Talk:Etymology of Shia

message: Im curious about this dubiously written "Shia of Mauwiyah I eventually becoming Sunni'sm"..Any refrences? --Paradoxic 14:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I put up the POV sticker because I don't have time to rewrite the article. It is extremely POV and unfair to Sunni Muslims. I will try to get to it when I can. Zora 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see how it is unfair to Sunnites, perhaps they can complain about what they find unfair instead of Zora doing it for them. Quranic verses were used as well as Sunnite sources in order to show a fair basis of argument. If that is unfair to Sunnites perhaps they should ponder rather than have Zora refute them simply because it does not work in their advantage.--Paradoxic 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about having a nuetral point of view, not each side coming in to defend themselves and only themselves. Pepsidrinka 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that User:Zora never explained the details of the concern that prompted the POV tagging, and that happened over a month ago, I've removed the tag. If someone has specific concerns, please bring them to the talk page. -Harmil 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: let me 1st say im not muslim, so this Sunni Shia problem does not sway me. However this is a Shia page, reflecting shia belief. It is not suppose to be neutral, just like the Sunni page is suppose to reflect Sunni belief. dont just "rewrite" the page becuase you have a hard time in dealing with other beliefs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.108.114 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't have time to re-write the article now 

message: I've added template over-quotation. The problem is actually not "too many quotes" (the quotes are OK) but "nothing but quotes", i.e. the section consists entirely of quotes, no narrative summary or explication. The section needs some explanatory text for good encyclpaedic style (see Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse). I'm a total dunce layman when it comes to history & Islam, so I'll leave that to the experts. 
BTW, I notice the cites are mostly broken links. I'll tag that for cleanup, not sure what to do as the sources are presumably good. P.S. on a second look, maybe the broken wikilinks should be external refs. See below, not familiar with this ref style, I'll leave it to (hopefully) the original editor to fix. 
Just to re-emphasize, the quotes are great IMO, good NPOV balance, and a reasonable number for a History section. The issue is the section needs expanding, i.e. adding descriptive history of 'Shia' usage, when, where, by whom, etc. 
Adding some narrative would also likely fix the formatting oddity that led me to look at this section. Right under the section title, a 1 ref link followed by 2 braces '1}}' appears as an apparent orphan, altho it does indeed link to the first group of refs. It works but it looks very odd, it's not intuitively obvious what it's doing there, expecially with the braces; a ref link should come after the text it pertains to. Since there is no text, the link is orphaned. Adding some narrative history as suggested should fix this. 
The 2 braces '}}' are unbalanced (they're at the end of the section, but appear at the top in the rendered text). I expect it's a typo left over from an earlier template, unbalanced braces elsewhere in the article, or perhaps a bug in the ref group formatting. I tried balancing them as a quick fix; got '' which didn't really help readability. Tried deleting the orphans at the end of the section; remarkably, they still appeared in the rendered text! I'm not familiar with this style of formatting references, so I'll leave the formatting to an expert too. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - Content & Formatting