Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 3 December 2006

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, keep per default, 17 November 2006, see discussion. Speedy keep, 9 November 2006, see discussion. No consensus, keep per default, 22 October 2006, see discussion.

Archives
Archive 1

Requested move

Third holiest site in Islam (expression) → Third holiest site in Islam – This was listed at WP:RM under "Uncontroversial proposals" by User:Valley2city with the explanation: "I was told to repost this once the AfD was over. The AfD for this page has failed three times. Meanwhile someone has, without discussion, moved this page from Third holiest site in Islam to Third holiest site in Islam (expression). I ask that you move it back without further discussion because the original page move should not have been unilaterally done. At least let it be discussed before changing a controversial topic from its original page. Moving it to its original would therefore be uncontroversial." Alas, it appears not to be uncontroversial, as an oppose !vote (copied below) was immediately lodged. Thus, I moved the request to the ordinary, non-uncontroversial section, and I'm adding this survey here. I abstain. -GTBacchus 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose — Misplaced Pages cannot say what is or is not a holy site. While a redirect of the shorter title to the longer title seems okay to me, the actual article title being appended with "(expression)" is a Good Thing, because it clearly explains in a glance that Misplaced Pages has no opinion on holiness and that the article is about the phrase and the place the phrase refers to, not about the holiness of the site, per se. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. (→Netscott) 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I copied the above two recommendations from WP:RM, which is why their time-stamps indicate they were cast before the survey was initiated. -GTBacchus 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per my nomination (if it wasn't clear before). Valley2city 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: However I support following two name changes listed below by me. --- ALM 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support These sites have all been called the “third holiest”. The word "expression" is very misleading. "Third holiest" is a designation of the site, not an "expression". There is also no “controversy” - that there are various sites that have been given the same status is the reason this article was created. It makes no difference whether or not these are from Muslim sources, the fact that they are all WP:RS is what matters. This is not MuslimWikipedia. Chesdovi 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But this article is about ISLAM and should represent what Muslims view on third holiest. Not what against large Muslim majority view and some western media website think. It should not be what non-Muslim as third holiest to us/Muslims. If you want to keep it then change it name accordingly. --- ALM 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The first entry represents what the "majority" of Muslims view as third holiest. Non-Muslims also live on this planet and are entitled to their views, no doubt gathered from Muslim sources in the first place! Chesdovi 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for accepting it. I wish other users can view what you have said above and know the situation. This is the biggest reason to delete or change it Yacky name. --- ALM 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is original research. There is no such debate in Islam about the Third Holiest site. This article does not mention that. Also, this article is mostly using erroneous reportings and hence is a total false. The argument of if something is holy or not is not evaluated this way. Almaqdisi 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose POV + per as written by SMcCandlish. Also due to the soapbox intentions as demonstrated by certain users. thestick 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the article were about the site which is the third holiest in Islam, then, by consensus of Islamic scholars, it should be a redirect to Al Aqsa. If the article is to have any content that is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, that content can only be about the dispute between Islamic scholars who claim that Al Aqsa is third holiest, and some non-Islamic sources who wish to contest that idea. --BostonMA 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Came over from the WP:RM entry. I agree that the word "expression" in the title is inappropriate. If there were multiple uses of the phrase, then the core form could be a disambiguation page, but that does not appear to be the case here. To tell the truth, after reading the page, the appropriate title seems like it should be "Third holiest site in Islam controversy" as there appears to be multiple contenders for the title. --StuffOfInterest 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no controversy. That is the problem. (→Netscott) 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case then this article should only exist as a redirect to Al-Aqsa Mosque. --StuffOfInterest 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what was argued at the AfDs... all Muslims that participated in the AfDs (save one that I'm aware of) agreed that there was no controversy. (→Netscott) 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is founded upon an undue weight notion that other sites have some standing as being the "third holiest" in the Muslim world. (→Netscott) 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugg, reading that AfD made my head hurt. About the best comment in there was: "for the last time -- Jews have cabals, Muslims have jihads, Christians have crusades. Keep it straight people!" Being serious, I don't see how that one ended up being closed "no concensus". There seemed to be a much stronger case made by the "delete" !votes. Oddly, even some of the "keep" !votes argued that it is only Al-Aqsa which would have supported deleting the rest of the cruft and making it a redirect. --StuffOfInterest 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was rather odd, I'm assuming good faith in terms of the closing admin's decision but I agree that those calling for delete had stronger arguments. (→Netscott) 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an AfD discussion, nor is it a proposal to liquidate this into Al Aqsa Mosque. What we have on the table here is returning this page to its original name, one which was changed without discussion in the first place. "expression", "controversy" or putting it into quotation marks are all weasel words that we should not be using. Valley2city 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the title reflects neutral point of view particularly in regards to undue weight. (→Netscott) 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the article's creator User:Amoruso agreed that the "expression" idea made sense. (→Netscott) 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move (second)

We came to know from previous three AFD that no Shia in wikipedia has supported to keep this article. Hence saying that Shias do not consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as third holiest site is not right. Furthermore, all except one Muslim editor has supported to delete the article. So for all of the Muslim in wikipedia Al-Aqsa Mosque looks like a consensus for third holiest site. Our major concern is the controversy made by creating this article. Hence I request you to vote your voice by supporting both or either of following name changes.

