| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abu Hanifa 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
His date of birth in the infobox was 80 Hijri and 699 AD. but as we all know that the difference between Gregorian and Hijri date is 621 or 622 years because our Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) made Hijrat in 622 A.D. so the correct Gregorian date will be 622+80= 702 A.D and similarly his death date should be 150 Hijri or 150+622=772 A.D.
The source which talks about the alleged Jat origin of the subject doesn't mention his ancestors religion, they only say Jat. Also it clearly states that they were from Sindh, why is it being removed? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jats were originally Hindus and a group of them became Muslims over the centuries. As per the Jat origin theory mentioned on the page, his ancestors were taken slaves by the Islamic invaders. It's quite possible that his family converted to Islam after that. At what point did the conversions happened, we don't know. Also, this is merely a theory that he was of Jat origin, mentioning a subgroup of Jats is stretching it a little too far.
Abua Hanifa was Pashtun from Kabul Akmal94 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasinzayd: Wanna explain your unsourced and unexplained changes instead of randomly reverting? Please be aware of WP:CONSENSUS. For example, you added unsourced Arab origin, added Iraq and linked it to the country (not a country by this time), you added several people under "influenced" and "influences" but none of them are supported in the article. You also use "Abu Hanifah" despite the article clearly being named "Abu Hanifa". HistoryofIran (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shafin1055: you removed multiple sections and useful well-sourced information. Additionally, the introduction is now worse and fails to conform to other articles of this style (see WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and WP:Manual of Style/Arabic). You also removed the native name, more accurate birth date, children, Arabic module, several individuals from influences (all of whom were sourced), and the entire sections on name and appearance details, as well as citations, grammar fixes, addition of details, and general corrections throughout the article.
For example, Abu Hanifa wasn’t a “Hanafi”; it was a school named after him, which was also removed from notable ideas. He also never founded a “school of theology”; his followers only came to follow the Maturidi school, which came centuries later without him taking any part in the creation of. You also removed details from the introduction, although I admittedly should've wrote『al-Dhahabi named him as…』to make it sound more neutral; either way, simply quoting someone is not bias, and this is done on dozens of articles.
There are also several grammar and romanization mistakes again which fail to conform to the MOS (such as capitalizing the definite article al-, which should be lowercase except at the beginning of a sentence, several words such as “Zūtā”, which should be “Zuta” unless strict romanization is necessary, and dozens of other examples). Additionally, the article returned to non-neutral wording against Wikipedia’s policy, such as “Imam Al-Shafi’i” and “Imam Malik”. (What’s amazing is the introduction says he’s “known reverently as Imam Abu Hanifa”, while using this exact reverent title in the infobox next to it for others. Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be neutral? As for titles such as Shaykh al-Islam, these are already indicated to be reverent titles.)
I put a now-deleted citation needed template for some blatantly uncited information in the text (which was kept, yet cited information removed). Also deleted are several citations I put which improved the article, and fixes to other citations already in the article by getting rid of terrible spelling and grammar and adding the template. The infobox went back to using commas, despite infoboxes needing flatlist and plainlist templates for lists. You also removed two entire sections which gave good information: name and appearance, and the text is now rampant with grammatical errors again which I had sorted out.
There are many examples of such mistakes; the article is now worse, less consistent, and doesn’t conform to Wikipedia rules. If you have problems with the article, discuss them here before rolling-back to an old revision without a word of explanation or reasoning, and in the process wiping away hours of work and good changes to the article. The only thing I agree with is shortening the occupations. Yasinzayd (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AI generated pictures should be used in articles, unless they're articles about AI generated pictures. It's difficult or impossible to assess the accuracy of them, and what sources they draw upon, and it comes close to AI-assisted original research. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
