text:
HMAS Arunta (FFH 151)

HMAS Arunta (FFH 151) is an Anzac-class frigate of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). The ship, named for the Arrernte people, was laid down in 1995 and commissioned in 1998. Since entering service, Arunta has performed a wide range of duties, including border protection patrols in northern Australian waters, and several deployments to the Persian Gulf.

Design and construction
The Anzac class originated from RAN plans to replace the six River-class destroyer escorts with a mid-capability patrol frigate. The Australian shipbuilding industry was thought to be incapable of warship design, so the RAN decided to take a proven foreign design and modify it. Around the same time, the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) was looking to replace four Leander-class frigates; a deterioration in New Zealand-United States relations, the need to improve alliances with nearby nations, and the commonalities between the RAN and RNZN ships' requirements led the two nations to begin collaborating on the acquisition in 1987. Tenders were requested by the Anzac Ship Project at the end of 1986, with 12 ship designs (including an airship) submitted. By August 1987, the tenders were narrowed down in October to Blohm + Voss's MEKO 200 design, the M class (later Karel Doorman class) offered by Royal Schelde, and a scaled-down Type 23 frigate proposed by Yarrow Shipbuilders. In 1989, the Australian government announced that Melbourne-based shipbuilder AMECON (which became Tenix Defence) would build the modified MEKO 200 design. The Australians ordered eight ships, while New Zealand ordered two, with an unexercised option for two more.

The Anzacs are based on Blohm + Voss' MEKO 200 PN (or Vasco da Gama class) frigates, modified to meet Australian and New Zealand specifications and maximise the use of locally built equipment. Each frigate has a 3,600 t full load displacement. The ships are 109 m long at the waterline, and 118 m long overall, with a beam of 14.8 m, and a full load draught of 4.35 m. A Combined Diesel or Gas (CODOG) propulsion machinery layout is used, with a single, 30172 hp General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbine and two 8,840 hp MTU 12V1163 TB83 diesel engines driving the ship's two controllable-pitch propellers. Maximum speed is 27 kn, and maximum range is over 6,000 nmi at 18 kn; about 50% greater than other MEKO 200 designs. The standard ship's company of an Anzac consists of 22 officers and 141 sailors.

As designed, the main armament for the frigate is a 5-inch 54 calibre Mark 45 gun, supplemented by an eight-cell Mark 41 vertical launch system (for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow or RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles), two 12.7 mm machine guns, and two Mark 32 triple torpedo tube sets (initially firing Mark 46 torpedoes, but later upgraded to use the MU90 Impact torpedo). They were also designed for but not with a close-in weapons system (two Mini Typhoons fitted when required from 2005 onwards), two quad-canister Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers (which were installed across the RAN vessels from 2005 onwards), and a second Mark 41 launcher (which has not been added). The Australian Anzacs use a Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawk helicopter; plans to replace them with Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprites were cancelled in 2008 due to ongoing problems.

Arunta was laid down at Williamstown, Victoria on 22 July 1995. The ship was assembled from six hull modules and six superstructure modules; the superstructure modules were fabricated in Whangarei, New Zealand, and hull modules were built at both Williamstown and Newcastle, New South Wales, with final integration at Williamstown. She was launched on 28 June 1996 by Dulce Morrow, wife of the first commanding officer of the first Arunta. The ship was commissioned on 12 December 1998. The spelling of the ship's name is not consistent with that used by the Arrernte people, who the previous ship was named after; correcting it was considered, but the RAN decided to use the same spelling as the previous ship. Had the New Zealand government exercised their option for two more frigates, Arunta was one of the ships that would have been designated for the RNZN.

Operational history
In 2000 "Arunta" conducted a North East Asian deployment including Exercise RIMPAC based in Hawaii. During a port visit to Suva, Fiji at the beginning of the deployment, crew members using fireworks from hotel balconies inadvertently set in motion the 2000 Fiji coup which went into full motion the following day after "Arunta" had sailed from port. During an interview from prison in 2015, George Speight who led the coup, was quoted as saying "Those dopey sailors nearly ruined everything. The only reason we didn't hit Uncle Frank that night was because he was drinking with them at the naval base. When the fireworks went off my crew thought it was the signal to move on parliament and the military leadership but they couldn't find anyone. From that point we just had to commit but be careful not to involve the Australian Navy." In September 2001, Arunta deployed to northern Australian waters in the wake of the Tampa affair. The ship participated in Operation Gaberdine and Operation Relex in two separate deployments. During the second deployment Arunta was involved in the interception and/or return of Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels (SIEV) 6, 7, and 9.

In 2002, Arunta saw active service for the first time when she participated as part of the third rotation of RAN ships to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Slipper. The ship was involved in the enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Iraq, and at the time operated closer to the Iraqi coast than any other ship of the International Coalition Against Terrorism force. The ship's boarding parties effected 377 boardings during her four months on station.

On 12 November 2007, Arunta deployed for her second tour of active service in the Persian Gulf, as part of Operation Catalyst. The ship's role was to contribute to the protection of Iraqi oil platforms, security boardings of all vessels proceeding to the platforms and training of the Iraqi Navy. The ship returned from this deployment on 11 May 2008.

On 19 December 2008, Arunta was dispatched from Fremantle to rescue injured yachtsman Yann Elies, who was participating in the Vendée Globe, a solo round-the-world yacht race. Elies was stranded 1480 km southwest of Perth, when his leg was broken in heavy seas.

Following an overhaul of the RAN battle honours system, completed in March 2010, Arunta was retroactively awarded the honour "Persian Gulf 2001–02".

In June 2014, modifications to Arunta as part of the Anti-Ship Missile Defence Project upgrade were completed. Arunta was the second ship of the class to be upgraded, with the installation of a CEAFAR Phased Array Radar and an upgraded SAAB Combat Management System, among other modifications, during an 18-month refit. The ship commenced post-refit sea trials at the end of June.

In July 2017 the Arunta was deployed in the Middle East for nine months as part of Operation Manitou. Arunta was the first vessel in the RAN to conduct an extended patrol in the region and the 64th Australian vessel deployed to the region since 1990. During November 2020 the ship took part in efforts to enforce sanctions against North Korea as part of Operation Argos.

In early 2021 Arunta's crew were transferred to HMAS Perth (FFH 157) in order to reactivate that frigate after it had been out of service for a lengthy period.

title: HMAS Arunta (FFH 151)


text:
HMAS Arunta (I30)

HMAS Arunta (I30/D5/D130) was a Tribal-class destroyer (1936) destroyer of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Named for the Arrernte Aboriginal peoples, the destroyer was laid down in 1939 and commissioned into the RAN in 1942.

Arunta fought during the second half of World War II; initially as a convoy escort and patrol ship, then in the shore bombardment and amphibious landing support roles while attached to the United States 7th Fleet. During the war, she was responsible for sinking Japanese submarine JSUB Ro-33 off Port Moresby on 24 August 1942, and earned five battle honours (one of which was later rescinded). After the war's end, Arunta underwent two deployments to Japan as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force.

The ship underwent a lengthy modernisation from 1949 to 1952, and was reclassified as an anti-submarine destroyer. After conversion, Arunta served in Korean waters after the Korean War armistice, and was one of the first Australian warships assigned to the Far East Strategic Reserve.

Arunta was paid off into operational reserve at the end of 1956, where she remained for twelve years. In 1968, the destroyer was sold for scrap, but was never broken up, instead sinking while under tow off Broken Bay on 13 February 1969.

Description
At launch, the destroyer was fitted with six 4.7 in guns in three twin turrets, two 4 in guns in a twin turret, six single 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns, a 2-pounder quadruple pom pom, a 4-tube 21 in torpedo launcher (with a payload of four torpedoes), and two depth charge throwers (with a magazine of 46 charges). Arunta's radar suite consisted of an SG1, an SG4, a 285P4, and a 253P.

In September 1945, all six Oerlikons were replaced with single 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns.

During a modernisation starting in 1949, the aft 4.7-inch gun turret and the depth charge throwers were removed, with the freed-up deck space used to install a Squid anti-submarine mortar. The quadruple pom pom was exchanged for two 40 mm Bofors in a twin mounting. The radar suite was upgraded, requiring that the tripod radar mast be replaced with a stronger lattice structure.

Construction and career
Arunta, named for the Arrernte Aborigines, was ordered by the Naval Board January 1939 and laid down by the Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Company Limited at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, Sydney in New South Wales on 15 November 1939. She was the first of three Australian Tribal class destroyers.

