Talk:Hujr ibn Adi

Info Box

The new info box that Shiite keeps reverting is better, has more detailed information in it, and is saves a lot of unnecessary characters. And the current info box is not the official info box its a generic info box for anyone to use. If it was official ever personality article would be required to have it. But the info boxes vary from one article to another, thus its not official. The new info box is more customizable for specific historical individuals. It is 10 time better that the old info box. However, I would like to know others peoples thoughts on this issue before I revert it back to the new info box. Please leave a comment. Nanner-Nanner (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nanner, the new info box is a lot better than the old one that Shiite keeps reverting to. Zabranos (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reverting the info box back to the new one since Zabranos, Edward321, and I (3 against 1) think its better. Shiite please do not revert it the majority agreed that the new info box is better. Thanks Nanner-Nanner (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – I believe that we ought to use the 'generic' infobox that I used earlier as the current one has too much information (TMI) in it e.g.:

1. Opponents: Enemies of Allah, Islam, Prophet Muhammad, and the Ahl al-Bayt >>> do we really need to include this? (btw, I am congnizant of the Tabarra doctrine).
2. Influences: Allah, Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali, and the Ahl al-Bayt >>> I agree with this statement.. but I dont think it needs to be stated. His denomination as a Shiite suffices and is therefore self explanatory. Shiite (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

ITS THREE AGAINST YOU STOP REVERTING THE INFO BOX. THE MAJORITY LIKES THE NEW ONE BETTER. Nanner-Nanner (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Shiite if you don't think something doesn't belong in the info box you can remove it but don't change/revert the new info box format. Thanks. Zabranos (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, just because he opposed cursing of Ali RA, his denomination is considered Shia? Sunnis alike also prohibits cursing of Ali RA, why not keep his denomination open? And both links to support this point comes from Iran? Can we have Sunni view on this to be fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.18.194 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that because Mawiya coined the term "Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jammah", the theory is that Mawiya represents Sunni Islam and those on Ali's side would be considered Shia. Therefore, Hujr's alliegence to Ali would make him literally a Shiat Ali (Party of Ali). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.143.81 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hello everyone, I suggest that we use the Template:Infobox person for this article. This template had been used (by me) since May 2013. I believe the infobox and its contents conforms to WP:NPOV when compared to the one recommended by Nanner-Nanner. In addition, I think it contains Too Much Info (TMI) as I've stated in the preceding section. Shiite (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support – as Nominator. Shiite (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hujr ibn 'Adi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505062634/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/02/301464/syria-militants-desecrate-holy-site/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/02/301464/syria-militants-desecrate-holy-site/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Explanation: Removal of unsourced, challenged information

This discussion has been copied from Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Hujr_ibn_'Adi for your convenience and for the record. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hujr ibn 'Adi

• Hujr ibn 'Adi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit war with IP removing unsourced, "dubious" material and experienced users re-instating it without explanation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I also applied semi-protection for six hours... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Hm. Thank you, but I am not completely happy about this one-sided solution. The IP has removed unsourced material that was labelled as "dubious". Shouldn't it rather stay removed from the article until someone adds it back together with reliable sources? A report to WP:AIV had previously been put on hold by Hut 8.5: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=835803432&oldid=835803152&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ToBeFree - Yes, it should stay removed by default if someone expressed issues with the content and/or reference and there may be problems. I didn't see where the content being removed was labeled as "dubious" - can you show me the diff of what you're talking about? If my edit restored this content (well... duh, obviously it did) - please feel free to revert it to a revision that you feel resolves the possible concerns. The reversions are differently sized; which one should the article be restored to? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Ah, that relieves me. I have to admit that finding a "good" revision here is not easy. These two edits here, made by one IP just after the currently restored revision, deleted the unsourced content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hujr_ibn_%27Adi&type=revision&diff=835742623&oldid=805838367&diffmode=source -- that started the edit war, with users complaining about the "unexplained" removal of content. While I agree that a short explanation, and if it just had been "this is not true!", would have been helpful, it was probably not a requirement to be insisted on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ToBeFree - Got'cha. Yeah go ahead and modify that article - if it means undoing one of my edits, have at it. So long as the article doesn't have any serious violations that are live, that's what I'm most concerned about. Let me know on my talk page if you need anything else and I'll be happy to help. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha, clicking that button that feels wrong. That's kind, thank you very much. About serious violations, well, at least we're definitely not dealing with a BLP here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Who is this person?

The intro/summary section looks like a rough translation, and it doesn't actually explain who the guys is/what he does. I personally don't know, I just follow the page to monitor vandalism, but I assume a past editor knows. Could someone clean up the intro that knows the information? -Eamesheard

Character and life

The whole sentence is copied directly from the source. Can someone rework it, otherwise remove it? I tried but couldn't find the right words User8654 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8654 (talk • contribs)