Talk:Muhammad's eclipse

The recently added section "Related Eclipses" is not necessary.

This eclipse is notable because of its association with the Islamic prophet Muhammad; the other 'related' solar eclipses have no relation with Muhammad.

I propose to delete this section. AstroLynx (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, AstroLynx. I added the ‘Related eclipses’ section to bring the page in line with the other solar eclipse pages on Wikipedia. As far as the strong association with Islam goes, the page has been moved to Muhammad’s eclipse for the same reason and to bring it in line with pages such as that of the Assyrian eclipse. To further clarify, while this eclipse has an extremely strong relationship with Islam, it is still an astronomical event in being an eclipse, and, as such, there is still reason for the ‘Related eclipses’ section to be maintained. Thanks again. —AccordingClass (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the added section on 'Related eclipses' I disagree, similar articles such as the Assyrian eclipse, Mursili's eclipse, the Eclipse of Thales, etc., have no such section. It is OR and unsourced and it adds nothing to the article, therefore it should be deleted. AstroLynx (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on how the other eclipses are related. If it's about the other related eclipses' association with religion (whether Islam or other), then there's a pretty high bar with regards to sourcing. If it's related in the sense of astronomical and scientifically related (saros cycles, etc.) then surely the article on said eclipse cycle should have the sourcing, just copy it over, and there'd be at least some case to retain it. Regardless, the eclipse cycle (saros and other) should definitely be retained, with or without related eclipses. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I have deleted the section on 'related eclipses' as these eclipses have nothing to do with Muhammad and similar pages on historical eclipses do not have such sections. AstroLynx (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Kepler-1229b, explain how exactly that section is routine calculation. You can remove any notice from your talk page, but it does not change the fact that you are violating WP:OR. Editors cannot perform analysis of primary sources themselves, which is exactly what is occuring here. To demonstrate any relation, you need a secondary source. There was initial objection, but no objection to the removal of the section until you decided to restore it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 Eclipse cycles are regular and the involved eclipses in each cycle are easily calculable with basic arithmetic, so satisfies WP:CALC. "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." In addition, removal of any message off a talk page by its owner is taken as an indication that they have seen it, not as a removal of some badge of shame. See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@AstroLynx Pinging. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

As I explained earlier (see above) the recently re-added section on 'related eclipses' adds nothing of relevance to Muhammad's eclipse and makes the article twice as long as it originally was -- nor are such needless additions found on the WP pages of other notable historical solar eclipses. My recommendation is to delete this.AstroLynx (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There are separate articles about cycles. I also agree with the comments in the failed GA review. This article is in a poor state. It relies too much on primary sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I make no objection to deleting this section, although I would like to comment on the presence of this section on other articles. Should we remove them too? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Which other articles on historical eclipses have such additions? Assyrian eclipse, Mursili's eclipse and the Eclipse of Thales don't feature similar additions. People who visit this page want to know about the eclipse associated with the death of Muhammad's son Ibrahim and the institution of the eclipse prayer. Mentioning all sorts of eclipse cycles (which are discussed in detail on many other pages) is meaningless here as there there is no evidence that this was a predicted eclipse. AstroLynx (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@AstroLynx The eclipse does not have to have been predicted in advance for such a section to exist. Why then, does the eclipse of Thales page not have such a section, even though Herodotus claimed Thales predicted it in advance? I have one further question. In your opinion, how specifically does this section constitute WP:OR? The eclipse cycles are all routinely calculable with basic artithmetic and an eclipse catalog, as I have specified above. Please explain how this does not qualify as WP:CALC. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I never claimed that the addition qualified as WP:CALC but I do question the necessity of it. If a historical solar eclipse was somehow predicted then it may be useful to mention how this may have been done but adding similar sections to all historical solar eclipses seems rather pointless to me as it will be endless repetitions of nearly the same. AstroLynx (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@AstroLynx I am the one claiming application of WP:CALC. Because these eclipse cycles are, as I pointed out above, calculated with basic arithmetic, this falls under CALC rather than OR or SYNTH. The section, particularly mentions of the saros, can be useful to show how a particular eclipse is connected to other related ones. If the rest of the section is to be removed, I recommend keeping the saros at least as it is well-sourced. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not even bother to mention the saros cycle: the solar eclipses of 15 January 614 and 6 February 650 were completely invisible from Mecca and Medina. AstroLynx (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@AstroLynx The visibility of an eclipse from a given location has nothing to do with its relation to other eclipses. At the bare minimum the saros cycle should be mentioned; the article should give WP:PROPORTIONAL weight to its nature as an eclipse instead of solely focusing on its religious significance. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

What we now have, in a section which takes up about half of the current article, is a list of 15 solar eclipses largely derived from eclipse cycles which were not even known or recognized in the 7th century. Only one of these eclipses has its own WP page, the others are just a list of apparently unrelated dates. Perhaps more useful would be a page on Saros cycle 99 (like this one) which could be linked to this page. AstroLynx (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@AstroLynx The amount of the article taken up by this section is proportional to other, more recent eclipse articles. These cycles were understood well before the 7th century. We do not need an entire article about a saros cycle composing only eclipses before 1900 and having only one article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

But this is not an article on a recent solar eclipse where such additional information may be useful. In my opinion it unnecessarily bloats the article which should focus on its importance in the history and practice of Islam. AstroLynx (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@AstroLynx An eclipse article should focus on the fact that it is an eclipse, while also indicating significant observations or impact on people, science or culture. The article is not unnecessarily bloated by this; the main concern is whether or not this constitutes WP:OR. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 Your comment on my argument? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Which articles? I think it is better to discuss it first instead of removing immediately. Get some more input. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 Should I forward this discussion to WP:AST then? I do not intend on taking action with any of these proposals until a consensus has been reached.

As for my initial reply above, do you have any opinion on the matter? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you can forward the discussion. I think I've said all I think about the matter. Hopefully, this article will be improved. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on whether or not to retain the "related eclipses" section on THIS article. But I am strongly and categorically opposed to nixing the section in general. I think, especially on modern (post-1900) eclipse articles, I think the related eclipses section should remain (barring any issues with sourcing) on all modern/future eclipses articles. Since readers can see things like other eclipses occurring around the same time, and other eclipses associated with the cycle. The section's inclusion in pre-1900, and especially pre-industrial era eclipses should be determined on a case by case basis in my opinion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

A further point I have neglected to bring up: Does the section qualify as WP:OR? I would argue against this, given the fact that these are easily WP:CALCulable using basic arithmetic and an eclipse catalog. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Nominator: AccordingClass (talk · contribs) 08:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad's eclipse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've looked over this article, and it still needs significant work to meet the good article criteria.

• The article fails criterion 1b because it does not comply with the guidance at MOS:LEAD. The only purpose the lead should serve is to summarize the rest of the article.
• The article fails criterion 2b as many claims are unreferenced, including critical ones like the date and many of the statistics.
• The article likely fails criterion 3a, as there is little information in the article and there appear to be other sources about this subject. I suggest looking at the sources that turn up in Google Scholar or using the Wikipedia Library to find other high quality sources.
• The article fails criterion 3b, as much of the article is not about Muhammad's eclipse. The article does not need an explanation of what a solar eclipse is, nor does it need a list of other solar eclipses that are not the subject of the article.
• One other note, it may need clarification about where the information on this eclipse is coming from. The article says the only information is from Islamic sources, but NASA has information on it.

I have not done a close reading of the prose or checked individual references, so I cannot say whether these meet the criteria. If you'd like further assistance to improve the article, you can put in a request at peer review, or you can ask more specific questions at the teahouse. Thank you for the work you've done so far! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)