Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Looks like this needs to be merged somewhere. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali

• Delete a
  WP:POINT by creating the article already with a "POV" tag on it.--Jersey Devil 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  Cuñado - Talk 22:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, its no more of a content fork than
  WP:POVFORK
  :

As for "original research", im sorry to say it, but nominator has no idea of what he is talking about. The same nominator aslo claimed in a previous nomination that

Sahih Bukhari was a non notable source. Regarding POV sign, it not POINT, its a fact, the article IS pov, since i didnt write the text.--Striver 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Comment you didn't write the text? Add possible copyvio to the reasons for deletion.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps if this article's creator (Striver) had mentioned somewhere in the first place that the text in the article is taken from some paras which had been inserted into an earlier version of the Hasan ibn Ali article by another contributor (user:Salman01), then some confusion may have been avoided. Given that other editors (rightly or wrongly) removed that text which now appears in the separate article, for consistency's sake it would seem better to have attempted to find some sort of consensus at the main article for 'fairly representing all POVs' before simply hiving off the disputed view into its own article (which itself fails to mention any other alternative view).--cjllw | TALK 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The text appears to be originally lifted directly from [1], making this a copyvio. I'll assume good faith - that user:Striver thought user:Salman01 had written it for Wikipedia - but it looks at a quick glance like Salman copied it into the Hasan ibn Ali article, it was removed for being a copyvio, and Striver misunderstood the reason for its deletion and moved it into a POV fork. Whatever happened, it needs to go, as both a copyvio and POV fork. --Hyperbole 07:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Merge to Hasan ibn Ali now that Striver has rewritten the article and addressed copyvio problems. What that article should have is some kind of "Controversy" section that details (with sources, please!) the differences between the Sunni and Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali. There's plenty of room in that article, and, written concisely, I do not think this information would dominate. There's no reason I can see to write it exclusively from the Shi'a POV; instead, the section should be framed as the differences in opinion between Sunni and Shi'a. That way, no POV would be afforded due weight in the article. --Hyperbole

• delete with that further analysis from Hyperbole, and a candidate for speedy at that.--cjllw | TALK 09:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete -- the Hasan ibn Ali article already contains Shi'a POV material, such as the charge of poisoning. The POV fork just presents the same charge in greatly amplified form with much emotive language and ancillary vilification of Yazid; moreover, it is presented as truth, not opinion. There are no references given at all. If the Shi'a editors could give a short quote, referenced, saying the same thing, we could put it in the regular article. There is no need for a POV fork. Zora 11:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didnt know that it was a copyvio for starters. Ill expand the article to include a full detail of the Shi'a view of Hasan. I strongly reject that this is a pov fork, see
  here. As is right now, i could appreciate a delete vote, but give me a day and ill change that.--Striver 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So, now i improved it, and it now includes a lot of Shi'a views that are not present anywhere else. It no longer has any copy vio material and it tells about his doings before becoming a caliph, something that the main article does not. It still needs sourcing, and the details surronding events can be expanded, for example, his actions during Umars era. Anyhow, it should now be clear that its not a pov fork and that it merit its own existence, since it would dominate and be given undue wieght if the info was to be merged in to the main article. --Striver 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Article desperately needs
  reliable sources. Fagstein 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, that is true. Ill try to work on that. --Striver 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some ref, more is needed. --Striver 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep now that references are being added. Fagstein 03:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Striver has added some hadith references to Hasan's role in raising troops against Aisha. There is nothing specifically "Shi'a" about this; if he wants it in the main article it can go; however, hadith references are notoriously tricky and it would be better to consult modern authorities like Madelung, who mentions Hasan periodically in his treatment of early Islamic history (Madelung's Succession to Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 1997 -- about half of the book is devoted to Ali and Hasan's caliphates). The references to Suyuti, ibn Arabi, and ibn Kathir do not come from these works (Striver can't read Arabic -- nor can I). They're from Shi'a websites mentioning those works. Striver has based his article on whatever he can google and has read nothing of the academic literature on Hasan. I certainly haven't read all of it, but I've read some of it, what there is in English. I am therefore distressed to see that his hit-or-miss googlings in Shi'a websites and the MSA hadith database are being construed as evidence of "research". Those fragmentary references are to events that could be added to the article, if necessary. They do not require a breakout article.

