Talk:Ali al-Rida

Date of death

This article has several different values for the date of death. In the infobox, it says 17 Safar, or 6 June 818, but introduction puts the Gregorian date at 23 August 818. Later in the "Death" section, it says the precise date is unknown, and the "Reciting the sermon" section places his death on 30 Safar. So something is messed up here. —howcheng {chat} 17:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Researching this date for an unusual reason this year of 2019 AD 176B.E. I found the most widely accepted date by scholars is the last day of Saraf. That would make the 30 Saraf date the correct one. This is also when the Martyrdom is observed in Iran, so I would go with that date. Ekmsid (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Al-Dhahabi

Al-Dhahabi never held hatred against the ahlul bait, in fact his books are filled with praise for them! to claim that "Al-Dhahabi, known for his enmity towards the Ahl al-Bayt, could not help but acknowledge" is a blatant lie and cause for sectarian tension. also, the ref given is to a website that is no longer active and takes you to a page with viruses! It's contradictory that he hated ahlul bait when in the same section you say that he praised ahlul bait! I ask this part to be removed or changed because this simply isn't true! AmirsamanZare (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

AmirsamanZare Where is your proof? And when I mean proof, I mean what WP:RS support your view? Leo1pard (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Leo1pard Here are some statements from Al-Dhahabi about ahlul bait:

“The noble and complete Imam, the grandson of the Messenger of Allâh and his sweet scented plant (Rayhanah) from the world, his beloved one, Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein bin (the son of) Amir AlMu’minin (Prince of the Believers) Abu AlHassan Ali bin Abi Talib bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim ibn Abdu Manaf bin Qusai, the Quraishian and the Hashemite”.

“The honorable Imam Zain AlA’bidin, the Hashemite, the descendant of Ali, the Medinian”.

And finally “He is the honorable Imam Abu Ja’afar Muhammad bin Ali bin Al-Hussein bin Ali Al-Alawi, Al-Fatimi, AlMadani, the son of Zain Al-Abidin… He was one of those who combined between knowledge and work, honor and dignity, reliability and calmness. He was fit for the Caliphate, and he is one of the twelve Imams whom the Imamate Shiites glorify and believe that they are infallible and sinless and that they know all about the religion. Indeed none is infallible and sinless except the Angels and the Prophets. Everyone can be right or wrong, and his word can be accepted or rejected save that of the Prophet, verily he was infallible and assisted with divine revelation. Abu Ja’afar was famously known as AlBa’qir from the word “baqara al-ilm” to rip open knowledge i.e. to cut it, (this means) he knew its source of origin and its secrets, Abu Ja’afar was a hardworking Imam, a reciter of the Holy Qur’an, great…”.

As you clearly can see, Ad Dhahabi is calling members of ahlul bait Imams and leaders of the Muslims. If he had hated them he would not have called them imams or accepted their khelafah! There are more statements by Dhahabi about the family of the prophet but I feel like this should be sufficient. AmirsamanZare (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Al-Ridha's merits

"Al-Dhahabi, though critical of the Shi'ah, could not help but acknowledge al-Ridha's merits" makes it sound like sunnis consider Ridha shia, but that's not the case. according to the sunni tradition, all the twelve imams were part of ahlul sunnah wa jammah. I suggest that It changes to "Ad-Dhahabi mentions (name of the books where the qoute comes from) that ...." If Dhababi had thought that Imam Rida belonged to the twelver shia sect and preached that he was all-knowing, infallible and controlled the atoms of the universe he wouldn't have praised him.

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah (6/387) that: "Ali ibn Moosa al-Rida, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Moosa al-Jawaad, ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari, and al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-‘Askari. Concerning them, Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) said: They did not show a great deal of knowledge such that the ummah might benefit from them, nor did they have any authority by means of which they could help the ummah. Rather they were like any other Haashimis, they occupy a respected position, and they have sufficient knowledge of what which is needed by them and expected of people like them; it is a type is knowledge that is widely available to ordinary Muslims. But the type of knowledge that is exclusive to the scholars was not present in their case. Therefore seeks of knowledge did not receive from them what they received from the other three. Had they had that which was useful to seekers of knowledge, they would have sought it from them, as seekers of knowledge are well aware of where to go for knowledge."

