Talk:Rafida

Cleanup request
This page needs cleanup!--88.111.117.148 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first of this article have no references thus making it an unnecessary and it almost seems as propaganda of sort. Thank you TalibHassani006 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * per MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Also on that same policy page MOS:CITELEAD basically says we do not have to duplicate cites in the body in the lead. It seems like all the points made in the lead are from the article, but if you see something that is unduly mentioned or left out, please say so and be specific. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Rafida and Bilad al-Rafidayn
What is the connection between this term and the Arabic term for Mesopotamia? Does the name mean Mesopotamia is 'the land of the rejecters'? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:9DB:9CD9:8ABE:7E56 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rafida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316212559/http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/29/the_vocabulary_of_sectarianism to http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/29/the_vocabulary_of_sectarianism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Regarding your mass revert, my edits were not disruptive or biased, and I don't think I removed any reliably-sourced content without it being already mentioned elsewhere in the article.

By contrast, in your recent edits, you systematically inserted your unsourced POVs and removed or mutilated reliably-sourced material. I've documented these, one by one, in my counter-edits (which you've now reverted). For example, here you changed "[Sunni] traditions of dubious authenticity" to "traditions." In another instance, here you removed from the lede the sentence about the link to [Sunni] extremism.

Before reporting this to WP:DRR, I'd like to bring this post to your attention because you've recently shown interest in this article. I hope you would help resolve this conflict. Thank you. Albertatiran (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In both examples you mentioned, burden is on the editor who wants to insert content. On the other hand, you removed an encyclopaedic reference with an inline citation.
 * I did not engage in editwar either, so the heading of this section is false and probably disingenous. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8 What "burden"? In both example I mentioned, you removed reliably-sourced content fun the article.
 * I have not removed any reliably-sourced material from this article. Could you be more specific with your accusation? Albertatiran (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You do not have any inline citations.
 * "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8 It's a common practice on Wikipedia not to include citations in the lede, which servers as a summary of the main body of the article, where the claims in question are cited from reliable sources. Even if you were unaware of this practice, this still doesn't explain your other instances of removing content from the body of this article. See my first example above. Albertatiran (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Albertatiran
 * Stop making strawman claims. Nowhere did I ask to insert in-line citations in the lede. You have no in-line citations for those claims, either in the body of the article or in the talk-page.
 * You removed an inline-citation and a Britannica reference here, claiming that it is "not a reliable source". Encyclopædia Britannica is listed as a reliable source in wikipedia.
 * "Encyclopædia Britannica is a quality general encyclopedia (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections."
 * Thirdly, as another editor pointed out, you inserted several sectarian POV edits as well. One such edit I noticed was this. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8 It's clear that you didn't understand what I said about the lede...
 * Regarding Britannica, an article authored by "Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica" is not a reliable source, especially when there are a dozen top-tier sources about the topic, including the Encyclopedia of Islam. At any rate, nothing was removed. That sentence was just replaced with similar (but far more reliable) claims from much better sources.
 * Regarding your link, that "another editor" is yourself!! And that content is (without any editorial bias) taken from reliable sources. My task, as a Wikipedia editor, is to summarize and present reliable research about the topic, be it controversial or not.
 * Still none of these explains or justifies your whole-same reversion of my edits. I'm reporting this case to WP:DRR. Albertatiran (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping! I do believe your version was better than this one, though I do see a bit of a pro-Shia statements on some of the articles you have worked on. For example, on the articles of Muharram and Ashura, the claims that Sunnis celebrate 10 Muharram "through supererogatory fasting and other acceptable expressions of joy." is a controversial statement to make. I believe such discussions should be needed before making such edits. Your revisions on other articles, such as Ahl al-Bayt (where the claim is made that "Sunnis extended the term ahl al-bayt to all Muslims" is again controversial and an extremely rare opinion amongst the Sunnis. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your revisions of sources replacing poor ones with WP:RS as on this article, though I would appreciate neutrality in Shia–Sunni related articles. Regarding Rafida, on the current version of this article, I would advocate for a change in wording. For example: is simply untrue. The Saudi state religion is only Islam per the constitution, Salafism / Wahhabism is the dominant movement practiced there, albeit not a state religion. Nevertheless, I agree with Albertatiran on the removal of such sources like  Pustaka Nasional Pte Ltd., Allama Yahya al-Houthi and History of Islam Volume of Akbar Najibabadi which are nowhere close to WP:RS. Aqsian313 (Aqsian313) 16:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aqsian313 Thanks for the input. What you quoted (from this article and others) are, without any exceptions, taken from top-tier sources and added to the articles with their due weights. We should keep in mind that our job here is to faithfully present the reliable and academic research, be it controversial or not.
 * For example, Ashura is indeed celebrated in many Sunni communities, particularly in the Maghreb. Just because it's a controversial statement doesn't mean that it shouldn't receive its due weight in our Wikipedia article. A similar story for your comment about the Ahl al-Bayt. My point is that there is no room on Wikipedia for our personal observations or views unless they can be backed up by the majority views across the academia.
 * One exception here is your comment about Wahhabism. The claim that it's the state religion in Saudi Arabia is taken verbatim from the sources. If you think it's incorrect, I'd be happy to discuss it, ideally in a separate thread. In particular, what alternative wording do you suggest? Thanks again! Albertatiran (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your points on the Ashura and the Ahl al-Bayt articles. Regarding this one, for the part about Wahhabism, I propose "In Saudi Arabia, where the dominant creed in Salafism (the term Wahhabi is not claimed by the Saudis) schoolbooks referred to Shias as the Rafida until 1993". Nevertheless, the rest of your revision is pretty good in my opinion. Aqsian313 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be happy to address your comment and rewrite that sentence once the current content dispute is resolved. Do you happen to know a good source for the sentence you suggested? Albertatiran (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm currently busy working on something so I don't really have the time to look in for a good source for this. Nevertheless, we both have reached a consensus for this article. If Shaddowwarrior8 doesn't reply, then just revert. Again, thanks for pinging! Aqsian313 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aqsian313 Ok, sounds good. To be safe, I've submitted this case for dispute resolution and cited your comment in my argument. Albertatiran (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If I am correct the issue you are fighting over is whether to include a sourced statement saying that some Shi'a co-opt and identify with the label of Rafidhi?

(contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 17:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @AvDahan Hello, I'm working to undo the unexplained mass-revert linked above. Albertatiran (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Rejection of Truth in Lede
Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:

? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement of why, on your view, the statement should be restored or should not be restored. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section; that's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey
No! I oppose restoring this statement, especially to the lead, because it's WP:UNDUE, WP:PARTISAN and MOS:LABEL ("Sunni extremists"). Across the world, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunnis, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. However, any controversial statements, quotes or accusations should be attributed to whoever said them, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

My humble advice to both editors, it's recommended to focus on wise, moderate opinions like these: 1, 2, 3. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) * Not as written nope not neutral. Could be rewritten tho. Too tired to propose a specific alternative rn. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) * Yes At just one paragraph, there is plenty of room in the lede to summarize the key paragraph that corresponds to this sentence (quoted in the discussion section below). That paragraph (which covers most of the "Context" section) essentially says that, for some Sunni currents and schools, the term Rafida signifies that Shias have rejected the true Islam and are thus heretics, against whom violence is justified. Note that neutrality does not mean censorship in Wikipedia; see WP:CENSOR. Albertatiran (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No - as I explained in the discussion sub-section. Also, that assertion is a redflag claim which is totally inappropriate in the lede section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No - Inclusion of the sentence as written in the lede is prejudicial. It doesn't belong in the lede. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No - Clearly undue for the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
That statement is inappropriate in the lede, since it gives undue weight to contemporary geo-political issues. WP:RECENTISM

The article primarily deals with the Rafida sects and their history. In my opinion, a main issue with many Islam-related articles in wikipedia is that classical religious doctrines and concepts are mixed with contemporary geo-political issues in many of these pages. Imami Shi'ites has self-identified themselves as "Rafida" for over a thousand years. The term "Rafida" has been used derogatorily in Sunni and Zaydi scholarly texts for over a thousand years.

Ignoring this and giving undue weight to information related to contemporary militant and insurgent groups advances an Euro-centric systemic bias and is certainly not an encyclopaedic approach. Additionally, both the article and it's 1 para lede are very short, so it is undue in the lede. If a page article titled "Rafida (slur)" is created, then it maybe appropriate to mention information related to contemporary geo-political affairs in an enlarged lede. Otherwise, it is undue. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The removed sentence summarizes a paragraph in our article about the Rafida (lit. 'those who reject', an often deragotary nickname for most Shias). The paragraph, quoted below, essentially says that, for some Sunni currents and schools, the term Rafida signifies that Shias have rejected the true Islam and are thus heretics, against whom violence is justified. This is not a contemporary development and such attitude towards Shias dates back to the eleventh century or earlier.


 * In my view, the corresponding paragraph is an important part of the article that warrants mention in the lede, as the standalone summary of the article; see WP:LEDE. To hide it from the majority of visitors (who would not go on to read the main article) is not to give the issue its due weight.


 * At just one paragraph, the current lede is well-below the recommended limit of four paragraphs; see MOS:LEADLENGTH.

To sum, in my opinion, there is hardly any justification to remove that sentence from the lede.

