Talk:Shia view of Umar
Template:If in category Template:Old AfD multi Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shia view of Umar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add Template:Tlx after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100713024115/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/047.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/047.sbt.html#003.047.755
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050226004529/http://www.sahaba.net:80/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45 to http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shia view of Umar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add Template:Tlx after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091215235005/http://www.usc.edu:80/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.342
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004074151/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/009.smt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/009.smt.html#009.3507
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
POVFORK
I think this article and Sunni view of Omar are WP:POVFORKs. We should have one unified article called "Perception of Omar" that gives WP:DUE weight to Shia, Sunni and non-Muslim views on Omar. Since this page doesn't get much traffic, I'll ping a few:
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell,
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell,
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell,
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell,
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell,
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell.VR talk 11:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Vice regent, Thanks for the ping. I agree with your proposal. Both these articles aren't much lengthy either. The proposed title seems interesting to me and it may help in adding few other view-points, for example, what non-Muslims have thought of Umar. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree in principle, though I would say that a much higher priority is to rewrite these articles to some minimum level of quality. Yesterday I completely rewrote our article on Abu Lu'lu'a, and when another editor added a link to Shia view of Umar (I will not speak of "Omar" on this website if I can avoid it File:Face-wink.svg) I felt I had to include it in my (more general) revert simply and only because this article is of such a low quality. It's actually a great topic to link to in the see also section of Abu Lu'lu'a (it would be as well for Eid-e-Shuja', another one I recently rewrote from-scratch), but I just think it's a bad idea to lead readers from a relatively enlightening piece of information into utter obscurity. I would be in favor of a merged, shorter, but also clearer and more reliable article. Now someone come and write it for us! File:718smiley.svg File:Emblem-cool.svg ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Fully agree with the proposal. These tiny forks are against NPOV. I am in favor a merger, provided that it is accompanied by a rewrite based on the reliable sources– preferably scholarly ones. --Mhhossein talk 06:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)