The destroyer was launched on 30 November 1940 by Lady Zara Gowrie, wife of the serving Governor-General, but became stuck halfway down the slipway, requiring the launching ceremony to be completed the next day. Completed at a cost of AU£500,000, Arunta was commissioned into the RAN on 30 March 1942, exactly a month before work on the ship was completed.

World War II
Arunta commenced her operational career on 17 May 1942, by conducting anti-submarine patrols off New South Wales. Those included a specific search based on sightings and attack by gunfire on the Russian vessel Wellen on 16 May in which Arunta, USS Perkins (DD-377) and HNLMS Tromp (1937) searched without success for the submarine. On 18 May, in company with Tromp, Arunta escorted convoy "ZK.8" out of Sydney composed of the Dutch ships MS Bantam (1939), SS Bontekoe (1922), SS Van Heemskerk (1909) and MS Van Heutsz (1926) bound for Port Moresby with 4,735 troops of the Australian 14th Brigade.

A month later, the destroyer was assigned to convoy escort duties along the Australian coast, and again began escorting convoys to New Guinea in early August. In this role she first saw action when she attacked and sank the Japanese Kaichū type submarine JSUB Ro-33 off Port Moresby on 24 August 1942, killing all 42 men aboard.

On 4 September 1942 Arunta departed Port Moresby to join the cargo ship MV Anshun (1930) and the Dutch steamer SS 's Jacob (1907) escorted by and HMAS Swan (U74) that had departed from Townsville as convoy "Q2" bound for Milne Bay with supplies for the garrison there. Anshun and Arunta entered the bay on the morning of 6 September where the freighter berthed at the pontoon jetty at Gili Gili to begin unloading with intentions to put to sea for safety during the night but orders were given by local authorities to continue unloading under her cargo lights through the night while Arunta departed to join  's Jacob and Swan holding at sea to the south. Anshun was sunk that night when she came under fire from the Japanese cruiser Tenryū and destroyer Arashi during the battle of Milne Bay.

In January 1943, Arunta took part in the evacuation of Allied guerrillas from Timor before returning to convoy escort duty. The destroyer was relieved from convoy duty in May 1943, and underwent a brief refit before joining Task Force 74 (TF74).

Arunta participated in the Operation Chronicle landings, then detached from TF74 in July and returned to Australian waters for patrol and convoy escort duties and a refit, before rejoining the task force at Brisbane on 29 October 1943. By 5 November the task force, composed of HMAS Australia (D84), HMAS Shropshire, USS Ralph Talbot (DD-390), HMAS Warramunga (I44), Arunta and USS Helm (DD-388), was in Milne Bay.

In late November, Arunta fired on Japanese ammunition dumps in New Guinea, before providing support for troop landings at Arawe, Cape Gloucester, and Saidor during December 1943 and January 1944. In March, the destroyer transported the United States 7th Cavalry to the Admiralty Islands, before supporting their landing at Hayne Harbour. From April to September, Arunta provided bombardment support for troop landings at Hollandia, Wakde (where she captured a Japanese soldier), Biak, Noemfoor, Cape Sansapor, and Morotai. On 13 October, Arunta formed part of the Allied fleet bound for Leyte Gulf in the Philippines, and was part of the Allied ambush of a Japanese fleet on 25 October; the Battle of Surigao Strait. During January 1945, Arunta supported the landings at Lingayen Gulf; during the approach a near-miss by a Japanese kamikaze aircraft killed two sailors. Between 13 and 15 February Arunta and her sister ship HMAS Warramunga (I44) sortied from Lingayen Gulf to a point about 300 mi west of Manila in preparation to rescue the crews of any United States aircraft which were downed while attacking two Japanese battleships and their escorts which were returning to Japan from Singapore, but this proved uneventful as the planned attacks were frustrated by bad weather.

Following a refit from March to April, Arunta supported the Australian 6th Division on 10–11 May during their landing at Wewak, then provided shore bombardment to aid the 9th Division's landing at Brunei Bay on 10 June. Later in June, she shelled positions in Luton and Balikpapan, the latter as a precursor to the Allied landing on 1 July. Arunta then returned to Sydney for a refit at Cockatoo Island, and was docked when World War II ended.

For her wartime service, Arunta earned the battle honours "Pacific 1942–45", "New Guinea 1942–44", "Leyte Gulf 1944", "Lingayen Gulf 1945", and "Borneo 1945". The ship also carried the honour "Guadalcanal 1942", but it was later determined that she did not qualify. It was later found that the destroyer did not qualify for the Guadalcanal honour, and that her service in the Pacific Theatre started in 1942, requiring the modification of these honours. Arunta operated with task forces of the United States 7th Fleet for most of her wartime career: according to Cassells, the destroyer was one of the most well-known RAN ships among United States forces.

Post-war
Following her refit, which concluded in October 1945, Arunta was sent to Japan to serve with the British Pacific Fleet (BPF) as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. She remained in Japanese waters until March 1946, and returned in mid-December after a cruise through Papua New Guinea and the Philippines for a second deployment with the BPF, which lasted until early April 1947. In June 1948, Arunta visited several Melanesian islands. At the end of 1949, the destroyer prepared for a modernisation refit, which started in 1950. The refit involved upgrading or replacing several of the destroyer's weapons and sensor systems. Although the modernisation was intended to take less than six months, it took two years, by which time their modifications had already become obsolete.

On 11 November 1952, Arunta was reclassified as an anti-submarine destroyer, and re-entered service. She spent all of 1953 in Australian waters, and in January 1954 sailed to Korea to support the United Nations enforcement of the June 1953 armistice which ended the Korean War. Arunta returned to Australia in August, and remained there until May 1955, when she joined a flotilla of RAN and Royal New Zealand Navy vessels sailing to Malaya for exercises with the BPF. Instead of returning home in late June, Arunta and Warramunga were refitted at Singapore before becoming the first Australian ships to serve with the Far East Strategic Reserve, which they operated with until December. Arunta was deployed to northern Australia for a cruise during March and April 1956, and visited Norfolk Island and the Pitcairn Islands in June, before arriving in Sydney on 14 June for preparations to be decommissioned.

Decommissioning and fate
After being prepared for placement in operational reserve, Arunta paid off to reserve on 21 December 1956. During her career, she had sailed 357273 nmi. The destroyer was maintained until 1 November 1968, when she was sold to the China Steel Corporation of Taipei for breaking up as scrap metal.

Arunta was taken under tow by the Japanese tug Tokyo Maru on 12 February 1969. On 13 February, the ship began to take on water; although there were attempts to stop the flooding, it was decided that recovery would be impossible, and Arunta was allowed to capsize and sink off Broken Bay.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: HMAS Arunta (I30)


text:
Ashbrook (crater)

Ashbrook is a large lunar impact crater that is located in the vicinity of the south pole on the far side of the Moon, and so cannot be viewed directly from the Earth. The eastern face of the crater has been overlain by the similar-sized Drygalski, and more than half the interior floor of Ashbrook is covered by the outer ramparts and ejecta of Drygalski. To the northwest is the walled plain Zeeman.

The surviving outer rim of Ashbrook is worn and eroded by subsequent impacts, although much of the original formation is still visible. If the crater once possessed a central peak, it is now buried by the ejecta from Drygalski. Only a section of the interior floor near the southwest rim is flat, being marked only by tiny craterlets.

This crater was previously designated Drygalski Q before being assigned a name by the IAU.

title: Ashbrook (crater)


text:
Rebekah Colberg

Dr. Rebekah Colberg Cabrera (December 25, 1918 – July 8, 1985), was a Puerto Rican athlete, who was known as "The Mother of Women's Sports in Puerto Rico". Colberg participated in various athletic competitions in the 1938 Central American and Caribbean Games celebrated in Panama where she won the gold medals in Discus and Javelin throw.

Early years
Rebekah Colberg Cabrera was born on December 25, 1918, in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico to Vicente Lupercio Colberg Pabón, a pharmacy technician, and María Providencia Cabrera Ramírez de Arellano, a housewife. Her great-great-grandmother was the sister of the early-19th century Puerto Rican pirate Roberto Cofresí Ramírez de Arellano. Colberg was born two months premature when her mother was just seven months pregnant. Colberg, whose birth weight was only four pounds during birth, would later break sports barriers for Puerto Rican women. Even though there used to be a lot of discrimination in sports against women, Colberg was to prove that women did have the potential to be great athletes, if given the chance.

