Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali


 * 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 no consensus. You don't need to use AFD for suggesting merges anyway. - ulayiti (talk)  13:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view of Ali
This article, along with all the other "Shi'a view of..." and "Sunni view of..." articles, is POV per se. Merge and Redirect to Ali ibn Abi Talib, along with an expansion of the Sunni view. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also listing the following related pages for deletion (as well as all other POVfork pages that I didn't find): :Sunni view of Ali--nice counterpart to the Shi'a view, but POVforks don't always deserve their own articles. :Shi'a view of Umar :Sunni view of the Sahaba :Shia view of the Sahaba


 * Delete all as content/POV forks with aspects of original research and ownership of articles.--Jersey Devil 18:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge into something. Different views about an issue should be kept as close to each other as possible. But, how about Non-Muslim view of Ali? Flammifer 18:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The current content of the article is not good.  However, on the principal of this type of article, I'm not clear it is inherently a POV fork.  It seems Jesus (prophet in Islam) is similiar in concept, and a number of "God-per-religion" articles also exist.  To me, if two religious groups have a sufficiently different view of a figure, perhaps separate articles are appropriate.  This is particularly  true when the views of that figure *define* those religious groups.  I see Shi'a view of Ali, not as a fork of Ali ibn Abi Talib, but rather, as sub-article of Shi'a Islam.  This article could *potentially* (though not currently) be helpful to readers of Rob 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the Jesus case is special, since christians and muslims are essentially using different sources to build their views of Jesus, whereas for Ali (and the other ones in that cluster), Shi'i and Sunni have different comments but work from the same source material. Kinda the same. Erm. OK, the difference may just be one of degree. I see your point about having this as a sub-article of Shi'a Islam - maybe something like Place of Ali in Shi'a Islam would be better? It would be less of a POV fork. I disagree with the rationale "could be helpful to readers of flammif e rtalk 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur, as Jesus may or may not actually be the EXACT same person in both religions. However, for Sunni view of so-and-so and Shi'a view of so-and-so the subject is clearly the same in both cases. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 21:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe flammif e r and M1ss1ontomars2k4's argument doesn't hold water. What about the Jewish view of Jesus versus Christian views of Jesus? Exactly the same sources are available to Jews and to Christians, but they assign a different meaning to them. Clearly the Shi'a and Sunni views are derived using different source material; Sunni do not use Shi'a sources. Whether Jesus is the same person or not is a red herring. --Lambiam Talk 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Re the Jesus case: I believe there are significant aspects of WP:POVFORK and WP:OWN involved. There do need to be several articles as a matter of article length; however, I've deep misgivings about the way this was done.  It seems that overtly labelling articles as POV forks (or worse yet, simply failing to translate the name, as was originally done, and is still done with Musa, etc.) had been seen as granting exemption from WP:POVFORK and as liscence to own.  And Jesus is of course the exact same person in both religions - Qur'anic mentions of Jesus are mostly confirmations of or rebuttals to Christian doctrine surrounding him, and presume identity.Timothy Usher 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Qur'an? Most mentions of Isa (Jesus) are about how holy this prophet is, second only or perhaps equal to Muhammad. Most Muslims believe he is not dead but will return at the end time. And what is wrong with the name "Musa"? As if "Moses" is not what you call a "translation" – and a rather lousy one at that. Why should everyone prefer a Latin transmogrification of a presumably Middle Egyptian name? --Lambiam Talk 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the most part, yes. But no Jewish or Muslims will tell you that Jesus is the son of God. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not anymore POV than for example Jewish view of Jesus but instead legitimate article spinout (see Content forking). --Lambiam Talk 05:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, for same reason as Lambiam and this article would be great once its cleaned up. --Khalid 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is very pretinent and encyclopedic to know what a major religious sect of the world with 120 million followers thinks of their own holy figures. Deleting this article is like deleting info about what Christians think of the Pope. I for one, would like to know about such info. Same for the Sunni views.--Zereshk 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it would be like deleting what Protestants think of the pope. Notice how there's no such article. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zereshk. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sahaba's (Muhammads companions) are a very prominent part of what Shi'a regard as relevant to their religion, and at the same time they have reached a totaly different conclusion than the Sunnis with regards to almost all Sahaba and events. This, in the same way that Jews and Christians have a very different view of Jesus, even though they use the same sources. So per the precedence of the Jesus article, Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus, this article series is legitimate and even needed and desired. In my view, those who do not agree have failed to understand the scope of dissagreance between Shi'a and Sunni in their views of the Sahaba, something that even have caused some Sunni denominations to cry out for the killing of Shi'a due to what they perseive as defaiming of the companions:


 * 1) The Shi'a curse the Sahaba
 * 2) Those that curse the Sahaba are kaafirs
 * 3) The Shi'a are therefore kaafirs
 * 4) Those that curse the Sahaba should be killed.

--Striver 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have also writen more about it in this afd: Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah--Striver 09:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all, POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with content problems. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ali ibn Abi Talib and redirect. POV forks create NPOV issues, one of which is seen here where, with no attribution, the article claims that this POV is accepted by "most distinguished Western scholars."  There's no reason for this information not to exist in the main article; as Stifle said, POV forking is not an acceptable way to deal with content disputes.  --Hyperbole 02:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge: this article is better than the others, but the title still shows POV issues&mdash;and this is clear in the text. It has useful information, though, and I'd like to see it moved into other articles. --CRGreathouse 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In what sense does the title "show POV issues"? I don't understand this remark. And what might be an example of a title not showing POV issues? The hard facts about Ali? --Lambiam Talk 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Zereshk and Striver.--Sa.vakilian 03:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * coment Could anyone answer this: Why are the " 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)


 * Remark. Some propose a merge. But if you merge the  view on Ali articles into the main article, almost half (48.8%) of the text will be taken up by the views. Isn't that a bit disproportional? --Lambiam Talk 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete However, I'm not so sure any longer that ALL the discussion re Ali should be moved into the Ali article. That is, the Ali article is a biography. Shi'a make several claims about the life of Ali that are disputed by the Sunni and by Western academic scholars, and those contentious claims are covered in Identity of first male Muslim and Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib. I think both those breakout articles are what breakout articles should be: they take very contentious issues out of the main article, so that there's more space for all the contending views. However, much of the Shi'a view of Ali is, IMHO, theology rather than history. It doesn't belong in the biography, it belongs in the Shi'a article. If it is too big to fit there, it can have its own article, as Shi'a theology. I think that's the difference between the study of the historical Jesus and arguments about the nature, divine or human, of Jesus (Christology). I haven't gone into the Shi'a article in a long time -- it was taken over by Shi'a zealots. But a lot of the Ali material needs to go there, not be presented as history. Zora 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You succeeded in confusing me here. My impression is that Christian views of Jesus can likewise be thought of as theology rather than history, and is too big to fit into the Christianity article, so it can have its own article, as Christian theology. I'm still with you there. But then, here is where I'm lost, why then do you recommend "Delete"? --Lambiam Talk 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For one thing, Christology and Christian views of Jesus are different articles. I don't think the latter should exist; I just looked at it and it does seem to be be a POV fork. As for the article up for deletion -- it's not theology, but history, badly written history, and it's written by someone with no background in Shi'a theology. If the article had a different title and substantially different content, and were presented as theology -- that is, if it were something it is not -- I would vote to keep it. Are you up to making the necessary changes? I don't think I am, right now. Zora 07:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, Zora dissmissing the Shi'a view of history as nonsense, claiming that it should not even be presented as the Shi'a view of history. I feel deeply offended by that, to claim that my view of history should not even be called "Shi'a view of history", rather "Shi'a theology", implying "Shi'a bs". --Striver 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Public statment If the wikipedians decides that " view of x" articles are pov forks, while Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus are not pov forks, i will totaly loose the motivation to continue to work on this project and promise my most dear promise that i will never more edit anything else in the Wikipedia domain or its sister projects, unless directly Coerced, and even then try to keep my editing to a minum.--Striver 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.