Talk:Arba'in

An early version of this article was based on translations of the entries for Arba'in in the fr: and de: Wikipedias. -- The Anome 21:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A great start

Just added my penny's worth. Apologies if this breaches protocol I'm not aware of. I'm a virginal poster!

Leo Africanus 14:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, that's the whole idea -- we edit collaboratively, and no-one "owns" the article. Thanks for your contribution, which has significantly improved the article. (You can read Welcome, Newcomer for more information). -- The Anome 16:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please add references!!!

when is Arba'een in 2005 ?

When is Arba'een in 2005 in the Gregorian calendar ?

Number of pilgrims in 2013

Article says:

The number of pilgrims was expected to rise to 18 million during the next two days, Arbaeen reached over 18 million in 2013.

The problem is that none of references are realy neutral (NPOV) and an acceptable source of verification (VER). they are all dependent to shia news agencies. تیرداد (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Please try to adhere to Wikipedia policy when editing this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting personal views or one's favorite branch of Islam. Only state facts backed up by reliable, verifiable sources, not merely opinions or excerpts from various blogs. I intend to remove content which I deem to be contrary to the aims and policies of Wikipedia. If you disagree with my edits, please state your reasons here so they can be discussed, rather than merely initiating a edit war.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anders Feder! Is there any valid reason for the following:

• 1: You've removed some of the sourced materials without maintaining the reason.
• 2: You've removed some of the sourced materials without maintaining the reason.
• 3: Most of what you've removed are well sourced materials and are not from blog.
• 4: I can't really figure out, why???

By the way I also can not understand why you've mentioned edit war. Does it mean that your editions will likely make other editors involve edit war? Mhhossein (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people on a crusade to promote their religion on Wikipedia unfortunately often indulge in edit warring because they are unable to have their propaganda included under regular standards of reliability and neutrality, as if being disruptive would somehow make them seem more convincing.

• 1: The reason is obvious - the sources are not reliable.
• 2: Same as above.
• 3: The parts I've removed are not well-sourced, but cite the opinion blog of a "faith leader".
• 4: The part is not neutral and unreliably sourced.

--Anders Feder (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: So you are sure about yourself and doubtful about others?

1: So what's the role of hufington post and alalam there? (Although it is not your edition! sorry for the mistake)

2: What's the role of there?

3: Did you call Hufington post a Blog? Which blog do you mean exactly. Parts you removed are mainly from Hufington post!

4: When some parts are not neutral it does not mean that you can delete it, at most you could help it becoming neutral by making copy editions and adding balancing sources. Again, you removed parts from huffington post.

By assuming your good faith in editing the article I won't count them as vandalism. So please help in reaching the consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What I am sure of is that Wikipedia is based on rules, and no amount of religious fervor supersedes those rules. The role of huffingtonpost.co.uk is that of blog host. Al-Alam is a propaganda outlet of the Iranian theocracy[1]. al-mubin.org is a publisher of religious fiction, not a reliable source. As for removing poorly sourced material, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."[2]. Given that my edits bring the article into accordance with Wikipedia policy, you can't count them as vandalism whether you recognize them as being in good faith or not.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: (1) I really see no solid reason for removal of materials from the blog being hosted by hufington post and the materials from Alalam. You may refer to the discussion occurred. Blogs might be used as reliable sources per WP:NEWSBLOG and considering that Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is a professional in this field. So, most of the materials related to these two sources should be restored. Albeit we'd better let the readers know whose opinion is being expressed by using "according to..." and etc (this point was also stated in the discussion, while some of the deleted materials were whith this style). Same arguments are used for the materials removed from the reliable source of Independant. (2) By the way how could you recognize al-mubin.org as a publisher of religious fictions? According to whom? Are you evaluating all of the books by all of the authors related to this publisher? Mhhossein (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: (1) There is no discussion of the reliability of blogs on the WP:RSN page you are linking to. Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is no more a professional than a dancer in the adult entertainment industry is a professional; and neither are reliable sources. I removed no material supported by The Independent. (2) According to their own website, al-mubin.org publishes material "based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammad"; teachings which are all religious fiction. Should we request that WP:RSN vet the reliability of al-mubin.org?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Unfortunately wikipedia does not care what we think about persons and sources. Are "teachings of Prophet Muhammad" religious fiction? Mhhossein (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all religious texts are fictional. That's why scholars don't consider them to be reliable sources. I've asked WP:RSN to inform the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arba.27een --Anders Feder (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course you've misunderstood the religion! Things are getting interesting, which scholars don't consider them to be reliable sources? Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All scholars. And no, I haven't misunderstood a thing. It is you who are confusing the fictions of religion with physical reality.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss it and make you believe in religion. My religion is full of scientific facts and in fact a religion without physical reality is not religion! Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars is full of scientific facts too. That doesn't make it any less fictional.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said Wikipedia never cares what your (or my) belief is! Here, being or not being religious is not a criteria of being reliable, is it? . Mhhossein (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia does not care what my or your belief is. Nor have I claimed that it does. It cares whether the sources you cite present the truth or merely a religious fantasy. And scripture has been demonstrated innumerous times to do the latter.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No it never cares whether the source is religious or not! This is your belief! It cares whether the sources is reliable or not. See MOS for Islam related articles! I thought you were familiar with policies, MOS and guidelines. Mhhossein (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. MOS does not say anywhere that scripture is reliable. Because it isn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's help to solve this controversy based on the wiki policy. First, wikipedia is not a place to promote positive or negative views about the issues including religion. Second, the article should not contradict with WP:NPOV. It should cover all of the viewpoints either secular or religious with neutral language. Third, the sources should be verifiable.

Based on these rules I suggest replacing Modarresi's article with this one. There are many other authentic sources which can be found easily in google. [3]. However, If Modarresi has any especial view or claim we can add it as a Shia scholar view based on this guideline. Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But the The Independent article does not support all the claims attributed to Modarresi's article. We will need to find reliable sources for every statement made in the present wiki-article.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)