Talk:Shia Islam in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edits by User:SyedNaqvi90[edit]

Mr. Naqvi,

Don't just delete any line form the article without citing the reliable authentic source to support your action. this has been done by you another time. Please respect the writing etiquette and do not repeat this agin. You Shia figure obtained is from outside sources, However the one produced by me is from India Agencies. Please support your claim and then go ahead with your action. You being a Pakistani user nd citing outside references cannot delete any thing without provision of any reason.Humaliwalay (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the census does not provide a figure for Shia Muslims, please provide a reference for this "India Agencies" figure. Huon (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Express's reference ws provided nevertheless was disturbed and edited by Mr. Naqvi later retrieved. Please check.Humaliwalay (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite of a well known fact that Pakistan has the second-largest Shia Population in the world, and by few critics it is considered to very near to that of Iran. Hence your claim of India having the second-largest Shia population is not at all justified, according to Vali Nasr Pakistan is the second-largest Shia population in the world so is by Pew forums and CIA, India certainly might have the third-largest Shia population, but believe me it isn't the second largest, Dr.ManMohan Singh's estimates are not really making any sense since there isn't any figure regarding the actual size of Shia population in Pakistan or India, neither he is a research analyst, he did his random estimation. There isn't any source supporting your claim of the so-called Indian Agencies figures regarding Shias in India. So your fact is automatically over lapping the previously existing facts. So please, either bring reliable multiple sources supporting your claim or stop editing facts with out any proper citation. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that My Claim of Shia Population in India is FALSE is a direct attack which is against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You need to think and behave ethically and then ned to reply to any post or edit any article. This is third time you have behaved irresponsibly. I quoted from the interview of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and cited the source of Indian Express Newspaper. you claim of Pakistan nearing Iranian Population factually applies to Indian population and not Pakistan. I just asked you too produce Indian authentic sources which are more associated with Census authority of India rather than external reports. You need to improve your behavior and remember that Pakistan was created from India, as per some reports India has the Muslim Population more than Pakistan.Humaliwalay (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See brother, guess the sources you provided are too stating that claims to be in the air rather then meeting with the ground reality, According to this source it states "Rajani also blasted out the Board’s claim that there are 5 crore Shias in India. “They could be around 60-70 lakh,” he suggests. Are the claim of 5 crore strength and demand for reservation inter-related? “Yes,” he says, “and this is just to advance their own interest.”" No body is doing a personal attack, we are trying to state that you are rather ignoring the facts regarding Pakistan's Shia Population. Hence the claim isn't any close to the reality. Kindly foresee your claim. You can use the words like this, that India Shia's claim to be the second-largest in the world, despite of that fact that Pakistan is always considered to have the second-largest Shia population. Because that is actually the case. Regrads! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with SyedMANaqvi that the 50 million figure is highly dubious and should not be used without caveats, India's Prime Minister should be in a good position to know his own country's Shia population, and his claim that it's the second-largest should be mentioned. Anyway, given that we all agree that the Indian census does not provide figures for the Shia population, what would be "sources which are more associated with Census authority of India"? I'm pretty sure the Pew estimate is based on the census number for all muslims, if that's what you mean. Huon (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you rely on your external report, Secondly if Dr. Manmohan Singh is not correct with his country's population of shia so who will be , will that person be Asif Zardari or any other external personality?? Off-course not. By hitting back at hi comments you are attacking the authenticity of the statement of India's premier. You report cited from external sources has no acceptance without being associated with any Indian authentic figure or authority. We don't have any dispute with your claim about Pakistan Population of Shias. As per figures Pakistan has no more than 10 - 15 percent Shias then how come you claim more than 30 percent in your article Shia Islam in Pakistan. Leave the figure as it is as I have cited sources and have not touched the figure reflected by you. If you believe in the article so much then it also shows Iraqi Shias ranging between 19-22 million in line between India and Pakistan of being more than 15 million Shiite populated country. If you keep on disturbing this article just to make strong the article Shia Islam in Pakistan then