I think actually Striver did support and isn't he a Shia? Elizmr 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No striver did not support this, and he is a shiite. All shiite users did not support this proposal Elzimr. How are you by the way? Almaqdisi 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver speaks in great detail against keeping this article read the 3rd AFD and read the Striver vote to DELETE it and comments against it. --- ALM 12:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But I provided him with a link which proved that a notable scholar called another site other than Al Aqsa third holiest and he said he would re-vote to keep if this was the case. Chesdovi

Holiest sites in Islam

• Support: We will expand this article to include short description of all sites. Including Mecca and Medina. --- ALM 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't this then be "List of holiest sites in Islam"? --StuffOfInterest 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That will be cool. But then list already exists in the form of Ziyarat article. This article name is extemely wrong and sensitive for all the Muslims in wikipidia. We consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as third holiest and wish this POV title changed. List is Okay, Deletiong is Okay, Merge with Ziyarat is okay. Name change to above mentioned title is also okay. But should not be this wrong title that do not even represent 5% Muslims. --- ALM 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you done a survey of the worlds 1.6 billion muslims and found that less than 5% view other places as 3rd holiest or is that counting just the muslims on wikipedia? Please don't bring evidence from the OIC who will do practically anything possible in their power to regain control of Jerusalem. Coming to think about it 80 million is quite a significant number of people, (over six times the number of Jews in the world) Why should their views be sidelined? Chesdovi 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Chesdovi, please find a serious article or Journal or book that mentions that there is such a debate among muslims and that explicitly talk about that issue then come and talk here. The links in this article do not even agree on a particular view by any muslim sect. You can see that there are random sites all with conflicting reportings. For example there are many sites where it says that this site is the third holiest among shiites. Does this means that there is no consensus among shiites on their holy sites? Again, this is your original research here. There are billions and billions of articles and reports on the Web, and really finding something about anything is quite easy. Your research is discredited. There is no serious book, or article, or anything discussing this issue except this article on WikiPedia which is supported only by conflicting reports, and sounds to me again written to confuse rather than to inform. I ask you to consider your thoughts here. Thanks Almaqdisi 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No Sunni source is found that say Al-Aqsa Mosque is not third holiest site. It is not main stream Shia view too. Hence what left behind less than 5% Muslims (may be 0.1%). We do not know how much but it is looks like very few if any. If you want to create article on this bases then current title does not suits it. Hence change that misguided title. --- ALM 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Just stick the word Third in this title is wrong and is POV as it seems only to mock the commonly third Sanctuary of Muslims in Jerusalem. To remove POV, it is better to include this in . Else, the article will continue to be disputed. (unsigned comments are added by User:Almaqdisi)
  • Can you sign your above comments or can someone else do it? Thanks --- ALM 12:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have done that ... Thanks -- ALM 12:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • ALM, you may want to try the {{unsigned}} template for that. Makes it easier to type and provides links. --StuffOfInterest 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Danke schoen! --- ALM 13:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam by Non-muslims

• Support : Most of the sources (except may be couple of them) used has nothing to do with Islam. They are media websites or other non-Muslims sources. Hence this name is also better than present name because it is not Islamic view. This article present views of non-Muslims. --- ALM 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't try to turn it into an "us vs them" situation. --StuffOfInterest 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Oh yeah, that's not POV... Valley2city 15:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose:Don't shiites consider some of these places the third most ipmortant? The title sounds innane. Elizmr 02:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No Shia think so in wikipedia. That what some people who are not Muslim here want us to believe. Mostly Shia in Misplaced Pages are active in Islamic articles and have good knowledge. Not a SINGLE Shia has support to keep this article. May be a small minority of shias support it but it does not looks like a main stream view. --- ALM 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Seriously WP:NPOV. -- Avi 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Present title is biggest WP:NPOV than anything possible. Here a new concept is imposing on Muslims by force that our third holiest site is disputed and we have no idea what it is. --- ALM 12:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think this talk is simply pushing to its limit. This article doesn't have any strong secondary source to prove its claim, even the connection between these (so called) important sites and their status as third holiest site might be the best example of Original research so far. TruthSpreader 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How can it be original research when the citations all have the sentences "…third-holiest site…" or words to that effect? Original research is when statements that are not explicitly found in other sources are used in wikipedia. -- Avi 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. In general it is somewhat absurd to give weight to non-Islamic sources in making a determination of the third holiest site in Islam. The expression third holiest site in Islam implies recognizing the POV of Islam. However, if non-Muslims make claims that they (the non-Muslims) know better which is the third holiest site in Islam, then it is entirely appropriate for the article to exress in its title that the article is about a particular POV, the overwhelming proponents of which are non-Muslims. --BostonMA 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: This isn't even proper grammar, and thus unfit as a page name. Azate 20:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I think this article just shows what one can expect from Misplaced Pages when a topic is controversial. It provides a sobering lesson. Stammer 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That is indeed very good comments. But I do not understand that why you do not want to play any role in ending this dispute. I will really appreciate if you actively help us to resolve this issue. --- ALM 12:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages is based on community consensus and on certain rules, which are also established by consensus, dictating how consensus should be managed. The issue here has been "resolved" in a way that reflects that setting. Stammer 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy

• Support move to Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy. I disagree that there is no controversy. The controversy is not among Islamic scholars, but between Islamic scholars on the one hand, and non-Islamic sources who wish to contest that Al Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam. --BostonMA 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support: There is no uniformly agreed ranking for 2nd and 3rd holiest sites among all sects and their scholars, and has never been, in large part because 1-2-3 unambigous chart-style ranking is a relatively modern obsession. Everybody here seems to overlook this important point. Past periods were, for better or worse, better equipped to tolerate ambiguity. Shias can't even agree if Imam Hussain is actually buried in Karbala or not, and if not, where else. Presently, as in most past periods, there is no controversy - sort of agreeing to disagree (or, alternatively, the issue is swept under the carpet, or not even seen as problematic), but the reasons for the lack of open controversy have changed. But I recall episodes in the past when the question of relative holy-site-value was brought up and indeed used as a pretext for intersectarian violence by Sunnis against specific Shia sects, notably the Alevites, on several occasions. A similar thing (but without Sunni involvement) happened during the Ismaili split, between the two branches. There may have been more instances, but I can't recall any right now. I really can't see the reason for all the fuss on this page. The Al-Haram mosque, Al-Nabawi mosque, Al-Aqsa mosque ranking is universal among Sunnis today (there may be rare exceptions I'm unaware of, of course), and has been converging toward its present state for approximately two centuries, or since people could be bothered to care about such things as rankings. It's a convention only. It is derived from scripture, but it's not in the scripture as such. Shias have always more or less openly subscribed to and even pushed for multiple different most-holy-sites (usually also derived from scripture, sometimes from oral tradition), or aquiesced to the Sunni position. It should be obvious and easily proven that suspicions exist that Al-Aqsa is 'hyped' solely to further the anti-zionist cause. It should also be obvious that the truth of this line of thought is unknown, probably unknowable, because the 'promotion process' of Al-Aqsa inside a ranking framework both predates Zionism, and has continued since. Mention it, source it, don't elaborate, don't speculate. "Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy" is maybe not a perfect name, but at least caters to the historical fluidity of the situation. Azate 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Inference from AfD debates

Well, it was closed as no consensus, but I think a number of users supported that the content be forked to the articles of the respective sites while deleting/redirecting this article. Now I don't want this article up for AfD again, but I think it would be an OK idea to fork all the content in their entirety and redirect this article to that list of holy sites in Islam page.Any comments? thestick 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole discussion above very confusing but I would suggest that a properly Wikipedian approach would be to consider how the whole series of related articles looks. At the moment there is no section in Islam at all about pilgrimage or holy sites. Adding that would seem to be the first priority. Then there is the article pilgrimage which relates to all religions. It is not bad at my first viewing, but the order is sometimes a bit strange. Muslim editors might like to check that all the facts important to their religious viewpoint are included there. A list of holy sites in Islam would seem to be an absolute necessity. And the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque needs to cover all the issues relating to that holy place, including all controversies. Itsmejudith 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I like both solution given by thestick and Itsmejudith. However, we cannot achieve them without deleting or adding a redirect in this article. However, looks like few editors are against ending the controversy created by this filthy article. --- ALM 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Calling it a filthy article is very non productive. 3AFD's and there are plenty of users who want to keep this article, and so it should be kept. It's really all there's to it. The excellent post above by User:Azate proves why it's a great article and raises the obvious question why it was constantly attacked, really for no sane reason. Amoruso 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter how 'excellent' the article it is, it still doesn't hide the fact that it's a political hack job, the title has to be changed IMHO, maybe something on the lines of "List of significant Islamic sites" and expanded with each site having better reasons other than just "Mr/Mrs. X said it's third holiest on this website" , and different from the Ziyarat article. thestick 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This started in the Al Aqsa Mosque article as a great information to discuss whether Al Aqsa is the third holist site as claimed in the article.... if the title of the page here is a problem it can be discussed, and a redirect will be here anyway, as well as the redirect name in the al aqsa mosque article. however, by the fact you obviously are calling it "political hack job" it would seem it could serve as another ploy to eventually delete this well sourced article so might not be a good idea. Amoruso 04:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me calling it a "political hack job", maybe I should I had said "politically inclined" instead. I don't want the content to be deleted, I'm suggesting it be integrated into a more general article. thestick 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is politically inclined except perhaps in the very broad sense of politics for which probably almost all wikipedia articles relate to. The article went through reviews by serious adminstrators and referenced very thoroughly, it will be wrong to remove its content into little pieces and non useful or productive. Amoruso 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Realizing that we're to assume good faith but the fact that so many folks are displaying the Star of David and related symbols on thier user pages (ie: here, here, here, and here) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the center of a massive dispute between Arab and Jewish folks it is easy for editors to draw conclusions about the motivations of those wanting to push an article that tries to establish some sort of "fact" that the Mosque might not be so important. (→Netscott) 07:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)