Talk:List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala

Article name

The very title of this article is POV. How about "List of Husayn supporters killed at the Battle of Karbala"? Zora 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Three words: Martyrs of Cordoba --Striver 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think for something this long ago we can afford to let the name stand. DJ Clayworth 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless the title "List of casualties at the Battle of Karbala" is unhelpful, because the article only lists casualties in the rebel army, and not the casualties in the caliph's army. I have therefore moved the article to "List of rebel casualties at the Battle of Karbala". If anyone objects, please suggest an alternative neutral POV name. Wikipedia does not take sides in the conflict between the rebels and the caliph, so titles using words like "hero" or "martyr" are unhelpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I realised that "List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala" is more helpful than my previous idea, so moved it again.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ref

Khalid, can you find references? --Striver 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference removal...

This reference has been repeatedly removed by a user. There is however, nothing wrong with a foreign language reference if there is no reliable English source - and the single-sentence fox news reference provided doesn't convey all the information in the article, hence the Arabic reference is not "extraneous" as described by the reverted. Actually, I'm puzzled as to why the reverter is insisting on it's removal - that info has no other source, while thousands of facts in wikipedia in other articles have multiple references. Why is it that we can't use it.

The only other issue is what the reference is saying. I don't speak Arabic, but I have no reason to believe that the Arabic reference is falsely represented. To the best of my knowledge the reverter doesn't speak Arabic either, thus until proven otherwise, the veracity of the reference is not in dispute, let alone a reason to remove it.

Hope we can work this out. regards --Merbabu 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The date of this Battle is referenced using a reliable English reference. It seems quiet tenditious to repeatedly insert a foriegn language page which you admit you have no idea what the content is. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to WP:REF. There is written.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

--Seyyed(t-c) 04:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So - what are you saying about this? I've read this before. Yes, English references are preferable but it doesn't say you cannot have a non-English reference if there is no English reference. if there is an English reference, then no problem. WP:RSUE also supports this. Further, there is no actual quoting of the text, so no translation should be required in the article. Just because one doesn't understand a reference, doesn't mean that one should remove it. If one can't read it, how does one know it is incorrect? It's no different to removing an English language book reference simply because you don't have the book to verify. To do so is to assume bad faith. However, I do agree that this should be verified by an Arabic speaker.

thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Who should be listed

There is a disagreement about who should be listed in this article. As the article is entitled "list of casualties..." I would think that it would be useful if it really were a list of the casualties in the rebel army. This is on the principle of least surprise. The article on the Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar lists all the ships, not just the important ones.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on the List of Sahaba also contain names of all Sahabas not only important ones.SpidErxD (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I question whether this article should exist at all, based on the guidelines on Wikipedia not being a memorial. I do not think the Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar is a good comparison, that is a listing military warships of major powers - each listed item is inherently notable. The article is the equivalent of a list of people who died at the Alamo, or in the sinking of HMS Hood, or in the 9/11 attacks. Only those people who are notable should be listed. Edward321 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why not propose it for deletion at WP:AFD. I do not think that the article is necessary. But if it does exist, I think it should be what it says it is.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

4th Caliph

An editor keeps deleting that Hussain ibn Ali's father was fourth caliph. During Hussain's lifetime, his father being fourth caliph was relevant and important. Hussain had not wanted his brother Hassan to make the peace agreement with Muawiyah, because Hussain wanted to keep the caliphate within the family. Hassan, who was much wiser, told Hussain to shut up because Hussain did not understand these things. If Ali had never been caliph, it is unlikely that Hussain would have been foolish enough to rebel against the sixth caliph.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ali ibn Abu Talib