Colberg graduated from the University of Puerto Rico with a bachelor's degree in science and pharmacy. She received her Masters in physical education from Columbia University in New York and her Doctorate in medicine from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).

Sports accomplishments
From 1932 to 1946, for fourteen consecutive years, Colberg was Puerto Rico's tennis champion. In 1938, she won two gold medals at the IV Central American and Caribbean Games, celebrated in Panama, in the discus and javelin throw events. In 1946, when the games were celebrated in Barranquilla, Colombia, she won a gold medal in softball. While studying for her master's degree at Columbia University, she was in the university's field hockey and lacrosse championship teams. She was also a member of the undefeated women's basketball team of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Later years
In 1952, Colberg was inducted into the Puerto Rican Athletic Hall of Fame and the Puerto Rican Tennis Hall of Fame. She is considered by many as the greatest woman athlete to have been born in Puerto Rico. Her cousin, the late Severo Colberg Ramirez, was the Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives (Cámara de Representantes) from 1982 to 1985. Colberg died on July 8, 1985, in her native town and is buried in the Old San Juan Cemetery, Cementerio Santa Maria Magdalena de Pazzis.

Honors
The City of Cabo Rojo honored Colberg's memory by naming a Coliseum after her (which became, in 1989, the home of what was Cabo Rojo's BSN team), and in Rio Piedras there is also a Rebekah Colberg Multi-sports Gym.

On May 29, 2014, The Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico honored 12 illustrious women with plaques in the "La Plaza en Honor a la Mujer Puertorriqueña" (Plaza in Honor of Puerto Rican Women) in San Juan. According to the plaques the following 12 women, who by virtue of their merits and legacies, stand out in the history of Puerto Rico. Colberg was among those who were honored.

title: Rebekah Colberg


text:
Aston (crater)

Aston is a lunar impact crater that is located along the northwest limb of the Moon. It is named after scientist Francis William Aston who invented the mass spectrometer and used it to discover many of the stable isotopes. Aston was a keen amateur astronomer with a particular interest in solar eclipses.

Because of its location the crater is seen nearly from on edge, and visibility is subject to libration. It lies to the east of the crater Röntgen, some distance due west of Ulugh Beigh on the edge of the Oceanus Procellarum. To the south is the crater Voskresenskiy.

The rim of Aston has been worn down and rounded due to subsequent impacts. It forms a circular shape that has not been significantly altered by nearby impacts. The interior floor is relatively flat and featureless, with no central peak of significance.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Aston.

title: Aston (crater)


text:
Atwood (crater)

Atwood is a small earth moon impact crater that is located on the Mare Fecunditatis, to the northwest of the prominent crater Langrenus. It forms a triple-crater formation with Naonobu attached to the north rim and Bilharz near the west rim.

Atwood lies near the edge of the outer ramparts of Langrenus, and the ejecta forms low ridges attached to the south rim of Atwood. Within the crater interior is a low central peak that joins a ridge line to the north rim of the crater.

Atwood was formerly designated Langrenus K, before being renamed by the IAU in 1976.

title: Atwood (crater)


text: File:Stamp BAT 1963 0.5p.jpg

title: File:Stamp BAT 1963 0.5p.jpg


text:
Auwers (crater)

Auwers is a small lunar impact crater located in the Montes Haemus mountain range at the south edge of Mare Serenitatis. It is named after German astronomer Arthur Auwers. It lies southeast of the crater Menelaus. The irregular rim of Auwers has a gap at the north-northwest edge, which allowed lava flows to reach the crater floor and flood the interior.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Auwers.

title: Auwers (crater)


text:
Talk:Battle of Karbala

August 2022
@Apaugasma: I knew that was skipped quotation. But I didn't check it from the source. In case of previous skipped quotation, I took for so on (...): 'Come to us, for we have no imam...' was better than 'Come to us, for we have no imam.' ...

Because ... represents the skipped quotation of people by Husayn (as in former case) not of Husayn (as shown in latter case which was there before I edited). By the way, can we've a content named "Husayn and Christ" (p.125) on the article of Husayn ibn Ali. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, to do this right it would need to be 'Come to us, for we have no imām [...]' [...] Therefore, if you give me what you guaranteed (given that "Since this was your view, I have come to you" was also skipped), but since that looks awful I decided to just include the whole thing. Anyway, please never edit quotes without looking at the source. Quotes are very different from normal wiki-text: they needed to be preserved absolutely literally.
 * As for the source you linked (and added to the article here), it's published by Lulu.com, which provides no editorial oversight and thus as a publisher fails WP:RS. This kind of source is what we call self-published, which is always questionable but may be used when it can be established that the author is a recognized expert in their field (having published with reliable publishers, being widely cited by other scholars in reliable sources, etc.). I highly doubt, however, that this is the case for S. Manzoor Rizvi: Google Scholar only turns up the self-published book, whose title Unique Sacrifice of Imam Hussain for Humanity, by the way, is not proper English. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 06:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read: Ali and Mu'awiya in Early Arabic Tradition: Studies on the Genesis and Growth of Islamic Historical Writing until the End of the Ninth Century by Erling L. Petersen (1964). He wrote (page 19) that Tabari's histories were published in Western languages between 1879 and 1901, and their publication changed scholastic perceptions.  They revealed that "the legendary 'Ali figure, which the Arab - and particularly the Shi'i - tradition operated  with, has nothing in common with the 'Ali of real life.  Neither he nor his descendants were distinguished by such political sagacity as would qualify them to occupy that headship in Islam to which the Shi'a considered them entitled." The authors of non-scholastic self-published books are probably not aware of this.  It is only meaningful to quote people like Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens if you explain why scholars no longer think as they did. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If a person has a particular opinion, it must be explained why others don't think like him? I haven't seen anything similar on the wiki. And who said that the reason for the difference in the opinion of these two person is that they don't read that book? M.Nadian (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. What Toddy1 means is simply that when historical figures (19th-century) have an opinion that significantly differs from the opinion of 21st century scholars, and when this difference in opinion is due to the advancement of knowledge and scholarship, the historical opinion should not be presented as authoritative. This is a basic WP:DUE question. The fact that the historical figures are wrong in such cases is not due to a lack of diligence or intelligence on their part, but simply that they can't be expected to have read the scholarly books written a century after their death, like Charles Dickens (1812–1870) couldn't possibly have read Petersen 1963. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Dickens and Carlyle were not historians of early Islam. Their opinion on early Islam has little weight as compared to that of professionals in the field. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't check whether the source was self published or not. What about the quotations here with mentioned book citations for content Historical Analysis. If anyone have access to the books mentioned there? Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't we already answered that. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * it's disappointing to see you suggest this after what's been written above. On Wikipedia, we summarize what modern expert scholars write about a subject, nothing less and nothing more. A compilation of praise for a subject by historical figures produced by Unknown/al-Islam.org is very far from that.
 * Here's an easy rule for you: if it's not a monograph published by an academic press, an article in an academic journal or an edited volume, or an entry in a scholarly encyclopedia, it's very probably not appropriate to cite in our historical articles on Islam. The kind of source we need for this type of article is also summarized at WP:TIER1. I hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. But I was not talking about adding the quotations by citing unreliable site (al-Islam.org). I was talking about the books mentioned there, if there is an access to them so that they can be checked for citation. IAmAtHome (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, but just imagine if someone would come up with a website compiling negative quotes about al-Husayn, full of criticism and derision, and asked whether maybe we could find the books cited there and use them in our article. That's just not how we work here. We don't start from a certain point of view (either positive or negative) and then go look for reliable sources to back that point of view up, we start from reliable sources and then faithfully represent whatever point of view we find there. Please go read a scholarly book or paper about the Battle of Karbala. For example, this one, which I randomly picked from Google Scholar (making sure the name of the publisher had 'University Press' in it though; there's also a lot of junk on Google Scholar). If that's not something you feel like doing, then this is just not the right website for you. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I already knew the book you mentioned. I have only read some starting pages of it before. I'm quite busy in these days. But I'll check it when I'll be free. IAmAtHome (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IAmAtHome: Consider that the content should be given due weight according to the reliable sources. --  M h hossein   talk 05:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Abbas Al-Musavi painting
The infobox currently has an image which is not intended to be a realistic depiction of the battle. It's from the late 19th and early 20th century as well, so it doesn't reflect contemporary perceptions of the battle. I'm all for including much later works of art depicting historical events, but only if they're supposed to illustrate it's legacy, perception, symbolism, etc. Otherwise, it is simply WP:UNDUE.

MOS:PERTINENCE says that should primarily be informative, not decorative. "Any image is better than no image" is not a thing.

Why should the Abbas Al-Musavi painting be included at all in the article? Which part of the article is it supposed to illustrate? Peter Isotalo 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It illustrates the legacy of the Battle of Karbala, which through the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali is one of the central events in the Shi'ite collective memory, and perhaps the single most important object of Shi'ite religious devotion (comparable to the crucifixion in Christianity). The painting also depicts other figures who play an important role in the religious narratives surrounding this battle. To quote from its entry on the Brooklyn Museum's website:I'm going to be generous and assume that if you would have read that link when I first gave it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This painting is all about illustrating the Battle of Karbala's legacy, perception, symbolism, etc. in Shi'ite Islam.Just in case you're not convinced though, I feel I need to point out that your argument here is more or less like arguing that File:Crucifixion Strasbourg Unterlinden Inv88RP536.jpg does not belong in the Crucifixion article, or that File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg does not belong in the Jesus article, because these images are non-contemporary imaginings that are not intended to be realistic depictions (the first image features 15th-century clothing; the second image has Jesus holding a Gospel book, while the Gospels were written decades after he died). It's frankly ridiculous to argue that images should be realistic and reflect contemporary perceptions to be pertinent and illustrative: in pre-modern historical contexts, most images actually used in high-quality reference works are neither realistic nor contemporary.Of course 19th/20th century is not ideal here and a somewhat older image would better illustrate the subject's legacy, but traditional Islamic iconoclasm means that for Islamic subjects good images are much harder to find. I assure you though that academic monographs about Islamic historical subjects often do feature images on their cover, much like the one we are now discussing often not quite as old or famous as images used for books on non-Islamic subjects, but still illustrative of the subject and of its legacy. A better lead image for this article could and should be found (it's extremely likely that Safavid-era depictions do exist, though probably not available on the internet), at which point the current one should be moved to Battle of Karbala (where it absolutely does belong!), but as long as we do not have an earlier depiction the current one should suffice. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A battle infobox is about an actual historical event with agreed-upon facts. It is not intended for statements relating to legacy or theological details. You can't compare this with Jesus any more than you can compare it with Muhammad or Buddha. Those are all theological figures whose later depictions (or lack thereof) have an importance that completely overshadow them as strictly historical persons.
 * What external sources say about images in a Wikipedia article is not something you can fall back on. Like it says in MOS:PERTINENCE: images are supposed to be illustrative of article content. And there's nothing in the article currently that explains how this particular painting is actually important to the article topic. The painting also doesn't illustrate a historical event but the perceived legacy of the battle and is focused on martyrdom. I see no problem with including the image in the article if this is clearly stated in article prose. But including it in the infobox is not appropriate and WP:UNDUE.

 * And again, "any image is better than no image" is not a thing. There are tons of historical events that simply can't be depicted directly for all kinds of reasons. If you can't abide an imageless infobox, just use a location map. Peter Isotalo 01:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The crucifixion of Jesus also was a historical event. Like is the case with later religious narratives about the crucifixion, later Shi'ite religious conceptions of Husayn ibn Ali and his companions completely overshadow their significance as historical persons and events. At the time of the battle (680), Shi'ism as we know it did not even exist yet, and this was merely one among many skirmishes between the Umayyad and Alid factions. Yet this battle is now reenacted by thousands of Shi'ite Muslims every year in the passion play known as Ta'zieh (compare yearly reenactments of the crucifixion).
 * See also the Mourning of Muharram, which for Shi'ite Muslims is of similar significance as Easter is to Christians: the Mourning of Muharram (quoting from our –admittedly very paltry– article:) "marks the anniversary of the Battle of Karbala [...] The commemoration of this event [...] serves to define Shia communal identity. [...] Storytelling, weeping and chest beating, wearing black, partial fasting, street processions, and re-enactments of the Battle of Karbala form the crux of the observances."
 * Iran Battle of Karbala 19th century.jpg
 * Why do you think people painted stuff like File:Iran Battle of Karbala 19th century.jpg (see left)? It may seem a bit strange for those who are not familiar (as would surely a crucifixion to those who would not be familiar with that!), but in Shi'ism a military battle is the focal point of religious devotion. The fact that people made paintings about this more than a thousand years later, paintings which are held by such places as the Brooklyn Museum, illustrates the battle's religious and historical significance. Such a painting is (MOS:PERTINENCE). It is  (MOS:LEADIMAGE). It shows that the topic is an important and notable one.

 * Your lack of knowledge about this particular subject seems to stand in the way of an accurate evaluation. Perhaps the low-quality coverage of the subject in our own articles (including in this one) is also partly to blame for that, although their sheer quantity should indicate something about the religious –rather than purely military or factual– significance of these events. If you're still unconvinced, please inquire about this with other editors who have some understanding of this and similar subjects. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 04:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tone down the personal comments, please. We're disagreeing on content, not ideology. You're not winning any arguments by making assumptions about my understanding of the topic.
 * As with Jesus, articles about his crucifixion as a historic event are completely overshadowed by theology. A battlebox should in my view strictly be limited to agreed-upon historiography, not matters of faith, aesthetics or it's legacy. It's the same reason I would strongly object to an infobox on Jesus that included, say, "Number of people fed per fish: 2,500" or "Material of execution: cross". But I see no problem with the minimalist infobox right now, or the pantocrator-style image that corresponds to the most common visual perception of Jesus among most Christians.
 * I don't see any problem with including the painting in the article as long as it's explicitly connected to a religious context. I have not disputed this use. I believe you should focus your attention on adjusting this in the article, not poking me for perceived ignorance. Not talking about creating a separate section to explain the painting, just adding something along the lines "this is a depiction devoted to the religious significance of the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali" and not to place the image next to content focused on historical events. Peter Isotalo 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Any disagreement with Isolato, no matter how politely expressed, tends to be taken as a "personal comment" etc. The views expressed in his first paragraph are not widely shared, but he has been doing a number of edits at various old battles removing images he doesn't like, without discussion. I'm fine with this image, though the tradition and iconography of it and the similar Tropenmuseum one below would make a good article. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023
change

"The Battle of Karbala galvanized the development of the pro-Alid party (Shi'at Ali) into a unique religious sect with its own rituals and collective memory."

to

"The Battle of Karbala further deepened the rift between the pro-Alid party (Shi'at Ali) and the Sunni sect, solidifying the distinctive identity of the former as a unique religious sect with its own rituals and collective memory."

The change removes the implication that the Shia sect emerged LATER than the Sunni sect {which is debated between Sunni and Shia) and instead conveys the solidifying of the Shia identity due to the Battle of Karbala. MomoTheGr8 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 * . Nowhere does the article imply that Sunnis emerged earlier than Shi'is, nor should it since Sunnism was the last major historical sect to emerge. So your suggestion to talk about rift between pro-Alids and Sunnis is anachronous. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear, AhmadLX is correct. Sunnism developed in the late 8th/early 9th century, so to speak about "the Sunni sect" in the context of the Battle of Karbala (late 7th century) would be rather anachronistic. Of course, this is not present in the sources cited. If you want to edit Wikipedia, please closely read the sources and only report what they are saying, nothing else. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023
223.123.19.240 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 * ❌ as it is not clear what changes you want to do. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023
the family of rasoolallah won the war, not the umayyad caliphate 148.252.128.76 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deauthorized. (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

