Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia ranking of the Sahaba

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 Move to Shia view of the Sahaba and Sunni view of the Sahaba. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shia ranking of the Sahaba + Sunni ranking of the Sahaba

It should be noted that Sunni ranking of the Sahaba also exists and should be considered in this VfD. I am putting this up for deletion because the unsourced "ranking" seems inherently POV / original research to me. I originally placed {{move|Shia view of the Sahaba}} but Striver shot down that idea so I believe here will be a better place to determine communal view of this. For more reasons see my vote.

• Move (with change of format and deletion of unsourced) to Shia view of the Sahaba or Shia views of the Sahaba. Because I was unclear: The content will be moved... the main change will be to have this article be descriptive (qualitative) instead of the quantative approach used now which is not found in other sources. gren グレン

I believe that the ranking is impossible to have NPOV. I am aware that there is general Shia feeling towards different individuals but not so we can place different ones in a list of who Shia believe are "strongly positive", "strongly negative", etc. as the page does. we have now, which wouldThe current article is not sourced and I believe this move will first allow a discussion of the views of the Sahaba instead of the list with the rankings which appear to be original research and I am doubting that there is any representative scholarly Shia source with the a ranking system. The viewpoint is fine but I feel this is more or less of a mockery of encyclopedic work. Oh, and for this wanting a more specific policy related reason -- I feel it violates WP:NOT 1.3, 1.7 and to a lesser extent 1.4 gren グレン 19:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep lol, i love it, of cource we need a VFD for even this article, otherwise it would break the trend of VFD all shia articles... --Striver 20:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean, are you opposing the idea that shias like the Banu Hashim and hate Umar, Muaviya & co, or is your problem that its not all in one single list somewhere? Well, List of cities in Georgia, USA is not sourced, why dont you go and VFD it? I mean, go read any random Shia book and you will se it curse any and everyone on the "strong negative" section and praise any and everyone in the "strong positive" section, as if there was some secret about that... i dont get you. Its common knowledge the stuff added in the list, i mean, its so COMMONLY known that NOBODY has edited or changed the list in ANY way since i created it or added people to it, NOBODY is contesting the ranking. I Mean, are you contesting the ranking? --Striver 20:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless "strong negative" and the strict classification of yours is original research. If you wish to cite what the books say that is another matter. Cities in Georgia is more objective fact than this... a completely different ball game. I am contesting the use of ranking in the first place. Sourced descriptions would be fine, but not a ranking. Which is why I believe it should be moved. I would also prefer you not imply that this has anything to do with it being a Shia article. The common denominator in Shia articles up for deletion seems to be your hand placed on them. My reasoning is this. I don't want anyone coming to wikipedia and being under the impression that Sunnis and Shia have some sort of ranking system for Muhammad's companions. -- the different groups will generally have different views and I acknowledge that, so source it and place it in context. One shia site does not mean that that view is correct. Make notable citations Striver and say whom your citing. That is my problem. I haven't editted it because I thought it was such a mess I didn't know what to do so I avoided it. I can't tell you other users' reasons. gren グレン 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Those points are already addressed in great detail in the first part of the article. --Striver 22:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Needs copyediting, but appears to be a significant topic. No theoretical reason why it can't be neutrally presented. Osomec 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This entire enterprise is 'seriously' flawed. It would be interesting to discuss the Sahaba in the context of an emerging Shia & Sunni orthodoxy, particularly why different companions came to be viewed as they were (beyond the bullet point summaries here). But a laundry list like this is difficult to accept. It would be like Cathars ranking of early Saints, or Arianist ranking of the Disciples - a meaningless exercise. Would the author be willing to pen a more detailed exposition of the changing view of the Sahaba within an emerging Shia tradition, complete with proper sources and references? That would be a great article. If the article is kept, the existing content needs to be largely replaced. Dottore So 01:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats a good point, ill try to add to the article the historical reseason of the split in the view of the Sahaba. However, i feel its going to be hard for me to do that in a NPOV way and i might need some co-editor to help me write in a NPOV way. --Striver 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've come to the right place to find co-editors. In the event that you are able to expand upon the historical context, I would suggest moving the article to a topic heading such as Changing sectarian views of the Sahaba and unite the Sunni and Shia into a merged discussion. Dottore So 01:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Move I agree with Dottore So, the idea can be tweaked to be much more encyclopedic with a further discussion of the views of individual members of the Sahaba, providing reasons for just how these views came to be with sources of course. Gren is right as well: it seems "ranking" screams "POV list" and Shia Views of the Sahaba would be more appropriate. The idea of ranking gives the impression that the concept is black-and-white, when in reality it's not. Sorna Doon 02:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• In light of the discussion above and the general agreement that seems to have emerged, I will vote to Move either per my own or the original suggestion, with the hope that the article will undertake a more systematic examination of how Sunni/Shia views on the Sahaba were formed, and - as importantly - the significance for both communities. Dottore So 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP The article is showing the rankings of Sahaba according to the shia view and there is nothing wrong wiyth that--Khalid! 11:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP for the same reason as Osomec

--Ya Ali 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Move - i'm with Gren on this one. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Move, and restructure to deal with the OR and POV issues raised. Looks to me like there's some valuable and useful content here, however. Alai 17:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move both. Unless all Shia agree on the ranking of their 100,000 Sahaba and unless all Sunni agree on the ranking of their considerably fewer sahaba, both articles should be renamed, although I would prefer something more like Sahaba in Shia Islam and Sahaba in Sunni Islam. Are there differing views between Alawiya and Zaiddiyah, etc. and/or among the Wahhabis/Salafis and Sufis? I'm not opposed to lists, or even to rankings, as long as there is agreement outside WP as to the correct rankings. Tomer ^TALK 21:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Move - I have never seen anything to think that there is a universal ranking of the Sahaba. There are different views and it should be moved to say that. rydia 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Move - there could be a good article in a discussion of how the companions of Muhammad -- the early Muslims -- took sides in various disputes. There's the succession to Muhammad and the first Islamic civil war, the Fitna. Basically, the Shi'a trust (rank high) the companions who took the side of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Therefore, any discussion of factionalism among the companions would necessarily subsume the articles under discussion now. Zora 03:19, 26 August 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.