According to Sunni view Ali is fourth caliphate but in Shia view is first Imam. It is better write both views in the article or write a neutral point of view sentence and delete bias sentence.Saff V. (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There were no Shias during his lifetime.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of the battle was that Husayn ibn Ali wanted to be caliph like his father.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1:I think that you have a little information about Islam and specific Shia and Sunni. Also, Your idea about the purpose of Battle of Karbala is wrong. this sentence (Husayn ibn Ali, chief of the army, son of the fourth caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib, and grandson of Islamic prophet Muhammad) has POV issue. Mhhossein can you help in this discussion?Saff V. (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1 and Saff V.: Oh! It's clear. Based on the main article, Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), while Shias regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad, and consider him and his descendants the rightful successors to Muhammad, all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad. But we don't have to write such details here because the subject of the article is really some thing else. We'd better write "ALi Ibn Abitalib" without further explanations. By the way, why Husayn ibn Ali fought Yazid has nothing to do with this talk page and all the claims to be inserted in the articles need referencing to secondary reliable sources, as you know. Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:Tody1 added again Ali is fourth caliphate. What should I do?Saff V. (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Saff V.: He shows zero effort for reaching to consensus and did not pay attention to my explanation. I suggest you to ask him on his talk page for the first step to partcipate the discussion and explain why he insists on adding this phrase to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Given the points I explained above, I would be thankful to know why User:Edward321 reverted my edit? Thanks! Mhhossein (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1 and Edward321:Mhhossein said reason about the Shia and Sunni views about Ali. I copy the below text from Ali article in the Wikipedia. What is your idea about the below text?

Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), while Shias regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad, and consider him and his descendants the rightful successors to Muhammad, all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad. This disagreement split the Ummah (Muslim community) into the Sunni and Shi`i branches. Saff V. (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

People who did not die at the Battle of Karbala

If there were people who did not die at the Battle of Karbala, they should not be listed in an article that is a list of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New format

I want to change the list and make a new list. The new list has these titles:

1. Descendants of Banu Hashim
   1. Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib
      1. Sons of Ali ibn Abi Talib
         1. Sons of Hassan ibn Ali
         2. Sons of Husayn ibn Ali
         3. Sons of Abbas ibn Ali
   2. Sons of Ja'far ibn Abi Talib
   3. Sons of Aqeel ibn Abi Talib
      1. Sons of Muslim
2. Companions of Husayn ibn Ali
   1. Companions of Muhammad in Karbala
   2. Companions of Ali in Karbala
   3. Other companion

Sa.vakilian, Toddy1, and Mhhossein What's your idea? Saff V. (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it will leave the readers with a reasonable background of the battle participants. Good! Mhhossein (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you can make a table and add Companions of Muhammad or Ali in a column? You can add their tribe in another column. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your question - but it is taking me time to think through the various issues. This article has the potential to develop into something better, if alterations are handled in the right way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I will change the article format according to above titles. Toddy1 You can say your suggestion and I will add them. Saff V. (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You have deleted the numbering. Please restore the numbering.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

All the indentation makes it look awful. Please can we restore the non-indented version -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Toddy1: I solved the indentation problem.Saff V. (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Toddy1: Hey Toddy1, I respected to you and asked about your idea but you don't attention to my edits and restore all of them. It is better that say your idea in this page. Your faith is very bad.Saff V. (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein I am disagree with old format of the article and undo it again. Toddy1 restore all changes to old version without valid reason. Toddy1 talk about numbering and indentation but changed the titles and another section. I think that he/she does not want anyone to participate in the article.Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not revert all your edits. Though I think it would be better if someone did revert them all.

I have restored the numbering. It is clear from a diff that you replaced the numbering code <ol start="22"> with <ol start="25"> and <ol start="32">, so it is a reasonable inference that you intended the list to be numbered. You surely do not mean that part of the list be numbered and partly not-numbered?

If we compare the version by Edward321 at 13:44, 6 October 2015 it had 105 names. Your new version has 108. So you must have added three names. Making a diff of the two versions does not really help because you have made so many alterations that short of putting both lists into Excel it is very hard to compare them.

Perhaps it would be better if each name had citations. Perhaps it would also be better if there were a sortable wikitable at the bottom of the article, saying which source claims which names.

You changed the statement:

"These people were descendents of Abu Talib and members of Banu Hashim who died in the Battle of Karbala."

to:

"These people were descendents of Abu Talib and members of Banu Hashim who killed in the Battle of Karbala."

Do you understand the difference between "died" and "killed"?

• "Husayn killed" means that Husayn caused someone else to become dead.
• "Husayn died" means that Husayn became dead.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now fixed some of the problems. Please note that MOS:HEADINGS says: "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." I have moved the links from headings to text below the headings, since the links are useful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are the names in the section List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala#Companions of Husayn ibn Ali in the present order? I am not saying that the previous order made any sense either.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Use proper word !!!!!

