Talk:Ali in the Quran

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Many article problems

I have only just started reading this article and have instantly spotted many problems with it: it is oozing with a sectarian pro-Shia agenda and incorrect/false/dishonest edits. I think this article is going to need a major cleanup, and i have already started doing so and will continue to investigate and correct its content and sources.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Dear 58.106.251.114. Why are you deleting the well sourced material from this article. You have deleted the last section(verse 2:269) claiming that it is based on a book by Arzina Lalani who you think is a Shiite author while my source is Oliver Leaman's The Quran: an Encyclopedia.

Then instead of fixing the link that you think is problematic you are deleting the whole section. then you delete another section saying no Sunni source say this while you can see the sources. Why are doing this? Hadi (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my reasons from the edit summaries, which you have not addressed but instead just simply restored your edits without due reason:
1.The verse 2:269: Shiite author of reference, arzina lalani, claims "Sunni and Shiite scholars are in agreement". Of course they would make such a claim. removing non-NPOV
2.The verse of purification: removing false link between mubahalla and 'The verse of purification'. these are not convincingly linked in the section and are separate quranic verses
3.The verse of Mawadda: No sunni source says this applies to ali etc. references do not say sunni say this. only shia may say this and if so then this belongs in shia view of ali article--not here
These are my reaons and unless you address them then you have no excuse to re-add unworthy content just because you added it.
Now to address your Oliver Leaman's The Quran: an Encyclopedia question: i will assume you really are ignorant and inform you that Arzina Lalani was the author of the section on Ali. Oliver Leaman is the editor of the book but he didn't author that Ali section. This is clear for anyone to see.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 58.106.251.114. Why do you say that Lalani is a Shiite scholar? what is your proof? why do you say she is writing without proof while she is citing many sources for her article? why do you tag this article for not meeting neutral point of view when you yourself delete the material which you think are non-NPOV? Hadi (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it because it still needs much work and removal of other false content. It should really be deleted anyway. Are you telling me Arzina Lalani isn't Shia? I'm not sure if your serious or take me for a fool! Do a google search and tell me what you find. Plus, her section on Ali in the edited book reads nothing more than a shia puff-piece; that's okay if you want to quote Arzina in Shia view of Ali but it is not okay when you want to use pro-Shia content to slyly add that Sunnis agree with the shia view (when they don't) just to support your own shia agenda.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to improve this article so that it won't have the problem tagged on the top of the article page, so I am going to remove the tags. Hadi (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted

This article should be deleted not only because of concerns noted above; basically, it is a pro-Shia puff-piece that could only conceivably belong in Shia view of Ali. It uses sparse Sunni sources of agreement with shiites to add a veneer of credibility and notability; remove these sources and all you have is the Shia view of Ali in the quran--which in itself lacks notability to be its own article. It's important to note that Ali is never mentioned by name in the Quran and many verses used to support his presence in the Quran are highly contentious between Sunnis and Shia; this is hardly the recipe for the notability required to create a whole article called Ali in the Quran. Using this example then a sunni could very easily create Abu Bakr in the Quran or Muhammad's wives in the Quran to pursue an agenda.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many verses in Quran which Shiite scholars believe are revealed concerning Ali, which are Shia view of Ali, however there are a few verses that cannot be categorized as Shiite view of Ali or Sunni view of Ali, as there are scholars among both groups that commented the same thing as it is revealed from the article text. Best Hadi (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are overwhelmingly shia views--not sunni agreements in any worthy number, and that's being charitable: many of these sources that claim to show sunni support are either lies and not even in the source or misrepresented. I have no problem with you adding shia views of anything on wiki; however, i will not stand by when an editor tries to lie or misrepresent sunni scholars to support their shia agenda. This is unacceptable.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that these are all Shia claims as all the sources are Shia based a clear attempt for sectarian pov on wikipedia which should not be tolerated. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:B06B:C1FD:E049:6BD3 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have substantiated your claims of bias and provide evidence. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the leaman quote begin

Hey I don't happen to have a copy of Leaman's encyclopedia. In the lede there's a closing quotation marks for a sentence cited to him but no opening quotation marks. Where does the quote begin? Brustopher (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brustopher. You can download the book here [1]. See page 29. Hadi (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafidi Source

The whole article is backed up only by Shia sources and hence it must always state "Shia sources claim" before anything is said otherwise it would just be Mojas propaganda. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:B06B:C1FD:E049:6BD3 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

As discussed by users above this whole article stinks of pro Shia point of view and misrepresents Sunni views in order to portray the Shia view as more valid hence a pov tag has been added until I can contact some Sunni editors who can help edit this article. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:48C4:F382:E40F:F178 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you should honor WP:CIVIL. Second of all, it's been close to five months since you tagged this article and the objection by the other user you refer is 2 years old and he has not substantiated his claims of bias by any evidence. So I remove the tag until somebody substantiates claims of bias if any. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]