Talk:Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali

Original research

Besides this is an original research, there is not mention of Sahih Bukhari. --Truthpedia 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research? What part of it? You cant mean all of it, just look at the references. --Striver 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Bukhari assertion until references from it is made available.--Striver 11:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research because of the inappropriate use of primary osurces. Secondary sources need to be found.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

JOKE

This whole article is a joke and should be deleted. What say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.92.44 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree Manormadman (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

I think this is a proper topic for Wikipedia but ir should be written for the outsider, the kind of person who says "what's all this about the Umayyad's cursing Ali?" This kind of person needs a brief introduction to the Shi'ite position. The Sunni position can be summarized as calling it a Shi'ite myth. The references used should be ones that a skeptic can follow. Personally I agree with what I described as the Sunni position. I feel sure that someone (Donner?) has studied this impartially. But I don't know whom or where. DKleinecke (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I brought in a Christian source, which dates to 1234... so calling it "primary" might be a stretch. But equally the 1234 is hardly a work of modern scholarship. We should keep looking I think.

For my part, I align with the Shi`a. It must be the emo in me. I do hope we will not come to blows over this ;^)--Zimriel (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of primary quotes

I have removed the "Hadith" section, as it essentially is just a series of beginning-to-end quotes of the entirety of primary sources, in this case selectively chosen to push a certain point; this is, unfortunately, a common theme in articles with the same creator (long since retired). Pulling the facts out would simply be difficult as it would require quite a bit more research into primary sources to see the full picture, and that would then be a clear instance of original research - essentially what the section was in the first place. This is obviously a notable topic and a proven tradiiton, so more secondary sources can and should be found and used to expand the article instead. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issues

There are many WP:NPOV issues throughout the article, starting from 'Background' onward. I hope to address them in the coming days by rewriting or revising parts of the articles. Albertatiran (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)