Talk:Anti-Shi'ism

Comments

There definitely is a POV skew with this article. I generally accept the majority of the facts, but the tone clearly displays emotion, and seams to incite anger from the reader. On a few areas, the term "Sunnis" are used very vaguely, stereotyping all Sunnis which may or may not agree with the statement.
-An indirect example is the tone in the section Imam Hussein’s martyrdom (RA, AS) seams to lead to the conclusion that all Sunnis are on the opposite side, and do not agree with him. This conclusion would not be accurate, and would be a stereotype. The truth would be that many Sunnis completely support his cause.
-Another Example is the reference sited for Saudi Arabian apartheid against Shias stops short of actually accusing them, but just indicates that they are nearing similar conditions. The reference doesn't quite support the argument. Either another source should be cited, or the argument scaled back a bit.

I don't have the resources (specifically valid sources, and experience) to directly improve the article, I request the community to help out. SuperS 5 (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Shiaphobia → Anti-Shi'ism – Its by far the most commonly used description and it seems to me to keep a high level of recognisability. It follows the consistently used format of Anti-Xx terminologies used in parallel articles on forms of discrimination/ prejudice. It better meets the basics of WP:AT. Its not a phobia. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. As far as total hits goes, it is about the same number for both terms.[1][2] But the hits for "Shiaphobia" are all from one obscure agency (Mehr News Agency). Claimsworth (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Shi'ism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130415003044/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2011%5C03%5C10%5Cstory_10-3-2011_pg4_2 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C03%5C10%5Cstory_10-3-2011_pg4_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Shi'ism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224224359/http://www.asianage.com/india/clashes-jammu-and-kashmir-over-muharram-procession-ban-624 to http://www.asianage.com/india/clashes-jammu-and-kashmir-over-muharram-procession-ban-624
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623170213/http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb04152011.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb04152011.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C03%5C10%5Cstory_10-3-2011_pg4_2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110123231/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/16-shiites-arrested-130-monitored-by-cops-says-minister to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/16-shiites-arrested-130-monitored-by-cops-says-minister

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No mention of why?

The article at present, highly slanted that it is, does not mention WHY people have criticised the Shia throughout the centuries. Including, for example, their ritual cursings of three of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs (Omar, Abu Bakr, Othman), the extreme embrace of Taqiya to the extent that deception becomes an end in itself, lingering suspicions that they secretly still adhere to the pagan Magian religion and in more recent times the involvement of the Khomeinite Persian state in an extremely sectarian imperialism throughout the Middle East (the killings of Sunnis by Shia militas, is just as bad as what ISIS has done -- it is the same extremism). We need to re-write this article to avoid the hapless "victim" narrative currently promoted and be more balanced. Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you, this article is highly WP:NPOV (It is against the rules of Wikipedia, itself), also it contains false information without a single reference. 103.169.65.150 (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning Ahl al-Bayt, as the Shi'ites

Shi'ism was arised as the political movement first, and it was changed to a religious denomination after the 2 centuries (and even Wikipedia acknowledge this fact). Thus, Shi'ism was not even originated during the times of Husayn ibn Ali (the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Just because, the respected Shi'ites revere him as their Imam that does not make him a "Shia" himself. I would humbly request the admins to remove the incident of Karbala from this article, as this was not the persecution of Shi'ites at all, as Shi'ism was not even originated at that time. Thanks 103.169.65.150 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)