Talk:Ghadir Khumm

Requested move 9 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ghadir Khumm. No such user (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Event of Ghadir Khumm → Sermon at Ghadir Khumm – The main reasons for this move request are for the sake of precision and consistency, as per the WP:CRITERIA guidelines. 'Event' is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a useful or precise descriptor. The event in question is a sermon following a congregational Friday prayer, as described in numerous sources, so I believe 'sermon' would be a more useful and appropriate descriptor. This would also be consistent with the titling of various other famous oratory episodes by religious and Islamic figures, including Jesus' famous "Sermon on the mount", as well as the "Sermon of Fadak", the "Sermon of Zaynab bint Ali in the court of Yazid" and the "Sermon of Ali ibn Husayn in Damascus". The best reason for keeping the existing 'Event of ...' format and descriptor, despite its vagueness, is the fact that it is the direct translation from Arabic. However, "event" has never been an essential part of the episode's common name. Many sources refer to it simply as "Ghadir Khumm". There is meanwhile plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for replacing a literal translation from the Arabic in Islamic primary sources into something a bit more encyclopedically useful on the platform. Take, for example, the article "Attack on Fatimah's house", which in the Arabic is literally "Rib fracture accident" - an extremely unhelpful title. The issue for Ghadir Khumm is not so extreme, but having "Event of ..." adds little to nothing to the title, while titling the page as Sermon at Ghadir Khumm would add considerably more precision. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The page talks about more than just the sermon; it also mentions the aftermath. From the article: "After the sermon, Muhammad set up a tent for Muslims to pledge their allegiance to Ali. Abu Bakr, Omar, Talhah, and Zubayr were among those of Muhammad's companions who congratulated Ali." (On a somewhat related note, it appears that this information had been deleted in edits today. It should likely be restored, as it is relevant to the article.) Regardless, the Muslims' pledges of allegiance to Ali would not fit under the smaller scope of just "sermon." The sermon was a part of the event, but not the entirety of it. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick addition: per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use "commonly recognizable names" for article titles. "Event of Ghadir Khumm" is the name that is used in a number of scholarly works about the topic. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe we should strip it back to just the name, as Ghadir Khumm frequently appears alone. Incidentally, Veccia, the most extensive tertiary source on the subject names it not the "event", but the "affair of Ghadir Khumm", so there is little agreement. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Ok, thanks for your input @Snowsky Mountain - my main response to your point about the aftermath section (in a prior edit) would be that many articles about something precise also include various forms or before and after information. In all of the other sermon examples I provided above, the articles also contain background sections, and various examples of subsequent analysis, controversy and subsequent effects. As a parallel, in biographical articles about a historic conqueror, you might similarly expect to see material both on parentage and their legacy and succession in the wake of their passing. My point is, a precise article title still provides broad scope for other content. My second point would be that you yourself, in responding in this way, seems to be defining Ghadir Khumm in terms of not one but two events ... i.e.: a sermon, and possible pledges of allegiance afterwards, i.e.: a series of events - I see this as just another way in which the current title is unhelpful in its vagueness. It is also the reason why I used the term "episode" in my explanation above, because that is at least a word that can more properly encompass a series of events. AND, the only thing universally agreed on by all Muslim sources is that there was a sermon. The pledges of allegiance that you mention are part of a distinct Shia narrative that is still mentioned briefly in the "Shia view" section, and you can see a little more on it in Veccia's article in the 1991 Encyclopedia of Islam that I will re-add when I get a moment. Finally, the use of "Event of..." is a format unique in its vagueness to articles about Islamic history. If you type "Event of" into the search bar in the top right corner, you will see five bolded suggestions - all of them about Islamic history, and presumably all based on literal Arabic translations. And if you go through them, you will also see that all bar "Event of Mubahala" have subsequently become redirects to more precise or concise alternatives. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the present title may be confusing to some readers at first glance, but it's worth keeping in mind that the recognizability criterion at WP:CRITERIA says The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. (emphasis added). I'm reluctant to support the proposed rename since "Sermon at Ghadir Khumm" seems to be so much less frequently used in RS than the current title, based on google scholar results. Event (or, more rarely, "occasion" or "episode") of Ghadir Khumm seems to be most common name. But I'm not opposed to renaming to simply Ghadir Khumm, since it's the common denominator of all the different terms used in RS, and it's not uncommon for RS to refer to it by that bare name. Colin M (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: Naming it just Ghadir Khumm also works, and obviously has the added benefit of being even more concise. Many of the sources do simply refer to it as Ghadir Khumm alone, as the place and its associated narrative are so synonymous. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Ghadir Khumm. This is an old name for the page and currently redirects here. It ticks all the boxes, being unambiguous so far as WP:AT is concerned (the only other possible meaning is Rabigh#Ghadir Al-Khumm which was a previous redirect destination but that page section seems to have been deleted) and it is also trivially more concise than the other suggested titles, so it can't possibly be any less common than they are. The name of this page already has a complex history as the page history of Ghadir Khumm shows. Hopefully this will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy-edits to the article

Hi Iskandar323! A few of the edits are listed below, among other minor edits. Feel free to modify or undo them as you see fit. Regarding the GA nomination, I feel somewhat ambivalent, looking at what happened to Hasan ibn Ali. That said, should you nominate the article for GA, I'll support it the best I can.

• Ahl al-Bayt --> ahl al-bayt (though there is also a very strong case for using "Ahl al-Bayt").
• Shi'ite ---> Shia (can be used both as a noun and an adjective).
• [Majd, 2005] was removed as it didn't seem reliable.
• In "Shia scholar Husain Mohammad Jafri," we can and perhaps should drop "Shia." He was a well-respected academic and his religion shouldn't be a factor when citing his works.
• "According to Iranian scholar" and "the Italian orientalist": It might be better to leave out the nationality (and religion) of academics.
• "Separate to explicitly Shia narratives,..." can perhaps be removed because it was discussed in the previous section.
• Some of the paragraphs are too short. In the interest of aesthetics, it's probably ok to merge some of these short paragraphs even though they are about slightly different things.
• Minor changes to the Hadith al-Thaqalayn to match the source (and added the Arabic word for clarity). Albertatiran (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, all seems fair. I agree the Majd source doesn't seem like the best - I just thought including more of the speech was useful context, but I'm not wedded to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd totally forgotten what a mess this article was back in January and how brutal a crackdown was needed on the mass of unreliable website citekill. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Nomination?

Hi Iskandar323, hope all is well. I did another round of edits on the article and it really feels like the article can clear the GA bar at this point. What do you think? One problem is that it's difficult to find a reviewer. Probably most folks are simply busy or unavailable. Albertatiran (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: I don't see why not. It's well sourced and everything that can be said has been said. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)