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid says about the imams of the twelver shia: "As for the imams to whom they claim to belong, they are innocent of this lie and falsehood"

The quotes above shows that scholars of ahlul sunnah don't see the twelve imams as shia, rather as normal sunni scholars. Therefore I ask that the text be changed. AmirsamanZare (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Leo1pard May I change this article based on the statements above without you or someone else removing it?? AmirsamanZare (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

AmirsamanZare I changed that section. Leo1pard (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References

New edits

Most of the material from poor sources (websites and such) was replaced with similar content from better sources, which meant also rewriting much of the article. New information about succession and character were added, among other changes. Some of the changes are highlighted below:

• Replaced al-Ridha with al-Rida everywhere per MOS; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic#Consonants.
• The paragraph "On the eleventh of..." is sourced from a website.
• "Ali was born one month after the death..." is not in the source.
• "It is said that the boy al-Ridha required a great deal of milk..." does not seem to be encyclopedia-worthy content and it only appears in Donaldson's work (1933).
• Except for its opening sentence (which is unrelated to the title of the section), the rest of "Admonishment of his brother" is unreliably sourced.
• "His mother, Najmah, was also a distinguished and pious lady." is not in the source.
• "...especially Imam Musa al-Kadhim, who would..." is unreliably sourced. Same issue with the rest of the section 'Designation as Imam', save for three sentences.
• "The Shia of al-Ma'mun's era, like the Shia of today, who made a large population of al-Ma'mun's Iran, regarded the Imams as their leaders who must be obeyed in all aspects of life, spiritual and terrestrial, as they believed in them as the real caliphs of Muhammad" is considerably different from the source.
• "Thirdly, he intended it to fool other Shias..." is unsourced. The rest of the section 'Contemporary political situation' is unreliably sourced (except perhaps the last couple of sentences) and contains long quotes.
• "Disputes exist regarding the number of his offspring and their names..." and other information about family life are unreliable.
• "According to some accounts, Ma'mun's main objective.." doesn't come from a reliable source.
• The section 'Imam Reza shrine' is mostly sourced from websites and seems marginally related. There is also a separate Wiki article about it. Similar content were added from the work of Momen.
• "The Imam advised him to solve the problem by dismissing him from his position" is not in the source.
• "It is regarded as the most precious Islamic literature in the science of medicine," is not in the source.
• According to the Iranica article about al-Jawad (and other sources), he was the only child of al-Rida.
• "He was an Imam of knowledge according to the Zaydi (Fiver) Shia school." in the lead is apparently unsourced.
• "Al-Dhahabi praised al-Ridha's by saying "He (al-Ridha') is Imam..." was replaced with similar content from reliable sources in a new section called 'Character'.
• A new section about succession to al-Rida was added. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran. Your changes have introduced multiple no target errors, which I'm currently trying to correct. Separately you appear to have added many{{sfn}}s without page numbers, do you have the page details? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you supply the details of which work these refer to?

Rizvi 2006a

Rahim 2004

Kohlberg 2022

Mavani 2013

Skyes 2013

Rivzi 2006

Sharif al-Qurashi 1992

Unless there is a full cite for these {{sfn}}s to link to, the they are much worse than the web cites they replaced. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for catching that. Added the missing sources. The page numbers for encyclopedia articles are given under 'Sources'. The only source with missing page numbers seems to be Sharif al-Qurashi which is not a very reliable one and is only cited by previous editors for the quotes in the last section. I kept those for now since the quotes are uncontroversial and I couldn't find an alternative source. Albertatiran (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Rivzi 2006 a typo of Rizvi 2006? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A typo indeed. Fixed :) Albertatiran (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

date of death

June 6, 818 is the wrong date. It is equal to 27/11/202 AH. The correct date is September 5, 818 which corresponds to 29/2/203 AH. Aminabzz (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Tus didn't replace with Mashhad