Striver's article is extremely Shi'a-POV, but the POV is found in the descriptions of the people involved (Muawiya and Yazid are villains, scum of the earth, Ali and Hasan are the noblest of humans), the reduction of history to a morality play, the suppression of inconvenient historical facts, and above all in the elaborate descriptions of the death of Hasan by poisoning.

This is an interesting topic. Madelung (p. 331) believes that it is not purely a Shi'a invention, and cites several Sunni scholars as supporting the poisoning theory. However, Madelung has spent his life studying Shi'a Islam and it is clear from his book that he has absorbed much of the Shi'a POV, even though he is not (so far as I know) a Muslim or a Shi'a. I'd have to do a trawl through the academic literature to find out what other scholars think about the poisoning theory. The poisoning story certainly fits into Twelver Shi'a theology, which postulates that the first eleven imams (all of them up to the twelfth imam, who has disappeared, and will return as the Mahdi) were all killed by Sunni Muslims and were all martyrs (a loaded word). Hence any natural-seeming death of an imam MUST be the result of conspiracy, poisoning, whatever.

Striver set up his own article just because he didn't want to engage with other editors who might criticize his writing, or his use of sources, or his reduction of history to morality play. He really ought not to be allowed to set up his own little Shi'apedia, where he is unchallenged.

There is only one way to salvage the article. Someone would have to do some intensive research, in Arabic and Persian language sources, many of them probably still in manuscript, on the evolution of Shi'a views of Hasan. This would be original research, unless first published as a book, and it would also be extremely controversial. The Shi'a version of their history is often quite at odds with an outsider's view of their history (hence Momen, in his book on Shi'a Islam, has two historical sections: the accepted Shi'a view and "what happened," as near as he could come to it).

Since no one is going to do this research (certainly not me, unless someone wants to give me a huge grant to learn the necessary languages, get a graduate degree, and visit various archives to search for sources), I think this article should be deleted, or if kept, merged. There is simply not enough uniquely Shi'a material to justify a breakout article. The main article could just be expanded to incorporate the material Striver thinks should be included. He's going to have to allow editing, however, to which he has never taken kindly. Zora 05:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Zora wrote:

Striver has added some hadith references to Hasan's role in raising troops against Aisha. There is nothing specifically "Shi'a" about this; if he wants it in the main article it can go; however, hadith references are notoriously tricky and it would be better to consult modern authorities like Madelung, who mentions Hasan periodically in his treatment of early Islamic history (Madelung's Succession to Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 1997 -- about half of the book is devoted to Ali and Hasan's caliphates).

I agree that it can be added to the main article, sure, do that. But as you laid out yourself, Shi'a, Sunni and Non-Muslims have different views of the events. I described the Shi'a view of it, and the hadith are perfectly valid to describe those events from a Shi'a view. Madelung is a "modern authorities" on Madelungs view, hi is not a expert on the Shi'a view. Hence, the position that madelung is a beter source for the Shi'a view than hadith are is rendered false.

The references to Suyuti, ibn Arabi, and ibn Kathir do not come from these works (Striver can't read Arabic -- nor can I). They're from Shi'a websites mentioning those works.

Yes, excatly my point. Shi'a sites are a far better source for the Shi'a view than Madelung is for the Shi'a view. That is obvious.

Striver has based his article on whatever he can google and has read nothing of the academic literature on Hasan. I certainly haven't read all of it, but I've read some of it, what there is in English. I am therefore distressed to see that his hit-or-miss googlings in Shi'a websites and the MSA hadith database are being construed as evidence of "research". Those fragmentary references are to events that could be added to the article, if necessary. They do not require a breakout article.