false information
data is not collected properly and words used are also not suitable 119.157.85.33 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimming needless details.
Revised the section to provide a concise and balanced overview of scholars' views on Husayn's motivations. Removed direct quotes like "reaches out to the moon like a child" and "convinced that he was in the right, stubbornly determined to achieve his ends" that may be seen as subjective. Replaced them with a more neutral presentation of their perspectives. The streamlined content maintains the scholarly viewpoints in a proper manner. StarkReport (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 * StarkReport, in my view your proposed revision (here) is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel.
 * I agree though that the quoted views from Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 ("reaches out to the moon like a child", "a person who disturbs public peace"), which I can only describe as character judgments, feel very outdated and out of place. I think these views should either be contextualized and more strongly juxtaposed to recent views (I can't imagine that later scholars wouldn't have reacted to moralizing pronouncements like these?), or simply removed (do they really add anything of importance? can we agree that even though they were mainstream 100 years ago in the context of great man theory-esque historiography –or in this context, 'small man historiography'–, they are not so anymore?). ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of relying so much on the outdated Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 (WP:DUE?), perhaps we could add the more recent views that are missing, e.g., those of Moojan Momen in An Introduction to Shi'i Islam or Najam Haider in EI3. I'd welcome their addition to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you want to have a go at it that would be great. Personally I won't be working on this or any other Wikipedia article, but I'm willing to review your proposal to revise the text if you should make one (the easiest way is to edit the article and directly self-revert). ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone else would like to take the lead and I'd be happy to support them as much as possible. I hope you're still interested in revising the views section... Albertatiran (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read both of your replies, so here's what I came up with: The first paragraph could be written as:
 * "Wellhausen and Lammens, have characterized Husayn's revolt as a premature and ill-prepared campaign led by an ambitious individual. They argue that Husayn made significant demands but failed to take substantial action, relying on others to handle the situation. Moreover, they view Husayn's actions as leading to disturbances in public peace. According to Heinz Halm, Husayn's revolt can be understood as a struggle for political leadership among the second generation of Muslims. Fred Donner, G. R. Hawting, and Hugh N. Kennedy see Husayn's revolt as an attempt to regain what his brother Hasan had renounced."
 * As for the second paragrpah:
 * "On the other hand, Vaglieri interprets Husayn's motivations as being driven by ideology. He posits that the available historical materials suggest Husayn was deeply convinced of being in the right and was resolutely determined to achieve his objectives.[90] Similarly, Madelung contends that Husayn was not a "reckless rebel" but instead a religious man, motivated by pious convictions. According to him, Husayn was convinced that "the family of the Prophet was divinely chosen to lead the community founded by Moḥammad, as the latter had been chosen, and had both an inalienable right and an obligation to seek this leadership." He was, however, not seeking martyrdom and wanted to return when his expected support did not materialize. Maria Dakake holds that Husayn considered the Umayyad rule oppressive and misguided, and revolted to reorient the Islamic community in the right direction. A similar view is held by Mahmoud Ayoub. S. M. Jafri proposes that Husayn, although motivated by ideology, did not intend to secure leadership for himself. Husayn, Jafri asserts, was from the start aiming for martyrdom in order to jolt the collective conscience of the Muslim community and reveal what he considers to be the oppressive and anti-Islamic nature of the Umayyad regime."
 * I tried to present the scholars' viewpoints without relying on direct quotes while ensuring that the content wasn't excessively condensed.
 * While I have not read An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, it is likely to contain information about Husayn that may reveal the author's view. Currently, there is a mention of Moojan Momen's perspective on Husayn in the article, where Momen briefly discusses Husayn while criticizing Iran's policies towards Baha'is. So how about we include his view in the second paragraph as:
 * "Moojan Momen emphasizes Husayn's actions within Shia beliefs, stating that being persecuted, martyred, and displaying resilience, as exemplified by Imam Husayn, is considered essential markers of true faith."
 * Might I suggest incorporating the views of German scholar and Orientalist annemarie schimmel on Husayn. StarkReport (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 * "Momen sides with Jafri, adding that Husayn was warned about the collapse of the Shia revolt in Kufa. Instead of changing his course, however, he pressed on toward Kufa, urging his supporters to leave him and save their lives on multiple occasions." Internet Archive  here here Albertatiran (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is really a bit off with the current revision is the outdated and therefore perhaps wp:undue nature of Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views. Summarizing these rather than quoting doesn't really solve that.With regard to Momen's view, encyclopedias do not make pronouncements on what are "essential markers of true faith", and so this seems out of context here. This is probably due to the source being used (iranwire.com), which is not a reliable source for historical subjects on Wikipedia. Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources. The sources proposed for Schimmel's views, al-islam.org and hawzahnews.com, also do not meet this requirement.With regard to al-islam.org, this is a religious organization promoting Shi'i views, and so is not a reliable source for any kind of subject on Wikipedia. Please never use it here. StarkReport, if you're not familiar with scholarly sources it might be a good idea to avoid editing historical and religious topics on Wikipedia, and spend some time with such sources instead. When editing Wikipedia it's very important to have some experience with the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable for any given subject. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing Momen's perspective. Also, would it be appropriate to integrate his contribution without explicitly using the term 'Islamicist,' as it might inadvertently introduce unnecessary labeling? StarkReport (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the concerns about the notions of Wellhausen and Lammens, which may seem somewhat out of place and gratuitous in the current context. Given the evolving scholarship and focus on more recent perspectives, it might be appropriate to consider removing these views to ensure the section remains balanced and relevant to modern understanding. As for annemarie schimmel views, would newspaper like Dawn or The Herald be suitable as sources: StarkReport (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 * No, newspapers are generally not reliable for historical subjects. Wikipedia content should be based on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources, which in the context of historical subjects are sources coming from academic publishers (e.g., Cambridge University Press, Brill, De Gruyter, etc.). This generally includes monographs, academic journals, edited volumes, encylopedias and other reference works, all published by such academic publishers. The Wikipedia Library offers free online access to many of these sources to long-term editors, so be sure to try that out. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opining here. I generally hold your opinion in high esteem, however this time I believe your position is wrong. The section is dedicated to assessment of Husayn's motivation and would obviously contain "character judgments", so remarks like "which I can only describe as character judgments" are perplexing. Moreover, Wellhausen and Lammens, along with Goldziher, are among the founders of critical study of Islam. Their views on a range of things are reported on a variety of a our articles, but more importantly in the professional academic literature. Wellhausen's Arab Kingdom is used a textbook on Umayyad history, whereas his Oppositionsparteien was the first critical of study of Shi'im and Kahrijism (although on Kharijism Brünnow's work was a bit earlier). Lammens' Le Califat is to-date the only dedicated study of Yazid's reign and he is a middle-link between Goldziher and Schacht in the field of academic hadith criticism. Regarding Wellhausen and Lammens irrelevant and their views out of place simply shows, sadly, that one needs to acquaint oneself a bit more with the academic study of Islamic history. Adding views of more scholars is, of course, welcome. But in the end, one always needs to select a sample from each camp of views, while giving due weight (which is what the section currently does). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I did not mean character structure (i.e., a person's general psychological characteristics, both positive and negative), but moral character (i.e., a person's virtues: empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, loyalty, etc.). With "character judgment", I mean a negative evaluation of a person in relation to these virtues: Husayn failed because he was too childish and lacked the humility and fortitude to carry through.
 * Of course Wellhausen and Lammens are highly –and I mean highly– respectable scholars. It's just that 100 years ago scholars in general tended to more easily ascribe historical events to the moral character –or the lack thereof– of its actors. This approach is generally outdated: one will not find recent scholars proclaim that Husayn acted "like a child". Nor would they assume that an analysis of this type, even if it were possible given the state of the sources, would explain anything.
