Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Bias against The Shia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Keep 8/3. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Bias against The Shia

I really don't want to persecute someone's (obviously heartfelt) cause, but this is inherently POV --Doc (?) 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A rename and NPOVing is in place, but the topic is legit and real. --Striver 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is NPOV material in there, it should comfortably fit into Shia.Sandstein 15:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (but see below), well-written article on intrinsically POV topic, No original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Barno 15:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be in favor of a merge of a small amount of the more objective and sourced content into the Shia article. Barno 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Shi'a Islam as per Sandstein and Barno. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any NPOV bits into the appropriate articles Alynna 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if there is any NPOV material, then redirect. Note: "This article intends to address just that, and is written from the perspective of the Shi'a" makes me think there is very little NPOV material here to begin with. Sdedeo 18:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. If one is to study the Shi'a from the perspective as they themselves see it, (not from the perspective of outsiders), this would be the one and only article to address that.--Zereshk 19:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Em, so that's us welcoming articles from particular POV's now? What happened to WP:NPOV? --Doc (?) 19:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

POVness doesnt even apply to this case because the article is merely reporting what Shias believe as the truth, not what anyone else thinks what the truth is. The article is reporting their perspective. It's like me accusing you (Doc Glascow) of being POV for saying "I am Doc Glascow". Another example: If I say: "I, Zereshk, believe that hyenas are beautiful", you cannot accuse me of making a POV statement, because it is what I believe, not you, nor Mr. X, nor the Wikipedia consensus. You cannot say: "No Zereshk. You are POV. Because I know better than you what you believe in, and the world doesnt agree with you either". Follow the logic? The world's consensus opinion is not applicable here. The article clearly states that it is from the Shia viewpoint, not from the standard Islamic or academic or any other perspective. It is an objective report of a subjective view. Therefore your action of even putting this article to vote for deletion is meaningless. Wouldnt you want to know what Shias think? What they (not you or the consesnsus) believe in? Wouldnt you want to hear what they have to say about themselves? How can you claim what they say as POV? Do you know Shias better than Shias know themselves?--Zereshk 20:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is fine to objectively report the subjective views of Shias - as long as we have objective reports of other takes on the issues too. An article that simply recored Shia views on an alledged academic bias without any record of opposing views would be POV. Or else we could have artilces on 'a fundamentalist's view of evolution' or 'a Palestinian's view of Israeli occupation' without any NPOV corrective. --Doc (?) 20:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including multiple POV, indeed, this is the cornerstone of NPOV. But if you read the quote I gave above, it says it is "written from the perspective of the Shi'a". The article is not and does not claim to be written from a neutral point of view; it explicitly excludes (including in the title) all but one POV. Sdedeo 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any NPOV material (with sources when/if provided), then redirect as perSdedeo. It's certainly possible to attempt a balance between Many Shia commentators believe and Opponents often claim but one needs sources first (and even then the result is liable to seem weaselly)! Dlyons493 20:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Commnet Guys, ther is a factual bias against Shias, as they perceive it, and in what i have understood, even in a factual way, since the net is filled with non-sense presented as acctual Shia belives. Zereshk is trying to represent that, and the topic in it self is to big to fit in the Shia article whithout dominating it. So the subject is real, both in that there is much desinformation about shias and that shias feel that themselves. And as i said, there is to much to make all of it fitt in the Shia article. Dont condemn her article as non-sence without having read, understood and commneted it. --Striver 22:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any factual material. There are Shia academics: the title in inherently POV. Vizjim 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. If it is the title of the article that bothers people, then change it. But keep the article itself. Merging isnt a good idea, because it will dominate the Shia article itself, as Striver has pointed out.--Nightryder84 23:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It has an essay title to begin with. Other than that, it's just a soapbox. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:23, 11 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.