That is a personal attack on me. First of all, whe are not here to disscuss me or you, we are here to disscuss the article and its sources. And further, you seem to imply that there are no academic works on the Internet. That is proof that you are not familiar with the Shi'a view enough, otherwise you would know that many Shi'a academics such as

Striver's article is extremely Shi'a-POV, but the POV is found in the descriptions of the people involved (Muawiya and Yazid are villains, scum of the earth, Ali and Hasan are the noblest of humans), the reduction of history to a morality play, the suppression of inconvenient historical facts, and above all in the elaborate descriptions of the death of Hasan by poisoning.

Yes, of course, didnt you read the title? "Shi'a view of Hasan". If you mean that my sentences are pov, then you are misstaken, i always write "Shi'a belive he was poisoned", "Shi'a belive he was good", "SHi'a belive Yazid is scum" and such, in perfect harmony with wikipedia rules. What are you suggesting, that we should present the Shi'a pov, but not state that SHi'a belive Yazid is the scum of the earth? Please get your facts straigh, writing "Shi'a belive Yazid is X" is not POV, "Yazid is a scum" is pov. Dont accuse the article with false accusations.

This is an interesting topic. Madelung (p. 331) believes that it is not purely a Shi'a invention, and cites several Sunni scholars as supporting the poisoning theory. However, Madelung has spent his life studying Shi'a Islam and it is clear from his book that he has absorbed much of the Shi'a POV, even though he is not (so far as I know) a Muslim or a Shi'a. I'd have to do a trawl through the academic literature to find out what other scholars think about the poisoning theory. The poisoning story certainly fits into Twelver Shi'a theology, which postulates that the first eleven imams (all of them up to the twelfth imam, who has disappeared, and will return as the Mahdi) were all killed by Sunni Muslims and were all martyrs (a loaded word). Hence any natural-seeming death of an imam MUST be the result of conspiracy, poisoning, whatever.

Yeah, great, that it Madelungs view. Why are we talking about Madelungs view in this article? His views on whether it acctualy happened or not is relevant to Non-Muslim view of Hasan ibn Ali, and his views on why Shi'a belive it is so could go to a critic section of this article. Madelungs views are not to repleace the Shi'a view, Medelung is a critic of the Shi'a view, he does not hold the Shi'a view.

Striver set up his own article just because he didn't want to engage with other editors who might criticize his writing, or his use of sources, or his reduction of history to morality play. He really ought not to be allowed to set up his own little Shi'apedia, where he is unchallenged.

Oh, is that so? Then why have i had to defend evey single "SHi'a view of" article, for example

There is only one way to salvage the article. Someone would have to do some intensive research, in Arabic and Persian language sources, many of them probably still in manuscript, on the evolution of Shi'a views of Hasan. This would be original research, unless first published as a book, and it would also be extremely controversial. The Shi'a version of their history is often quite at odds with an outsider's view of their history (hence Momen, in his book on Shi'a Islam, has two historical sections: the accepted Shi'a view and "what happened," as near as he could come to it).

You just said it, Shi'a have a very special view of History, that is why it warants to be retold every time from the Shi'a view. Thank you for explaining why this article is a necesary, thanks for saying that even acadamicians like Momen do just that. And no, we dont need to read arabic to learn the Shi'a view, they have translated the books to English. Try reading the books at

Since no one is going to do this research (certainly not me, unless someone wants to give me a huge grant to learn the necessary languages, get a graduate degree, and visit various archives to search for sources), I think this article should be deleted, or if kept, merged. There is simply not enough uniquely Shi'a material to justify a breakout article. The main article could just be expanded to incorporate the material Striver thinks should be included. He's going to have to allow editing, however, to which he has never taken kindly. Zora 05:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, give me a break. "There is simply not enough uniquely Shi'a material to justify a breakout article"? Are you kidding me? Try by starting to read Then i was Guided. You dont even need to buy it, just read it online--Striver 10:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all the other inherently POV articles that begin with Shi'a view of..... M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, is

this--Striver 10:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - no good argument here for deletion, and the article appears ok. Georgewilliamherbert 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. --Lambiam^Talk 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.