 * Old sources can often be valuable, and in the case of Islamic studies they are not rarely better than newer ones. But they should also be used with caution, which often means: selectively. When they go all preachy and judgmental about morals and personal virtues, they are often better left aside for an instant. In my experience, modern academics generally either do just that and ignore moralizing views in older but respected literature, or they directly criticize them. It would be good for us to follow suit and either pick up on such criticisms if they exist, or simply ignore the older views. But that's just my opinion; there's nothing so problematic here that we couldn't just agree to disagree on that. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wellhausen is sure old, but not too old/outdated to be ignored. In fact, as Halm puts "[oppositionsparteien] is still the most authoritative work on the subject to date" (Halm, Shi'ism, 2nd ed., p.3. this was written in 1991 and I suppose you won't label that is too old too). As for moral character judgments are concerned, that is not for an encyclopedia to decide which RS to choose from based on their moral declarations. As late as 1997, Madelung wrote of Mu'awiya as an "odious little imposter" and what not. Does that make him irrelevant for the article on Mu'awiya? Certainly not. But based on your position, we ought to delete to his criticism from Mu'awiya's article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that the point you are trying to make here is largely rhetorical, but I'm not sure that description of Muawiyah is character judgment - the man's actions themselves were odious enough without one needing to guess at his moral character. Converting the caliphate into a dynastic property and generally opposing if not outright murdering members of the prophet's family were hardly the actions of a devout convert true to his outward professions of fealty and faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Then describing an unplanned expedition against an empire as childish desire is also not moral judgment too. Hope that helps. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 22:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The salient point here is that modern scholars generally don't regard Mu'awiya's moral character, however they may judge it, as a relevant explanatory factor for historical events. Madelung is being rather old-fashioned in making such moral pronouncements, and is precisely rejected by other scholars to the extent that he uses these as 'evidence' for his political and military analysis. I linked above to 'great man theory', which regards important historical events as due to the personal virtue of some men and the moral degeneracy of others. This approach has persisted in some circles throughout the 20th century, but it has been gradually abandoned, and in 2023 it really is completely out of date –or so I believe. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * AhmadLX, I certainly hope we don't quote Madelung on that?! But that just means that we are being selective, and that we do practice editorial discretion. DUE is all about being selective in RS. Now I'm talking from a general experience of reading 100+ years old academic literature, which has that certain moralizing tendency. It is this tendency, not specific scholars like Wellhausen or Lammens, or these two scholars' views in general, that is outdated. I say this as a historian. But maybe you've got a different experience, or just don't see what I see, and that's fine!  ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would certainly apply if we were to make declarations in Wikipedia's voice. But that is not what we are doing. We are reporting what two scholars think of his rebellion. And in reality, all views presented in the section are character judgments. Summarizing top scholarship on a subject is what we do. It is simple as that. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it were as simple as that, almost no discussion would ever be needed here on WP (bless me, if it only could be so). But what actually is top scholarship in any particular case is not something self-evident, unfortunately. That's why we are all the time discussing on WP the quality and relevance of any particular source with regard to any particular subject or statement. Calling one's preferred source in a specific case "top scholarship" is just begging the question. To be clear: though I appreciate other opinions, and though I do regard Wellhausen as a top scholar, it is my editorial opinion that the specific quote we are giving from Wellhausen is not top scholarship. It's severely outdated. You disagree, it seems, because Wellhausen is just top of the line in everything he writes, and you don't see any particular problem here? As I said, that's fine, and I understand.
 * I can also see your point: the rest of the paragraph does contain some further 'moral analysis' (not accidentally, it seems, by Madelung!), so why not include all of it? Then again, maybe only the moralizing stuff can be trimmed? On the other hand, maybe the whole paragraph is wp:undue. If the question of Husayn's "motivations" comes down to the question of whether he was a reckless rebel or a pious hero (Madelung's framing), I don't see much value in it, and I refuse to believe that recent top scholarship regards the question of Husayn's motivations in that way (both images are stereotypes which only exist in the moral imagination and as such explain nothing about historical reality).
 * But I also see why other editors would take that latter opinion of mine with a grain of salt: perhaps it's too colored by my own views on proper historiography, or on what can reasonably be regarded as knowable given the state of our primary sources. It's also important to note that I'm by no means an expert on this subject, and that I did not read the relevant secondary sources. But merely the fact that an editor like me brings up something as possibly wp:undue is not to be dismissed with an argument which regards everything as due for inclusion if it's RS, because that simply is not how WP works. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you know what? Wellhausen's being top scholarship doesn't need anyone's certificate here. His peers views are what matters. You wanna show his work reflects that theory you have been consistently pointing to, you gotta show that from RS, not from your personal opinions. How can you stereotype scholars without even reading them? That some folks from the 19th century believed in the theory doesn't mean all disciplines of history were plagued with that. As a true history student, you gotta do better than that. If Vaglieri writing for EI2 quotes Wellhausen and Lammens, and Halm calls Wellhausen's work among the best on the subject, we don't really need OR-based opinions. You gotta problem with Wellhausen's assessment, then show from RS that this assessment is outdated/wrong/ whatever. If not, you are welcome to start RFC, instead of patronizing. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 20:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi AhmadLX, I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing. I might be completely wrong, but I don't believe that the specific 100+ year old views we are discussing here are still taken very seriously by recent scholars. If you want to look to peer review (a good idea of course, scholars discussing scholars' views are effectively wp:tertiary, which "may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other"), the onus to show from tertiary sources/statements that these specific views are still being discussed would be just as much on you as it would be on me to show that they are not. If Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views are explicitly discussed by other scholars, we should include what other scholars are saying about them in our article (as I said above, juxtapose and contextualize, that would be a fine approach and discussion here could end immediately). On the other hand, if they are not discussed by other scholars, we have no 'peer review' basis to go on.
 * If there is no 'peer review' basis to go on, all we can do is evaluate as editors. Are Wellhausen's and Lammens' specific views here about Husayn having acted "like a child" still upheld by anyone? Does anyone still take it seriously enough to even mention it (we are mentioning it!)? It's not because Vaglieri or Halm still extensively rely on Wellhausen that they agree with everything he ever said. Respect is often shown by passing over outdated or obsolete elements in silence. The general good reputation of a scholar does not guarantee that every last thing they have ever written is still regarded as valuable, that should be obvious. Questioning whether an individual and specific statement of an old but well-respected scholar is still taken seriously in modern scholarship is not OR, that too should be obvious. I think it's perfectly fine to answer the questioning with 'yes the source is old, but I don't agree that moral judgments are somehow outdated (Madelung's still doing it), and so this is not a sufficient reason for exclusion'. We can agree to disagree on that matter. But what I do take great exception to is the idea that Wikipedia editors should not even question sources in the first place, that this should be somehow illegitimate.
 * As someone who both does original research and edits Wikipedia, I'm well aware of the different norms and standards that apply. One of the big differences is that in the former, one is generally expected to be habitually skeptical and critical about other scholars' views, while in the latter it is generally expected to simply follow scholarly views without too much criticism. But Wikipedia policy would be crazy if it were to disallow all forms of source criticism, and so fortunately, it does not. More than that, it specifically prescribes source-critical norms such as WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:BESTSOURCES, etc. It also encourages WP:CONSENSUS-directed discussion about the contextual reliability and relevance of sources, and it puts the WP:ONUS to get consensus for inclusion on those who want to include a source (that would be you here). I'm sorry for all the wiki-lawyering (I'm really sorry to be arguing with you at all in fact), but since you seem to believe our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of policy, I felt I should clarify that I do understand policy.
 * That said, I don't think an RfC is a good idea, at least not yet. First someone should create an alternative revision with a proposed text that we can put up for a RfC. A possible RfC question could be "Should the section on the motivations of Husayn contain text A, B, or C?" If A would be the current revision, B and C could be alternative proposals. But these proposals should be well worked out and at least have a chance of being accepted. At this moment, I still support the current revision, which while not ideal is fine really. There's not often an occasion to say things like this, so I will say it here: I think you've done a great job with this article and other WP articles. I truly appreciate it, that's also why your articles are on my watch list and why I tried to help out here with explaining to StarkReport why their initial efforts were unacceptable. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 * While the 'Modern historical views on motivations of Husayn' section is tempting, its inclusion deviates from the primary focus of the 'Battle of Karbala' article, which aims to provide a historical account of the battle itself. Moreover, the existing 'Historical analysis' section already covers significant modern perspectives on Husayn as well as the battle, reducing the necessity for a separate section.
 * Consolidating key insights from the 'Modern historical views' section into the existing 'Historical analysis' section can maintain coherence, readability, and minimize potential disputes among contributors. This approach allows us to present a well-rounded account of the Battle of Karbala without compromising the central narrative and relevance of the article.
 * Also, no one is dismissing Wellhausen or Lammens. However, including their views on Husayn's motivations, which appear outdated or tangential to the central narrative, could detract from the article's primary focus. Their assessments are perceived as character judgments rather than direct analyses of Husayn's motivations within the context of the battle. It definitely seems to introduce bias or undue emphasis on certain perspectives.
 * With regards to WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, we all know that Mu'awiya I is infamous for his controversial actions. The comparison to other historical character judgments, such as Madelung's view on Mu'awiya, may not be entirely analogous, as the context and relevance of character judgments can vary significantly between different articles. In the case of the 'Battle of Karbala,' the focus is on Husayn's motivations in a particular historical event, and character judgments from sources outside that specific context might not directly contribute to understanding his motivations.
 * How about bringing other editors and seeking broader consensus to evaluate whether the "views" section is necessary and if it aligns with the article's primary focus. Maybe we can initiate a formal voting process to gather input. StarkReport (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point about a vote but a consensus seems out of reach, either way. At the same time, there are many related articles that are in desperate need of major revision to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. I'm slowly working on Ashura and Mourning of Muharram, and haven't even checked Tasu'a, Muharram, Ta'zieh, to name just a few. Albertatiran (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand your perspective on the consensus issue. Indeed, finding a common ground can sometimes be challenging. StarkReport (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Should add Zaydis to ‘Legacy’ as a distinct branch
https://minorityrights.org/minorities/zaydi-shias/#:~:text=The%20Zaydis%2C%20known%20as%20Fivers,than%20to%20Shi'a%20Islam.

