This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khadija bint Khuwaylid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There are several english mistakes in the introduction. As I am neither a native speaker nor particularly knowledgeable on the subject of Muhammed's wives, I don't dare to correct them myself: "Khadijah was the closest to Muhammed and [he?] confided in her the most out of all his following wives." ("following" seems wrong here too. Either write "he confided in her the most out of all his wives" or "he confided in her more than in his later wives".) "She is regarded as one of the most important women in Islam and certainly the [one?] classed as [the?] most important, in terms of the progression of Islam, out of all [of?] Muhammad's wives." (I'm also not sure what the phrase "in terms of the progression of Islam" is supposed to mean.)
An unrelated issue: The excerpts from the hadiths are badly formatted. Furthermore, I don't see why they were included in the first place. Is this supposed to add some 'muslim flavor' to the text? They certainly add color to the article, but I would recommend moving that kind of material either to a footnote to the sentence "It is narrated in many hadiths that Khadijah was Muhammed's most trusted and favourite among all his marriages" or---even better---to a separate subsection. The introduction to an article in an encyclopedia should IMO be as terse as possible, and this is frankly clutter. TheseusX ( talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I notice that the title of the article does not accord with the spelling of her name in the lead, and the spelling is inconsistent throughout the article. I don't know whether or not the "h" at the end should remain, but either way the alternatives need to be stated in the lead, and then the dominant one should remain consistent through the article. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi.
If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 11:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,
Bookku ( talk) 09:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus.
Unfortunately, as was also the case in the previous RM, the two participating editors reasonably disagree, so there's no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Havelock Jones ( talk) 16:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Khadija bint Khuwaylid → Khadija – Per WP:COMMONNAME ( Google Ngram). The suggested name is already a redirect to this page, as she is the most notable individual associated with this name and the earliest notable usage of the name comes from the subject of this page. The move would also satisfy the criteria set by WP:TITLECON, as pages about other prominent figures from her era are titled only by their first names, including Muhammad, Aisha, Ali, Fatimah, Omar, Uthman, etc. Keivan.f Talk 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 02:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness, but then for some historical figures WP:SINGLENAMEs are sometimes preferable (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.). I personally think that only in those cases where the fuller name is either unknown ( Plato, Aristotle) or mentioned only very rarely ( Muhammad ibn Abd Allah) it is a good idea to use the shorter name. That means that I personally think we should have Jesus of Nazareth (cf. [1]) rather than Jesus, Ali ibn Abi Talib (cf. [2]) rather than Ali, Uthman ibn Affan (cf. [3]) rather than Uthman, etc. etc., and so also Khadija bint Khuwaylid (cf. [4]) rather than Khadija. All of these are common enough to justify not having only a single name. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khadija bint Khuwaylid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There are several english mistakes in the introduction. As I am neither a native speaker nor particularly knowledgeable on the subject of Muhammed's wives, I don't dare to correct them myself: "Khadijah was the closest to Muhammed and [he?] confided in her the most out of all his following wives." ("following" seems wrong here too. Either write "he confided in her the most out of all his wives" or "he confided in her more than in his later wives".) "She is regarded as one of the most important women in Islam and certainly the [one?] classed as [the?] most important, in terms of the progression of Islam, out of all [of?] Muhammad's wives." (I'm also not sure what the phrase "in terms of the progression of Islam" is supposed to mean.)
An unrelated issue: The excerpts from the hadiths are badly formatted. Furthermore, I don't see why they were included in the first place. Is this supposed to add some 'muslim flavor' to the text? They certainly add color to the article, but I would recommend moving that kind of material either to a footnote to the sentence "It is narrated in many hadiths that Khadijah was Muhammed's most trusted and favourite among all his marriages" or---even better---to a separate subsection. The introduction to an article in an encyclopedia should IMO be as terse as possible, and this is frankly clutter. TheseusX ( talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I notice that the title of the article does not accord with the spelling of her name in the lead, and the spelling is inconsistent throughout the article. I don't know whether or not the "h" at the end should remain, but either way the alternatives need to be stated in the lead, and then the dominant one should remain consistent through the article. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi.
If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 11:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,
Bookku ( talk) 09:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus.
Unfortunately, as was also the case in the previous RM, the two participating editors reasonably disagree, so there's no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Havelock Jones ( talk) 16:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Khadija bint Khuwaylid → Khadija – Per WP:COMMONNAME ( Google Ngram). The suggested name is already a redirect to this page, as she is the most notable individual associated with this name and the earliest notable usage of the name comes from the subject of this page. The move would also satisfy the criteria set by WP:TITLECON, as pages about other prominent figures from her era are titled only by their first names, including Muhammad, Aisha, Ali, Fatimah, Omar, Uthman, etc. Keivan.f Talk 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 02:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness, but then for some historical figures WP:SINGLENAMEs are sometimes preferable (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.). I personally think that only in those cases where the fuller name is either unknown ( Plato, Aristotle) or mentioned only very rarely ( Muhammad ibn Abd Allah) it is a good idea to use the shorter name. That means that I personally think we should have Jesus of Nazareth (cf. [1]) rather than Jesus, Ali ibn Abi Talib (cf. [2]) rather than Ali, Uthman ibn Affan (cf. [3]) rather than Uthman, etc. etc., and so also Khadija bint Khuwaylid (cf. [4]) rather than Khadija. All of these are common enough to justify not having only a single name. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)