Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah[edit]

It is not clear why Striver created this article, since all the events in it have already been exhaustively covered in Saqifah and Succession to Muhammad. Both those articles pay a great deal of attention to the Shi'a view of things and give many links and quotes. All that is gained by having a "Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah" article is the opportunity for one Shi'a to state his views at great length without having to face any criticism. Striver has a long history of creating poor quality Shi'a-POV-forks. Here we go again. Zora 10:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article to detail the Shi'a view of the event. It is in no way covered in this detail and depth, not in the main article, and not in the Succession to Muhammad article. Neither of those articles describe how the Shi'a portray where the people where, what they did, and why they did that, and we all know that Shi'a have a different presentation of this particular event, as well as other event, compared to Sunnis. "Without having to face any criticism" is incorrect, articles describing a patricular viewpoint have always a "criticism" sections to them, see for example 9/11_conspiracy_theories#Criticism, a spin out article created to present a minority view in detail, and it has a large Criticism section. A lengthier explanation of the justifications for this article and the relevant Wikipedia policies that support and even demand the creation of this kind of articles, clearly proving that this is not a pov fork according to Wikipedia policies and definitions can be found here --Striver 11:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, content fork of material that could be/is already covered in other articles.--Jersey Devil 13:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JD, where can i read Where Abu Bakr was before he got to Media? Where can i read whom accompanied them? Where can i read whom helped Ali? Where can i read the Shi'a view of each of this specific issues? Nowhere you said? Oh, thats right, you can only do that in this article. --Striver 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if you cannot find out about this information anywhere else, how does anyone know about it now? Plainly one does not have to come to partisan religious slants on articles to find out. Certainly I don't see any articles with competing Catholic-Protestant-Jewish-Islamic-Mormon-etc. POVs on common events. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point was not that you cannot find it anywhere, but cannot find it anywhere else on Wikipedia. I have no strong opinion about this myself, but as for multiple articles expressing alternate religious views, there is the sequence Jesus, Judaism's view of Jesus, Jesus (prophet in Islam). --Saforrest 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, but that's an analogy akin to comparing the notability of an article about George Bush to one about the president of a high school science club. Now if there were multiple articles on (say) the Wedding at Cana, that would be noteworthy. RGTraynor 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Striver really wants to know about the aborted expedition of Usama ibn Zayd, I can consult Ibn Ishaq and Tabari and give some references. But he didn't ask for more info, or make any attempt to improve the quality of the two existing articles. He just made the breakout article. IMHO, breakout articles should "bud" off established articles. When a section is getting extremely long and argumentative, and threatens to unbalance the entire article, then you say, "OK, let's make this a breakout article" and everyone says, "Yes, that makes sense" and it is done. Zora 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a POV fork. - Irishpunktom\^talk 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice - Point Of View, and can't be anything else. Vizjim 15:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote. I've just spent some time researching this and have come to the conclusion that I'm not qualified to come to a conclusion. Vizjim 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. KleenupKrew 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator states and examination makes it clear the this is a POV fork. Dr Zak 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just POV, but inherently POV. -- Kicking222 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page is inherently POV. Come on, look at the title! M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The title isn't really the problem. One could have articles like Catholic views of the Eucharist, Protestant views of the Eucharist, Orthodox views of the Eucharist and so on if the main article on the Eucharist had gotten too large and unwieldy to include all the denominations and their interpretation of the rite. Indeed we have such articles. This case here is different, however. Someone split off from an article to present his and his own viewpoint of history. Such behavior makes it impossible to police articles for correctness and impartiality. Dr Zak 02:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This info was in fact in the main articl, see here [1]. But it was claimed to unbalance the article, so i moved it to a break out article. As Dr Zak and RGTraynor has stated, the article in it self is not pov, we already have as stated Jesus, Judaism's view of Jesus, Jesus (prophet in Islam), but also Christian views of Jesus, and even Mormon view of Jesus. For more info about Wikipedia policies that prove the article title is not pov, see here. --Striver 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, this event is not some random event, the "George Bush to one about the president of a high school science club", this is the MAIN event that caused the Shi'a-Sunni split, so it fully natural that Shi'a and Sunnis have widely different views of the event. If you look through it, you will se that the article is well sourced from Shi'a sources, and also Sunni sources that Shi'a have drawn other conclusions from. And no Zora, im not talking about Usamas expedition, im talking about the entire event, such as why did abu Bakr not inform anyone, why did Umar inform Abu Bakr in secret, why was a grave digger following them and such. This point of views are some times not even recoqnized as factual by Sunnis. --Striver 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i strongly reject and feel insulted by Zoras "the opportunity for one Shi'a to state his views at great length", specially since i have heavily sourced most, if not all statements in the article. This is NOT only my view, all sources i included show that this is the official Shi'a view. --Striver 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shi'a POV is well-represented in the Saqifah article. Including Abu Bakr's failure to tell Ali about the meeting. Striver, if you want Umar telling Abu Bakr secretly, it can go in there, but you're going to have to reference it. That part isn't in Ibn Ishaq and I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari. The bit re "gravedigger" is neither in the main article NOR in Striver's article, so it's bizarre that you're claiming that the omission of this factoid/rumor/whatever is a fault in the main article. As for much of the other material you've included in your version of Saqifah -- it's not covered in the Saqifah article because it's covered elsewhere.