Instead of writing " were killed " you can give some respect and say " were martyred " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.110.226 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Martyred" is not a neutral point of view word, "killed" is.Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Army or Companions

@Toddy1:In Britannica, The word army not used for Husayn ibn Ali. Husayn ibn Ali went to Karbala with his family and companion. In Oxford dictionary of Islam stated: "Husayn accepted the invitation and set out for Kufa with his family and small group of followers." In another source, there is "Imam Husayn did not give his word at the meeting and decided to leave Medina along with his family to proceed to Mecca" or this part of the source mentioned "Many friends and relatives urged Imam Husayn not to go to Kufa, but he insisted on going. Imam Husayn, along with family, friends, and companions began the journey toward Kufa (1,100 miles) in a long caravan in the blistering heat of summer." Therefore, you can not add the army after the name of Husayn ibn Ali.Saff V. (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Britannica was being cited for the date of the batttle, nothing more.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Therefore, why you added army word in the article? According to which source?Saff V. (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Describing the rebel force as Husayn ibn Ali's companions is not neutral POV. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your idea clear. I can not understand.Saff V. (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Words like "army" and "killed" are neutral point of view. Words like "martyred" are not neutral point of view. By describing events as Husayn and his "caravan" or his "companions" writers make it sound as though Husayn and his family were on their way to a pop concert or something, when they were cruelly murdered. Nothing of the kind happened. He was trying to overthrow the ruler of one of the largest empires of that time, so that he could become its ruler. He was on his way to Kufa, with what forces he could raise to wage war.

You seem to have a conflict of interest due to your strongly held religious beliefs.

If you are really interested in this article, why do you not do something about the rubbish citations, which only back up a proportion of what is claimed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: What is your idea about above talk and what is your idea about different of army or companions or caravans?Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1:I suggest you to have your interpretations on this war published in your own weblog and to write based on reliable sources. There's absolutely no point of view in using some thing other than "army". We must adhere to WP:RSs. Do the sources use "army"? Mhhossein (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Toddy1 added one references that is not reliable source in battle of Karbala field. Toddy1 must explain more about this source. Also, the writer of this book is not famous writer in this field.Saff V. (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked the source and I did not find it reliable. I think the author is not reliable for this subject and he seems to be a politician rather than a historian or religious scholar. Anyway, Toddy1 has to achieve consensus for inclusion per WP:ONUS and the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with him/her per WP:BURDEN. Mhhossein (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a solution. Since you are unwilling to accept a neutral POV lede. Why not delete the lede entirely.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the entire article should be deleted, based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Edward321 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is nominated for deletion Edward321!. @Toddy1: On the contrary, I'm seeking a neutral lead, but you are adding unreliable information to it. What's your suggestion. Mhhossein (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you. "Army" is neutral POV. You demanded a citation for the use a neutral POV word, so I gave you one. Actually using neutral POV words like "army" and "killed" instead of "companions"/"caravan" and "martyred" does not require a citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1: You shouldn't have reverted the edit because the source you have is used is deemed unreliable. As I said before per WP:BURDEN the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with you. Are you objecting the policies? Mhhossein (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1's edits are based on the Wikipidia policy on NPOV. Under what policy are you repeatedly reverting those edits? Edward321 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Saff V. and Toddy1 talk in Saff V.'s talk page

@Mhhossein: and @Toddy1: I moved this discussion to here. Mhhossein in the below text, there is Toddy1 suggestion about article.

I have tried to keep the article in a decent state since December 2011.[1] I have not tried to rewrite the article, merely to clean it up. I think subdivision of the article in 2011 was better than the one today (though it needed explaining). I put in the numbering, so that readers could see that the number of people allegedly killed was a lot more than the 72 mentioned by Tabari.

Toddy1 The current style has not many different with old version. Please say you reason for old version.Saff V. (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The big problem of the current list is category 1.2, which has a lot of names in no obvious order. The December 2011 version had lots of small categories, which helped people find information.

