Talk:Ali

IMAGE

There is no reliable historical evidence that this image is an authentic likeness of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and it should therefore be clearly identified as an artistic depiction rather than a portrait. Rizwan1208 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Done-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Image

I just wanted to raise a concern about the image currently being used in the infobox.

The caption now correctly describes it as a “conventional artistic depiction” by Abolfazl Mirzabeygi from 1980. My concern is that, even with that caption, the image looks like a realistic portrait and some readers may assume that this is what Ali ibn Abi Talib actually looked like.

Ali lived in the 7th century, while this artwork was made more than 1,300 years later. As far as I can find, there doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence connecting the facial features in this particular artwork to an actual contemporary description or portrait of Ali.

I have no issue with the artwork itself or with it being included as an example of later artistic representations of Ali. I'm just wondering whether it is appropriate as the main infobox image for a historical biography when his actual appearance cannot be established from the artwork.

Would it be possible to consider replacing it with a more neutral image, such as historical calligraphy, a manuscript, or another representation that doesn't imply that this is an authenticated likeness?

I'm raising this as a question about historical accuracy and presentation, not as a criticism of the artistic tradition. Rizwan1208 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a matter of Iranian Shia culture. Have you read Pedram Khosronejad's 2011 book on The Art and Material Culture of Iranian Shi'ism? I appreciate that some non-Shia find Shia beliefs/ideas offensive, but WP:NOTCENSORED says that removing stuff for that reason "is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopaedia."-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Rizwan1208 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

fixing citation needed + NPOV and vagueness wit"played a pivotal role"

the wiki page for Persecution of Muslims by Meccans - Wikipedia would be okay to embed in the line which in the intro says Ali and Muslims were severely persecuted by the people of mecca? (ive paraphrased) instead of a new citation? let me know. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ali-Muslim-caliph supports the claim nonetheless.

looking at the wording of the statement "Ali played a pivotal role in the early years of Islam when Muslims were severely persecuted in Mecca.[citation needed]" it might be worth having a discussion over whether this is in line with MoS, particularly NPOV and words or phrases which fall under an editorialised category instead of reporting verifiable events clearly to the reader . to play a pivotal role is a vague and slightly rhetorical phrase, shall we think of a better way to do this? It is important to mention how Ali actually did certain key things for the survival or safety of his family and community in briefer words than my following suggestions:

• During Muhammad's call to Islam in Mecca from 610 to 622, Ali supported the early Muslim community, particularly the poor, during their years of persecution.
• As a youth in Mecca, Ali defended Muhammad against local harassers during the period of persecution. In 622, Ali slept in Muhammad's bed to impersonate him and thwart an assassination plot, allowing Muhammad to escape Mecca.

these are some potential suggestions to show the role ali played, but i think the phrase is less helpful than showing verifiable facts over simply stating a pivotal role was played, because it does not give the reader the information in an encyclopedic way.

I note this is a summarising or introductory statement yet im sure there is a good way to manage the length and detail here appropriately.

please correct me or offer other suggestions if ive missed the mark on this.

Ne quid nemis (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Some rewording suggestions

My suggestion here as above, is one of only rewording language and not criticising the clear expertise and detailed information with which it has been written.

the following paragraph:

Unveiling Ali's inner world is highly important for religious groups such as Shia and Alawite; similarly, presenting his pure and unexaggerated story as the Rashidun Caliph is historically significant. However, this period is archaeologically poor and largely consists of oral traditions until the rise of the Abbasids.

Is insightful but just needs to be potentially changed for clarity and an academic, neutral tone:

While understanding Ali's spiritual legacy is central to Shia and Alawite theology, reconstructing a critical historical account of his reign as the fourth Rashidun Caliph remains a focus of modern historiography. However, this period lacks extensive contemporary archaeological evidence[3] and relies heavily on oral traditions that were compiled later during the Abbasid era.[4]

So please see what you think, (i am not good at the wikicode so forgive me for the missing links and so on) i know this is a very important topic and a page which has been given really brilliant time effort and knowledge to write, so i only want to make minor suggestions to change the tone and structure, not the facts as written.

Ne quid nemis (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Ne quid nemis (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Why do you want all this bolding? It is not how articles are written.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Length of the lead

MOS:LEADLENGTH says that the leads of most featured articles are about 250 to 400 words.

• In the version of 30 August 2026, the lead was 578 words long.
• In the version of 07:33, 3 September 2026 the lead was 1,140 words long.
• In the version of 15:34, 4 September 2026 the lead is 1,002 words long.

These word counts do not include the citations.

I believe that the lead is far too long, and that the 30 August version of the lead was better in that respect.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The initial lead urgently needed to be updated and expanded because it lacked some vital info, including new citations and other highly important material that was surprisingly absent. Therefore, I believe this update was necessary.

That said, as I mentioned before, I don’t deny that the lead is quite long. However, I made a strong effort to shorten it compared with the initial version while making sure it wouldn’t become too long or result in the loss of important info. The current version is what I arrived at after trying to strike that balance.

Of course, all users are free to improve it further by refining the existing info rather than removing it, so that the content itself is not lost.

Thank you. Er-gg1ab (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

How much of this new version was written with the aid of AI?-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I've worked mainly on the info that was already there, just improved and updated it to some extent with no use of AI. I don’t know what other users may have done with other sections. And even if some people did use AI, that alone wouldn’t justify removing the content simply because they might have used it. That would still count as removing content, unless it is replaced. Overall, I think the article is in good shape. Some sections could use more citations tho, which I may add myself later. Try to help me with that if possible. Er-gg1ab (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I tried my best in the last few days to shorten the lead as much as possible, and this is about as far as I can go. I can’t cut it down any further without removing vital content and info. It would be great if you remove that banner because some people might come along and start removing content from the lead, and we end up losing info. If not, then I guess that banner is going to stay. Er-gg1ab (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You are talking as though the lead were the article. It is not; it is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. At 845 words, it is too long. I appreciate that it is difficult trimming it down. There is a useful principle - delete stuff from the article's lead if it is not in the article's body. A second useful principle is that you do not need to go into so much detail in the article's lead if the fuller version is in the article's body.

It is wrong to delete maintenance templates without fixing the problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Look, I’d love for the lead to be shorter, but it just isn’t possible. The current lead is essentially a summary—it doesn’t go into detail; the details are covered in other sections of the article. You know yourself how much longer it used to be and I’ve already shortened it considerably. That’s why the issue is a bit more complicated than you might think. This is already the condensed version, without going into the details, so we can’t simply keep removing things from the lead because it’s already been summarized. I’ll try to see if I can shorten it even further. I’ll do my best, and hopefully we can resolve this minor issue soon. Please keep an eye on it and remove the banner once it reaches an acceptable level. Er-gg1ab (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1 It doesn’t need to have exactly the required number of words, even getting close should be enough. Please check it now. I think the lead is now in good enough shape for the banner to be removed. Er-gg1ab (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Well done. It is now down to 612 words, so I have removed the "too long" template.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I’m glad it has been resolved. Er-gg1ab (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)