Talk:Salafi–Sufi relations/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
POV
Am currently working to add citations and remove bias and authorial point of view from this article. It will take a while. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Am using lots of quotations from WP:RS because this is such a contentious issue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- this is a good RS for the country by country section of the article [1] Baboon43 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I made it clear that I felt the article should have been deleted, but there was no consensus reached on the discussion. I can respect that, but to say this article still needs work is an understatement. Huge portions of the article have no relation to Sufi-Salafi relations but rather to general persecution of Sufis, regardless of whether or not it's at the hands of Salafis. A lot of work is needed and I envision much of the article in its current state will end up being merged elsewhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced
As part of the cleanup process, anything which is unsourced is being removed - I don't think anybody will take issue with that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources
One small change I will make now is the removal of primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, these sources in and of themselves are not a problem; the problem is in misuse. Considering that part of the rational for several of us who supported deletion of this page was that a number of contentious claims are made within the article based on primary sources. Additionally, if this topic is indeed notable, there should be enough secondary sources to support the same claims. Thus, I will be removing anything supported with a primary source along with the source itself. The rationale here is clear; were this an article whose existence was supported by a clear consensus then it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that the article's existence and the intent behind it are both in question, I think it's safe to say that secondary sources should be used, at least for now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A short time-out
Alright, I've actually started going through the sources for this article and I'm quite shocked. So far, more than half of the sources don't mention anything about Salafists or Salafism at all...it's just about persecution of Sufism. There is a subsection for that in the Sufism article. As I said before, the goal with the original article was clear: to promote Sufism and blame any and all acts of violence and oppression against them on Salafists. It's completely one-sided, not to mention a blatant violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I will continue with removals, as I am sure the lower half of the article also contains a lot of material not connected to Sufi-Salafi relations as well. But I thought I would make a comment here given the huge amount of material which needs to be removed - right now, it looks like the article might be cut in half; most of it has no relevance at all to the new topic after the article's name change! MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- All the sources are directly related to Sufi Salafi relations.Salafis are doing destruction of Sufi sites and you are saying it does not come under their relations.All of the countries mentioned here are witnessing large scale destruction and violence by Salafi groups.This violence is against Sufis and none else.Don't remove validly sourced content and neutral points. Shabiha (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Shabiha, what you're saying is so ridiculous that it could almost warrant an ANI for edit warring. The sources which I removed don't even MENTION Salafists or Salafism. This matter isn't even up for discussion; it's just original research on your part, and the apparent motive is to tie Salafists to any and all aggressive acts against Sufis. If you feel these sources are relevant then please explain why; the onus is on you, because the sources don't even mention the words "Salafi," "Salafist" or "Salafism," thus I'm calling WP:OR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)