Talk:The ten to whom Paradise was promised

rename plz

Can someone plz rename this article from The ten to whom paradise was promised to the Ten Promised Paradise since it seems better— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.112.154 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources currently used in the article (e.g., Wensinck 1960–2007a, Kohlberg 2020) all use "the ten (Companions) to whom Paradise was promised", so this clearly is the WP:COMMONNAME in the most prominent and reliable sources. It's less fluent than "Ten promised Paradise", but much clearer, which is paramount for an article title. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes in the article

This article has so much misinformation. There is no single Hadith in any sunni book that says the name of Mauwiya or the prophet Mohammed. And the Hadith was said by the prophet before Mauwiya became even Muslim and what is the point to of the prophet saying his own name? All of the sunni scholars and people agree that the ten promised with paradise are the four caliphates, the people in the shura of Umar, Said ibn Zayd, and Abu Obaida Al-jarah. And All of the Hadiths contain only this names. And the reason Said ibn Zayd and Abu Obaida Al-jarah weren't in the Shura is because Umar didn't want one of his family to follow him and Abu Obaida Al-jarah died before Umar. 176.42.139.57 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources needed

Entire paragraphs written without citing any sources and making outrageous claims that go against basic notions about hadith and its transmission among other claims.

To me this is just another misleading article that portrays islam and islamic history and heritage in the wrong way. 2001:9E8:D7CB:7600:901D:CDA8:865D:3C43 (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the lead section summarizes the information provided in the rest of the article, and because everything in the rest of the article is thoroughly grounded in reliable sources of the highest quality (you might want to check out the some of the scholars, publications, and publishers used in the article, such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Johann Fück, H. A. R. Gibb, W. Montgomery Watt, G.H.A. Juynboll, Wilferd Madelung, Hossein Modarressi, Josef van Ess, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Cambridge University Press, etc. etc.), the well-sourced information summarized in the lead is wp:verifiable too.

Leaving out duplicate citations like this in the lead section is a very common practice in Good articles and Featured articles, despite the fact that the relevant section of Wikipedia's manual of style (MOS:LEADCITE) does not explicitly recommend it, and instead just barely allows it. I guess the idea is to avoid the clutter caused by the reference numbers, or perhaps just to look like other high-quality articles (since they are all doing it). It is however unfortunate that it creates the illusion of the information provided in the lead being unsourced, as your comment shows. It would be nice if someone would take a look at the sources used and add them to the lead section as appropriate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I just added the relevant sources to the lead section. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)