Tus and Mashhad are two separate places. Tus still exists today. In fact, Mashhad was a village called Sanabad at that time; while Tus was a more important city. But now Mashhad is a great city while Tus is a village (just like Tehran and Ray). Ali al-Rida was killed in Tus; that's true. But al-Ma'mun ordered his body to be buried in his father's tomb (Harun al-Rashid) in Sanabad. Aminabzz (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

He was not shia. Shai believe came after muslim invasion in India. 213.40.108.62 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Imam Reza" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Imam Reza has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8 § Imam Reza until a consensus is reached. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits to Ali al-Rida

@~2025-37349-23: Looking at your edit history and talk page, many of your edits were questionable and ultimately reverted. So the WP:ONUS is on you to prove otherwise about your recent edits to Ali al-Rida. Once discussed and accepted on the talk page, you're welcome to implement those changes. Others have already put in plenty of "hard work" into this article. We should make sure that your edits improve those. Albertatiran (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify everything fully so that there is no misunderstanding. Recently, I reviewed the Persian and Arabic versions of this article and noticed that a significant amount of information about this figure, which exists in those sections, was completely absent from the English version. For this reason, I felt it was necessary to make this information accessible to English-speaking readers.

The English article was also missing several vital sections, including historical background, the title “al-Rida”, political views etc. which I created and expanded. As I am well aware of Wikipedia’s policies, I know that no information can be added without reliable sources, and therefore I provided credible references for all new content to ensure compliance.

Additionally, many older sections that had existed for years clearly required updating, and several parts that should have been sourced had no citations at all. I addressed these issues as well. I dedicated the past 48 hours to completing this work thoroughly and carefully.

Finally, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, meaning anyone can edit. This also means that if someone believes any part of any article contains an issue, they are welcome to step in and improve it—provided they do so with proper sourcing. I understand that your intentions are good, and I do not doubt them. I am very familiar with Wikipedia and its standards, and I know that disruptive editing should be avoided—something I have neither done nor would ever do.

I worked continuously to ensure that information present in the Persian and Arabic versions but missing from the English version was properly added, so that English-speaking readers can benefit from it as well, and thankfully, my work is done, meaning that the last edit I made was the final one.

Thank you for looking out for the article (: ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has stricter standards for including new material and changing existing material. It does not matter what content other Wikipedias have.

"Anyone can edit" doesn't mean anything is acceptable just because you say so. We work by building consensus here, not by expecting the community to accept massive wholesale changes of large swaths of text without question.

I suggest we go through this a section at a time. Some of your changes were fine, but others seemed non-neutral. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I explained in detail hours ago and no one cares, you ask for consensus when there is no one to discuss. Who should I wait for to discuss when there is no one? What if no one will talk here for months?! You and I should reach a consensus then, let's talk. I can't and I shouldn't wait for someone to reach a consensus when I don't know if that someone exists or not. We'll find a middle ground. What's the problem? tell me what parts of the edits are wrong point to point, we'll fix it. Let's just do it quick. ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

wp:rs in the context of articles about Islamic religious figures primarily means religiously neutral, academic secondary sources. News sources like the WSJ or Islamic sources which don’t conform to the basic framework of religious studies have a very narrow use case in articles like this. You can simply propose changes (in a reasonable format not like hundreds of changes at once) on the talk page and you will usually receive feedback. Arabic Wikipedia champions a grealy divergent concept of religious neutrality compared to English Wikipedia and largely doesn’t share the same academic outlook that’s favored over here and Persian Wikipedia has fewer but similar problems which largely come down to having very few active editors. But as it stands the sources you used mostly simply don’t befit this article. If you have access to a university library I would recommend you go there to find more encyclopedic sources. If you want to understand what sources should ideally look like here feel free to peruse the Encyclopedia of Islam or the Great Islamic Encyclopedia and look what sorts of citations they make use of. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You said that some of my edits were fine, then we should keep them. I agree that parts of the sub-articles are maybe a bit too long and perhaps over-informative, but other parts, especially the explanations at the beginning of the article which are universally accepted, should remain. What I did to that part of the info were just improving on the already-existed info, so at least that should remain. Look, I don't want to spend this much of time on it especially since you're taking a long time to respond to just one of my massages. As we both said, we should find a middle ground, well, here it is: remove the parts where you think are not well-sources or are not neutral, and let the good info, including in the beginning of my edit, remain.

