Talk:Abd Allah ibn Saba'/Archive 1

Archive 1

untitled comments

THE MYTH 'ABDULLAH IBN SABA' --Striver - talk 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you bought into the words of this modern writer so easily and swiftly that you're ignoring the records of the classical scholars?

No point in arguing with sons of Mut'a. They'll accept all lies and fabrications to defend their accursed history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.153.232 (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[allaahuakbar.net/shiites/response_to_embassy_of_the_iran.htm The integrity of texts confirming the existence of Abdullah ibn Sabah al Yahudi from Shi'a sources] xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 10:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Shi'i View

I agree that perhaps the term "anti-Shi'i" might seem a bit polarising, but the view in question is not "Sunni". It's a minority view within Sunnism and hence to characterise the "Judaising" opinion as the Sunni one is very misleading... Any ideas for a solution?

By the way, I obviously wrote up a new version of the article off the cuff because it was in such a poor shape, so I am enthused that others are pitching in to work on this very poor example of a Wikipedia article. Ogress _smash! 09:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources, sources.... we just need sources saying this or that opinion is majority or minority, and this or that is fact or not... Britannica perchance? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

:Is there a way to refer to the polemical use of ibn Sina in the section title? He is used by some Sunni Muslims in polemical arguments against Shia Islam. It is so difficult to remain npov on this topic! PinkWorld (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I've discussed with the other editor about this. He also tried to use invalid secular sources (old Orientalist sources, the reason we do not use them in secular academia is detailed in Edward Said's book Orientalism (book)). This topic can be handled correctly, and insha'Allah it will be to everyone's satisfaction. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Source Questions Added to Sunni Views Section

I have added tags regarding sources to the Sunni Views Section.

The entire first paragraph lacks referencing. It needs a verifiable source. Given the fact that some question the existence of Abdullah ibn Sina, even the first sentence of this section should be referenced.

I left the unreliable source tag for "Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 25, p. 286" (currently ref#6) because it is a primary source text for the religious doctrines of Islam. As far as I know, we are not able to quote the Qur'an, ahadith, etc. directly as a source for an encyclopedia article, but are instead expected to find secular, academic sources for our information. There is also the issue of the authentication of ahadith and the differences that exist between scholars and, in the case, sect, on what consistutes an authentic hadith.

I requested a factcheck for the sentence "However, when ibn Saba' claimed that ‘Alī is himself God..." and another for the first two sentences of the next paragraph. I added the NPOV tag to the next sentence: the phrase "It is easy to see" sounds like the introduction of an opinion.

Since anwary-islam, islamicweb, and geocities.com/~abdulwahid are all religious sites, I have contested the reliability of articles linked to them as sources. The biography of Uthman ibn Affan on anwary-islam did not list an author. Islamicweb is full of polemical articles against Shia Islam and the Sufi path; the article linked to it is among those polemical articles. Like the anwary-islam site, the article did not specify an author. The article on brother Abdul Wahid's site also lacked author information. Generally, if an article on a Sunni website is written by even a mid-ranking `alim, that article will contain at least the name of the author. None of those three articles appears to be academic or scholarly in the sense that they could be used as references in an encyclopedia article. PinkWorld (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I have also added some tags to part of the Shia section. PinkWorld (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Are the sources listed in the Sunni Sources section of the Sunni Views section considered primary sources? I really suspect that they are, but my personal pro-taqlidi bias seems to be confusing me. PinkWorld (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

This article is saturated with unreliable sources and primary sources. Sometimes and sparingly you can quote a primary source in order to illustrate a point of a secondary source, for example, verse 33:33 perhaps to illustrate ismah in the Qur'an because a secondary source is referring to its application in the Qur'an through this verse. The reason I haven't destroyed all primary sources from this article yet is because every damn section is using them. I'm waiting for us to replace the material slowly before I destroy the bad citations. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Screw it, I deleted 'em. Live strong! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. I hope that someone will be able to add in references and flesh out the article in a way that satisfies Wikipedia policies. Thank you for having guts that I don't. Just call me an `ulama lover, crazy usuli, whatever. :) PinkWorld (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I won't call you anything, just don't like, lead a revolution on Wikipedia and overthrow Jimmy Wales and institute a guardianship of jurists which says Baha'i editors can't edit anymore. I'm cool with you as long as you don't do that. :P --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you rejected wilayatu l-faqii7. It'd be more like wilaayatu l-editori l-wikipediyyi anyway. AND WHAT ABOUT THE DRUZE? Ogress _smash! 09:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What made you think I accepted WF?! Anywho, right now I'm totally re-organizing Ismailism (but I am publishing all the changes at once) to be like Islam. Insha'Allah, this means lots of merging, copyediting, and new material. One of the benefits is I am going to further bring the article to be more inclusive of the Druze, since I am going to detail Ismaili cyclical time with the emanations of the First, Second, and Third Archangels. These beliefs are what unify Ismailism into a single religious movement within Shi'a Islam, only separated by various tariqah. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

laflaflaf! I cannot even make proper edits yet, much less take over mwahhaha ala 1979! Anyway, I have no intention of doing any such thing. I am generally a rule-bound person unless issues of justice take precedence (i.e. temporarily blocking sidewalk traffic to hold up a Free gaza sign *sigh* if only). I really should go back to those books...really... Ogress, thank you for cleaning up after me. PinkWorld (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Scholar's view

Also, i think the heading 'Scholar's view' should be changed since it doesn't really sound refined enough. no?--IsaKazimi (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sayf ibn Umar

I created the Shi'a view and an article on Sayf ibn Umar. I think that maybe Sayf ibn Umar's page should be merged with this page. Since he isn't worthy of a page in his own right.--IsaKazimi (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sayf ibn Umar

This page will make no sense unless Sayf ibn Umar is referenced. There was an entry for Sayf once upon a time but somebody deleted it because Sayf wasn't important enough. DKleinecke (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An identically-named Jewish scholar who resided in Medina at the time of Muhammad

Hello, who is he ? Abddullah ibn Salam, the Jewish converted or really another 'Abdullah ibn Saba' ? Thanks — Skandar ^blabla 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have tried to copyedit this article, though I'm not sure I got everything 100% correct. I tried my hardest not to alter the meaning at all, but I may have inadvertently done so. If I have, please feel free to correct it—I meant no disrespect or harm. If you would like any assistance with making sure that future changes/additions are still stylistically correct, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Shī‘a scholars who proclaimed that he existed

This section is not informative. Just list of some scholars, without saying what they have said about Abdullah Saba. Instead of just some names we must write about their views. Thats what I am going to do. Any comments?--Penom (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Shia view

In this section we must summarize the view of Shia. Only listing some Shia writers as the persons who mentioned Ibn-Saba is not informative. We must explain what were their positions regariding Ibn Saba. Of course many Shia scholars mentioned Ibn Saban but considered him as an exterimist Shia or sometimes a fractional person. Please note that even Shia sources that recorded Ibn Saban as a real existed person , do not consider such a key role for him in emergence of Shia, as some Sunni sources beleive--Penom (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits of Wiqqi

There are many examples of WP:SYNTH by user Wiqi55 and I note two of them for the time being:

1. Some modern Shī‘a scholars refute the existence of Ibn Saba, though for more than 13 centuries, Shia scholars used to give the stories and narrations of Ibn Saba.

None of your sources support this conclusion and it is a clear WP:SYNTH. Wiqi listed some names and then added his interpretation of sources to imply this wrong notion that Shia Mullahs support Sunni view. First of all no Shia scholar consider Ibn Saba as the founder of Shia. There are 2 views between Shia writers, none is the same as Sunni's view. First group refute the existence of Ibn Saba, the second group recorded Ibn Saba but do not consider very big role for as Sunni sources do. They just consider Ibn Saba as a leader of extremist Shia sect, disapproved by others.

1. Some modern historians cast doubt on his historical existence,^[4] but others affirm his existence and that of his followers as a historical fact.^[5]

The Lewis comment is misrepresentd in first sentence: Lewis says Modern historians cast doubt on the role of Ibn Saba in the emergence of Shia', his Jewish origin or even his historical existence.

The second part is also falsification of the source. The source is actually one of the sources that cast doubt about the role of Ibn Saba in emergence of Shia and his Jewish origin. Please note, there is more disagreement on the role of Ibn Saba and to lesser degree on his existence. This should be address correctly. This is what Wiqqi's edits do not address these two different disagreements correctly--Penom (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with your first example. The version of the article that you keep reverting to had the same sentence that you accuse me of writing, in the lead even. [1] I'm not sure who wrote that sentence or how long it's been there. I merely moved it to a more relevant section to cleanup the article a bit, and make the lead more informative. My goal was to only delete clear-cut errors and duplication (i.e., claims that are repeated 3-4 times all over the article). I kept this sentences because the summary of traditional Shia views as given in the Encyclopedia of Islam made it sound plausible. Considering that this sentence was in your version of the article, in the lead even, your accusations of wp:synth on my part are baseless.

The second sentence is also correct and well-cited. Note that B. Lewis is not the only historian in the world. His views should not be reported as facts, especially that we have more specialist sources that contradict him. Tucker (2008) clearly states that, some historians, after an extensive study of the subject, do affirm that Ibn Saba' and his followers have existed. Here is a quote:

"The significant result of Friendlaender's work is that it demonstrates in a rather conclusive manner that Ibn Saba' and the Sabi'iyya did, in fact, exist, at least from the time of Ali, [...] The reliability of Friendlaender's study has been attested to by Sabatino Moscati, who made substantial use of it in his treatment of the Saba'iyya in an article about the early Shi'a." (p.10)

This is exactly what I have reported. As for his role, I devoted a complete paragraph to the subject (see the second paragraph in "Views of modern historians"). But thanks for finally coming to the talk page. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, and WP:SYNT of Shia writer accounts. You reverted several times when I tried to fix these issue. example

Regarding the second issue. You missed the point. More than debate on existence of Ibn Saba, the main dispute is on his importance as the founder of Shia and his role in assassination of Othman and his Jewish origin. You keep deleting or undermining this main dispute. Even historians that consider him a historical figure, do not consider him the founder of Shia. Please, understand the point. YOur main effort is to show his existence, however, this is not the main point. The dispute is more on his importance.

