Talk:Ali/POV

message: ==POV 2.0==
Ive read the "revision". These problems still need to be addressed:
1. The article still uses the pro-Sunni word "Shura" to describe the decision of first caliphate, without ever mentioning the equivalent Shi'a word of "ijma" anywhere. There's a slight but crucial difference. 
2. The word "Election" is still used objectively in the article to describe the first Caliph's coming to power. It titles a section.
3. The article claims Qadir i Khumm as the only event Shi'as use to back themselves with. This is not true. Nothing is mentioned about Shi'a fundamental claims such as Hadith-i Thaqalayn or other similar hadith and events. Or at least, a link should be provided to Succession to Muhammad in the text.--Zereshk 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CUT

message: Ive read the "revision". These problems still need to be addressed:
1. The article still uses the pro-Sunni word "Shura" to describe the decision of first caliphate, without ever mentioning the equivalent Shi'a word of "ijma" anywhere. There's a slight but crucial difference. 
2. The word "Election" is still used objectively in the article to describe the first Caliph's coming to power. It titles a section.
3. The article claims Qadir i Khumm as the only event Shi'as use to back themselves with. This is not true. Nothing is mentioned about Shi'a fundamental claims such as Hadith-i Thaqalayn or other similar hadith and events. Or at least, a link should be provided to Succession to Muhammad in the text.--Zereshk 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV 2.0

message: I worked hard to do a Shi'a/Sunni neutral revision and Aladdin reverted it. When I have time, I will go at it again, piecemeal this time. Zora 08:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision repealed 

message: I haven't completely de-Sunnified the article, or so it seems to me, but I have changed a few things. Instead of referring to Abu Bakr's election, I've referred to his succession. I've changed wording that suggested that Hassan ibn Ali renounced the caliphate and said that he refrained from publicly advancing his claims to it. I don't think Shi'a would agree that he did renounce it, or that he could have renounced it, since in their opinion, he was imam by God's will. I've removed a bit re Ali being Abu Bakr's closest advisor -- Madelung says that this is Sunni propaganda. Abu Bakr distrusted him to an extent, and kept him at arm's length. Ali, however, did not intrigue against Abu Bakr. All this could be argued at length, but it seems easiest to delete the questionable claim. 
Someone changed the bit re the Hashemites to include other "royal families". I tweaked that a bit and removed the "praise be upon him". The usual Muslim interjections are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Zora 22:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt 

message: Anons and new editors keep adding Shi'a polemic garbage. Things like this keep sneaking into the article: 
:"Hazrat Ali is the lion of Allah and all muslims love him and trust in his teachings. He is the leader of all Sufies and the true leader of muslims after Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H)."
I seem to be the only one who cares, and I'm not even a Muslim. If anyone out there can start watching this page, I would appreciate it. Cuñado  - Talk 21:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a bias 

message: I this articile should be changed, it shows only the shia veiwpoint of Ali. Bazel 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an OK article at one point, and it took endless vigilance to keep it that way. I'm short on time and energy and the Shi'a have turned the article into a religious tract. Bazel, if you go back half-a-year, you can find a version that is more balanced. Zora 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for that is because the Sunni viewpoint did not have any sources. We can't have unsourced material in this article.--Sefringle 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong Sefringle. I disagree with you. I think Shia and Sunni narrations are similar from historic viewpoint. But they're different from theological viewpoint. I mean both Shia and Sunni agree with events but they have different interpretations.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shia veiwpoint