We agreed that we should find a middle ground, and here it is. If you reject it then there is no reason for you to revert my edit and I'll be forced to bring it back. The fact that I'm here and talking with you clearly shows that I want to fix this in good faith. I'm doing my best to cooperate with you and I don't want to argue any further because I want this to be over quickly and I'm starting to get annoyed. So, since you were the one who reverted my edit, you should also be the one who has to fix it. If not, then just tell me which parts of my edit should be removed and I'll do it. Now I don't want you to reply to this message with another message. Either make the edit and let me know after it, or tell me what to remove so I can do it myself. We got a middle ground here. ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Do not misquote me. I said nothing of the sort, nor have I ever talked to you prior to my initial comment you just responded to. Please work on your reading comprehension! I simply tried to explain to you what sort of sources you should look towards to make productive edits here. On Wikipedia the article content follows the citations not the other way around and as you largely quoted religiously biased or non-academic material, I kindly suggested you look up the relevant articles in both of the encyclopedias I just mentioned and then use their literature as a jump off point for any further changes instead of The Wall Street Journal, other Wiki projects or random Islamic websites. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for confusing you with the previous user; my response was intended for them, not for you. I know how to read, I just confused you with the previous user, so I'm very very sorry. Well, this message is for all:

I will partially bring back my edit. I will remove the sections that I know may be non-neutral, and I will also remove the WSJ source. This revision will be MUCH smaller than the original edit. What I will keep is only the introductory section of the edit, as it is based entirely on the already-existing content and only improves on its grammar, clarity, and level of detail. I will also add better images. *ALL* other parts of my edit, including pretty much *ALL* sub-articles and sections that may raise neutrality concerns or are just too big and unnecessary, will be removed *ENTIRELY*. So if you look at the final version, you'll clearly see that the article body and the info volume remains the same.

With this, since the edit will be significantly smaller and no longer a massive change like the original one, it can be kept, as it is intended purely for improvement rather than for adding extensive new information. I posted these explanations here before carrying out the edit because based on the discussions we had here in the last 24 hours, I am going for a much smaller edit after finding out some parts are indeed not neutral or are just not needed. This way, we have reached a perfect middle ground, and there will be nothing non-neutral or any major changes. I have fully addressed the concerns that were raised here, and there is no longer any reason for a revert. I now consider this matter concluded. Thank you to everyone here who helped me identify and resolve the issues (: ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-37349-23 I think what was suggested above is reasonable, that is, please undo your edits and propose your changes here on a section-by-section basis. We'll go over them one by one and discuss them. It may sound slow, and it is indeed a slow process initially, but it's clear to me (and much more experienced editors than myself) that this is the right way to go. As it stands, I don't think we can "consider this matter concluded." Albertatiran (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You have not made any incremental changes as you suggested you would, you made a massive change followed by minor edits. I have un-done them, again.

Even just stylistically, problems were introduced:

• Infobox: changing Shia Islam to Islam without explanation
• Excessively long lead, violating WP:LEAD, and referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet", violating WP:NPOV
• Why was the first occurrence of Khorasan province unlinked?
• Start a new line after an image thumbnail. It makes the diff less confusing. By not starting a new line, the diff makes it appear as if you were deleting a large swath of text and then adding a new swath of text.
• Unexplained substitution of established sources with others like islamical.org (unreliable source, it's a wiki, we don't cite wikis) and mashreghnews.ir (a speech by Ayatollah Javadi Amoli - why would we consider his scholarly views more valid than others?)
• Addition of what seem to be non-scholarly sources copied from another wiki

...and so on. Let's start over. Incrementally. One section at a time. This matter is far from being concluded.

Re-introducing the images would be an uncontroversial first step to start with, making no other changes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Forget everything, I’m exhausted... I spent a huge amount of time on my original edit only for it to be reverted in a second, again and again and again. That’s absurd. What you’re suggesting—reaching consensus section by section—is not only impractical but extremely time-consuming, and I simply don’t have the time for that.

And because of that, the only edit I'll make is in the lead section, strictly based on the existing information, nothing more, I’m done with this. At the end of the day, the history of my original edit remains available, so if anyone finds it useful, they are free to use it.

My only request is that do not revert my final edit—it is purely an improvement of the current lead based entirely on the already-existing info. Even if you noticed a single issue in this edit, fix that specific part alone (since its a very small edit you can easily do it), and do not revert the entire edit. Please don’t revert it so I can finally move on with my life... ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I tried to go through your past edits and include some of the images you added, until I noticed that the images generally had no relationship to the section you put them in, like the first one of a delegation meeting al-Rida in 629 although that was after his death. So I gave up.

Sorry you don't have the patience for consensus-building. That's how things work here. That is part of the reason why the English Wikipedia is the biggest and most popular website on the planet; we are more careful about what we put in, and one person cannot simply force changes through without discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead desperately needs improvements

Hello, I hope you are well. I seek approval for my edits and to proceed only after doing so. The edit is not large in volume and is limited solely to the lead section of the article. Its purpose is simply to improve the article. I have only one request. Unfortunately, I do not have much time to spend on Wikipedia, as I am busy with other matters. Therefore, my only request is that you provide detailed responses and address each of the points listed below individually, so we can reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.

1. The article mentions that he is a descendant of the Prophet, but it never states that he is directly descended from Ali, Fatimah, and specifically Husayn, unlike many similar articles I have reviewed. This should be added.

2. There is no mention that he was a highly significant member of the Ahl al-Bayt.

3. The article states that he is part of Sunni Sufism, which means he is respected among Sunnis as well; This fact is not mentioned at all.

4. He is recognized as a model of asceticism (zuhd) in Sufism, and Shiʿi Sufi spiritual lineages trace their hierarchy through him. This is not mentioned.

5. There is no mention in the lead that he was issuing legal opinions (fatwas) in the Prophet’s Mosque at the age of 20, despite the importance of this matter.

6. There is no mention of his reputation beyond the Islamic world. It is a known historical fact that Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and even Buddhists came to debate with him. His extra-Islamic fame is completely absent.

7. The article makes no mention that two of the greatest Sunni scholars—Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani and Ibn al-Najjar—praised his knowledge extensively. Surprisingly, there is also no mention of his expertise in scientific fields, including medicine, theology, biology, physiology, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, poetry, literature, and jurisprudence, in which he was a distinguished authority.

8. There is virtually no explanation, even briefly, of his time in Medina—a period that included his father’s death, his succession, the beginning of his Imamate, changes in his lifestyle, and the growing fame that eventually drew al-Maʾmun’s attention.

9. There is no mention that his journey from Medina to Merv took 8 months.

10. Very strangely, there is no mention of what happened to him during this journey, despite these being some of the most important events of his life. These include holding debates, delivering sermons, and ultimately spreading Shiʿism along the route.

11. Again, quite astonishingly, there is no mention that upon his arrival in Merv, al-Maʾmun offered him the caliphate, which al-Rida refused. It is truly surprising and unfortunate that such facts are completely absent from the lead.

12. There is no mention that al-Fadl ibn Sahl was one of his close associates.

13. Very strangely, the cause of his death—poisoning—is not mentioned in the lead at all and appears only in the infobox.

14. The article states that Mashhad is a new city that emerged after his death next to his shrine, which is incorrect. Mashhad existed earlier alongside Tus as a town; it gained prominence because Tus declined overtime since the Imam’s shrine was located in that town. The city known today as Mashhad existed concurrently with Tus.

15. There is also no mention of the importance of the shrine itself, including the fact that it is the third-largest mosque complex in the world, one of the holiest sites in Shiʿi Islam, and that around 30 million Muslims visit it annually. The shrine holds immense significance in the Islamic world. Additionally, there is a hadith attributed to Muhammad regarding the importance of the Imam’s shrine, which, again surprisingly, is not mentioned at all.