Tucker, your source, is also one of the sources that cased doubt on his Jewish origin and his role in assassination of Othman and his role , for example "Friedlaender argues that Sayf's account of Ibn Saba was invented for purpose of finding a scapegoat for trouble surrounding Uthman"Penom (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, headers should be neutral per WP:TALKNEW. First, I reverted your attempt to remove well-cited material using misleading edit summaries[2] or not so compelling arguments [3]. You have deleted a well-cited paragraph without even examining or checking any of the sources. But all of this has nothing to do with the first sentence above which I'm being accused of writing or reverting. It was already in the lead of your version of the article, not in the paragraph in the diff. Second, your version contained the following sentence "Historical evidence reject the existence of Ibn Saba' and suggest that Ibn Saba is the creation of Umayyad propaganda" (via B.Lewis). This is patently false, as shown by Tucker (2008); some modern historians do confirm his existence as fact. Thus your accusations that I'm misrepresenting sources are baseless. And where did I say that modern historians consider him the founder of Shia? Nowhere. I also added the sentence that "His Jewish origin has also been contested". I planned to add more on the subject after I clean the section of "Sayf ibn Umar". You are free to add whatever you want to the lead, like the phrase "his historical existence and role", but you kept blindly reverting a large number of good edits. A missing and role does not provide a good justification for all these accusations, and certainly does not justify a blind revert to a poor-quality article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For one second listen. Lewis says more, he says historians cast doubt on his Jewish origin and his role. You deleted this part and falsified the source. Tacker actually is not a contesting source. He supports Lewis view, he contests his Jewish origin when he says:

"It is quite possible that the imputation of Jewish ancestry to ibn Saba on his father's side, as well as the atribution of black descent on his mother's side, ws designed to discredit his credentials as a Muslim Arab and thus stigmatize all ideas associated with him"

Moreover Tucker casts doubt on legendary acts attributed to Ibn Saba:

"Friedlaender argues that Sayf's account of Ibn Saba was invented for purpose of finding a scapegoat for trouble surrounding Uthman"

Do you understand your mistake? Tucker is not a contesting source as you claim? If you got my point, let me talk about other problems in your editsPenom (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucker (2008) was only entertaining the different possibilities. He isn't sure. He later wrote:

"Whatever is the case regarding his ethnic identity, it is quite probable that Ibn Saba' was a Yemenite, and that he came from a Jewish milieu [...]" (p. 11)

Both possibilities, i.e., Jewish and not Jewish, are valid as far as I'm concerned. Both have been expressed by historians, and this is what we need to report. I didn't falsify anything. Also, I have yet to do any research about "Sayf ibn Umar", but my understanding is that Sayf's reports would only cast doubt about the participation of Ibn Saba' in the killing of Uthman. This has little bearing on on the issue of his existence, his religious views, or the role his followers played in later events. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you understand now. Both Tucker and Lewis share the same view. Their views are not competing views. Tucker was not sure, as well as Lewis (CAST DOUBT= NOT TO BE SURE) and even Encyclopedia of Islam has the same position( The thing that you did not pick in your edits from EoI).Penom (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have only cited EI2 for facts not already in the article. In any case, I consider the current version, which is largely based on EI2, to be a good start. We can certainly expand it or modify it as we see fit. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Current version has serious WP:undue and WP:SYNTH. Cases of Wp:SYNT and cherry picking must be fixed. Some sourced material that removed by you must be re-added tooPenom (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Any one of these policies require arguements/examples. So far, both your examples were non issues. In fact, you accused me of writing a sentence even though I just moved it from the lead of your version of the article. Apparently, you did not even read the lead that you keep reverting to. And repeated accusations of policy violations without giving any relevant info is considered uncivil. Try to give more info and stop being disruptive. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! After all you deny! There many examples of manipulation by you. Tucker, EI2, and Bernard Lewis sources are falsified and misrepresented by you. We have to re-write all of themPenom (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that there is a policy of no personal attacks. So try to give examples instead of just passing accusations. Refer directly to the article and quote parts that you think I have "manipulated". You also shouldn't accuse me of introducing a new synthesis by referring to parts I did not write. My version of the article better reflects the style, wording, and structure of the Encyclopedia of Islam. It does not contain any clear-cut misinformation like what you've added here.[4] As for Tucker, my guess is that you're not familiar with Academic prose. Tucker actually leans towards the Ibn Saba' being Jewish. He even attempted to refute Levi Della Vida, who claimed that being of a certain Yemenite tribe would mean that Ibn Saba' can't be Jewish. (p. 10) And I have also cited Tucker with reference to Friedlaender who proposed the hypothesis that Ibn Saba' was a son of a Falasha women. This is all in Tucker, who also concluded that "it is quite probable that Ibn Saba' was a Yemenite, and that he came from a Jewish milieu".

So please, check the sources first before making WP:SYNTH accusations. Also don't disrupt my efforts, and try to edit collaboratively. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucker casted doubt on the rolle of Ibn Saba in assassination of Othman and also was not sure about his Jewish origin. Do not misrepresent the source. I give you another example of misrepresenting the source. EoI points at one source narrating the incident of burning of Ibn Saba in his favor. But you wrote "Some".

Regarding WP:SYNT on Shia view. IS not this your edit[5]. I have seen more similar edits by you Penom (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about Uthman (or Sayf ibn Umar). Re-read what I wrote. Tucker: "it is quite probable that Ibn Saba' was a Yemenite, and that he came from a Jewish milieu" + Friendlaender both support the Jewish claim. Also the structure should follow EI2 which makes more sense. And we have an article here about Ibn Saba' because of the Sunni tradition, not because he was Shia. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We should follow the order found in EI2, a reliable source, anything else is not very WP:NPOV. Anything else is merely your own POV, which is silly (like we should mention the Shia tradition first because he was Shia, even though his claim to fame is based on Sunni tradition). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, try to reach consensus before making controversial edits that contradict the cited sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of the phrase "is a semi-legendry figure" is violation of WP:WEIGHT. The view of one non-notable historian is given more weight than the whole Sunni and Shia traditions. Again, see the lead of EI2 for an example on how to write about this subject in neutral form without violating WP:NPOV. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really read your sources? Tucker says :"It is quite possible that the imputation of Jewish ancestry to ibn Saba on his father's side, as well as the atribution of black descent on his mother's side, ws designed to discredit his credentials as a Muslim Arab and thus stigmatize all ideas associated with him and " and "Friedlaender argues that Sayf's account of Ibn Saba was invented for purpose of finding a scapegoat for trouble surrounding Uthman".

He is basically unsure about his origin but you cherry pick what you like.

Regarding representing EoI, this is again, cherry picking, As far as I remember, EoI says that it is not possible to judge about whether he was a legendary or real figure.Penom (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's your unfamiliarity with Academic prose. Tucker was merely commenting on an account by an early Muslim historian who noted that Ibn Sawda' might be one of the followers of Ibn Saba', not one of his alternative names. Tucker's views is found in the next paragraph where he note "Whatever is the case regarding his ethnic identity, it is quite probable that Ibn Saba' was a Yemenite, and that he came from a Jewish milieu [...]". You're also forgetting that I'm citing Tucker for the views of Friedlaender about his Jewish origin. Your Sayf ibn Umar quote is irrelevant, since we're not discussing his role with regards to the event of Uthman. You also did not remember the EI2 article correctly. The author concludes that Ibn Saba' existed and that Ibn Sawda' was one of his followers (see the last paragraph). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You have also not given any reason why the structure/ordering of paragraph as found in EI2 is being changed in the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We also now have two paragraphs about modern historians. One claiming that they think he did not exist, and the other (the one I wrote) is more balanced. You will have to explain this poor-quality editing. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Read Tucker again, Tucker consider both hypotheses possible, being Jewish or being the whole Jewish origin as a fabricated story. This is you that do not read carefully or not familiar with academic pose. Penom (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Again problem with sources, Encyclopedia of Islam is misrepresented

I also read Eoi, again you manipulated the source. For example EoI says "An Ismaili source cites the incident in Ibn Saba's favour..." but you pushed your POV as "But some Shia sources cite this incidence in Ibn Sabaʾ's favor". Also it seems that it is you that do not represent this source correctly. You are trying to prove that EoI has no doubt about this figure but it says "It is not clear what historical person or persons lay behind this figure." Penom (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No reason given to change the ordering. No reason give to delete whole paragraphs of cited info. Isma'ilis are Shia too. You may wish to replace Some with "Ismaili sources" not delete the whole sentence. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are a clear example of Wikipedia:Hear. The reason is given several times.

Regarding your new manipulation. There is a big difference between An Ismaili source and your POV edit SOME Ismaili sources and worse than it SOME SHIA sources. --Penom (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Although we need to mention that the burning incident seem to be disputed, at least based on what is mentioned by the Jewish Encyclopedia (as cited here anyway). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good!! For the first time you listen to others. Mentioning "An Ismaili source..." on the lead is Undue weight. You can point at it on the article body but it is not worth it to mention it on the lead when there is only one source and it is marginal view.--Penom (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in in Shia section

In this version made by User:Wiqi55 there are several issues. I discusse it one by one. First: Wiqi55 reverted the previous version to : "Some modern Shī‘a scholars refute the existence of Ibn Saba, though for more than 13 centuries, Shia scholars used to give the stories and narrations of Ibn Saba."

This is clearly wp:synth and none of provided sources support these statement --Penom (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have never claimed to have verified every sentence in the article. Note also that this sentence was in the lead before my rewrite [6]. From what I understand, sources about early Shia mention that in Shia tradition Ibn Saba' is a historical figure. He was a notorious ghali exiled (or burned) by Ali (see, for example, EI2 and Helm's Shiite). So the meaning of this sentence doesn't strike me as a new synthesis. Do you have a source that claims that in Shia tradition Ibn saba' was considered fictional? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is seriously disruptive editing. If you had not read this section, why you deleted my edits several times? Every time I tried to fix this section you showed up with a blind revert. I can count over 10 times that I fixed this section and you blindly reverted my edits on this section?--Penom (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

First, the section you're trying to fix has nothing to do with that sentence, since it was in the lead. Removal of cited material without giving valid reason and without looking at the sources is a form of vandalism. Someone worked hard on that section. Second, your latest edits violate WP:STRUCTURE. For instance, you moved the views of the Jewish Encyclopedia which is about his Jewish origin to a section that has nothing to do with his origin. You have also invented the term "leader of Ghulat" which is a POV for a section name. You have also changed the wording of many section for no reason, like Taha hussien was a secularist writer. The same can be said about Tucker's conclusion, etc. If you want no one to blanket reverts your edits than please give descriptive edit summaries and try to explain wording changes. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of your false calims. I changed Shia view section several times but you reveerted them. Two examples that I fixed the problem of Shia section and you reverted. 1th & 2ndPenom (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the new revert which clearly disruptive and again another blind revert and with false claims. I wrote a note on your talkpagePenom (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A note on my page is not enough. Please try to explain each change. Also, some of your changes are OK. I'd suggest you wait a bit and I will integrate your changes better. I noticed also the Jewish encyclopedia is misrepresented here (as it does not mention any burning done by Ali). See WP:NORUSH and take things slowly. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For every single edit I had edit summary. I did not change Jewish Encyclopaedia. I just coped and past your version. This is another false accusation. For all views, I just copy and past the veiw to relevant section. I restore my version, compare it with the version before my edits. If I have changed any view restore your version.Penom (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:OWN. You are not chief editor of this article and I cannot wait until you decide what to add and what to not add. If you do one more edit I bring the attention of admins to article.Penom (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP

Please, both of you (Wiqi and Penom) stop engaging in an edit war. I have been asked to come over here to try to help moderate some form of consensus or collaborative editing. I am not very knowledgeable on this topic, nor will I pretend to be, thus, here's my suggestions:

1. Remember, WP:3RR applies, REGARDLESS of the objections to each others' content changes/contributions noted above.
2. Remember, other than BLP and copyvio (and similar), the article CAN remain imperfect for a few days while others are sought to provide additional insights
3. Remember, WP:RFC exists to find people who can assist in such matters.
4. Remember, there ARE WikiGroups where you can find other experts on these topics to help provide balanced input from others in the community
5. And finally, remember, if this edit war continues, I (or anyone else who happens to come by it) will have no choice but to warn (or submit for a block) both of you. It takes two (or more) for an edit war. If you haven't broken 3RR and engaged in edit warring, please raise your hand. Exactly...

