Talk:Rafida

message: This page needs cleanup!--88.111.117.148 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first of this article have no references thus making it an unnecessary and it almost seems as propaganda of sort. Thank you  TalibHassani006 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  per MOS:LEAD  Also on that same policy page MOS:CITELEAD basically says we do not have to duplicate cites in the body in the lead. It seems like all the points made in the lead are from the article, but if you see something that is unduly mentioned or left out, please say so and be specific. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup request

message: What is the connection between this term and the Arabic term for Mesopotamia? Does the name mean Mesopotamia is 'the land of the rejecters'? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:9DB:9CD9:8ABE:7E56 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rafida and Bilad al-Rafidayn

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rafida. 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/20140316212559/http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/29/the_vocabulary_of_sectarianism to http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/29/the_vocabulary_of_sectarianism
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:
?
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on Rejection of Truth in Lede

message: No! I oppose restoring this statement, especially to the lead, because it's WP:UNDUE, WP:PARTISAN and MOS:LABEL ("Sunni extremists"). Across the world, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunnis, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. However, any controversial statements, quotes or accusations should be attributed to whoever said them, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
My humble advice to both editors, it's recommended to focus on wise, moderate opinions like these: 1, 2, 3. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: That statement is inappropriate in the lede, since it gives undue weight to contemporary geo-political issues. WP:RECENTISM 
The article primarily deals with the Rafida sects and their history. In my opinion, a main issue with many Islam-related articles in wikipedia is that classical religious doctrines and concepts are mixed with contemporary geo-political issues in many of these pages. Imami Shi'ites has self-identified themselves as "Rafida" for over a thousand years. The term "Rafida" has been used derogatorily in Sunni and Zaydi scholarly texts for over a thousand years.
Ignoring this and giving undue weight to information related to contemporary militant and insurgent groups advances an Euro-centric systemic bias and is certainly not an encyclopaedic approach. Additionally, both the article and it's 1 para lede are very short, so it is undue in the lede. If a page article titled "Rafida (slur)" is created, then it maybe appropriate to mention information related to contemporary geo-political affairs in an enlarged lede. Otherwise, it is undue. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion