Talk:Holiest sites in Shia Islam

Updating and correcting this article

As I am not a specialist in Shia related articles, I'll leave this article in it's origianal status to be updated and fixed by Shia specialists. Yamanam (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

YEA this is so NOT true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.168.65 (talk) 21:52, 30 March, 2009 (UTC)

Have done many fixes, will add more if/when I get more time ~ Toushiro 「 話 」 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, the section following medina (jerusalem shrine) should be replaced with the Shrine of Imam Ali & Imam Hussein. Shia's hold Karbala and Najaf as the most sacred holy sites following Mecca and Medina (Not the shrine of jerusalem). I recommend putting the holy sites in ORDER, and there is no question about it, Karbala and Najaf are the holiest revered sites held in Shia belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.39 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

November edits

Hi Toushiro. I see you have reverted my edits to a previous erroneous version. The article as you reverted it is false because you the only only najaf and karbala are common to all shias. Ismailis and Zaidiyyahs especially Zaydiyyas would not agree to any on that list titled 2 Holy sites accepted by all Shī‘ah Muslims. Unless you can find a source that all Shias do venerate those sites, which you wont find your edit should be reverted.Someone65 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I definately have to disagree on that - I am certain you cannot find a single source that says Ismailis and Zaidiyyahs don't revere jannatul baqi/mu'alla, companions and family of the first 4 Imams, and places relating to Karbala and Prophets. Not only that, the changes you made to this page separate Shia's based on nationality which is even more absurd.~ Toushiro 「 話 」 01:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jannatul baqi is in Medina. Why do you have to seperate it from Masjid nabawi which is adjacent to it? Jannatul baqi is mentioned under the Medina heading. As for the nationalities i just tried to tidy it up. Theres no reason for this page to contain a hundred pictures is there as you are so eager to include. Its called Reliable sources and undue weightSomeone65 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures aside (which I could care less how you change them), you have removed relevant content that cannot be "significant-minority views" when all Twelvers, Ismailis, and Zaidiyyahs agree with the sites mentioned. And again, you have added inaccuracies into this article without bringing forward any sources to your claims. ~ Toushiro 「 話 」 01:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)