I'm a pretty patient guy who likes seeing people who mean well work things out without a ton of templates, warnings and blocks. Others aren't so patient. Thus, please take this as warnings to both, and hope other editors (and admins) find such acceptable - as opposed to a block or dragging both of you to AN/I. If you two need help, other than for factual stuff about this topic, I'd be glad to jump in - point me in the right direction and I will do so. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Twenty three edits in under 24 hours, various of which seem to have been to undo each other's work. Here's another suggestion: Pick a section, start there, together, work out the changes you both think are warranted (and fall back to #3 and #4 above for assistance), finish up that section and move on to the next... together along with whatever other help you both need to work this out. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept your judgement between me and Wiqi. For starting please comment on following edits:

1. I classified the "Modern historian views" in this edit. I neither add any view nor altered any view in this edit. Just copied and pasted existed statements in relevant subsection.

Wiqi can chose any sub-section of modern scholars views and add any notable view that is not addressed. I also add mine. what do chose wiqi?Penom (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Later I added some new sourced materials from reliable sources.

1. Suddenly Wiqi appears with a large revert and with the false accusation that I changed scholars view (although I just copied views in his version). He also removerd all new sourced materials of me.

What is your idea? Do you support his edit? My version is well organized. If he wants to change anything or if he is suggesting other titles for subsections. He is welcome. He does not need to revert all my edits.--Penom (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here, Robert, and I look forward to working collaboratively on the subject. My concern is the recent edit made by Penom (talk · contribs) which seem to violate WP:STRUCTURE, mainly in "isolating" the views that proclaim Ibn Saba' to be Jewish. He seem to be offended by such views, therefore he insists on moving them to a different section. That said, I have previously took liberty in reverting his edits that remove whole paragraphs, even though they seem to be well-cited, and using a misleading edit summary.[7] I'm sure this is not acceptable. He does seem to be incapable of adopting a neutral point of view while editing this article. I admit that I lack experience in following dispute resolution, as It's been a while since I've last been in one. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

False accusation, I did not delete any view in recent edits. All views stayed plus some new materials that I added from RS. Show me any view that was suppressed between my edits and your revert?Penom (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For one, the fact the Taha Hussien was a secularist. This one was removed without giving any reason or indication in the summary. Also the problem of WP:STRUCTURE is about moving views to make them more hidden. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not change Taha hussien comment. What you say is only additional information on the person. You could have simply added that phrase instead of blind reverting the whole section and removing well-cited materials. Though, I would not have removed that sentence if I new you disagree. I thought it makes the text smootherPenom (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For claiming that I was "moving views to make them more hidden.": I added "subtitle for every subject. Basically I made those view more visible. Robert please comment in which version different views are less hiddenPenom (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Woah

Let's slow down. NO accusations from here forward, please. Let's move forward, and not get stuck in the past. I will point out a few things, then perhaps we can work on the subject matter at hand.

1. Content removal is not necessarily vandalism. Even without edit summaries, which WAAAAAY too many experienced editors forget.

   On that note, Penom please remember to use edit summaries. Wiqi55 and Penom please remember that edit summaries are not a chat room - no talking back and forth please. If you feel the need to do that (as in the past), it means it is time to stop editing the article and keep talking on the talk page. With that in mind, the "back and forth" (and not related to the edit) chatter as edit summaries is probably as bad as the lack of edit summaries on some edits. In that, I believe both of you are guilty.

2. WP:STRUCTURE is not mandatory in its use. The content should always be the final thing to determine structure based off WP:STRUCTURE, but not limited to the exact letter of WP:STRUCT.
3. Jewish views. Islamic views. Shia views. Other views. I don't care. Neither should either of you. We've established such views DO exist. We now need to establish balanced sections for each. I suspect neither of you is being balanced in this. BUT, perhaps we need to go to #3 above and decide on what structure will be used to prevent bias - and THEN re-visit the various views on AIS.
4. Single source for certain content. No. Really, that should be all I have to say on that subject. If there is more than one view (held by reliable sources appropriate for the subject matter and not considered a fringe theory), no matter what the subject, no matter whether or not the views are conflicting, then the material MUST be incorporated. Not should, but must. On that note, I don't care what the JE or Shia beliefs or whatever single source says or doesnt. If there's something from an RS that adds (or especially, if it differs) then it gets used. Period. Not my opinion - that's one of our strongest policies and interwoven into numerous policies and guidelines.

So... let's start with STRUCTURE, then move to ensuring that planned structure covers ALL points of view, and ALL opposing viewpoints from ALL RS that we know of for all topics not considered fringe theories? Who is up for starting an outline? From that outline we can jump in and add/expand. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with the above. But content removal while using misleading edit summaries should stop [8]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you please stop false claims! The edit summary was correctPenom (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For the start point. Wiqi can chose any sub-section and add any notable view I will add from my sources too. OK. From which subsection do you want to start Wiqi?--Penom (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not productive. We were supposed to start one by one. He suddenly start changing and deleting and moving all sectionsPenom (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's what I heard above... almost nothing. Except (1) we'll all limit cross talk in edit summaries, and instead concentrate on writing actual edit summaries, (2) we'll work on writing more accurate edit summaries (such as "adding two sources that..., and removing whatever for whatever reasons", (3) we'll stop this back and forth editing on the article until we've discussed each section here, and (4) we will not bring up the past - and instead focus on the future.

Did I interpret what you both wrote above correctly? Hoping you both agree I did. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That, perhaps unintentionally, cracked me up. But notice that user Penom is still using misleading edit summaries. See [9]. He kept re-adding a paragraph despite that its content are not supported by the cited source. This has been explained to him many times. He also re-worded [10] despite that mine better reflects the cited source. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾

02:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of his false accusations. Robert please See this edit(1). Is not it POV pushing. Wiqi represents the writer view as the fact--Penom (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucker is an expert on this subject. His book is published by a respectable academic publisher. Trying to convey his tone and wording here is what we are supposed to do. There is also no point in you re-adding the material form JE. It's not in the cited source! Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No reason to demonstrate a POV as fact. All wirthers in that section are expert (Lewis, Moojan, EoI are also expert. You cannot demonstrate one view as fact--Penom (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"He kept re-adding a paragraph despite that its content are not supported by the cited source.". Sigh!!! this the paragraph from your version. I am just adding it. If it is not supporting the source. Is more likely your mistake. (As several time you misrepresented sources before)Penom (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What I do notice is that neither of you are willing to stop editing the article (including reverting each other). Both of you are still continuing to complain about each others' actions while still editing the article. And finally, both of you, presumably unintentionally, are entering POV terms into the article. That leaves no options left in resolving this other than a final warning on both of your pages to make this official, followed by administrator scrutiny, and/or AN/I. An RfC would have been FAAAAAR better, but neither of you will stop to take things down that road. Thus, I see no option left at this time other than dropping that final warning on both of your talk pages. For edit warring and violating 3RR. If, after that, either or both of you continue and an administrator gets involved, I am willing to bet good money that whoever has continued will be blocked until they can clearly indicate they will stop edit warring and reverting. Best, (and apologies) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to stop editing. Penom (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert. You do not notice thta I suggested to start sub section by sub section. That was Wiki that jumped suddenly and changed all subsections. I suggest to talk before any new edit. We can suggest and if you agree we change the materialPenom (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. But see below... I'll start on it for you two. Keep in mind, though you at least did indeed agree to go that route, you both still continued editing and reverting. Actions... louder... words... etc. ;-)

I now await Wiqi55 agreeing to stop editing/reverting as well (or for one or both of you to make the mistake of continuing - which I sincerely hope does not happen), so we can move on. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE requires that we move content from one section to another (to meet WP:NPOV). In short, any relevant material, like say, claims about his Ancestry, should be in a single section. That what I did. I'm only following edit policies here. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• NO policies, and I repeat, NO policies allow 3RR and edit warring except major BLP violations, major true vandalism and copyvio. And THOSE require administrator involvement (such as AN/I) when rectifying such requires edit warring. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworking the article to remove bias and to properly cover all RS

First topic

• Let's list the views we have to deal with. I've started, in no particular order:
  • Modern Historians
  • Shia
  • From the Jewish Encyclopaedia (what should this be called? Does it fit in a category)?)

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, add additional views as needed, and do not discount any views from any reliable sources. You two know more about the subject matters involved. I will do my best to ensure the final contribution remains balanced and free of POV. So, I'll count on you two to get and create the content - and I ask that you count on me (or bring others here) to ensure balance and NPOV. Deal? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I now Jewish Encyclopedia is a secular source. Its materials can be used in Modern Historians section--Penom (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Correct - but that does not mean it is the only view. Or even the only "modern historians" view. NPOV means also including other views, secular and non-secular. BUT, NPOV also means not presenting one as the other. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall we start with Tucker? Is not this edit POV? (1)--Penom (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• That wording is POV. The claim that was made should or must be included in the article, but not in that manner, unless every historian agrees (and even then, it really shouldn't be worded that way). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the relevant quote:

"The significant result of Friendlaender's work is that it demonstrates in a rather conclusive manner that Ibn Saba' and the Sabi'iyya did, in fact, exist, at least from the time of Ali, [...] The reliability of Friendlaender's study has been attested to by Sabatino Moscati, who made substantial use of it in his treatment of the Saba'iyya in an article about the early Shi'a." (p.10)Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• As such, it can be used as a quote if that is necessary and does not bash other views held. It cannot be stated in the manner it is in the article. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no other views held about the works of Moscati and Friendlaender. Tucker is merely providing a descriptive comment on the content of their works which factual and uncontested by any reliable source. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the writer view. You cannot demonstrate a POV as fact. Am I right Robert?--Penom (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucker is an expert, a specialist on this subject (unlike Lewis, for instance, who is an Ottomanist). His book is published by a respectable academic publisher. Trying to convey his tone and wording here is what we are supposed to do. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Incorrect. We are never to try to convey their tone and wording (in that fasion). For various reasons. (1) the closeness to plagiarism it creates, (2) the fact that doing so will often introduce bias and POV. That is the reason why, when a particular POV is needed to be portrayed, a quote is used, or the sentence is written as attributed to the author/source. How it is written makes it seem like Wikipedia is saying such.

I said convey, which does not imply plagiarism, rather "meaning". That said, it is not a particular POV. We don't mention names before every sentence while citing uncontested information, or do we? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the information is uncontested, is there a need to mention it? More to the point, the information has been contested, hasn't it? Regardless, it does not get written in the tone it is. Currently, it seems Wikipedia is saying such. We cannot do such. That IS inserting POV. Wikipedia never makes *ANY* claims. EVER. (at least, when articles are written according to guidelines and policies). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The other writers in that section are expert too. For example Lewis is even more notable than Tucker. He is chief editor of Encyclopaedia of Islam--Penom (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then they get due weight as well. Do we all agree they are experts and able to be considered reliable sources? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lewis's book is also too old. The editors of the Encyclopedia of Islam did not give Lewis the chance to write their article on this subject. Being one of the MANY editors is irrelevant. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar how big is to be the chief editor of EoI. Anohow, Lewis and Tucker are both RSs. One more reliable source deleted by Wiqi in this edit is momen Moojan. The edit summary is misleading too. First He is not Shia. He is notable and RS since his book is published by Yale University. He is writer on Shia topics in great Encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Iranian which is published by Columbian University and is one of the most reliable sources on Iran and Shia topics--Penom (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wiqi55: Please define when and how a source/book is too old? Then please point me to the relevant policies. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Penom: commenting on the editor (and the past) instead of the article content. Let's not, please. Next time post what content or source you think should be re-added, and we can discuss. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moojan Momen

OK, Momen Moojan view should be re added ([11]. That is my request. When Encyclopaedia Iranica invite this person to write articles on Shia. It shows that he is expert. As the last request please change the wording of Tucker. Wiqi please do it yourself. Roberts also agrees that the wording is POV. I cannot continue tonight. I have to sleep and I have lot's of thing to do tomorrow.--Penom (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

He is Shi'a: "renowned Shia scholar, Moojan Momen". Search for it GB. His views should be added to the modern Shi'a views. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lewis is a 2002 source. Please restore it. It was removed although he is more notable than other writers in that section

Momen Mojen is Bahai not Shia. Even if he was Shia. It was irrelevant. His work are secular histography and published by Yale University and Columbia University.