Zaydism 2601:285:103:1D70:3472:DAAD:AD6C:54CA (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023
I have noticed the lack of Sunni views of the Battle of Karbala, thus I would like to edit the page and give the Sunni view using authentic sources from Sunni books. Abu Lahja (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024
Instead of death of Hussein put martyrdom 37.186.46.235 (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
trsut = trust 2603:8000:D300:3650:3C32:3DC7:C049:4B92 (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Karbala


text:
Avicenna (crater)

Avicenna is a lunar impact crater that lies on the far side of the Moon, just beyond the western limb on the northern rim of the Lorentz basin. It is named after the Persian polymath Avicenna. It lies to the north-northwest of the larger crater Nernst, and to the southeast of Bragg.

The northern half of Avicenna has been obliterated by subsequent, overlapping impacts. The southern and southeastern rim is worn and eroded, but the outline can still be discerned. There is a small crater lying across the southern rim, although this formation is equally worn. Several small craters lie across the southern extent of Avicenna's floor.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Avicenna.

title: Avicenna (crater)


text:
Talk:Pat Benatar

All the Bills Up
I don't know if that business is a valid explanation. I worked as a bank teller and we were required to have all bills face the same way and none of us were slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.45.239 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin Anthem
Please SOMEONE read the lyrics to 'Hit Me' before going off and claiming it's about dolphins. Cuts down on the odds you'll be branded a fool again.

Had sex with DJ Mike Sorce one time
one time Pat Benetar had sex with Mike Sorce. can we figure out how to add that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.105.239 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG I've had sex with hundreds of people. WHO CARES?
 * agreed, this is thoroughly unprovable and entirely irrelevant. AaronzDad (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree this is relevant info, it is proven, and it deserves inclusion in the people's encyclopedia Joeardingertaintsociety2000 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If she did it for airplay, or was raped, that's significant. If she did it out of love or lust (i.e the usual reasons), that's probably not significant, unless it contributed to her divorce. If she did it for some other reason, we could discuss and decide here. But until a consensus is reached about significance, it should not be added. Dave Golland (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell Is For Children
There should be note of the controversy surrounding her fairly uncontroversial song "Hell is for Children". Mike H 03:54, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed this is a significant factor in PB's life and career and certainly needs to be mentioned. It's my understanding she's donated significant proceeds from that song to abused children's causes. -Mike H I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to a new header here. AaronzDad (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I need some help.
I am doing this music project for school, and I am stuck on this. I need to know what insturments are used in the song "Heartbreaker" by Pat Benatar.

You can't be serious?

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * She isn't even gay, so how can she be a gay icon? That is totally out of question. I am removing this category unless you give me sufficient reasoning or evidence not to do so. Эйрон Кинни  21:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say the person himself/herself needs to be gay, only be "a celebrity with wide-spread fans from the LGBT community". (Entheta 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Just incredible that there's so much homophobia on Wikipedia. Is this an encyclopedia or YouTube?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, according to the definition of "gay icon" given, Pat Benatar fits several of the requirements and needs not be gay herself in order to do that. I saw Pat Benatar live in 2006 there were MANY lesbian fans in attendance. It is the lyrical content of female strength in her songs that apparently prompts her to fit the category. Wicked Little Lady 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)(WLL 02/01/2007) I think Pat Benatar's brother was gay. He also passed away a few years ago of natural causes. Pat Benatar has also played a few past Pride events and the Dinah Shore weekend in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redvsn (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Get this nonsense out of here. This *IS* an encylopedia, which means we don't need stupid little tags for groups of this that and the other. How about. . .oh, I dunno. . .INFORMATION!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat Benatar's brother was indeed gay, however, he died from injuries sustained in a car crash. She herself is proud of her gay fans and does an AIDS walk each year to raise money. I attended one of her concerts and she had many gay and lesbian fans in the audience. She says she loves seeing her gay fans dress up the way she did back in the 1980's. While she has a strong lesbian following, her audience is likely bigger among gay men. (11/12/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.21.191 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

suggestions
Someone should add in the other band members and the fact that there were no videos filmed for some of her most popular singles.
 * Good idea. I'll add in a bit about the band. Ariochiv 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of songs listed as "singles" were never released as such. Someone needs to delete them. For instance "Precious Time" and "Anxiety (Get Nervous)" were never released or promoted as singles. Videos exist for them because Benatar's label wanted videos for the title songs to her albums to promote selling of the albums. Also, "Temporary Heroes" was a single in some Asian markets, but never in America. Also, "Hell Is For Children" and "Everybody Lay Down" were never singles, but they did get a lot of airplay. To list them as "uncharting singles" is rather misleading.
 * Plus, one honest-to-goodness single was missing from the listings, "Christmas in America". I added that one in. It was available in 2001 as a CD single and made the sales chart, but not the main Hot 100. (It did get to #22 on the Adult Contemporary chart, which might be worth a footnote, because it's a chart with which you normally don't associate Pat Benatar.) I'll do some checking on some of the others. Some of them may have been issued to radio as promos; I know "Temporary Heroes" was because I have that one on a promo 12-inch single. I'll do some more work on this. Cheemo 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

American Chopper (The Tuttle Family)
I'm watching American Chopper last night and see a new intro for the program. Is that Pat Benatar?!?!? It sure looks like her. And I swear I heard hear name mentioned, but I was in the kitchen and can't be sure. William (Bill) Bean 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you saw Joan Jett. I don't believe Pat Benatar has ever made an appearance on the show but Jett definitely has. Jen J. 15:13, 3 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.38.115 (talk)

Pronunciation of birth name
I guess this pronunciation given is wrong. Andrzejewski is NOT pronounced "AN-dree-esk-ee" but rather "AN-jay-evs-kee". "Andrzej" (russian: Andrej, greek: Andreas, english: Andrew, french: André) is pronounced "An-jay" in Polish. -andy 84.149.105.215 09:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Regardless of how the name "is pronouced," Pat's name is pronounced "AN-dray-es-kee." I know this because I asked her and recorded the answer.  SHE pronounces HER name "AN-dray-es-kee."  If you want to pronounce the word differently, that's your prerogative...but I think the woman knows her own name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.209.26 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Coxon's Army
Just an FYI~ Pat's first album was with a band named:  Coxins Army. She is sitting on top of a piano in a white dress, on the cover. Don't let the media full you, the album is out there. My mom had a copy, as well as the rest of the family. My brother was the keyboardist for her. After 50.000 copies, she had the album pulled. She wanted to be knowen only as a Rocker. Just thought you all might want the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni darlene (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed, there is info on her IMDB page about this. It was a "cabaret" band in Richmond, Virginia. Someone should check out the IMDB page, verify the information and incorporate it here. Also, someone should get me a beer. 99.140.171.185 (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Myron Grombacher
I'm nearly positive Pat had a relationship with drummer Myron Grombacher between her two marriages. Needs to be verified, though. 99.140.171.185 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Nobody cares. 68.195.119.124 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Guitar Hero
"In 2007-2008, Pat Benatar single "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" was put into the mix of songs in Guitar Hero 3, in the first tier of songs, with a specialized singer, just for her song, being that the default singer is male." Actually there's a lot of songs in the game with the female singer model, so it's not just for her song at all, I'll remove that bit. 88.97.35.32 (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

possible errors in article
"I received my vinyl LP of 'Best Shots' for Christmas 1985 - 'Wide Awake in Dreamland' I bought around 1986/ 1987 when it was released so some checking needs to be done on the release dates I believe. The cover of my LP differs from that shown on wiki however. AH from the UK." from 86.112.240.180

Wide Awake in Dreamland was released in the fall of 1988. Best Shots was released later (This is obvious since ther are tracks from Dreamland (As well as Seven the Hard Way which was released in 1985) on Best Shots. It is impossible that you received 'Best Shots' for Christmas in 1985. You probably recieved Seven the Hard Way. - RJW

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.180.137 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One of rock's top vocalists?
"...best known for her mezzo-soprano vocal range and establishing herself as one of rock's top vocalists..."