That is all from my side. I must emphasize again that I want to end this as quickly as possible. Therefore, I ask for comprehensive responses, so we can reach an understanding promptly and implement these changes quickly—changes that the page is in dire need of. Thank you. ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-37349-23 This is a positive development. A couple of general remarks to help shape this discussion: 1) Lead is an executive summary of the article, which means that only notable statements from the article make it to the lead, and that every statement in the lead should be attributed, so that there should be a counterpart statement in the article with a reliable source. This remark has certain implications for our discussion, e.g., #10 above is not in the article and therefore cannot appear in the lead. One must first add that to the article (from reliable sources) and, if it's sufficiently notable (which I doubt), then it can be mentioned in the lead.

2) A reliable source in our context is usually a book published by an academic publisher (or one with a reputation for fact-checking, like Brill), e.g., does #9 appear in any reliable sources? If not, then it wouldn't go into the article. Where can one find reliable sources about this topic? Well, browsing references of this WP article might be a good place to start. You might also be interested in [1]. Albertatiran (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

If you check my edit, you'll clearly see that pretty much all of the edit has a counterpart statement in the article, and yes, with reliable sources. My request is that please explain more simply. Based on what you wrote, it seems that—aside from points 9 and 10—there are no issues with the other info. Should I go ahead and add the information with reliable sources, or what? again, I need comprehensive response so we can finish this as quickly as possible, please pay attention to that. ~2025-37349-23 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Our plan is to go over your edits one by one: You would present them here in concrete terms (e.g., change "A..." to "B..." or add "A...) and we'd discuss them one by one. We haven't yet started doing that and it'd probably take a month or two, at least (but things may speed up with more experience). But if you don't have time for it, then why bother at all. (Also, "e.g." is short for "exempli gratia" which means "for example". So no, I also have issues with the rest of your edits. Albertatiran (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

"Finish as quickly as possible" does not make sense on Wikipedia, because there are no deadlines here.

Also, you seem to misunderstand what the lead section is for. It is to provide a brief overview of the body text, nothing more. It should not add any new material that the body text doesn't already say. If you try to improve the lead without first improving the body, your efforts are likely to be reverted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

As Albertairan says: please propose one change at a time, and provide a reliable source for it each time. That will be by far the most productive way to go about it for all editors. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I am absolutely in support of you helping to make Wikipedia better and I greatly applaud your enthusiasm for writing about these Shiite figures, but if you want this experience to be a little less frustrating it would greatly help if you would work from scientific sources towards changes in the article and not the other way around. In this case, you should start with the body of the article as the lead is merely a concise—ie not overly detailed—summary thereof. Everyone here is doing this in their free time and no one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia, so be mindful of demanding anyone do something for you on here. If you want to greatly improve your experience on the site I would recommend you make an account, to seem a little more personable. If you’re in Iran it would be sensible to apply for membership in a research library like Markaz-e Daerat al Maaref-e Bozorg-e Eslami or Sazman-e Asnad o Ketabkhoone-ye Melli-ye Iran for example as they have tons of high quality secondary sources on exactly these figures. It’s always better to start small and find great scholarly material (especially if it is a little harder to come by) to improve sections of an article’s body. The cumulative difference tons of little changes in the body drive towards usually warrants a change in the lead but you should try to not work backwards: ie don’t think “the article should say this or that, especially in the lead” but rather research first (even if you think you already know the subject well) and the let the scholarly material steer your edits! Most of these articles about Islamic figures aren’t a very good summary of the scientific literature and they often rely on lower quality material. Lots of people come here to edit them merely in the hopes of seeing their own religious biases reflected on the ‘big stage’. I guarantee that if you start with lots of small high quality edits improving citations and making already existing parts of these articles reflect a broader range of the scientific literature a little better you wouldn’t have to feel frustrated or like your having to work against opposition when editing on here! Hope this helps and all the best Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)