this will be forwarded to moderators. Can't you see the prejudice in Rajani's claim, is it possible that they are just 60-70 lakhs. I repeat again bring any Internal Source which refutes Indian Prime Minister's claim that's it.Humaliwalay (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 30% claim is very authentic and based on multiple reliable sources like this link & here. Hence out of 173,000,000 the total Muslim Population of Pakistan, you can do your math and find that mathematically the 30% of the figure, which is actually 57,666,666. Even the 20% makes the total Shia population in Pakistan mathematically to be round about 43,250,000. This automatically makes Pakistani Shia Muslims more the that of India, hence the Second Largest claim is questionable. Though you can keep it, but like i said you should also mention the fact about the Pakistani Shia claim. While the population claim regarding Shias in India is itself refuting the claim by the law board, when some senior member of the Shia community is stating it to be around 60-70 lakhs, and that its claim of 5 crore strength and demand for reservation is inter-related. Just to increase their reservation in the Indian government institutions and seats. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while the source for the 30% of Pakistan's muslims is probably not the best and may suffer from pro-Shia bias, so do numbers by a clearly partisan organization which gives the number of its own supporters while demanding greater rights based on that number. The "cited sources" don't claim 50 million Shias in India, they just report on someone else making that claim, and they also report yet another person claiming 6-7 million. I see no reason to believe one of the reported claims less biased and more reliable than the other. We shouldn't rely on either.
Anyway, the Pew Forum is considered a reliable source, and there's no reason to believe their estimates are biased. And Humaliwalay, let me repeat: What would you consider "sources which are more associated with Census authority of India"?
Secondly, while Singh probably is in a good position to know India's Shia population, he doesn't give any numbers, and for his claim that India has the second-largest Shia population, he'd also have to know Pakistan's (and Iraq's) Shia population. While to my knowledge Zardari hasn't spoken on the subject, I see no reason why Singh's comparison of India's and Pakistan's Shia populations would be inherently more or less reliable than Zardari's - and the Pew Forum, which asked experts about both countries' numbers, is probably more reliable than either.
Finally, the Pew Forum isn't alone in ranking Iraq behind Pakistan. For example, the CIA World Factbook gives a higher estimate for Pakistan's Shias and a lower estimate for Iraq's than Pew, while unfortunately it doesn't give any estimate for India's. Huon (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Mr. Humaliwalay's claim that External sources cannot stand as more authentic than the internal agencies. Both users Mr Naqvi and Mr huon are biased towards Pakistan. How many Pakistani agencies or at which time has any Pakistani president or Premier has said that Pakistan is home to World's second largest Population??? or Pakistani shia population is 30% of all??? Never did they say anything, you can sight no internal sources and hence we will tag the neutrality of article Shia Islam in Pakistan as disputed so you better dont scribble our article without any reasoning, so dont force us to make an entry into your article and disturb the article like you people are doing here.Rizvisajjad86 (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't a sockpuppet of Mr.Humaliwalay. The thing is that as per WP:V third-party sources are considered more reliable then the local citations. And keeping that in perspective there isn't any International source proving the fact that India has the Second-Largest Shia population. If you can prove it by providing international sources we wouldn't have any objection in this regard. Don't take this as a personal attack, its is rather ethical and justified by Wikipedia policies. Your claims are actually self-published and are not really considered legitimate as per WP:SELFPUB. Though i understand your claim that locals would know more about themselves then others, but thats not how things role on Wikipedia. Hence you article is to be scrutinized in this case. Even the Wikipedia Admins would question this article, for lack of third-party citations. While Shia Islam in Pakistan and Shia population in Pakistan is full filling the third-party criteria, which is considered more reliable. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rizvisajjad86, thanks for making me laugh. Given SyedMANaqvi's and my history, I doubt he'd agree that I'm biased towards Pakistan's Shias - I believe he claimed the exact opposite. Anyway, I've asked for help at the WikiProject Islam; I hope some additional input will aid in resolving the matter. But I would also like to point you towards a policy and a guideline: Firstly, there's no "our article" and "your article" on Wikipedia, see WP:OWN. Secondly, threatening retaliation by tagging an article you otherwise wouldn't edit sounds to me like a violation of WP:POINT. If you feel that the Shia Islam in Pakistan article needs better sources, feel free to tag it, but that decision shouldn't depent on our disagreement over this article. Huon (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Naqvi, RizviSajjad and Huon and other contributors

