, about a month from now, I hope to revise the article to improve its quality. Albertatiran (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Albertatiran and 185.241.227.154: I'm hesitant to be bold here but I believe this edit request should be on answered right? I'll change it myself for now, feel free to change it back if the edit request is not (fully or sufficiently) processed yet. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Amadeus1999 Looks good to me. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Writing mistake

"was born to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and her wife Khadija." It should be his wife not her wife 2607:FA49:2841:5D00:7836:BC2B:EFC2:341A (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Fatimah --> Fatima bint Muhammad

Fatima appears to be the more common transliteration compared to Fatimah. The former is also consistent with the body of the article and the subpages (burial of Fatima, attack on Fatima's house, and so on). To distinguish from Fatima, Fatima bint Muhammad seems to be a neutral alternative. The proposal to change the title from Fatimah to Fatima bint Muhammad was, however, deemed controversial on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. So (I think) that means a consensus here is needed for the proposal to go through. Please add your view here for or against this proposal. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a more useful form of disambiguation than trying to sidestep the major disambiguation required at Fatima by simply adding a final 'h'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It would have been better though if you had directly initiated a requested move; it's not that difficult (see the guidance at WP:RSPM). It's probably a good idea to explicitly repeat your support in the one I opened below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus to moved as proposed. There is some support to move to Fatima, currently a dab page, but that will require a new move request. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Fatimah → Fatima bint Muhammad – Per Albertatiran and Iskandar323 above: though WP:MOSAR allows both "-a" and "-ah" for ta' marbuta, "-a" is used more often both in reliable sources and on Wikipedia. I also think that with very few exceptions such as Muhammad or Ibn Khaldun, WP:SINGLENAME does not apply for articles on historical Arabic figures, whose names are often carried by a large number of famous people with WP articles (unlike, e.g., Aristotles or Ibn Khalduns, there are many famous Fatimas; Muhammad is an exception all of his own in that other parts of his name are rarely ever mentioned: he is rather commonly disambiguated as 'the prophet Muhammad'). Articles like that should rather follow WP:CONCISE, which recommends that for biographical articles, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for concision. Arabic names consist of more than two parts, but I think that WP articles on most Arabic figures should also at least contain a two-part name (kunya + given name, kunya + nisba, given name + nisba, nasab + nisba, given name + nasab, etc., whichever is most commonly used in sources). Given name + nasab sounds about right here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Apaugasma! Just voicing my support here again. Albertatiran (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• We discussed this move in the here which ended with no consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Mhhossein! This is very good to know, thanks. There is also a subtle (but potentially key) difference this time: The proposal is to change the title to Fatima bint Muhammad (and not Fatimah bint Muhammad which, as suggested by some in the discussion you linked, might be a worse title than the current title Fatimah). Ideally, I would have liked to propose Fatimah-->Fatima but, as noted by Apaugasma, there are many famous Fatimas and such a proposal would have definitely failed. The new proposal Fatimah-->Fatima bint Muhammad is primarily for the sake of consistency with the (arguably) more common transliteration Fatima (rather than Fatimah). Albertatiran (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good explanations, but then you are ignoring WP:CONCISE for the sake of consistency which is disputable. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  One thing that was discussed in the 2017 RM and that is important here is that Fatima and Fatimah are two variant transliterations of the same name, which means that they should actually redirect to each other. If this page isn't moved to Fatima bint Muhammad but stays at Fatimah, Fatima should in fact be moved to Fatimah (disambiguation), with the resulting redirect Fatima being re_targeted to Fatimah. It just doesn't make sense that readers looking for 'Fatimah' land here but readers looking for 'Fatima' land at a disambiguation page.

  The real question though is whether readers looking for Fatima/Fatimah should immediately land at this page or first be redirected to a disambiguation page (which obviously would feature 'Fatima bint Muhammad, daughter of the prophet Muhammad' prominently). Given what is found now at Fatima (people could well be looking for Fátima, Portugal, to give only one example, or one of the many people who have Fatima as a given name), I think it should be the disambiguation page.

  To me, this is also an expression of my broader belief that, per the exception at WP:CONCISE noted in my OP, most biographical articles should feature at least a two-part name. This means that I also believe that we should have Umar ibn al-Khattab rather than Umar, and Ali ibn Abi Talib rather than Ali. We already have Khadija bint Khuwaylid rather than Khadija (see also the poorly attended RMs proposing to move it to Khadija, here and here). If a two-part name is somewhat common (see, e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4], even though there's equally [5] [6] [7]), my belief is that we should use that, even if referring to the same person with a one-part name is also common and even 'canonical'. Having two-part names is more instructive (readers will learn that Ali ibn Abi Talib is 'the' Ali), and it allows for the one-part name to lead to a disambiguation page, which is of enormous help to readers who are looking for other people or subjects with that name. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• A notification of this RM has been posted at WT:ISLAM. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Apaugasma The point is that the exception at WP:CONCISE prohibits from omitting or abbreviating a given name or a family name while in Arabic there's actually no family name rather the father's name is used. For instance, Ali ibn Abi Talib means Ali, the son of Abi Talib. Also, your examples like Ali, Khadija and Umar correctly shows the current title, i.e. Fatimah, is consistent with similar pages. So 'Fatimah' is both concise and consistent. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is also Michael, the son of Jack. We have no literal rule about this, but in my view the spirit of WP:CONCISE is that abbreviating to only a given name is only appropriate in circumstances where mentioning other parts of the subject's name is very uncommon and where other subjects with the same name are only very marginally notable (Moses, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.: you can ask, "what other Aristotle or Cicero would there be? I don't know any", but not really "what other Fatima would there be? I don't know any"). We don't abbreviate simply because mentioning only one name is common (William Shakespeare not Shakespeare, Ludwig van Beethoven not Beethoven, etc., even though people more often speak of 'Shakespeare' and 'Beethoven'). It largely comes down to preference though, so there's much room for editorial disagreement.