GOOD Night!Penom (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not read his works, nor am I qualified to provide an opinion on his works. With that said, if the particular work in question is deemed secular, his personal beliefs do not matter. It is the same reason why if a scientist who happens to be Christian writes a book on geology, we do not consider it to be religious views. I hope that provides insight on how Momen Mojen should be handled. Thus, if both agree that his works are deemed secular by other secular institutions, then it should not be considered Shia views - UNLESS it is those views he is discussing (and we are using), in which case we need to evaluate that. If both of you do not agree on this, then we need to involve another editor who is knowledgeable on this subject. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But the Baha'i faith has its roots in Islam, according to Momen himself,[12], with many shared concepts with Shi'a Islam. Some sources do consider him Shi'a though, perhaps because he was born in Iran, etc. He is also a medical doctor (with possibly no training is Islamic history or early Islam). I have also not seen any reliable source referring to his views on the Subject of this article. I'm OK with citing his arguments, if any, but his one-word conclusion doesn't seem notable. Considering that Penom has a short history of misrepresenting the contents of sources, I'll reserve my judgment for now. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not worry about anyone's history on source representation. At the very least, I'm capable of reviewing source and how we represent it, even without much knowledge on the subject matter. Either our representations match the source, or it doesn't. On to whether his views are secular or not (or the notability of his statement(s)), should we involve other editors? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The source was indeed misrepresented just as I suspected. There are no arguments to speak of, just a couple paragraphs on Ibn Saba' (with content very similar to what we have in the lead). His "semi-legendary" statement wasn't a conclusion. In the second paragraph, Momen wrote "If these reports are true ...", so he is still contemplating whether they were true or not. He also did not refer directly to any primary source or done any first-hand research on the subject. We shouldn't bother with such non-specialist sources, nor should we put them next to writers who wrote extensively on the subject (i.e., 20 pages or more) and referred directly to the primary sources. For another example of sources being misused, see the second paragraph about the Jewish Encyclopaedia and compare it to the linked article in JE. There is no mention of "execution" in the JE. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Again a big lie and false accusation! This is you that misrepresent sources. Momen Mojan says":

"The Sabd'iyya 'Abdu'llah ibn Saba al-Himyari, a semi-legendary figure known as Ibn as-Sawda, is generally considered to have started the tendency to ghuluww..."

Why you always say false accusations Wiqi and statements that are not true. I am tired of your lies .... Penom (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am at work and I do not have time now. I will respond your bassless accusations tonight. Several times I caught you when you were manipulateing sources like this one. What I understand you keep your baseless accusations to mislead others from your problematic edits :I am at work and I do not have time now. I will respond your bassless accusations tonight. Several times I caught you when you were manipulateing sources like this one. What I understand you keep your baseless accusations to mislead others from your problematic edits Penom (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OK gang, let's stop with accusations. I've fixed the JE exiled/executed section already. It now matches the source. Another source that claims execution is needed in order to use that translation.

Really, for POV or "not in source" stuff, NO accusations or bad words towards each other are necessary. Simply drop a note here such as "can you check the 2nd paragraph about the JE? I don't think the source supports mentioning execution." and I'll do so. I'll go through the other sections later.

Every time either of you writes "And he did this, take a look!" this ends up degenerating into a "did not!" "did too!" conversation. Just point to a section, tell me the concern, and I'll take a look. It's really not worth the back and forth. Neither of you are entirely innocent in this. That's not meant to be disparaging. It's simply how human beings and Wikipedia work. It's why we are stronger doing this together. We check each others' biases and unintentional POV insertions. So, BOTH of you need to assume you personally have made a mistake or three as well in this. Let's fix them all instead of continually letting this devolve back to "Look at what he did!!!" Best ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note on JE. This paragraph was not added by me. As far I see in the history it was added by Wiqi and not me. I have nothing to do with it. If it is not supporting the source, it has nothing to do with me. I did not check who first added that paragraph but at least it shows that was Wiqi who re-added that wrong information--Penom (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At the end, can I re-add Lewis view. Both agree that he is an expert. WP:RS says that Wikipedia work based on verifyability not the fact. There is no reason to delete it because sb does not like his viewPenom (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sections NOT in conflict and agreed upon to be unbiased and properly covered

Are there any? Do both of you agree that there are any sections that are good as is?

The lead, ancestry, Shia, are all good. The Sayf ibn Umar section needs a defense of Sayf (Tucker (2008) devotes a page for this)). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Shia section is not good at all. --Penom (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? Did check the cited sources? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cited sources may be irrelevant to the section not being good. For instance, are there other sources? Are they contradictory? If so, give appropriate weight to each. If that is not the problem, then, what problems do you (Penom) see with that section? Let's let Penom state what objections he (he?) has and we can work on it from there. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is the section that Penom kept using misleading edit summaries while removing whole paragraphs. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no it's not worth noting. From this point forward, none of the three of us will use misleading edit summaries, so, it's a moot point. Let's discuss improving the section, and not waste time on the past. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well. As far as I remember that was Wiqi tha insisted to add Jewish Encyclopedia view in Shia sectiom !!!!! There are many notable views that are not mentioned and if I tried to addressed, they were deleted by Wiqi.--Penom (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Don't care. Forward. Not backwards.
• This brings us back to the format of the article. Either (a) opposing views get covered in each section, or (b) (the better choice probably) each view gets it's own section and no section is written in a tone that invalidates any other section. Let's pick (b) and move forward. Are we all agreed, or do either of you have any other suggestions?
• And in case either of you haven't noticed, I'm going to keep summarily dismissing complaints about "he did this in the past" each time either of you posts such. State what problems you have with a section and how you think we can improve it. I don't really care about the past. Let's figure out how we can work together in the present and future instead. Please. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop your false accusation Wiqi. I can also show several misleading edit summaries by you--Penom (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say please do, but I'll stick with Robert's request. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And I thank you both for that (Penom for not doing so, and Wiqi55 for not requesting such). We're getting somewhere... even if slowly. But that's how we start. Betcha both that if we continue, this article will be in really great shape when we're done. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworking the format

There are some errors in the format of the article. The Lede should be a summary of the entire rest of the article's main points/sections. Anything mentioned in the summary should be covered in a section below. The lede is currently a bit long and winding for the amount of content below. So, I think (a) the article needs to be expanded, or (b) the lede needs to be trimmed a bit (while not losing vital summary information). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I do not like this lead which is the work of Wiqi. However, I prefer get consensus on the article body then at the final, we can re-write the lead.--Penom (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have stricken out a part of your comment above. Normally such is advised against, but as it borders on (err... IS) "commenting on the editor" as opposed to "commenting on improving the article" it fits within justified reasons. Here's a better way of thinking about it. "I totally agree with you. Between the three of us, and whoever else wanders into this, I'm sure we could come up with a better solution than any of us individually" ;-) Lets all refrain from commenting on each other in the future please. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead is rather informative, and based in its general structure on the Encyclopedia of Islam. It is better this way since any of our POVs is just a POV. while EI is a reliable source. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

*Incorrect and nor in line with WP:LEDE. The lede follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the lede. It does not follow any external source. Please (both of you) review the linked section, then we can move forward on this again. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote our policy on the lead, specifically where the current lead violates policy? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just did. Above. You claim the lede follows the format of EI. I claim it should follow what's written at WP:LEDE which does not say "hey, ignore this document and instead use the formats other places use". ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well , I should say that first of all EoI has not lead and claiming that you follow EoI lead style for the article lead is misleading. Second, you did not even stick to EoI. You cherry picked from it and misrpresented the sources as usual--Penom (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent Addition (Lewis)

I cannot find such[13] in the source. Perhaps that is the wrong book? There is mention in "Historians of the Middle East", but I cannot read enough of it to confirm that the source matches the claim. Regardless, it needs some work on wording. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at th first source, page 103 He says "Modern critical scholarship has successively cast doubt on 'Abdallah ibn Saba's role, his Jewishness, and even his historicity"--Penom (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also would you please verify Tucker and NPOV it--Penom (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you please fix this statement? Tucker statements should be in one place. I believe some words that added are unnecessary.Penom (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For example "concluded that" is POVpushing and not necessary--Penom (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. A source can indeed conclude. We cannot. And since it points to a direct quote, it doesn't push a POV, it states (source) concluded "(result in direct quote)". Same as saying (souce) says "(some quote)" but with using a more encyclopedic word. In most (but definitely not all) cases, how a word is used is what is most important in whether or not it creates a POV not supported by the section or source. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that if someone wrote a "couple of lines" on Ibn Saba' then they should be viewed as expert. However, this is an encyclopedia, and our preference should be given to actual experts of Ibn Saba'; not Lewis and Momen who just wrote a couple of lines on the subject and did not refer to any primary sources. In fact, Lewis merely cited Friendlaender and the Encyclopedia of Islam. We already have a better summary of these same sources. There is no point in referring to tertiary sources like Lewis. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lewis book is entirely on Jews role in Islamic history. So his studies is more specialized than others. On the contrary of what you are saying his work is more notable than other writer in that article. Moreover Lewis is more notable than Tucker. He is the chief editor of EoI. I do not know even Tucker has any article in EoI?--Penom (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• The problem I see here is the incorrect citation is being used. The cite needs to be changed to "Jews of Islam" (or whatever the full book name is). Currently, it points to the incorrect book (hence my problem finding it in the source). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Apples to oranges. Lewis is a tertiary source when it comes to Ibn Saba'. On the other hand, Tucker, etc, are secondary sources that refer directly to the primary sources. You're currently presenting someone who only wrote a couple of lines on Ibn Saba' as an expert. This is misleading. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quantity of content written is not relevant to quality of content written.
• Quality of content is a requirement for use on Wikipedia, while the quantity is not.
• Anyway, have you read the book in question? It's not the book that is actually in the citation in the article (that's not the correct ref in the article). I haven't yet. I'm simply saying that since it is a different reference, if you haven't reviewed it, you may wish to before judging it based on the incorrect reference in the article.
• Much work cited on Wikipedia is derivative works. That too is permitted. If the work in question though simply is "Source A says Source B said this", then yes, we go to Source B for the reference. If, on the other hand it's "Source A says Source B's interpretation of this isn't quite correct because Source A believes evidence Source B presented come to this different conclusion" then Source A is also a secondary source. If Source A has expanded upon the work of Source B, then it is also permitted to use Source A, because Source A adds more to the content than Source B alone. That still applies even if Source A has written minimal - but expounding - content.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you mean "Jews of Islam", then yes, I did look at the source (1984 edition). Only two lines about Ibn Saba', with footnotes citing Friendlaender and the Encyclopedia of Islam (both sources already summarized here). I find it is rather misleading to quote Lewis here for two reasons. First, we already have a better summary (final paragraph in lead), which essentially makes the same point as Lewis in an NPOV and more accurate language. We don't need Lewis's summary from aprox. 30 years ago. Second, we are positioning someone who never published anything of value about Ibn Saba' (AFAIK) as someone challenging secondary sources (even though Lewis was just commenting based on what research was available to him at the time). This gives the impression that Lewis did publish something about Ibn Saba', based on primary sources and first-hand knowledge, but that's not true. We should also avoid repeating the same claims and summaries all over the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've looked at Lewis' body of work and it's quite extensive. I didn't say good (or bad) - again, I'm not qualified to judge on that particular aspect without a bunch of time to study Ibn Saba'
• That he cites them isn't relevant to me. The question is, does he bring more to what they said? Can you point that out for me, as I have not read the book. This is really the deciding factor - not the length of what he wrote, but the substance of it, regardless of who's footnoted (think about it, everything on Wikipedia is footnoted).
• Thirty years old definitely fits within the realm of "not old enough to dismiss based on when it was written", so that's not relevant.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

His arguments with regards to Ibn Saba' being not Jewish (mentioned in the "Ancestry" section) is new, so we should keep that one. But his summary of current scholarship is outdated and adds nothing to the article. It's the exact same claim being made in the last paragraph of the lead. Also, when dealing with tertiary sources, how old a source is becomes relevant. Tertiary sources try to summarize the current scholarship available to them. But we probably know more about Ibn Saba' now than we did in 1984. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. Maybe we are not on the same page. Please correct me if I am wrong. You say that the citation is incorrect. I check the cite again.

