Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toddy1 (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 17 November 2013 (→Neutral Sources and Toddy1: see also Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Blatant POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Islam: Salaf C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Salaf task force.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

IMPORTANT

Message to those who want to have influence on the shape of this article Follow these simple instructions:

1. Please get a Misplaced Pages account and log in before you perform your edits.
2. If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first BEFORE you make your changes.

AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for a review

Please could someone else review what I have done to the paragraph by User:MohaddesTop. I have "truthified" it as best I can: making the text such that the citations really back it up, fixed problems with citations, etc. --Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

it says wahabi movement and salafi movement are "allegedly" the same, when its confirmed that they are already see Wahhabi movement etymology & there's other RS that describes these two words as synonym especially when saudis adopted it in the 70's. saudi wahabis also backed the demolition of islamic heritage sites now there's many different types of groups out there..the so called salafi groups have split into several breakaway sects but obviously the saudi wahabis have backed and supported the demolition as a religious duty & this cant be denied. Baboon43 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly confirmed; in the section you linked to, the prince is denying Wahhabism even exists. Given that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab never used Salafism as a noun or talked about a movement - he called his movement muwahhidun and the first people to talk about Salafism were the predecessors of the Muslim Brotherhood - it really isn't accurate to say that Wahhabism and Salafism are the same thing. Some people do say that, and many differentiate between the two. This difference is reflected in reliable sources. We have to make sure not to give undue weight to any one view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

it doesnt matter what the prince says..people call them wahabis as does academics..there's no independent movement thats called salafi and not refered as wahabi by others..broad range of sources confirm this. Baboon43 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A broad range of sources also differentiates between the two. Other editors have pointed this out to you enough times across the talk pages of enough articles to render link wars back and forth pointless. Thus, the word "allegedly" is more neutral. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

stop making things up no other editors pointed anything out to me its only you who have argued against this..list the broad range of sources that differentiate the two or this will be labeled undue weight...& its not "a claim" that saudi wahabis believe its a religious duty to demolish buildings its a fact...lets say the two are differentiated if thats the case then it should be noted saudi wahabis want to demolish islamic sites and other so called salafi groups dont. Baboon43 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Check the lead of this article for the fact that some analysts differentiate between the two. As for the demolotion, then I wasn't discussing that; I was responding to the usage of the word "allegedly." MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

since you didnt post any RS its Undue Weight. & the lead should be removed it looks like OR Baboon43 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the introduction claiming that the "the movement is often" would be supportable with reliable sources if it were changed to "the movement is sometimes". If you think that the Salafists and Wahhabis are undoubtedly the same thing, you should us WP:AFD to propose that one of the articles be turned into a redirect to the other.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Baboon43: I don't need to post a source because there are already reliable sources in the lead for this article and the article on the Wahhabi movement noting the distinction between the two and you know that because it's been explained to you before. As is suggested, if you think they're the same then go through the proper avenues for addressing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Salafism in Syria

I swear to God that this Salafism in Syria are all things that I have written. Misplaced Pages about the hero Mahdi Army in Iraq terrorist calls but not everyone knows that they are the Salafists, so crimes Surrey Mknnd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.163.80 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But the edits you made to the article and consisted of deleting a large amount of useful cited comment, and replacing it with the following uncited and irrelevant statement:

"Who are the Salafists, the wild ass of them selves and their heads are the people Khvrannd Syria Syrian girls, they are fighting not to exceed intruders, they are killers and they destroy the world."

So you got reverted both times.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have accepted your words. I've removed some of the useful but you Mahdi Army hero, you're a terrorist, but as Jihadi Salafis're called. You've seen repeatedly in Syria crimes Salafists I even got angry if I did not remove the beneficial parts of their own revolution in Syria and Syria called Liberator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.177.186 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor needed

"Though Salafis when told about this were as opposed to it as other Muslims."

This is not even a sentence in English.

G. Robert Shiplett 23:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? "Although Salafi individuals, when told about this matter/policy/..., were as opposed to it as were other Muslims." P0M (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Sources and Toddy1

I spent a considerable amount of time adding information from reliable sources such as the Guardian newspaper on this subject and removing fairy tale like and copyrighted statements from impartial websites such as salafipublications.com. Despite this, my edits have been repeatedly undone for no good reason by Toddy1.

Please explain why sources such as the Guardian newspaper are considered invalid and salafipublications.com is considered to be valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.245.13 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious to several of us that you're editing across a few articles in order to push a certain POV. If you want to make a point, bring up specific individual sources and specific individual pieces of content and ask about those. You're being reverted in more than one article by more than one user now, which is a good sign that the onus is on you to explain your position here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is unacceptable to accuse me of pushing a certain POV. My edits were done in good faith and consisted of the following:

- Removing portions of the article that were copied and pasted word for word from the website http://ahlusunnahwaljamaah.com/qa-on-salafiyyiah/. This was removed because it violated Misplaced Pages's guidelines on copyright. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Additionally, this website is very pro Salafi. For a more balanced view it would be better to quote from established experts on Salafism such as the book "Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement" by Roel Meijer or "Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God" by Richard Gauvain. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view

- Removing honorific titles as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies

- Adding quotes to the extremism section. I wanted to show that whilst the majority of Salafi scholars reject violence and terrorism a few do not. My quotes were from Time magazine and the Guardian newspaper.

- Adding to the discussion on Taqlid. Again my intent was to show that there are different views regarding Taqlid within the Salafi school.

I understand that you might have a strong attachment to the Salafi movement. This should not however mean that views that you are not happy with are simply removed and undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.245.13 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not a Salafist; however, there has been a lot of POV pushing on this article and to be hoenst, I am still seeing that here.

• You have deleted a number of reliable sources from modern publishing houses, especially in the "examples of early usage" section.
• You added quotes from Salafi scholars to the lead and gave the books of those very scholars as sources, which thus makes them a primary source. For such a controversial article and topic, things like that should be discussed one-by-one.
• Salafi Publications is absolutely not a neutral source, but sources don't need to be neutral. For certain topics - mainly quotes from their own scholars - they are a reliable source in general, and I think this has been discussed here previously.
• You're mentioning a number of sources which such as that of Meijer which, as far as I know, were totally unused on Misplaced Pages before I added them to a number of articles. You haven't added them here yourself, though.

What you've done essentially is edit warred (even after you posted the above comments) in order to defend highly contentious edits on an article with a long history of discussions about which you seem unaware. This sort of editing is frowned upon for new users and I will call on you again to please discuss each issue one at a time and to not insert any more of these edits until you've discussed it adequately with the users concerned. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Blatant POV, where we discussed similar deletions.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• C-Class Islam-related articles
• High-importance Islam-related articles
• C-Class Salaf articles
• Unknown-importance Salaf articles
• Salaf task force articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics