Draft talk:Twelve revivers of Caliphate

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

Requested move 9 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Draft:Twelve revivers of Caliphate be renamed and moved to Identification of the twelve caliphs.
This proposal is for a cross-namespace move from Draft to (Main/Article) namespace.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Twelve revivers of Caliphate → Identification of the twelve caliphs – I think it was a mistake by me. The 12 caliphs are considered Rashiduns more commonly than the Mujaddids although all of them by default is a Mujaddid "reviver" but it's not founded officially in Hadith or Quran or by big scholars. And there are lots of opinion pov of scholars on this topic but none identify them as Mujaddids Therealbey (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion above (Requested move 9 December 2024) that the article be changed to Identification of the twelve caliphs, would mean an article on the identification of twelve caliphs but none on the twelve caliphs themselves who are not mentioned anywhere else in wikipedia ASAICT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis P. Boog (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article has now been moved to draft, this RM (Requested move) should be closed, especially as it's technically still requesting a move to the mainspace. R Prazeres (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with article

Among the problems with this article are that

As far as I can tell, information about the "Twelve revivers of Caliphate" that this article is based on come from several hadith that prophesize about twelve rulers or caliphs plus a variety of websites talking about rashidun and mujaddid but not about the aforementioned hadith. There is a fairly in-depth discussion of the issue and what scholars have said about it, in a fatwa about the hadith found on IslamQA.info but the editor User talk:Therealbey has not included it. Is this enough to base a wikipedia article on?
The article describes the Twelve caliphs or rulers from the hadith as Rashiduns or Mujaddids, but there are no secondary sources identifying them as such.
There are no secondary sources identifying the Twelve revivers of Caliphate at all except for the IslamQA page which I think is useable but has been blackballed (the site that is) by some active editors.
The sources given for the statement in the article that "the famous four Rashidun Caliph are considered as the confirmed caliphs out those 12 Caliphs because of the hadith of prophet Muhammad where he foretold the prophetic caliphate will last for 30 years" here are three hadith that talk about the four Rashidun caliphs being part of the thirty years (or at least imply that) but nothing about them being "confirmed caliphs out those 12 Caliphs".
The statement in the lede: "Those twelve caliphs are sometimes referred to by scholars as "Rashidun" ("Rightly Guided") or as "Mujaddid".[3]" is sourced (here), not by any scholar mentioning the twelve caliphs but by a paragraph long general description/definition of a Mujaddid in Islam. -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the concerns above. I see nothing in this article that convinces me this isn't just WP:OR. Unless this can be rewritten with reliable secondary sources, it would be a candidate for deletion. R Prazeres (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir. Wait let me provide sources from scholars and those "Secondary". And it's true that there are some mistakes here done by me like page title. Like it's a page where it's describes the identification of the caliphs by sunnis, shia, and others. Like according to scholars and Hadiths who are they or who could be they. And I will edit the summary in which is the first portion of the page when the title is moved as I requested. And right now I am keep editing the sources. Wait until I complete. Therealbey (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it and little bit left like the pov of other sect who are minority's so not a big deal. Is it now ok? Just one thing left which is changing the title as I have been blocked from moving pages so I can't. Therealbey (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not used any reliable sources. This is really not acceptable considering that you have been warned many, many times to learn and respect Wikipedia's policy on sources. As an alternative to deletion, I recommend this article be draftified until it's rewritten with proper sources, if that's at all possible. (I'll look into that process myself when I have time, but if any experienced editors can do this more quickly please feel free to do so.) R Prazeres (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir check ✓ until you are satisfied Therealbey (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to move this article to the draft space, edit it there until it reaches an acceptable stage and then ask for a revision, rather than leaving what is clearly a "work in progress" in the namespace. Sira Aspera (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in progress but it needs some sources so I am not adding now as I don't have them. Till sir you can check is it ok till now other than title. Therealbey (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to draftspace. You're free to continue editing it here. R Prazeres (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for that ???! Therealbey (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We literally just explained all of this above. Don't re-ask the same question on my talk page ([1]) when there's clearly a dicussion here. For that matter, you claimed in that message that you don't plan to edit this article further; if so, then that's all the more reason for it to be moved out of the mainspace (at the least). R Prazeres (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I cited the sources? Then Therealbey (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealbey: why did you re-submit the draft for publication ([2]) after making zero improvements to address the problems discussed above? Do you understand anything that editors are telling you? R Prazeres (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After that I added when you said "sources are not reliable". The sources you can check again. And there is nothing for improvement cuz for the belief of Ziyadism and ibadis. I don't have the exact reliable source yet so I will not add anything right now. If i find something related to that (Reliable) then I will improve and with all the sources I provided which are reliable and notable I think there should be no problem re-submitting. And Kindy check the sources again I think you are not checking the sources thats why have issues. Sir check. Therealbey (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]