It is " Lewis, Bernard (2002). Jews of Islam. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 103". It is the citation number 5 in our article. It seems that it is the correct citation. Penom (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird. That's not the cite it showed me when I hovered over it earlier. Could be due to some Wikipedia extension I've got running conflicting. I sometimes get weird text characters, but not an out of order citation before. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• To Wiqi55: Your first sentence is in support of keeping him. As for the second, no it's not outdated, especially since we've just found a use for it that it will suffice as a secondary source. Thus, I'm for keeping Lewis and using appropriately. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucker

As the result of our discussion would you please finalize our discussion. To show your good faith, please Wiqi fix the wording of Tucker by yourself. I mean: "Israel Friedlander demonstrated in a rather conclusive manner that Ibn Saba' and the Sabi'iyya did, in fact, exist. His work has also been confirmed bySabatino Moscati"

• Would you please fix this statement? Tucker statements should be in one place. I believe some words that added are unnecessary.Penom (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest bolded above replaced with "indicated". Curerntly, it reads as if Wikipedia is stating that he demonstrated it in a fashion Wikipedia deems is rather conclusive, which is of course not permitted, for any fact.

Perhaps "Israel Friedlander indicates that Ibn Saba' and the Sabi'iyya did, in fact, exist. Friedlander's work was reviewed by Sabatino Moscati, who agreed with Friedlander's conclusions."

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Concludes" instead of "indicates" should be good. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Concludes" works for me. Penom? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not bother me. Though I prefer "suggest"Penom (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the other problem. I suggest to combine two sentences which are are both from one book and remove unnecessary words which somehow POV:

"W. F. Tucker suggests that it was possible that the attribution of Jewish ancestry to Ibn Saba on his parental side and imputation of black descent on his mother's side, was fabricated to discredit his credentials as a Muslim Arab and "thus stigmatize all ideas associated with him". He also adds "whatever is the case regarding his ethnic identity, it is quite probable that Ibn Saba' was a Yemenite, and that he came from a Jewish milieu"Penom (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tucker's second quote was a conclusion. He further attempted to refute Levi Della Vida claims. His first quote doesn't seem necessary since the B. Lewis argument here is the same. And the first quote of Tucker was commenting on a theory presented by an early Muslim historian. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "conclusion" is not in the text and is POV and gives unnecessary weight to one part his view and undermine the first comment of Tucker V . The first paragraph is also Tucker comment. You cannot just pick part of his view. We cannot cherry pick from a source. His view must addressed correctly and not selective.--Penom (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"whatever is the case regarding his ethnic identity" is a concluding statement. Also, read the sentence before the first quote. It was a comment about a theory presented by an Early Muslim historian about the title "Ibn al-Sawda", not really a general statement by Tucker. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference? It is comment and general statement. Both are Tucker views. You added your own word to push your POV Penom (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a comment about a theory of an early Muslim historian. Ideally, we need to mention that theory and not to quote Tucker out of context. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Concludes" is not POV. "After seeing the apple fall from the tree, Newton concluded that gravity affected it and all objects"

As you'll note, there's another use of it. And it too is not POV. It becomes POV if this is true: "After seeing the apple fall from the tree, Newton thought there might be some chance that perhaps gravity affected it and all objects". Using "concludes" if that was what Newton really thought would be misleading and a POV insertion.

Again, it's not the word, it's the use of it. IF (a) Tucker came to that singular conclusion, then "concludes" is appropriate. If (b) he did not, and instead came to a few conclusions, or only rated such as a possibility, then using concludes IS a POV insertion.

So, to conclude, which is it? If (a) applies, using "concludes" is not POV. If (b) applies, then using "concludes is POV. If you two are still at odds on this, and one or both of you do not agree with my opinion on the matter, I am willing to get an uninvolved outsider here to give us another opinion. And at this point, I think we're simply at "yes it is" "no it's not" "yes it is"... so, I think that's how we should proceed on this one. (a) after reading my opinion, both of you can come to an agreement on the word (and we're done with this one), or (b) after reading it, you still can't - and we need to involve someone else for another opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Side note, I think that "concludes"/"conclusion" can be used only once. Limit redundancy. So, maybe the above is a moot point, and we use "concludes" first, then "adds"/"continues"/something in the second part? Anyway, I disagree with "suggests" as it seems inappropriate for science (including historical sciences) where a statement of findings is made. Hypothesis get suggested. Findings and... conclusions... do not. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at Tucker's two theories/conclusions. Since Tucker came up with two different possibilities that are different. Calling only one of tucker's views conclusion is misleading. how about the other conclusion? Why the first one is conclusion the the other is not? Penom (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Haven't read it, so based on your reading of it, if Tucker came to two different conclusions at the same time, then BOTH must be included (not neither, not one). If he came to two different conclusions at different times, then BOTH should (possibly must) be included and it should be clear as to when he came up with each (ie: Conclusion A, then later, conclusion B). And as this is the case, "concludes"/"concluded" may not be the correct word except if such conclusions were arrived at during different times, such as "He concluded (A), then later, after further research, concluded (b)". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding one paragraph to GHulat

Since so far there is no dispute on Ghulat section. I can add the following paragraph from the following source(1). The writer is Heinz Halm who is expert in early Shia history and the source is Encyclopaedia Iranica, one of most reliable sources on Iran related topcs including Shia history. This encyclopaedia is published by Colombia University

"The first heretic who is said to have idolized ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb is ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabaʾ who preached that ʿAli was God (al-elāh), whereupon ʿAli had him banned from Kufa to Madāʾen (old Ctesiphon, q.v.). After ʿAli’s death he is said to have declared that a devil in ʿAli’s appearance had been murdered whereas ʿAli himself had ascended to heaven and that his return (rajʿa) was imminent (Ašʿari, Maqālāt, p. 15; Baḡdādi, Feraq, pp. 233-35)."

Wiqi?

Robert?

--Penom (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at the ghulat article, which contains a "History" section. I wrote that section (which is how I discovered this article). One thing that we should avoid is repeating the same claims, with a slightly different language and sources, all over this article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That source is a good source too. It seems that there is no dispute between us on this section. You want to add this information. or you want me to add it? Penom (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to integrate it here. But one problem is that there is too much repetition. So the Jewish Encyclopedia paragraph should be removed. We also need a good refutation for some of the claims made. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, repetition is covered if sections are merged, thus "Party A and Party B claim this(cite to A)(cite to B) but Party A also claims this(cite to A).

If we continue to go with separate sections, which is fine, then repetition will exist. We simply don't drop one set points of views because they are similar or the same as others already mentioned. If you review various religious articles here, you will see there is a lot of repetition on key points... unavoidable.

One method around this is to leave the sections, and add another section that indicates "views commonly held" where a view can be discussed and attributed to all parties that hold it. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Section names

I have made some changes to the section names, mostly to remove POV wording and to try to move the traditional views away form the lead. Note that the previous section names were added minutes before asking for 3rd opinion so there was never a consensus to have such POV sections. The section "Ancestry" is OK, but sections like "Emergence of Shi'a" is very POV since Shi'a do not consider Ibn Saba' to have anything to do with their emergence. Most of these sections did not accurately reflects their content. Also no justification whatsoever was given to have these sections. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We can change that topic to "Views on role of Ibn Saba in killing of Othman and Emergence of Shia". This section intends to examine traditions on role of Ibn Saba on these two events. Not to give this wrong notion that these traditional accounts are fact--Penom (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

For the next time, if you think that a heading is POV, you can NPOV it by suggesting a better heading. You should not have deleted it--Penom (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of them can't be de-POVed and require a discussion first. For example, "fist of the ghulat" is biased towards the Shi'a view. Try to give a justification why these sections are needed first. Suggest alternatives. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

These subsections are to organize and classify the article. "Fist of the Ghulat" was your suggestion! Like the case of Jewish Encyclopedia you do some edits and then call your edits inappropriate and then you point your fingers toward others!!!!--Penom (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not my suggestion. I have tried to deal with these sections that were added in the last minute before 3rd opinion. They don't make sense. Try to justify why we need them. The only good section is ancestry. The rest are POV or do not reflect their content. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You should justify why you want to revert a well organize section to such a messy and unmechanized crapPenom (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization is no excuse to have POV titles with no clearly defined meanings. Try to suggest and discuss these titles first. Also "alleged" implies something being false. This is a POV used in the title and being passed using Wikipedia's voice. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest your POV heading. It seems that you do not like these subsections because it makes modern view more readable. I have seen thes pattern in your edits alot in other articles also you have tried to move modern views to very end of articles to undermine thamPenom (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How does a section that uses the word "alleged" is acceptable to any one? see WP:CLAIM. Such wording is not acceptable using Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps Robert should comment on why should we keep sections that were added minutes before the 3rd opinion. Also I have already explained to you why "emergence of Shia" is POV. And the sections are not well-defined. M. G. S. Hodgson's views are also about the Killing of Uthman and emergence of Shia. Why are they not in that section? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed that "alleged" word to not to give you a new excuse. However, I am amazed how you use every possible excuses to push your POV. on the lead you added "allegedly the reputed founder of the Shi'a." and it not POV but now here it is POV.

Please , stop baseless excuses to push your POV. Penom (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just answer a simple question: M. G. S. Hodgson's views are also about the Killing of Uthman and emergence of Shia. Why are they not in that section? Again, no answer. These sections are POV and not so well-defined. I have no idea why some views are inside them and others are not. You keep making personal attacks and refuse to define these sections properly. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also the sentence that starts with "Traditionally, Abd Allah ibn Sabaʾ is considered as the the first of the ghulāt" is not a modern view, but a traditional view why is it in that section? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What M. G. S. Hodgson's view do you mean? If there is a view that not addressed, add them. I am also going to add some other scular views too, like the one in Tucker's book--Penom (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember once you suggest to merge traditional and modern view in one section. Why you do not do that now? This is more in accordance with WP:structure05:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Penom (talk)

Quote please. I said merge Shia and Sunni views in one section. Also, M. G. S. Hodgson view is now mentioned in a section called "Comments on historical figure behind traditional accounts". However, the view of Hodgson is also about his group (missing from the header), not just about his historical figure. Hodgson views about his group are also about the "emergence of Shia" (i.e. exaltation of Ali). If you can't answer such a simple concern, than perhaps you should stop reverting and disrupting my efforts in trying to improve the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

that M. G. S. Hodgson view is not relevant to this section. Answer this simple question. Why you cannot stop undermining modern views in Wikipedia articles and you always want to push your Islamic agenda ? Penom (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And this is your quote "We should prefer one section about his early life or origin (like which tribe he belongs to) that discusses the views of all parties (shia, sunni, modern arguements)."