Striver IS creating a parallel Shi'apedia full of badly-written, sub-standard articles. Here are the currently existing articles that start with "Shi'a view of ...":

In none of these cases were the articles created by an organic budding. They are Striver creations and to a great extent, they remain Striver's private domain. They are badly-written, confused, and above all, repetitive. They are evidence of a failure to collaborate. Please, let's not reward this sort of behavior. Zora 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference:

Main article:

It is no accident, the Shi'a claim, that the meeting at the saqifah happened while Ali, Fatima, and Muhammad's immediate kin were preparing his body for burial. Abu Bakr and Umar left without notifying Ali of the meeting. This was a deliberate ploy to cut Ali out of the deliberations.

Shi'a view of article

While Umar and Abu Bakr where in Muhammad house, a Ansar called out Umar personaly and informed him of the meeting in the shed of Banu Sa'ida. Umar called out Abu Bakr and informed only him about it. Shia believe this to be another proof of the complicity. Umar and Abu Bakr left for the meeting without mentioned it to the Banu Hashim or anybody else present in Muhammads house, and instead left them to tend for Muhammads body. Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah joined them on the way while they were going to the meeting.

Shia also point out that Umars desicion to abandon the funeral preparations and walking to a political meating does not support the notion that he was emotionaly devatated to the point of derangment a few moments ago [12].

The main article version is only a summary, it omitts the details of the Shi'a view, that first Umar was called out, then he called out Abu Bakr. it Also does not mention about Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, the grave digger. It neither comments on the Shi'a view of Umars action, that Shi'a view this as proof of his earlier grief being a charade. The reference is here. The Shi'a have a lot to say about the matter, just see here [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. This kind of information , even one tenth of it, can not fitt into the main article without getting undue weight. Its not only about Umar on that moment, its about all the details that the Shi'a view article has, that is not present in the main article.

The articles i have created are celebreated by the other Shi'a editors, they have given me awards for it. That proves that Shi'a view those articles as doing a good job at represening the Shi'a view accuratly. It is only to bad that we dont have more Shi'a editors that can put up articles about the Shi'a view of events. Whenever there are widely different views on the matter, wikipedia dictats that sub articles are to be created to deal with each one in detail, i have already mentioned Jesus, see also Moses and Musa (prophet). There are many articles of the "Shia view of" since Shi'a dissagree with the Sunni view on many aspects, and hence they have their own article to not dominate the main. Just from the answering-ansar links i just gave, it can be easly seen that this article is higly debated. The same is true for the Shi'a view of Umar, all that information can not be put into Umar without giving it undue weight. See here for Wikipedia policies about that: Im sorry if my english is not perfect, but as my awards show, its better than not having the articles in the first place. --Striver 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a contrast to your list:

As can be seen, there are "Christian views of" articles for all the controversial subjects. The Sahaba, i.e. Abu Bakr, Abu Huraira, Ali and such are very controversial in the Shi'a-Sunni world. So is the Saqifah event. It is true that i am the one writing most of the Shi'a articles, but that is not due to me not getting along with the other Shi'a editors, its due to the simple fact that i am the only active Shi'a editor. And hence, its natural that me, the only active Shi'a editor, created most of the articles. I really wish there where more active Shi'a editors, and i am sorry i don't have a better expertice of the English language. --Striver 21:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Normally in such a case I would agree w/Striver's logic - but this article is so intrinsically linked to the whole Sunni/Shi'a issue that these POV's should both be covered in same article, otherwise it would be a POV Fork.Bridesmill 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im all for having the Shi'a pov in the main article, but as soon as Zora starts deleting info saying its nonsense or it unbalances the article or other such things, ill readd them to the break out. i dont really care where the info is, just that it is there. As i showed, i had it on the main article to start with, but it was deleted for being to long, so it needed a break out article. --Striver 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, regaring Zoras false allegation that i only try to make a "Shi'apedia":

I try to cover both povs, if i get around to do that, but of course do i prefer to cover my own pov, specially since im the single editor. --Striver 01:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even Zora keeps professing that all POVs should be always covered. And 2 years of experience on WP editing has shown me, striver, and Zora, that it is impossible to keep the Shia, Sunni, and what Zora calls "academic" view of things peacefully under one article. Sooner or later, one version will start forcefully eclipsing the other versions as being "factual", expanding the article out of proportions, and subsequently causing the trimming of the article at the expense of one version or the other. It has happened 150 times on these Shia articles, and Zora is always the party involved. Therefore it is totally reasonable to have separate articles for each view, and then link them to one another. That way, the peace is kept, and all versions are fully presented. If there are overlaps, all the better. They would only illustrate that the Sunni vs Shia views do share many commonalities. Besides, how would you truly claim to know about Islamic idea, history, and culture if you refuse to acknowledge the views of Sunnis and Shias each. You'll just be missing out on the information, or to put it better: deleting yourself from knowing this information. Or perhaps, the Shia view is merely intended to be silenced? Why else make such efforts to delete information? Ive always said deleting information is always a bad idea. Let the reader judge which view is the correct "factual" view.--Zereshk 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Striver, if you feel the main article is not NPOV, then collaborative editing, not creating your own sub-article, is the solution. Yes, I know just how frustrating that gets, but these kinds of forks, in my opinion, are detrimental to Wikipedia's procedure of achieving NPOV articles through collaboration. Two POV articles on a subject are worth far less than one NPOV one. In other words - this is information that, to the extent that it's verifiable, should go into the main article. --Hyperbole 02:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, you say that both versions are POV. I do not agree that either version is Pov, i did not creat this since the main article is pov. I created this since the main article did not represent the Shi'a view in a detailed enough maner. And it can not do it witout giving it undue weight. I agree that two POV articles is a horrible way to solve something, howver, i do not agree that either article is pov, rather that it reports about different POVs. Could you please explain to me how either article is POV? Thanks. --Striver 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: Jesus and Christian views of Jesus: two perfecly NPOV article reporting about different POVs, the Chrisitianity view can not be merged into the main article since it would give it undue weight. Same here. --Striver 09:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree with Zereshk and Striver--212.6.32.3 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coment Could anyone answer this: Why are the "<Islamic denomination> view of x" articles pov forks in your view, while Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus not POV forks? Thanks for answering. --Striver 09:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, they are POV forks. The information in those articles is largely redundant with Jesus and should be merged. If this causes Jesus to become overlong, forks should be based on content (e.g. Chronology of Jesus) and not on POV, which simply encourages one-sided editing. Jews should be contributing to editing Jesus - they should not abandon that artice in favor of working on Jewish view of Jesus. That would present us with two substandard articles. (I'm not saying that this editing problem currently exists, but it certainly has the potential to.) --Hyperbole 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.