Talk:Holiest sites in Shia Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updating and correcting this article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

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)[reply]

November & December 2010 edits[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have shortened this article. From the way this article looked, Shias have about 25 thousand sacred sites. And the article was so long you could almost turn it into a book. All we have to do is provide wikilinks and the content is in there. But there is no need to copy-paste entire articles onto Holiest sites in Islam page right? We can keep going like this forever or we can get a Third opinion.

An example of your nonsense claim that ALL Shias venerate these sites ;

- Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque in Damascus, Syria
- Al-‘Abbās Mosque in Karbalā, Iraq
- Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque in Damascus, Syria
- Bāb Saghīr Cemetery in Damascus, Syria
- Other tombs for the family of Imāms
- Other places associated with Muhammad
- Places associated with Imāms, Prophets & Karbalā
- Mosques associated with companions of Muhammad and the Imāms
  • 1st of all it takes up too much space
  • 2nd this is FALSE. theres no way ALL Shias venerate these sites. For example Zaydis definitely do not venerate those sites, as well as some Ismaili branches, so thats pure nonsense.
  • 3rd. Its REPETITIVE. Theres no need to keep repeating i.e. Mount Uhud near Madīnah or Masjid al-Quba when the wikilinks already mention this stuff. Or you mention Jannatul Baqī in a seperate section when i already mentioned it under Medina heading.
  • 4th The article currently operates under UNDUE WEIGHT. For example, is the Bāb Saghīr Cemetery in Damascus as important as Karbala or Najfa? Off course not.

Toushiro violates several wikipedia guidelines including Assume good faith (called my edits vandalism); Verifiability (does not prove his assertions that Shia venerate all the above sites); He violates many Manual of Style guidelines, for example, you should not not use bulletpoint lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs; Wikipedia Layout Manual very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.

Another problem with Toushiro's article is he scatters holy places that should be in one section all over the place as he did with Kufa in over 4 different sections making it unreadable and messy. I changed the disorganised clutter and gathered them here. I have not deleted or removed any content as he claimed; I only shortened it and categorized it with less sub-headings. I think most people would find my version more user-friendly. If I continue to get reverted, I will try to gather a Consensus Someone65 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems article is good in differentiating sites as per their acceptance by different groups, its better that sites are not repeated but I don't think to list them according to any other demarcation (e.g. cities, etc) will be a good idea as that may be confusing. Or we can have a table which lists name of site, city, and acceptance. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holiest sites in Shia Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New title[edit]

As Apaugasma has argued elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to call this article Holiest sites in Shia Islam because it is really just about "Holy sites in Shia Islam". At the same time I'm hesitant about the term "Holy site" because pretty much every mosque can be considered "holy" at some level. Maybe "List of pilgrimage sites in Shia Islam"? Also pinging @Mhhossein: and @Mccapra:.VR talk 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord…. I’m not sure if the pilgrimage idea is quite right and it would be hard for most editors to prove that a given site WASN’T a pilgrimage destination if they wanted to challenge it. I understand the concern about “holy” but still think it’s the best proposal so far. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe List of Shi'i shrines, or List of Shi'i sanctuaries? That should cover the topic pretty well, and takes away any confusion with the traditional 'holy' or 'holiest' sites of Islam (which, for readers of this talk who are unaware, I've argued here (scroll down for my comment) is a completely different topic than the one currently covered by our 'holiest sites' series of articles). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is apparently created in light of the parent title, i.e. Holiest sites in Islam. Do you find that page title problematic? Also, looking at the items included in the current page, I don't think the term "Holy site" can be a suitable suggestion "because pretty much every mosque can be considered "holy" at some level". What about 'Revered sites'? There should be a world implying a difference between these items and other "mosques". --Mhhossein talk 06:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that page title is problematic, at least for the content it currently features. I'll just copy the comment I pointed to above, for easier reference:

Both Holiest sites in Sunni Islam and Holiest sites in Shia Islam were split from Holiest sites in Islam on 12 March 2009 with the stated reason to clearly separate the Sunni from the Shi'i perspective (see the notice here), so they are indeed intended to treat the same topic. However, this topic (a list of all Islamic sites that some editors may consider holier than others) is based on a criterion that utterly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA as quoted above.

The trouble is that there actually is a sourceable concept of three or four holiest sites in Islam. In fact, our article Holiest sites in Islam started of in September 2006 as "Third holiest site in Islam", went through three monstrous AfD's (1, 2, 3), and after a lot of further discussion was eventually renamed in December 2006 to the current title (final decision here). The original topic of the article was a controversy over whether the Al-Aqsa Mosque is or is not the third holiest site in Islam. When this controversy was found to be too intractable to be the subject of an article, the renamed page inherited the word "holiest" from the original (from the sourceable 'third holiest' to the non-sourceable 'holiest in general').

But being now a list of merely 'holy' Islamic sites, it has nothing to do anymore with the traditional Islamic concept of three or four holiest sites. Being still named that way, however, it confuses the traditional Islamic concept with the very much Wikipedian concept of generic 'holiest sites in Islam' (just see what you get when typing "holiest sites in Islam" in Google Scholar). The latter is an artefact of the deletion and move discussions of 2006, and being created by Wikipedia itself (a type of 'Frankenstein'), it has no notability at all. I say it's high past time we corrected this mistake. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The main point is that any article mentioning holiest sites in its title should only be about the sourceable Mecca-Medina-Jerusalem(-Damascus) series (for which, note, we don't have a separate article, though Holiest sites in Islam should probably be that article), while any other article listing 'holy' or 'revered' sites should have a selection criterion that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Any rename should think hard and long about what that objective selection criterion might be, but one thing is sure: it's not "holiest". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holiest_sites_in_Shia_Islam&oldid=1202767342"