Tell me the truth. It seems that you do not like modern views. Do not forget here is not Islampedia this is EncyclopediaPenom (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A one section about his "early life or origin". This is the ancestry section. We already have that. But how could I improve other sections and introduce new material while you keep reverting my edits? You also did not answer my question. Not sure why Robert kept silent on this issue, though. I have also followed the structure of the Encyclopedia of Islam. First traditions, then modern views. Your accusations (and the current sectioning of this article) only shows your incompetence. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Be patient, get consensus before substantial changes. You cannot just leave a message here and delete lots of information. You even did not wait for Robert Look at what I did above. I did not change Ghulat without proper discussion. I did not change Tucker before a long discussion and consensus. If you are not willing to following the rules that we agreed let me know. I am trying to follow the rules that we set but it seems that you are not.

You are not improving the article. You are just deleting things that you do not like and undermine modern views. --Penom (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're reverting solely based on not having consensus, which is something that competent editors wouldn't do (see WP:DRNC). You also did not explain how the research of Hodgson, Friendlaender, and Moscati (whose research on Ibn Saba' was to study and explain the emergence of Shi'a) should be excluded from a section about the emergence of Shi'a! This should explain how deleting your arbitrary sections actually improves the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I had a busy day at work today. Anyways... to hopefully put an end to the "you did this", we've got changes before or against or while working on consensus, and we've got reverts, reverts of reverts and so on. I'm hoping we can slow down a little bit before things get truly out of control again.

On to the topics and proposals above, I need more time to read through them. It's been a long day (which followed working overnight last night), and I'm very tired. So, please, be patient... either work this stuff out together till I can catch up, or take a little break until I can catch up. Being blocked (if things continue in the direction they're heading) isn't going to help anything - and I would almost bet that since I've jumped in to help mediate things, that this page is being stalked by others.

Just one final thing; we all have our biases. It's how we deal with them here that matters. I like working on subjects I really don't care about because it's hard to be biased about something I've got no real feelings for. But when I (we/anyone) works on stuff they've got strong feelings about, the truth is reality is often the combination of those different opinions. We've got to learn how to incorporate and balance all of our ideas on this article - not just the ones we like.

OK, one "really the final thing" thing before I take a nap. Both of you seem to think that there's information and points of view that have been left out of the article. Why not start a section here with a list of the proposed additions? And, the other article pointed out above touching on a subject is no reason why this one can't. We should summarize and link to it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually guys, the number of reverts in the last 24 hours is ridiculous. I'd like you two to take a 48 hour or 72 hour break. Please. To enforce some sort of break until you two feel more collaborative, I am asking for assistance. Sorry, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to this fresh from outside. Organizing the article by moving material can be discussed, and should not be the sort of thing that causes great disagreement--there aren normally several good ways to do it. One question, which may be the one involved here, is whether to separate traditional from modern views in entirely separate sections, or discuss the subject topic by topic, including both as relevant; normally treating them together is the preferred way, and the customary interpretation of NPOV, and the rule that we do not fork articles. But in some cases where the treatment of a subject is totally divergent and incompatible even in terms of what topics to discuss, it may be necessary to separate them more completely. I'm not going to evaluate this, at least not now .)

I do not see, however, how removing apparently relevant material from the article from reliable modern sources is likely to improve it. It is appropriate to revert such edits, and then try to justify the removal on the talk page. It is never appropriate just to remove them again. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thanks for stepping into this. The removed content, per Penom and Wayiran (and a cursory review of some by me), (a) was not supported by the sources and/or (b) was used in a way to push a POV (in actions that bespoke an attitude of "my content! not yours!" (revert, revert, revert, etc) - hence me reiterating all opposing views must be covered in response above). Discussion regarding this took place above, with Penom and Wayiran disagreeing on the source use and content. Thus, the problems began.

Wiqi55 is also making additional determinations which make no sense to me, for instance, not including Lewis based on how old the source is, yet including older sources of his choosing. This too I believe goes right back to other editors' claims of Wiqi55 pushing a POV by doing so. Your review of the above for yet another voice on such would be greatly appreciated. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some of the questions dealt with above on the talk p.. it is usually possible to find a neutral description of each source. There is nothing wrong in using tertiary sources, like general histories; they can in fact be used to represent the general opinion about the balance of the secondary sources. I do not think Lewis too old to be usable; I do not know if there is a generally accepted more recent equivalent. Statements like "most historians" are very tricky and best avoided. I shall take a look at the actual article, but it may take a few days. My suggestion, along with that of I think most people at the an/i, is that the best thing for others to do now is just to pause for a few days also. The way I deal with topics that are actually really important to my own world-view is to avoid working on them on WP, something I recommend to everyone.

But I will make one very definite suggestion immediately--the word alleged ,though often used in the past in WP with a neutral intent, is now considered inherently negative, and must not be used--especially not in the lede sentence. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who wrote the lead, I intentionally added the word "allegedly", although I was already thinking of a better alternative, like "partially responsible". This is due to the ambiguity of the word Shi'a, where literally it denotes a group of political supporters (of Ali), but at later periods it was linked to a group that adhered to certain religious beliefs concerning Muhammad's family. Ibn Saba' is usually thought to be the founder of Shia' in the second sense, not the first. In any case, the lead as it stands is largely based on the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd edition), with some additions. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Partially responsible" is original research and pushing the Sunni view as the NPOV (I even intend to say the extremist Sunni view as it turns out that modern moderate Sunni writers do no take legends of Sayf ibn Omar seriously).

Please note that we are encountering two different Ibn Saba. The legendary figure and the historical figure. The legendary figure is the popular Antisemitism theme that Jews are behind all conspiracies. In Sayf Ibn Omar accounts, who is the main source about this stories, all chaos at the time of the third caliph, Othman, killing of Otham, civil wars, protests of Muhammad'sSahabahs such as Abuzar against Othman, and more importantly the emergence of Shia.... are conspiracies of Ibn Saba. This figure is clearly legendary as Wilferd Madelung says "’few if any modern historians would accept Sayf's legend of Ibn Saba’’ (on killing of Othman and emergence of Shia)....

The more historical figure is Ibn Saba as one of Ghulat. Most secular and some Shia sources consider this figure the most probable figure behind all stories about Ibn Saba--Penom (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to replace "allegedly" with just "partially responsible". That is indeed POV and too vague. Concerning Sayf, I have yet to do any reading about it, but my understanding is that his stories are largely about Ibn Saba's political activism. Casting doubt about these stories does not imply that he had no role in formulating certain religious concepts of early Shi'a. Even Momen and others have suggested that it was possible that he was the first to introduce ghayba (or other concepts). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

His roles as the first recorded person who spread the concept of Ghayab and as one/representative/leader of Ghulat are probably the most possible rules of him. Others, like most alleged conspiracies are not considered seriously by historiansPenom (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Specific Section Names That Imply Bias

• Please let me know which specific section names *either* of you think implies bias. I have my own opinions, which I will address if they do not concur with one or both of your opinions, but wish to deal with the ones in conflict first.
• Removing views because of POV section names is not appropriate. Discuss how to change the section.
• Wiqi55: WP:CLAIM does not say what you think it does.
• Can we decide to go section by section? Content and names together? We keep jumping all over the place before resolving anything. If you both agree, the LEAD should be last (even though it won't be in the best of shape until then). Hard to write a lead without knowing what the article content will be. And since the LEAD is the summary of the ARTICLE (instead of what defines the article), the article needs to be in shape first. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

This is just a heads up that this page is now being watched by several administrators and edit warring will result in blocks. Controversial changes should be discussed on the talk page. I recommend WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 13:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding some removed materials

Momen Moojan account

Regarding the following statement:"The Sabd'iyya 'Abdu'llah ibn Saba al-Himyari, a semi-legendary figure known as Ibn as-Sawda, is generally considered to have started the tendency to ghuluww..."

We discussed a lot about the deleted statement by Momen Moojan. I think, one with a little background in Shia studies must know Momen Moojan as an expert in Shia history. His book is Published by Yale University Press which itself shows how reliable this source is. Second, he has been invited to write articles in Encyclopedia Iranica published by Colombia University. FYI, Encyclopedia Iranica is one of the most reliable sources on Iran related articles including Shi'ism. Well, I think one cannot dispute his expertise when the chief editorial board of this Encyclopaedia cnosider him an expert. Can I re-add deleted Moojan view after all this discussions?--Penom (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I also found this review on Moojan's book--Penom (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shia view from al-Islam.org

Sourced materials from "Shia view" section has been removed. Look at this version and compare it with the current version of "Modern Shia view". There are several issues, such as:

1. Al-Islam view which reflects modern Shia view to some extent is removed. I did some research, as far as I know al-Islam belongs to Ayatollah Sistani foundation who is the highest rank leader of Shia at the moment (the highest rankink Marja' )
2. The current sentence has several issues I mean "Some modern Shī‘a scholars refute the existence of Ibn Saba, though for more than 13 centuries, Shia scholars used to give the stories and narrations of Ibn Saba. And Shī‘a scholars such as Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti,[11] Abu Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi,[12] Al-Hasan bin Ali al-Hilly,[13] al-Astra Abadi,[14]Al-Sadooq,[15] and Al-Nawbakhty.[16] " All listed names are classical Shia scholars not modern Shia writers. Second the sentence is WP:SYNTH, especially "though for more than 13 centuries, Shia scholars used to give "Penom (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Other sources on modern Shia and Islamic views

1. I also found this article from Al-Shia.org 1. As far as I remember this website belongs to [Ayatollah Sistani Foundation]] . Along Al-islam.org these two sources provide a good summery of modern Shia view.--Penom (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. And also this book is another good source for Islamic and Shia view 2--Penom (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopaedia view

• What happened to Jewish Encyclopaedia view ? I mean JE views on "Ibn Saba and Ghulats and claims that Ali was god" section on this revisionPenom (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed it some time ago and explained why in the edit summary. That paragraph made a number of claims that were not found in the linked article (like how "ibn Saba either claimed prophethood himself"). Also, according to some sources, and probably the JE also, Ibn Saba' claimed that Ali was "al-ilah", not God/Allah. So it was one paragraph full of dubious claims. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You removed that in the last edit warring--Penom (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This version was verified by Robert. You cannot remove sourced materials because you do not like it. Even if other sources have other views. Find them and add them and say source "A says B and source C says D". You cannot say I do not like this source and I only like that one--Penom (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, source "A" doesn't say "B". This is a common problem on Wikipedia, aka misrepresentation of sources, which is very unfortunate. Also, we shouldn't turn this article into the equivalent of a Google Books search, i.e., quote every source that mention Ibn Saba' to infinity and beyond. Many sources on Islamic history, including high-quality sources like the Encyclopaedia of Islam, actually contain clear-cut errors and mistranslations/misinterpretations. If we know that a source is wrong we should remove it. We also should stick to specialist sources about the subject of early Shi'a, ghulat, etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, first find a better source then slaughter sourced information. I agree that JE is not a very good source, but it was OK. At least before we find a better source. REgarding the misrepresentation of JE. JE was reintroduced by you and not me. The last version that you delete was checked by Robert, so probably it should be OKPenom (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55, we've been down this road before. Wikipedia is about verifiability of information cited to reliable sources. It is not about the truth, nor is it about you or I trying to discount what a reliable source says because we think we know better.

You, above, did what you keep accusing Penom of. Please do not do it again.

Instead: Discuss - dont arbitrarily cannibalize based on personal opinions. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

alleged

As I said earlier, this word can not be used in the lede. If EI used it, it can be quoted in context as their view later, but not used as the summary in the lede. The EI may if its editors choose use loaded words in summary; we do not.This is basic NPOV policy. I had to write something totally bland to replace it, but the following two paragraphs clarify the status--I do not really see how it can be done more briefly. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I take a rather strict view about admin action by involved editors, and I consider even this obvious and necessary edit might make me involved, but I urge any other admin to consider taking action against anyone replacing it. Myself, I'm no longer watching this p. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming "Sayf ibn Umar" section to "Sources"

1. Instead of one section on "Syaf Ibn Umar" we can have a general section on early Islamic sources on Ibn Saba. In this section we can talk about Al-Tabari and Ibn Umar and other early Islamic sources on Ibn Saba. This section should contain different views on credibility of these accounts. Any objection to renaming of the section?
2. We should re-write this section. I see many unsourced sentences. Can I remove these unsourced information to make re-writing of this section easier--Penom (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit/revert warring

Hey guys, I was wondering if by any chance you two wouldn't mind starting another edit war... ...oh... nevermind... you guys are already on your way to doing so. On second thought, perhaps it's time to stop said edit/revert war in it's tracks before someone else notices. Just a suggestion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Echo'd. I'm keeping an eye on you two (Penom/Wiqi) here.--v/r - TP 21:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia is an outdated source?

I just noticed that JE was originaly published between 1901-1906 [14]. So, put its information in Modern view section is very inappropriate. I am going to remove JE information from "Modern views section/ & find a new source if it is necessary. Any thought?

Also please notice that Wiqi considered this source a poor source in one of previous discussions and with this excuse he removed some JE information. Therefore, there should not be any problem from Wiqqi? How about others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penom (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being difficult... but define "modern" in respect to something historically from centuries past. This doesn't mean I agree or disagree. I'd like yours (and others') input on where they think the borderline is for such being modern or not. I will point out that in some scenarios, one (not the only one) tool I use to determine what is "modern views" is whether or not those views are still held today - compared to how long previous views were held (and then compare when the modern view was created to help determine whether the source is considered such). Dunno if that helps. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that after 60's approach of Orientalists toward early Islamic history is totally different from the what it used to be in early 20 century and 19 century. The sources such as JE are outdated sources where there is no shortage of up to date studies.--Penom (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say JE was a poor source. I said that JE was being misrepresented, i.e., a claim being cited here on Wikipedia based on the authority of JE even though this claim is not found in the JE. That said, there is absolutely no problem in using old sources except if we know that a source is wrong. For example, if we have a source claiming that "all historians state that Ibn Saba' doesn't exist" but we have 3 historians claiming that he actually existed, than such a "claim" (not the source itself) should be disregarded, and the source should be used with more caution. The same should be done for old translations that are considered unreliable and old theories that has since been discredited, etc. In short, each claim and each source should be examined separately and on case-by-case basis. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, more recent studies have a differing view? If that's the case, I'd lean toward not considering JE's views as current. BUT, here's the next question. When JE was originally published is only relevant if it has not been updated. One of the sources I've seen seems to indicate it's verbatim (meaning such would apply). Are there updated sources? If so, then the original publication date isn't relevant. If not, then considering newer, differing views from today, I'd think that the publishing date is relevant. But that's just my opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To Wiqi55, if that's the case, it definitely needs to be discussed and addressed. Anyway, I don't think either Penom or I are saying the source should not be used. I think we are solely discussing where it should be used. If the views in it are no longer the current views, then we need to decide on how we wish to apply the term "Modern Views" as this source may be suited to a different section and not the "Modern..." section. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Robert. The JE edition that we used in our article is the 1901-1906 edition. I do not know how much you guys are familiar with the trends in oriental studies. The approach of pre-WW2 orientalists toward Islamic studies is so much different from current trend among Western orientalistsPenom (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Wiqi. Please do not start again your baseless accusations, JE was re-introduced by you not not me. If there was something wrong with that you would have been more responsible for that. Though, the version you believed that it was misrepresented, was re-wrote by Robert and probably had no issuePenom (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything. There is nothing wrong with using pre-60s sources, as the more recent academic sources still use them. My point is that each source and each claim should be examined separately. You also need to prove that a claim being made in an earlier source is completely wrong or was just an error. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Well, if Wiqi55 thinks there are still issues, regardless of me rewriting it, we should discuss it. I'm far from perfect and may have missed something. But... the key is, let's discuss it first.

Wiqi55: if you would please point out which sentences you think are not supported by the source, then we can all look at it and evaluate. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If a claim in an earlier source is completely wrong (etc, etc), there's no reason to not include it. It should be included, as it shows changing views over time - but that means such needs to be explained. Terrible paraphrase example: "Early scientists believed the Earth was flat(cite)(cite), but during the (whatever) era, scientists had theorized that due to (whatever), the Earth was a sphere(cite). Today, the most commonly held belief, and the belief held by the scientific community as a whole, is that the Earth is roughly spherical.(cite)"

That's properly using all sources, including older inaccurate ones. That portrays the history of the situation, as well as current beliefs. And it shows an evolution of beliefs, and allows (if needed) an ability to expand upon such showing why the beliefs changed. At least that's my opinion. But I'm one to believe that when we are discussing history, especially such as this, that we should actually include... history and the history thereof. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Side note: I didn't read Wiqi55's statement as an accusation. I don't think it was intended as. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case of famous discredited theories, like flat earth, what you're saying makes sense. But I was more thinking of one-time errors made by one historian on a non-notable subject. I tend to think an encyclopedia should be written in a more factual style, and we shouldn't waste article space to correct errors that virtually no one else has heard of. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, I can show the change in approach toward early Islamic history studies. But for our specific case, the old sources only tend to copy Tabari's accounts without any critical examinations. But as you see in more recent views, the approach is different. Dr. Matti Moosa mentioned this old trend of Western sources toward Ibn Saba storiesPenom (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55: I think you make a great point. But, Penom's response seems equally as valid. Thus, I propose if Penom can do so, we proceed down that road and include such content. And if he cannot, then we follow Wiqi55's road. Any takers? Any thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. What I am supposed to do? I did not get what your point. --Penom (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My apoligies, I seem to have been somewhat vague. Here's my suggestions:

1. If Penom or any of us can show that the beliefs in the source were either (1a) held and believed by most for any decent period of time or (1b) concluded or agreed upon by other scholars, then I support having the information with the requisite expansion and additional supportive cites (closest to Penom's position).
2. If we cannot find such, and this is entirely a one-off fluke that was not largely believed and was not agreed upon by other historians and historical records, then I think it falls into the fringe belief category and either warrants no mention or a small mention only (closest to Wiqi55's position).

Thus, as I noted above, I think you both make admirable points, and trust the two of you can determine whether this fits into #1 or #2 above. Just (not accusatory, just reminding no OR) keep in mind (Penom) that "I know there's other sources out there that agreed" or (Wiqi55) "I know this was only a FRINGE belief" isn't valid reasoning for either. Let's do the legwork and find out which road some research into this proves to be the best road traveled. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well! I ws busy in last days. The fact is the source is old. If modern source does not support the view of JE we should remove it. Wiqi could show any source supporting JE view for example in Jewish origin of Ibn Saba. If he cannot find a supportive view. I am going ot remove it. Please note that above Wiqqi tried to remove Berand Lewis by the excuse that his voew is outdated, though his book is 80 years newer than JE--Penom (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The JE is a reliable source. The claim that he was Jewish is valid (as far as the primary sources are concerned). It is not a factual error. Those who rejected his Jewishness are merely speculating and at no better position than the JE. Your "I don't like it" attitude will not be enough to remove well-cited information. Lastly, my comment on Lewis was because you have misrepresented his views. You made him claim that "Historical evidence reject the existence of Ibn Saba'", which is a silly and factually wrong statement (because other historians have affirmed his existence). Luckily for everyone, Lewis did not make that claim. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Something does not become reliable because you say that. Show a modern source that shares JE view. That is really disruptive. First you put Jewish E. view in Shia View section and reverted several time. Then you insist to put it in modern view. Sorry! Find a supportive source . You cannot put a 110 year old source in modern view sectionPenom (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, a source does not become unreliable just because you say so. Israel Friedlander and W. F. Tucker already attested that he was either Jewish or lived in a Jewish environment. Also I did not add the view of JE. It was already here and well-cited. I have just reverted your attempts to censor it without giving valid reasons. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Again misrepresenting the source. Tucker does not shar JE. For example, He says it was possible that the attribution of Jewish ancestry to Ibn Saba' on his parental side and imputation of black descent on his mother's side, was fabricated to discredit his credentials as a Muslim Arab and "thus stigmatize all ideas associated with him" and also add he might be a Jew but does not say that he was a --Penom (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Jew for sure. Regarding your disruptive edits and adding Jewish view in Shia view section. I put several message before removing it and it was irrelevant to Shia view. You knew that and kept adding JE to shia section. Like now, you add a classic view to modern view. Whatever you call your favorit source, it is not a MODERN view. It belongs to 1904-8 Penom (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By your own standards, it is a modern source. You added the views of Israel Friedlander and Julius Wellhausen to that same section even though both of them died before 1920. So stop making up invalid arguments. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Those sources extracted from Tucker's book not directly from the original book. We address their views because a reliable source in 2000s found their views notable. But you failed to find a source supporting JEPenom (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues in "Historicity section"

Again revert and revert and revert and no body take any actions by admins.

• Something that Wiqi fails to understand that the subject of this section is "To what degree he is historical" in other words, is he purely historical figure, or somebody at the time of Ali around whom later generations imagined a legends? It is not as Wiqi claims "existence vs. non-existence" but it is about "purely historical" vs. semi-legendary.
• regarding these two disappointing edits [15] and [16]

Fist of all look at the original source when it is talking about historical figure behind Sayf's accounts and compare it with what Wiqi added to article. The second Wiqi's sentence is not in this paragraph and added from other parts of article in order to synthesize his view. He represents the source which belong to first group of scholars, who believe that only some aspects of Sayf's accounts are historical as the supporter of the second group (who beleive Sayf ibn Umar's account are purely historical"

This is the original source

It is not clear what historical person or persons lay behind this figure. Al-Tabarl's source, Sayf b. Umar, is the chief authority for his political activity against Uthman. Al-DhahabI notes a general condemnation of Sayf as a traditionist (quoted by Friedlander, ZA, 1909, 297), a condemnation supported on other grounds by Wellhausen (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi, 6); and surer sources seem to exclude Ibn Saba5 from any major role there. Friedlander suggests that Ibn Saba3's chief role was not to proclaim c All's divinity, but to deny cAll's death, teaching that he died only in appearance (docetism), and would in the end come again from the clouds(messianism)—perhaps with the background of a 'Yamanite Judaism related to that of the Falashas of Ethiopia. Caetani would make Ibn Saba in origin a purely political supporter of A1I, around whom later generations imagined a religious conspiracy like that of the cAbbasids. Massignon considers the Saba3- iyya of al-Mukhtar's time as one of the 'ayniyya

sects (Massignon, Salman Pdk, Paris 1934, 37, 40).