Current breakdown of the list

1.1 Descendants of Banu Hashim

1.1.1 Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib

1.1.1.1 Sons of Ali ibn Abi Talib

1.1.1.2 Sons of Hassan ibn Ali

1.1.1.3 Sons of Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib

1.1.1.4 Sons of Abbas ibn Ali

1.1.2 Descendants of Ja'far ibn Abi Talib

1.1.3 Sons of Aqeel ibn Abi Talib

1.2 Army of Husayn ibn Ali (these are not Banu Hashim)

December 2011 breakdown of the list

1 Descendants of Abu Talib

1.1 Descendants of Ali ibn Abu Talib

1.2 Descendants of Ali's brothers

2 Casualties from the Bani Asad clan

3 Casualties from the Banu Hamdan clan

4 Casualties from the Jahni

5 Ansari casualties

6 Bijli and Khas-ami

7 Kindi and Ghaffari

8 Kalbi

9 Azdi

10 Tai and Taymi

11 Abdi

12 Taghleebi

13 Jahani and Tameemi

14 Others

15 Miscellaneous deaths

16 Those who joined the Imam from the enemy army

One solution to the problem would be to reinstate categories for present section 1.2. Another solution would be to turn the whole list into a sortable Wikitable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

However, of late, I have had enough of the tendentious editing of POV-warriors who refuse to allow articles to have a neutral POV. So I commented, but did not say keep or delete.

If you were interested, you could make the list a lot better. The most obvious thing to do would be to say which sources list which people. If you look at the current citations, some of them are rubbish and do not support the information. The only really reliable source on the battle is Tabari. So why does the article not cite him for the names that he mentions? Another thing the article should be doing is saying how each man died, if mentioned in a reliable source like Tabari.

Toddy1 Can you add Tabari?Add Tabari believed that 72 person was killed in the battle. It is very good source.Saff V. (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You might also ask why does the article on Husayn ibn Ali not mention criticism of him. For example: he was a racist, he did not understand politics, and he split his community.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible format for sortable Wikitable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Name	Grouping	Tabari	Kitab al-Irshad	AK Ahmed	GA Mirza	Comments	Source
		mentions this person
Andrew ibn Bill	Sons of Bill ibn Charles	Y	N	N	Y	a half-brother of Dave ibn Bill. Beheaded by Earl ibn Fred
		N	N	N	N
		N	N	N	N
		N	N	N	N
		N	N	N	N
		N	N	N	N
		N	N	N	N
		N	N	N	N

Saff V. (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have started this work. Slightly revised format below. @Saff V.: Do you have objections? I think a policy of giving the name as shown in Tabari would make it easier to sort things out. The reason for an "if killed" column was that some male prisoners were not killed. If you agree, then I will go through Tabari, and then start on the other sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Do you think that it would be better to have the name of the mother next to the grouping? The name of the mother (where given) is illuminating; in some cases the mother is listed as "slave wife".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1 Thanks, I agree with below table but I think that it is better to add one column as References and put the Tabari and another sources information about why said Y or N. Y = Yes and N = No, is it correct?Saff V. (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand the part of your comment about it being better to write "Yes" instead of "Y" and "No" instead of "N".-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I am not clear what you meant by the add one column as References. The aim of this talk page discussion is to try to establish consensus. Please could you make a copy of the draft table, and change it to show what you mean.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: When you add N in bottom of Kitab al-Irshad and other books means Husaayn ibn Ali did not kill in Karbala. I said it is better put source for them. Is it clear?Saff V. (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Saff V.: When "N" is in the column for a book, it means that the source does not mention the person as killed, captured, whatever. I have not yet checked Kitab al-Irshad, or the books by Ahmed and Mirza. What I am trying to do is to find a good format for presenting the list of casualties that can be supported by the sources. Since different sources may have different lists of names, we need to have sortable Wikitable so that users can compare versions. There is a footnote in the "Fate" column giving the page number from sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK.Saff V. (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Would it be better to have the Y and N for which sources contain each name at the far right side?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No.	Name	If killed	Grouping	Tabari	Kitab al-Irshad	AK Ahmed	GA Mirza	Mother	Fate
				mentions this person
001	Al-Husayn ibn Ali	Killed	Son of Ali ibn Abi Talib	Y	N	N	N	Fatimah bint Muḥammad	Sinan ibn Anas al-Asbahi killed him. Khawali ibn Yazid beheaded him.
002	Al-'Abbas ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib	Killed	Son of Ali ibn Abi Talib	Y	N	N	N	Umm al-Banin bt Hizam ibn Khalid ibn Rabiah ibn al-Wahid	Zayd ibn Ruqad al-Janbi and Hakim ibn al-Tufayl al-Sinbisi killed him.

Removal of link to deleted article

The link to Non-Muslim view of Husayn ibn Ali should be removed from See also because the article has been deleted. LjL (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support change. Self-evidently a good change.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support change as per LjL. Edward321 (talk)

Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)