But if you prefer the given name only, which certainly is a legitimate position to take, you really ought to comment on the inane situation of having Fatima as a DAB page and having the exact same name Fatimah with a slightly less common transliteration as an article. Also having Fatimah with "-ah" for ta' marbuta and Khadija bint Khuwaylid with "-a" for ta' marbuta is not really consistent. At the very least, we should either move to Fatima and move the latter to Fatima (disambiguation), or move Fatima to Fatimah (disambiguation) and redirect Fatima here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also support Fatimah --> Fatima and Fatima --> Fatima (disambiguation) if that's likely to lead to a consensus. (Going back to good old rivalries, this would also parallel Aisha and Aisha (disambiguation).) Albertatiran (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a reasonably strong case to be made that the Fatima here is The preeminent Fatima (even the town in Portugal is named after her). The current name of this page, however, which disambiguates by using the less common spelling, is altogether the most confusion-sowing and least useful route possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 July 2022

• Fatimah → Fatima
• Fatima → Fatima (disambiguation)

– Dropping the 'h' in Fatimah: Quoting Apaugasma, "though WP:MOSAR allows both "-a" and "-ah" for ta' marbuta, '-a' is used more often both in reliable sources and on Wikipedia." Moreover, this change would address the inconsistency on the disambiguation page Fatima, on which Fatimah appears currently. Fatima--->Fatima (disambiguation): As noted by Iskandar323, Fatima bint Muhammad is the preeminent Fatima which justifies this move. This move would in turn enable us to change Fatimah--->Fatima, which follows WP:CONCISE, as noted by Mhhossein, and matches the pages of other prominent early Muslims, including Muhammad, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc. Albertatiran (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - As explained in the RM above, my personal preference would be to adopt the two-part name Fatima bint Muhammad, but Fatima certainly is an improvement over Fatimah, and in any case the DAB page must move to either Fatima (disambiguation) or Fatimah (disambiguation), since 'Fatimah' (simply being a less common transliteration of the exact same name فاطمة) doesn't disambiguate from 'Fatima'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: Per above, and I've only become more convinced of the primacy of this topic since the discussion above. All "Fatimas" seem to uniformly lead back to this Fatima. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. It has been proposed several times in the past that the daughter of Muhammad should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Fatima (see Talk:Fatima). But it has never garnered enough consensus. If this request is going to succeed it will require much more evidence of why this article is the primary topic. Vpab15 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Vpab15: by naming the article Fatimah, it already is the primary topic for Fatima. That's because Fatimah and Fatima are exactly the same name, just using a slightly different transliteration. Please see WP:MOSAR for how we normally do this. It's like Muhammad or Mohammad or Muhamad. Just imagine that one of those would be a DAB page: that would be weird, because most people looking for Muhammad and most people looking for Mohammad are both looking for the exact same subject, i.e., the Islamic prophet, or at least they are both looking for someone with the given name 'Muhammad'/'Mohammad'. Likewise, most people looking for Fatima and most people looking for Fatimah are both looking for the daughter of the prophet, or at least they are both looking for someone with the given name 'Fatima(h)'. This is not a question of evidence, it's a question of understanding how we name articles of Arabic historical figures on Wikipedia. The only real question posed by this RM is whether transliterating ta' marbuta with "-a" or transliterating it with "-ah" is more common. I suggest that editors who don't know about how transliteration works just refrain from !voting here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC you need to explain, backing it up with evidence, why this article is the primary topic over the other articles at Fatima. For example, does it have greater long-term significance than Fátima, Portugal, a place known all over the world for its Marian apparitions? A lot of people will disagree with that. Vpab15 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Apaugasma is absolutely correct: the two spellings are in effect just a POVFORK that has been created along transliteration lines. But for your first pieces of rudimentary evidence, I present the out Fatima here's traffic being more than triple that of Fatima, Portugal, which seems to be the closest rival, and even though it is already naturally disambiguated. (Leaving aside the etymological origins in the Fatima here.) As to the lady of Fatima phenomenon, it is incidentally a lesser literary presence than even Fatima bint Muhammad written out in full, which is actually fairly incredible. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)