Corresponding paragraph in the body of the article: Albertatiran (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

New edits
Hi, I have addressed the problems that your unexplained mass-reverts (here and here) introduced into the article. Following the survey in Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I've removed the standalone quote from Britannica in Footnote 1, which contradicted reliable sources, such as these three from our own article. I've added back the key phrase "of dubious authenticity," which you had removed from the article. I've removed the unreliable sources that you had added to the article, such as alukah.net. I've removed the phrase "saying he never heard his family call them bad names," which doesn't exist in the source. There are a number of similar changes throughout the article, which I'd be happy to discuss with you here. Albertatiran (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Albertatiran


 * I have made some improvements to the page and restored some of the sourced contents which you dubiously removed in that edit without explanation.
 * Also, I have removed your unsourced claim in the lead that majority of Shias "'reject' the legitimacy" of the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. It is well-known that majority of early Shias held Abu Bakr and Umar in high regard. In that survey in the noticeboard, I already provided a source (with quotation) for this.
 * While it maybe accurate to state that majority of Shias today dont view of the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar as legitimate, historically, it was not necessarily the case. Such sweeping claims that doesnt give an accurate depiction of history are inappropriate in the opening sentence of the lede anyway.
 * [PS: The burden to demonstrate verifiability by providing quotations remains solely on the editor who wants inclusion of text material. Ref-bombing in the talk-page or article page is completely irrelevant in content inclusion, especially when the content is challenged by other editors.] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Another mass-revert
Hi, once again I have addressed some of the problems that your new unexplained mass-revert has introduced into the article. Throwing accusations at me, reverting my edits without justification, and avoiding talk-page discussion won't work for you, especially when an admin (eventually) gets involved. It's you, Shadowwarrior8, that's being an edit warrior (see here and here and here) and my edits are obviously not disruptive. Once again I urge you to please come to the talk page so that we can have a civil discussion and agree on the wording.

Among other things, it seems that you keep removing from the lede (and the body of the article) the basic fact that most Shias are Twelver (and that the pejorative term is applied to most Shias). I've added that back with proper citations. I've also undone some of your unsourced changes to the text. For example, the recent sources I have cited are clear that Wahhabism is (not was) dominant is Saudi Arabia. If you believe that has changed since the publication of these sources, then you should present your evidence for that. I also rewrote the last sentence of the Zaydi section to better match the source. The way you had written it implied that only Zaydis apply the pejorative nickname to Twelvers, which is incorrect. Albertatiran (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) none of the sources claimed 12r Shias as majority of Shias + plus that's irrelevant in the page. It was removal of your Synth which attempted to portray Rafida as majority of Shia.
 * Let us focus on the content. I suggest that you stop throwing accusations and labels at me (like wp:disruptive, wp:synthesis, wp:idontlikeit). That's not constructive and those accusations are certainly not true. The Rafida (aka Twelvers) are the Shia majority. About 85 percent of Shias are Twelvers, who regard the early caliphs as usurpers of Ali's rights. In the past, I've cited several reliable sources to this effect (e.g., Kohlberg's article about Rafida: On the question of the imāmate they [the Rafida aka Twelvers] maintained that ʿAlī had been appointed as Muḥammad’s successor by an explicit designation (naṣṣ) and that the majority of the Companions were sinners or even unbelievers for failing to support him after the Prophet’s death.) In contrast, you're yet to give any reliable source that support your claim, let alone establishing that your view represents the academic majority. Albertatiran (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC).
 * You have provided no sources in support of your claim that "majority of Shias" rejected the legitimacy of the Caliphates of Abubakr and Omar.
 * Infact academic sources are clear that majority of early Shi'ites held Abu Bakr and Omar in high regard:
 * Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 2) Your sources regarding Wahhabism are outdated.
 * I've tweaked the claim about Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia to resolve this point of contention. Albertatiran (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you removed an updated source without any explanation, which is disruptive. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Zaydi sub-section is only regarding Zaydis. There is no need to repeat the Sunni view in that part.
 * There is no mention of Sunnis in the Zaydi section in my version. Did you even read it? Albertatiran (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) You have continued to dubiously remove long-standing sourced contents and academic sources which you dont like, hence your overall editorial conduct has been as disruptive as usual. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? If you're talking about Britannica, then we did a survey earlier and reached the conclusion that Britannica can't be cited as a standalone source. In contrast, I can list several instances where you have removed content or made unsourced changes to the text, like the one addressed here. As I said above, I suggest that you stop throwing accusations at me and let us focus on the content. Albertatiran (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Britannica Encyclopaedia" wasnt cited as a stand alone source. There is literally the reference of "Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition", which you removed disruptively without any explanation. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was a silly squabble – both of you are better editors than this, and this should have resolved through discussion on talk, not edit warring. Now you've both been rather pointlessly blocked for 72 hours. Next time seek a third opinion, post to WikiProjects, or try some other dispute resolution options. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)