User talk:Airtiza14
Uthman
I agree most Islamic pages are sectarian because they present the views of one group as perhaps the only view. There is usually not even an admission that there is diversity.
And the clarification on source: https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/إنسان_العيون_في_سيرة_الأمين_المأمون
It is a Sunni source and contains the statement by Aisha asking people to kill Uthman.
On the page Uthman your edit was reverted by Ectomorfer with this edit. They said terrible attempt at trying to add a fake source which is not accessible I suggest you stop trying to misguide people with your school or thought or read NPOV guidelines
. You may wish to revert them as the fact that a source is not online but just a book doesn't mean it isn't accessible. Read Wikipedia:Published#Accessible for more information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nice try to team up that book has no mention of the said incident and comes from a Shia source you both need to read Wikipedia:NPOV. Ectomorfer (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ectomorfer: How do you know that book has no mention if it is a "fake source" that you say "is not accessible"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have read it. Plus its a Shia source hence is a minority view. Tagarayen4 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- So you admit is not a "fake source" that "is not accessible"? Would you like to undo the edit then? Perhaps adding a clarification that it is a Shia source and/or minority view? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Plus you guys should not be ganging up on a Ectomorfer tag teaming is not a good idea. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- The original person who added it can re add it but they obviously do not know the meaning of NPOV and will omit the fact these are Shia fringe sources. I have no intention to undo or add to that article in fact all these Islamic articles are infected with a very nasty sectarian vibe. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why don't you just readd it and clarify about the source? What is the point of being here if you are not going to help improve it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have no interest on that page thats why.....Views of Sahaba will always vary when shia sources are used hence its pointless. Ectomorfer will deal with it even though he is a bit unforgiving on pov edits by Airtiza14. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why don't you just readd it and clarify about the source? What is the point of being here if you are not going to help improve it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- The original person who added it can re add it but they obviously do not know the meaning of NPOV and will omit the fact these are Shia fringe sources. I have no intention to undo or add to that article in fact all these Islamic articles are infected with a very nasty sectarian vibe. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have read it. Plus its a Shia source hence is a minority view. Tagarayen4 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ectomorfer: How do you know that book has no mention if it is a "fake source" that you say "is not accessible"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Apology
I wanted to apologise for calling you a Rafidhi and follower of Ibn Sabah. I got caught up with these propaganda sources which angered me. Ectomorfer (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
When we call others names or abuse them, they do not become what we call them, we only reveal who we are. Even if we think we are right and doing a service to faith, Allah could be displeased with our hauteur and unpleasant behavior. I am glad you realised. Airtiza14