Talk:Shia view of Muawiyah I

message: Aladin, i reverted you. Are you claimíng the answering ansar article i lying? --Striver 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lying is a kind word. They do more than lie. The depth of their convoluted partisan rhetoric is why they will never attain reliable source status. The most you can do with this site is show where they link to, not formulate or editorialize, actual scholarly Shia sources.--AladdinSE 00:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Please review
:Shi'a quote some hadith where Muhammad is supposed to have cursed him and prophesied being resurrected with another then Muhammads on the resurrection day
I doesn't make much sense, grammatically. I don't understand the point that is being attempted. --AladdinSE 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentence 

message: The first few words in the introduction, The Shi'a have lost no opportunity to vilify ..., indicate a non-neutral point of view, but I do not know anything about the subject matter, and I am not sure to what extent the rest of the article is affected.--Niels Ø 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and the rest of the article isn't much different. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No answer?--Striver 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then im removing it. --Striver 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem as if the article has been improved much since, as it is still replete with tendentious language. ITAQALLAH 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed this article for deletion and restored the POV tag - the deletion discussion is a current discussion of the POV tag.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia view of Muawiyah I.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: * I have removed the POV tag which has been extant since 2008. The nature of this article means that it cannot be anything other than POV, but this does not mean that the ideas discussed are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Haruth (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Following on from the above removal of POV etc, the only way I could see this POV article going was if it could be incorporated as a section into the main article. Should have read the main article before all these edits, as that section is already there! Redirect now applied... --Haruth (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect