This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It all depends on the romanization system, specifically regarding the letter ة or tāʼ marbūṭa. Most schemes transliterate it as "h" or "t", depending on the grammatical context. "H" denotes a weak h sound, which is why less strict ways of romanization sometimes omit the letter altogether. If we were to follow WP:MOSAR, Khadijah would be the preferred spelling. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HyperGaruda. I have now standardised all of the spelling within the article to accord with the lead and your opinion, i.e. Kadijah - but this also raises the question as to whether the article needs to be moved to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid (currently a redirect page) to accord with this? I'd like to hear from others on this before proposing such a move. I have no expert knowledge but do think that the name needs to be the same throughout, one way or another. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low?
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.
Oppose - The Google Ngram shows absolutely nothing here, because it compares the amount of references to this specific Khadija with the amount of references to people named Khadija in general, and since there are a great many other notable Khadija's, of course the latter will vastly outperform the former. Rather, there is a general editorial question here: do we refer to the first and most famous person to carry a proper name with that proper name only, or not? WP:COMMONNAME offers no guidance here: it says that we should have Mahatma Gandhi rather than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, but it does not say whether we should have Gandhi rather than Mahatma Gandhi. Likewise, it is open to editorial judgment whether we should have Gautama Buddha or just Buddha. In both these cases, we have the longer name, but in many other cases we don't: we have Jesus rather than Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad rather than Muhammad ibn Abd Allah, Ali rather than Ali ibn Abi Talib, Aisha rather than A'isha bint Abi Bakr, etc. etc. So what to do? WP:CONCISE says that 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)[reply]
We all know how Ngrams work. As a matter of fact, searching for Muhammad would also take into consideration the results that are not necessarily about the Islamic prophet. The whole purpose of the search is to show that the spelling is common and the name has been used within established sources. And your statement that there are a great number of other Khadijas has no influence on what the name of this page should be. There are tons of people named Aisha, AliorFatimah, yet that hasn’t prevented us to have the pages about the most notable individuals with those names designated as the principal targets. The suggested title doesn’t violate any of the criteria set by WP:COMMONNAME and is in line with WP:CONCISE. It is my understanding that you are in support of having the pages titled by these individuals’ full names. Well, that hasn’t been discussed with the community and until the matter is settled by a general RM covering all these pages, the best approach would be to take WP:TITLECON into consideration and not leave this page as an exception. Personally I don’t think people will agree to have Jesus moved to Jesus of Nazareth (which is in complete contrast to the mononymous format used for other prophets, including Muhammed, Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc.) or Ali to Ali ibn Abi Talib. And I find comparing ancient historical figures to modern-day people such as Mahatma Gandhi pretty pointless. People from recent eras are referred to by their surnames (ex. Obama, DaVinci, Shakespeare, etc.) A figure such as Khadija who lived 1,000 years ago and didn’t have any surnames cannot be put into the same category as these people. Keivan.fTalk04:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ngram comparing the prevalence of "Khadija bint Khuwaylid" with simply "Khadija" is misleading and irrelevant, because comparing a longer with a shorter name will always show the shorter name to be vastly more prevalent, and because the great majority of hits for the shorter name will refer to someone else than we are envisioning. The rest of what I wrote is a personal preference for which I have explained my reasoning, and how I think it should be grounded in policy. I've considered for a while that maybe this should be decided by RfC and that we should follow WP:TITLECON in individual cases for the time being, but then I realized that whether to use a WP:SINGLENAME or not depends on very specific arguments pro and contra for each individual case. I will !vote in every specific case for what I believe to be the best solution, and I'm sure that other !voters will do the same. I sincerely hope that more !voters will come to this RM, and perhaps support your well-reasoned proposal. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It wasn’t necessarily my intention to say Khadija bint Khuwaylid is not common at all. But you got the point. I respect your opinion, and I wish more people join the discussion so that we can get a clear consensus that satisfies all the naming requirements and guidances. Let’s see what happens. Keivan.fTalk23:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