Where to start with this piffle? Best known for her mezzo-soprano vocal range, is she? One of rock's top vocalists? Absolute cobblers. Who wrote this, Pat herself? If she was important enough and not just some singer little known outside America, I could carry on pulling this article apart. But she's not, so I won't. Guv2006 (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * How many top 40 hits have you had? Because Pat had 19. WhakoJacko2009 20:48, 03 March 2011 (AEDT)
 * How about, "One of the top female rock vocalists in the U.S. in the 1980s." She was nominated for a Grammy for "Best Female Rock Performance" eight times in the 80s; that's got to count for something. Over 12 million albums sold from 1979 to 1988, and all her albums released from 1981 to 1991 charted in the UK and Australia. She was also nominated for a Juno Award in 1982 for "Best International Album" for Crimes of Passion. ("Loverboy Tops Nominees For Juno Awards", Billboard, 13 May 1982.—only thing useful I could find with a quick Google search; cite:billboard.com, terms "international sales" and "pat benatar".)
 * One of rock's top vocalists? Absolutely !! How does Guv2006 define a "One of rock's top vocalists" if not by record sales, radio and TV airplay, and concert attendance? 'Cause she had it all in rock's biggest market in 1980s.
 * See below for my comments re "mezzo-soprano". (I don't like it.)
 * Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Neil a Nazi?
'''I saw the Neil and Pat band tonight, Sat. July 23rd in Indiana. I was amazed when after the third song, Neil stepped up to the mic, did that Hitler salute and said " sieg heil". not everyone heard it. When he did it I looked at the audience behind me, (I was in front). Some in the audience did the salute and said sieg heil back. This led to Neil chuckling and saying "Its great to be back in the Midwest. What I want to know is..... Does Neil think the almost all white audience are such trash that he could make fun of us by pointing out how backward thinking we are, like stupid Nazis? or Is Neil actually a neo-nazi? Bold text''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.111.98 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 * You probably shouldn't take everything you see in life so seriously. Doubtful that Neil is trying to start another master race. 68.195.119.124 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think he was just making a joke about Nazism in the Midwest. -Random Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.41.181 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Benatar not a mezzo-soprano
Initially trained "as a coloratura with plans to attend the Juilliard School", Benatar did not become a classical vocalist. So although she might have become a mezzo-soprano (in the classical sense; see article), in the popular music genres, that is, according to vocal range (excluding falsetto, and screaming or screeching—think Cyndi Lauper and Mariah Carey—she should be classified a soprano (e.g., "We Live for Love"). (See "Vocal categories and ranges for non-classical singers".)

From mezzo-soprano: "extending from the A below middle C to the A two octaves above" (the 1st line above the treble staff). Heck, I'm a dude and I could hit that A when I was in high school. (The highest I ever had to go and I really had to push the ol' diaphragm to nail it.)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 * One doesn't "become" a Mezzo-Soprano; one is born a Mezzo-Soprano. That is their given vocal type.

 * Mezzo-Sopranos indeed exist in the contemporary music world. Classification of such is not solely due to their perceived range, but also their timbre and vocal weight, as well as one very important characteristic: the area in which their voice naturally resonates the strongest.  For Sopranos, it's their head, resulting in a tone that is of light weight, and is bright and ringing.  For Mezzos, it's the chest, resulting in a deeper, somewhat weightier and more mellow tone, while their highest notes sound weaker.  Their ability to sing higher or lower notes is simply the exhibition of their extension; that is, notes that are beyond their natural range and tone, yet are attainable with their technique and skill (though some use improper techniques to hit them).  To classify a woman as a Soprano when she actually has the tone and resonance of a Mezzo is erroneous.  Common sense must be used.  The Italian definition of Mezzo is "half" or "middle."  That means that she is not a full Soprano, but half a Soprano.

 * Yes, the classification of contemporary vocalists has been repeatedly stated here on Wikipedia to be more loosely applied to only the range of notes in which they sing, but their tone and resonance range must be taken into account. The late Whitney Houston, for example, was properly classified as a Mezzo-Soprano because of her deeper chest tone and her weaker head register.  Yes, she could hit some Soprano notes (listen to the key change at the end of "Love Will Save the Day," where she was able to hit G5, the approximate middle of the Soprano range; hence the definition of Mezzo being "middle" or "half"), but they were weaker and more shrill than that of a true Soprano.  Quite frankly, she sounded as though she were pushing or straining; no amount of technique can change the fact that her head register was weaker.  Therefore, she was technically a Mezzo-Soprano because of this and was widely acknowledged as such.

 * In Pat Benatar's case, I have not scrutinized her voice as much as other vocalists, but she appears (in my opinion) to have a deeper tone that resonates better in her chest than her head. Therefore, she would indeed be a Mezzo-Soprano.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Neil Giraldo
Should he have his own Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.132.18 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is incredibly stupid, he's not Pat Benatar.75.79.149.13 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, he still needs one. The whole section about her band needs to be shortened to a few sentences. 2601:241:8102:221C:9C19:6EA9:EA34:9B7E (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's Giraldo, not Giraldo. Huh?
Band section:  "Neil "Spyder" Giraldo (incorrectly spelled as "Giraldo" in early liner notes/credits)"

I don't understand. If it was incorrectly spelled as "Giraldo", what is the correct spelling? Surely it isn't "Giraldo", unless there's something happening in the Twilight Zone. Or unless "Spyder" that was incorrectly spelled as "Giraldo". SMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF2A:1A99:B1E7:4702:E56C:A3F6 (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

1971?
This bit doesn’t make sense (to me)

At 19 [in 1972], after one year at Stony Brook, she dropped out ... [in 1972? or after] Pat Benatar worked as a bank teller... [then, next para, article says] In 1971, Benatar quit her job to pursue a singing career...

So, it might be that she quit her job in 1971, then went to Stony Brook, but that’s not how it reads. Perhaps she was 17 when went to Stony Brook, or was born in 1951?

120.16.124.185 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)MG

Punk rock and heavy metal genres
It says Benatar also does punk rock and heavy metal, but I can't find anything within the article that backs up those two genres. The other three (Rock, hard rock, and pop rock) are fine as she has and does embrace those. I am gonna remove punk rock and heavy metal while we await a consensus. Moline1 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call. Unless a source offers some supporting evidence, I wouldn't really put either of those genres on her. A quick google didn't really dig any corroborating evidence up, either. -- spazure  (contribs) 04:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not sure if those two genres were the result of unsourced changes, or if they did have sources but forgot to put them in. I had also previously removed those two genres and readded back pop rock (which had been removed for whatever reason) when I first noticed them. They were gone for a little bit, before being readded, which prompted this discussion. Also, browsing through all her albums doesn't yield those two genres either. Moline1 (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Benatar and MTV
I think this biography could use some more emphasis on the relationship between MTV and Benatar. "You Better Run" was likely the second song ever played on MTV, though some sources say otherwise. In a rare bit of commercialism, Benatar helped promote MTV by agreeing to appear in a television advertisement, saying "I want my MTV", joining Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, Adam Ant, Stevie Nicks and others who also said this line. (MTV was unsuccessful until this ad campaign aired. See Sellebrity: My Angling and Tangling With Famous People and also What's the Big Idea?: How to Win with Outrageous Ideas (that Sell!).)

Before MTV, Benatar's musical image was often sexed up beyond her control, but when she realized the power of the video format, she regained control of her image and nailed it down in 1983 with "Love Is a Battlefield". In 1987 she said about Cyndi Lauper and Madonna: "The new girls talk about how they don't let anybody manipulate them and they can't understand why some of us did it. It makes me smile because I think, well, that's great to walk in after we did all the fucking dirty work. I mean we were there when people were still slapping you on the ass."

Check out the books:

Let's put in more stuff about the MTV connection. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pat Benatar


text: Talk:Click It or Ticket

title: Talk:Click It or Ticket


text:
Richard Bissell

Richard Bissell may refer to:
 * Richard M. Bissell Jr. (1909–1994), American CIA officer
 * Richard Pike Bissell (1913–1977), American author and playwright

title: Richard Bissell