I have arranged and reorganised the article as per the authentic sources also including one of the most trustworthy and leading Media Times of India's Shia population figure in India. Kindly check the references and if any thing contradicts the vies of three Indian Daily English circulation like DNA, Indian Express and the Times of India then please bring to our notice. Prior to editing or deleting anything please cite sources which contradicts the references here. We have cited multiple sources which says Indan Shia population no less than 30 to 50 million.

Please admit to the fact that Shias whether more in India, Pakistan or anywhere is good to mention. Nevertheless pls cite, we do not dispute the shia population in Pakistan, but can't deny the large presence in India that too quoted from leading Indian Medias. Humaliwalay (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess Pakistani and the Indian Shias have alot in common, in this case I'll copy paste few of your contribution to the Shia Islam in Pakistan, i hope we are at peace now, but despite of all this you are basing you claim on a single source about India being the second largest Shia domination. You should mention info regarding Shia in Pakistan as well, since Internationally India isn't considered the second largest Shia population. Please kindly add this up, other then this i have no objections. SyedMANaqvi (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional sources. I've done some copyediting in order to make the article more readable; I din't intend to change the content to a significant amount. In particular:
  • I've rewritten the first few sentences. They were a rather wild assortment of different numbers, now we first have the various estimates for the number of Shias, then Singh's estimate regarding India's place in the "total Shia" ranking. We have lost the mention of Pakistan, but I feel we don't really need it - after all, this article is about India, not Pakistan, and I couldn't add Pakistan without making the paragraph sound awkward. Of course the "Shia Islam in Pakistan" article probably will cite other sources which list Pakistan second. And while to me personally Pakistan's claim to second place seems more credible simply because Pakistan's total Muslim population is larger than India's, Singh's claim was credible enough to be reported without correction and can be taken as India's official position on the issue.
  • I've removed the "external source", "not related to the census office" caveats for the Pew Forum. Firstly they sounded rather unencyclopedic. Secondly, since the census doesn't contain the number of Shias, a relation of the source to the census would be completely irrelevant. Thirdly, the Indian sources aren't related to the census either. And fourthly, the Pew Forum has asked experts on the subject (possibly even Indian experts; they don't tell); they were probably aware of what numbers the census did contain, and while their estimates seem to be on the low end of the spectrum (for both India and Pakistan, by the way), they don't have an obvious bias and are certainly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.
  • I've reduced duplicate links. There's no need to turn every occurence of "India", "Shia" or "Hallaur" into a link; the article is easier to read if only the first occurrence gets linked.
  • I've imposed the spelling "Shia" instead of "Shi'a" throughout the article because that was what the first sentence said. Then I noticed that the article title uses "Shi'a". Is there a general preference for one or the other? I don't have any preference except for consistency, and I'd like to see a consensus on the issue before I move the article.
  • The "Hollister 1988" and "Al-Mufid 1981" references look a little strange. Are they from Toby Howarth's book? Do we have full bibliographic information for them?
  • I left Tipu Sultan and the Nawab of Audh unchanged (except for sorting them chronologically before the AISPLB), but that information actually isn't in the relevant reference. I'm especially concerned about the Nawab - were all Nawabs Shia, or just a particular one (and if so, which one)? Is there a reason to use this rather strange spelling for the region? We currently don't even have a redirect at Audh, and the article is found at Awadh. Huon (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Have kept everything unchanged with rearranging the place of estimates, you start the article with the figure of PEW research center while the largest claim of Indian sources should be first hence have shuffled the places. Hence we are at peace now.

Secondly, redirection towards Hallaur, Naugawan Saadat or Saadat amroha is necessary to make the articles last paragraph's claim of Shiite dominated places in India strong, else if its not done it may be tagged by someone and lack of internal citations. Hence See Also Hallaur, and other territories is necessary. Hope I have elaborated the point.

Thirdly, what's strange in the Al Mufid and Hollister references?? Toby Howarth's book is available in market, online its on www.amazon.co.uk you may refer for your perusal. Please correct the article of Shia Islam in Pakistan as you agree here about the Shia population of India on the other hand you specifically highlight that Pakistan's Shia figure is larger than that of India. Either you do not claim anything or cite multiple sources that also say that its more than Pakistan. I mean to say either keep both or not even one. I will be waiting till you correct the article on Pakistan, then will see what changes has to be made. Both articles should look parallel and accommodating to each other not confusing to person who reads it. I hope you got my point. Once again I say shias whether more in Pakistan or India its good for them, no need to have an edit conflict here.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Al Mufid and Hollister references, we have the author's name, publication year, and probebly a page number. Missing is the title (!) and the venue of publication (ie publisher or journal). They look like a short reference relying on a more explicit bibliography, which may be provided in Toby Howarth's book. But if we directly cite Al Mufid and Hollister, we should also directly provide the necessary information so that a reader can look them up without first reading Howarth's book for the bibliography. Huon (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got that wrong again, why don't you read as per reader's point of view. Shayk al Mufid and Hollister's reference is re cited in Toby Howarth's compilation.

Remember Toby Howarth's collection was the detailed study of Shia theology, its culture and influence over ancient and modern India.Entire details are procided in Toby Howarth's book and that's enough o trace if you happen to find it. Why searching Online go and get it from www.amazon.co.uk or any bookshop. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up the relevant information and added it - we shouldn't require our readers to look up Al-Mufid's book in Howarth's. While doing so I noticed that the entire paragraph is more or less verbatim from Howarth, including completely irrelevant details such as the name of the recipient of Umar ibn Saad's letter. For reasons of copyright alone, we should avoid such copy&paste jobs and instead just add the relevant details in our own words. I'll do so for Howarth shortly, but please avoid similar copy&paste passages in the future. Huon (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your valuable feedback, and off-course taking into consideration the copyright Al- Mufid's citation in Howarth's book reflects else. But Howarth just cited quotation fomr Al-Mufid's book. I repeat Howarth's book is a collection and compilation and not alone his composition. Please avoid using allegations on the part of the editor as copy and paste job. Your words are direct allegations without any reason on the editing qualities of the editor. The facts in this article are accumulation from various sources, hence resemblance is unavoidable. However the sources are cited clearly. I appreciate in advance you further feedback, not only on this article but also the others created and some partially edited by me as follows:

  • Tatbeer Especially accentuation on Bloody Ashura rituals with citation from multiple sources.
  • Musa al Mubarraqa - Biography with citation, but without Image, help required in obtaining image of Chihil Akhteran. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme POV pushing[edit]

This article is a mess, all POVs and when I get a chance I'll re-write it, especially the intro.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


FAO AllahLovesYou - Don't just accuse the article's neutrality only because you disagree with so, keep your sectarian and biased POVs aside else bring some reliability in your accusations. You are most welcome to rewrite or shuffle the entire article nevertheless any edits of yours without reliable citations will be reverted and you shall be reported for distortion and vandalism which you have been doing since few days in Shia Islam in Pakistan and Shia Islam and various articles associated with Shiite Islam which you have vandalizing without any judgment and citation.

One thing which was hilarious on your part is in your message when you mentioned that you will rewrite when you get a chance, that shows that you have no references with you still accuse the article being a MESS. Not good editing etiquette.

So far this article is concerned, this has been based on various reliable and authentic local and international citations. Citations used from various below mentioned sources:

Britannica Book of the year 1997

None of the above sources are owned or run by Shiites, apart from these various International publications are used to support the article again none Shiite publishing, so bring some citation to challenge the authenticity of the article before calling it as a MESS.Humaliwalay (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cold that's my reason for the wait. Don't falsely accuse me, I didn't vandalize any pages. On the other hand, you tried to remove Library of Congress info. The Pew Research Center is a reliable source but I don't know about all these newspaper reports, they don't use references as to where they got the figures. I came across some errors, for example this shows Oman as 75% Shia but this showes it only 2% Shia. I basically wanted the argument presented in the intro to be moved to another section (i.e. Demographics). The argument on the number of Shias in India should start with what the world's leading experts say like Vali Nasr for example. This is what he said in 2006:[1]
The current version of this article states in the intro that there are 40 to 50 million Shias in India and cites 2 local Indian news paper reports from 2006 about divorces among Shia women where the following sentences are mentioned in them "There are about 4 crore Shia Muslims in India." and "In what could be a revolutionary step for the over five crore Shia Muslims of the country." This news article was written by an unknown author and redistributed by several Indian news agencies and in the process the editors added their personal POVs on the number of Shias in India. One editor decided to claim 40 million and the other 50 million, but we can't use these Indian news editors' personal POVs to establish the number of Shias in India, especially when it contradicts all the scholarly sources such as Vali Nasr and others.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Vali Nasr and also PEW center are not representatives of Shiite Population in India, and Indian medias like TOI and DNA are trusted ones and also derive the information from reliable statistical and expert opinions. Whereas the PEW center states the following with regards to it's authenticity so you better first refer that before claiming a source's neutrality.

"Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate." In-spite of that PEW figures are included so what else you need, off-course TOI and DNA report are more authentic as they are known trusted and are much more in touch with Indian Census experts than Vali Nasr and PEW. Here is the link - http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Orphan_Migrated_Content/Muslimpopulation.pdf

Humaliwalay (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sections by Woodenmetal[edit]

Woodenmetal added sections on Shi'a sects in India, on Shi'a relations to other religions and on conflicts between Shi'a. There are a couple of issues with these sections, which I'll detail below. Huon (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a sects
While information on the various sects of Indian Shi'a Muslims would be a great addition to the article, this section currently is in a rather sorry state. Many of the references are not reliable sources but a collection of personal essays, blog posts or even other (unsourced) Wikipedia articles. Equally bad, many sources either don't mention the sect they're supposed to be about, or they don't mention India. This newspaper article about the Bohras is among the best, actually discussing the sect in an Indian context - most others don't do so. For example, the Zaidi "source" is about a man of that name, not the sect. I also couldn't tell whether all the sects listed are really different - for example, Ismaili and Shia Imami Ismaili redirect to the same article. And are Khoja Shias really different from Khoja Ismaili Shias? If so, how? Both entries have the same "source", apparently a blog entry which contains a few pictures but no background information. The Majlisi entry redirects to Muhammad Baqir Majlisi; its source contains a one-line mention, but it's hard to tell whether it's a denomination or an advocacy group. Since the source is about a Muslim unity rally, the latter seems more likely.

We could use a section on the main branches of Shia Islam in India and about specifically Indian Shia denominations, but the current list isn't even beginning to provide useful information. I'm tempted to either remove it or rewrite it from scratch. Huon (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a relations
This section contains just anecdotes without any summary. That's not really helpful to the reader. If, say, Shi'a Islam enjoys better relations to Hinduism than Sunni Islam, as the article about the Shi'a donations for the Hindu temple or the Hindu participation in Ashura celebrations mentioned elsewhere in the article seem to suggest, that's certainly worth noting, but it would require a source talking about Shi'a relations to Hinduism, not a lot of sources on unrelated incidents; otherwise, we run afoul of WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Shi'a conflicts
This section again is a list of unrelated incidents, and I'm not sure it's useful at all. The violent Akhbaari/Usooli conflict could, for example, be noted when we detail the sects themselves. The Lucknow incident looks more like a power struggle over control of an educational institution than a religious conflict between different groups of Shia Muslims. Besides, the longer of those entries are copy&paste jobs from their respective sources and should be reworded so they're not copyright violations. Huon (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the sections is not recomended
Inter-Shi'a conflicts and Shi'a relations is to be added with more information required, removal of this sections is not recomended as branches of shia will give breif info to the viewers. for every article = and - both are to be provided, if any one feels to make the correction or addition its more adviceable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr 123 stop adding same content again & again. Please try to address issues raised by Huon about the content being added. If you want I can create a 'sandbox' page as your playground and you may do what you think there once you are finished with the job you may ask editors to review it on talk page. Once finalised it'll be added to article. And please use RS for refs and not dubious sources, be consistent in your actions across articles, at one place you mas-tag RS as duboius & unrelaible and here you are yourself adding duboius & unrelaible refs and contesting that they are fine.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr SMFH, Please correct the difference of RS as duboius & unrelaible only. i dont understand why you are removing the full section and deniying the reality, every article is to be dealt properly and with neutral view, and that is what the policy of WP. If you want to make this edits more organized kindly place the tage for the errors or so on as what WP policy had give us the facility. but you are removing the entire section by creating your own personel views and reasons which have nothing to to with the article.what i understand is that every article should reflect the entire reality of the subject discussed in the article.--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Huon said, "this section currently is in a rather sorry state. Many of the references are not reliable sources but a collection of personal essays, blog posts or even other (unsourced) Wikipedia articles. Equally bad, many sources either don't mention the sect they're supposed to be about, or they don't mention India.". So it is better to remove it on the whole then to mas-tag it. In addition burden of evidence lies on the editor who is adding the info. Also as Huon stated that there is eviodence of WP:Copyvio in the section and as per WP policies any such content should be immediately removed. Hope you got the reason behind removal.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really feeling dizzy now. I have been trying to explain same thing at no. of times at various places. Section still have non-RS & loop-backs to WP articles so I reverted it to last state. Please understand that cosmetic changes will not help. Please refer WP:RS for detailed understanding of admissable reference at WP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By loop back I meant using WP & Clones as refs. Plz refer WP:Wikipedia clones for the policy related to citing WP & it's clones as references.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted article back to previous state as whatever refs left are non-RS &/or out of context. Many sources either don't mention the sect they're supposed to be about, or they don't mention India e.g. Zaidi "source". For detiled analysis of the refs kindly refer Huon's comments in opening part of this section.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with the wholesale removal of these sections. As I said above, meaningful sections about these topics could be written, but what we had was not helpful. Huon (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Shia Muslim personalities of India[edit]

I just noticed that quite a few of the entries in that list were unreferenced and pointed to articles which did not detail the subject's denomination. For quite a few of them WP:BLP applies. I have begun to remove such entries and will continue to do so. Huon (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now I have applied the ridiculously low standard of "Shia Islam is mentioned somwhere in the article or in the categories". That still cost us half the Bollywood entries, and I believe many of the remaining Bollywood personalities' articles mention the religion without a reliable source, in violation of WP:BLP. We should probably check all of them and remove the denominations from articles which do not back them up with a reference. Huon (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shia organizations in India[edit]

I've removed the entries in the list of organizations that neither gave a secondary source nor had a Wikipedia article of their own. I see no reason to list non-notable organizations even if we could verify their existence via a primary source. Huon (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shia Islam in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Islam in India[edit]

I am seeing that @Vinegarymass911: had reverted the redirect[2], I had redirected this article to Islam in India because a little bunch of information has been overtly repeating on this article, it is unnecessary to have such WP:UNDUE when Islam in India#Shia is only a small paragraph?

Also notify @MezzoMezzo, Syed raza mehdi rizvi azmi, and Randhwasingh: for opinion, that if we really need such a big article when few important paragraphs can be simply merged to Islam in India#Shia. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the contrary: That small section in Islam in India should be expanded to summarise this article, per WP:SS; a large article like that typically have sections which summarise daughter articles. Shia Muslims have a separate history (persecution etc) which is documented here. While Sunnis don't have much which is different from the Islam in India article since they're are majority; a redirect could be made like Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not sure how it was WP:UNDUE, so I read the whole thing again. I am sure now that it is not WP:UNDUE. If the article on Islam in India was made out of 50% shia related material then it would be undue. The article on Shia Islam in India, is notable and should exist. For Example Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is an article about a sect of a sect of Christianity in America.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honored that my opinion was sought, but just to be clear, is this a question of whether this article should be changed to a redirect page or not? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @MezzoMezzo:, question is whether the redirect should be restored or not, any important material can be moved to Islam in India#Shia. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shia_Islam_in_India&oldid=1199907289"