This is not done in Mohammed's article because the seal there is the more recognizable image. For Ali, however, the seal is not altogether very significant and should be replaced with one of the other depictions of him already scattered throughout the article. OmegaAOLtalk? 00:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[]

@OmegaAOL Thanks for the suggestion, I added a portrait that is of the kind that is very commonly used in the Shia tradition.[1] I am in favor of keeping the calligraphic image together with the portrait, since it is high quality and it serves as an implicit reminder that the Sunni tradition almost never depicts him. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Great. I am of the opinion that this practice (seal and portrait) should be made the norm across articles of Islamic prophets if possible. OmegaAOLtalk? 03:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Prophets are deeply revered, and making tashbīh (anthropomorphic or visual depiction) of them is generally avoided Muneeb-ahmed48 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Shiaism mainly devloped after the tragedy of Karbla. After death of Ali r.a ~2026-18792-07 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I want to add list of battles in his biography like we have for Zubayr ibn al-Awwam Muneeb-ahmed48 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I would like to raise a concern regarding neutrality and wording in parts of the article.

While the article includes multiple perspectives, some sections (particularly those dealing with the period after the death of The Prophet and the early Rashidun Caliphate) appear to present specific interpretations in a way that may reflect one historiographical perspective more strongly than others.

Per Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, I believe these sections could be improved by: Using clearer attribution language (e.g., “According to Sunni sources…” / “According to Shia sources…”) Avoiding interpretive phrasing stated in Wikipedia’s voice Structuring content to explicitly distinguish between Sunni and Shia historiographical interpretations, especially on contested issues such as: Succession to Muhammad -Ali’s role during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, -Umar, and Uthman -Early political conflicts

I would also like to raise a concern about wording in the section discussing the caliphate of Uthman. The article currently states that Uthman was “widely accused of nepotism and corruption,” and presents Ali as having criticized his conduct. While such claims appear in some historical and modern academic sources, the current wording presents them in Wikipedia’s voice without clear attribution. Given the religious and historical sensitivity of these figures—especially in Sunni Islam, where Uthman is regarded as a righteous caliph—it would be more appropriate to: Attribute such claims explicitly (e.g., “Some early sources report that…” or “Some historians argue…”) Avoid presenting contested accusations as established fact Provide balance by reflecting that other traditions (particularly Sunni sources) either reject or contextualize these accusations differently Amr Els (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Extra note:

After analysis of the provided sources at the end of the article, it was shown that almost 48% of the provided sources were Shia leaning, which is a big portion compared to the 39% Neutral sources, and the 13% Sunni leaning sources.

This highlights the biased reporting on this article which is clearly dominated by Shia narrative and neutral texts that still favor Shia interpretations, while most of the Sunni sources are deemed as common interpretations between the two sects.

Again I repeat my proposal of a Neutral article that presents this sensitive topic using sources and claims of both sides that are clearly presented using clear attribution language as per the Neutral Point Of View Wikipedia policy (NPOV). Amr Els (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I completely agree and thank you for your analysis. Additionally, a historiography should have been included somewhere at the beginning, before the Shia-Sunni interpretations, reflecting a secular-scientific perspective. This is important for the biography of this and all similar religious and historical figures. NGC 628 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[]

NGC 628 has revised the following sentence:

• Abu Talib also raised his nephew Muhammad after his parents died. Later, when Abu Talib fell into poverty, Ali was taken in at the age of about five and raised by Muhammad and his wife Khadija.^[1]

to:

• According to the narration, after his parents died, Abu Talib raised his nephew Muhammad, and later became wealthy with Khadija, a rich woman, while Abu Talib fell into poverty. For this reason, Ali came under the protection of Muhammad and his wife Khadija when he was about five years old.^[1]

Version 1 makes sense. Version 2 is only understandable if you know the story. In terms of English grammar: Abu Talib (1) raised his nephew Muhammad, (2) later became wealthy with Khadija, and (3) simultaneously fell into poverty; it is also unclear whether it was Ali or Muhammad who was about five years old. I have reverted to the unrevised version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[]