Penom (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sayf ibn Umar's accounts have little to do with the historicity of Ibn Saba' and more to do with his political activism. You can believe Ibn Saba' and the Saba'iyya have existed without really referring to any account by Sayf. Also the existence of the Saba'iyya is accepted as fact in both Sunni and Shi'a traditions. It is their role in the 1) killing of Uthman, 2) being the first to found or establish certain Shi'a concepts that is disputed. Don't mix the Sayf ibn Umar issue with his historicity. And try to be specific about which parts do think needs improvement. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You are a clear example of WP:HEAR. We always say something but you say sth else and fail to understand point that raised several timesPenom (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

factual accuracy?

Kurdo777 (talk · contribs) added a disputed template recently using a vague edit summary.[17] He/She did not explain which parts or facts are being disputed. As far as I know, most of the facts on this article are carefully cited and verified (with the exception of the section about Sayf ibn Umar -- already tagged). If no explanation is given, I will remove this template. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold off a bit. I'll take care of it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left Kurdo777 a message. Please allow him some time to respond. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is totally disputed given the various POV/source-related issues with Wiqi55's preferred version. The evidence of the dispute, is dozens of threads above about the various issues and problems with the current version of the article.. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you stopped by. How about helping us by weighing in on the issues? It'd be much appreciated. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To give you an example, modern Islamic scholarly opinion on this topic is not properly covered, as modern scholars in this field do not take Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi's accounts seriously, dismissing them as myths and fairy tales. Modern Shia scholars also call both the Tabari and Tamimi's accounts "myths". But the article is not balanced, and gives undue weight the extremist (aka Wahabi) Sunni point of view on the subject, while neglecting mainstream Islamic/Sunni and Shia points of views. An example of modern mainstream Islamic sources that are neglected, is Matti Mussa's book "Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects". Kurdo777 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that "modern scholars in this field do not take Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi's accounts seriously" is baseless (and it's not a factual inaccuracy anyway). Some modern scholars do accept Sayf as reliable. According to Hugh N. Kennedy: "Medieval and modern historians have suspected that he fabricated some of his accounts, but the most recent scholarship suggests that he is more relialbe than previous authors had imagined." Other modern scholars also defended the accounts of Sayf with direct reference to Ibn Saba', e.g., Tucker (read the article). Also note that many objections about Sayf by medieval scholars were about his Hadith, not his history books (this point is well-known and also noted by Tucker). You'll have to give more details about your other preconceived inaccuracies. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kordu. This article is undue weight towards, exterimist views and wahabi views. Wiqi represents minority views as mainsteam veiw. By misrepresenting Tuckers's view and citing a source from 1904 as modern scholarly view you he tried to undermine the mojority views of modern scholars and Islamic writers and gives unfair weight to views that shared by Taliban and Al-Qaida and exterinists. Look at the article lead, it is awful,...Penom (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Try to be more specific. What are these extremist views? And I'm not sure what is the source from 1904 that you speak of. In any case, all the sources I cited are commonly referred to in modern scholarship on the subject. A source can only be outdated if it is considered obsolete by other scholars in the field. This is not the case here. You should also list the facts that you consider factually wrong. Otherwise, there is no justification for the template. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo and I were specific enough, stop this game of "I do not do not hear". Look at the number of concerns that I have raised on this page since you started editing. Take time and read them. I should say that the article is now much better that the time I started fixing your version. Before, it was the view shared by Taliban and al-Qaida, now it is a little balanced. Regarding a 194 source, I mean Jewish Encyclopaedia. You should find a recent source that shares this view. If that outdated view is not shed by modern scholars, it is ridiculous to put a 1904 view in modern view section--Penom (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No you were not. I ask you again, What are these extremist views? What are these facts that you tagged the article for and claimed to be factually wrong? You're also calling the opinions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hugh N. Kennedy, W. F. Tucker as "Taliban and al-Qaeda"! This is not a good justification for tagging the article. The JE is considered a reliable source, cited many times in other articles. The claim they make is found in the traditions. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change anything. Or are you suggesting that we should purge the JE from all articles on Wikipedia, not just this claim? If so, then please take the JE to WP:RSN. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad everyone is talking about the issues - it's a start. But in the meantime, I see a back and forth 4 times in the history. Please work diligently on avoiding the edit war that seems to be beginning. Again (and like last time), someone other than me may notice, which in light of previous edit wars may end in sanctions - and I don't think that necessary (hence no warning templates or WP:WAR reports from me). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have avoided 3rr (I hope), but this is tag abuse. It is obvious to me that the tag was meant to censor important information found in every reliable source on the subject. As far as I know, there is nothing in the article that is factually disputed. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, edit warring doesn't necessarily require a 3RR violation - especially in light of previous events (and WP:BRD being ignored by the subsequent reverts), thus I suggest(ed) caution. ;-) That aside, then perhaps the thing to propose is using an "expert" tag to involve others who can assist in ending this dispute? There is obviously some sort of dispute - so, if the tag isn't correct (because it's not factual accuracy that's being disputed - but say POV or bias issues), then perhaps a tag change is in order (such as I just proposed above). From Twinkle, such an option does exist. Now, before anyone runs off and does that, perhaps we should all see if we are in some sort of agreement on such? Regardless, it may be more helpful to use a tag to get members from whatever wikiproject to help out - over a more generic tag such as what's currently being warred over. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've read the edit summaries and comments here for inclusion/removal of the tag. I think it should have been the neutrality tag used instead (though the expert tag may still gain more eyes to help solve this). Every argument I've seen seems to indicate that everyone is at odds with neutrality/undue as opposed to accuracy in relationship to sources used in any particular article version.

• Proposal 1: Swap to neutrality tag (at top if warranted, or in specific sections, if only the neutrality of specific sections is disputed)
• Proposal 2: Swap to "expert" tag (and ensure the article is a part of some Wikiproject)
• Proposal 3: Use "fact" tag
• Proposal 4: Remove "fact" tag and don't replace with any other tag

From what I am reading, if I am interpreting it correctly, I'd lean towards #1 or #2. That's all I's got! What do you all think? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, NPOV tag is more relevantPenom (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've added an (expert WikiProject Islam) tag as well - and moved it to the bottom so the article doesn't start off with tons of tags. That will hopefully garner some more attention and help. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Wiqi. Stop this game and claiming that this article is based on Tuckers and EI sources. You are cherry picking from these sources and misrepresenting them. What you added from these sources are not their actual views but what you liked from their views. If I did not catch you at first place, this article had became an anti-Jewish article promoting the view of Taliban and AL-Qaida. Just for other editors, please google Ibn Saba and look who share the views that Wiqi push them. You will see only bunch of Al-Qayda and Taliban sympathizer websites and websites belong to extremists.Penom (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stick to discussing the content of the article and try to justify your tag. Again, What views are you talking about? What parts are being misrepresented? Your claim that the article has gotten better shows how flexible I am. Just try to be specific. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples. majorities call Sayf ibn Umar unreliable. But minority view who does not agree with the first view represented as majority viewPenom (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being specific. We have 7 anti-Sayf paragraphs, and most of them confuse the traditional opinions of his hadith with that of his history books. Whereas there is only 1 paragraph refuting their claims. Also the scholarly opinions of Sayf has changed. According to Hugh N. Kennedy: "Medieval and modern historians have suspected that he fabricated some of his accounts, but the most recent scholarship suggests that he is more relialbe than previous authors had imagined." Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is another example of cherry picking by you. I can cite 10 modern scholars who discredited Sayf Ibn Umar. But you just pick one minority view and represent him as majority view. As Wilferd Madelung says ‘’few if any modern historians would accept Sayf's legend of Ibn Saba’’. Even minorities whom you claim that they share your favorit views, do not say that Sayf is a reliable source. They accept some parts of his accounts but consider most of his legends fictional works, e.g., conspiracies of Ibn Saba as a Jew, killing of Othman, founding Shia, sparking civil war in Muslim countries,...--Penom (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This then requires using WP:UNDUE to properly balance such. And a related note, our opinion on the works in question is irrelevant (ie: "they are wrong"). That cannot be brought up unless more credible sources claim such. If such sources are found (as Penom says he has), then one must balance including the "incorrect" source at all. At the very least, the "incorrect" source needs to be balanced by the correct sources and counter-claims. None of us are deemed experts (per Wikipedia's citing and inclusion policies) to use our own determination on sources. We must use those who Wikipedia judges as such to do anything of the sort. And if we cannot find other experts held to be more credible, then our opinions are unsupported and do not get included - nor do they (nor should they) bias content inclusion or exclusion. So, why not start with listing claims against each, then weighing how that gets balanced by WP:UNDUE? That may make this easier if it's all laid out showing who refutes who? Both of you have started on this. I bet you if you both go into detail, from there, we can then write the content around what the sources say, and based off who refutes who and which is the current view. Anyway, those are my random thoughts on the matter. I hope it has provided a direction that will once and for all end this sourcing "controversy." Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Penom, whether Sayf is reliable or not has nothing to do with Ibn Saba's religious beliefs. His religious beliefs are better documented elsewhere. See the comment of Tucker about the hersiographic literature. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(questions) Is it reliable in this instance? By reliable, I mean, is it a view commonly cited or held (or held by more than a minority) that is in opposition to the other sources that document it differently? If so, we need to include both, with due weight. If it is disputed by virtually everyone else, then perhaps we do not need it - unless there's historical reasons for showing how the views of his faith changed over time (ie: "Sayf(cite) and others(cite) believed {faith}, but as more historical documents became available, scholars gained a better understanding that his faith was...(cite)(cite)(cite)(etc)"). At least, that's how I see this issue. I'm running out for some outdoor work, but I'd gladly look at all the cites posted above to see if I can form an opinion - if you guys would like. Won't be till later tonight though. Sorry, it's been ages (ok, 25 years) since I studied this in college, so I am very rusty. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I had chance to check EI. As I expected you misrepresented the source. Somebody should stop you. You are playing with system by misrepresenting sources. Penom (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55, you need to stop removing the tags. Sweeping the problems under the rug, is not going to help your case. The fact that we have this long thread about the problems with the article, is proof by itself, that the article is disputed. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your drive-by-tagging using vague edit summaries and referring to old threads will be reverted. Try to be more specific about which changes/improvements the article needs. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I'm just wondering which edits are Penom and Kurdo777 are disagreeing with? If you keep blanket reverting and refuse to explicitly state what's wrong in the justifications given in the edit summaries, then no progress will be made. Note that the previous version which meets WP:NPOV, presents accurate information, and accounts for recent scholarship on the subject is available here. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

lead

I was asked to comment on the lead paragraph. It cannot say "a 7th-century figure in Islamic history " without qualification if there are sources challenged his existence. I suggest: "a 7th-century figure in traditional Islamic history " or "a 7th-century figure in Islamic tradition "

I first thought "a 7th-century figure in Islamic history who may or may not have had an actual historical existence" but that sounds too negative. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with "a 7th-century figure in Islamic history who may or may not have had an actual historical existence" as many modern historians challenged his existence. Anyhow, Would you please start changing the lead. I will become more happy if you start editing the lead.--Penom (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DGG is right. "may or may not" is too negative and unencyclopedic. Using tradition here is more accurate. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayiran, try to join the discussion here first, per WP:BRD. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I am going to remove the tag. Any objections?--Penom (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)