Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Sunnis and Shiites have never fought against each other. The violence was always perpetrated by Saddam Hussein." - Can someone explain to me why we are quoting notorious propagandist Ahmad Chalabi in our section detailing the "Present conflict"? Of course this guy was going to say the sectarian pressures were Saddam Hussein's fault - that's what he built his career on and what he was paid by the United States to say. It's obviously been proven wrong now that the post-Saddam Iraq has been characterized by exponentially higher sectarian violence. johnpseudo 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Chalabi was credited, it would be one thing. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the article for 3 days, so that you two can sort out your argument here. Which is what you should have been doing in the first place. I'll point out that the source says "60-65% Shia"), so you're both right. So it might make sense to either explicitly state that range, or find another source. The other statement was unsourced and should be sourced before re-addition.

In the meantime, both of you need to stop it with the personal attacks. Calling someone an "Iranian nationalist" is unacceptable. Calling someone's edits "vandalism" when they do not meet any of the definitions in WP:VANDAL is also a personal attack. If I see any more of that, or a resumption of edit warring after the expiration of the protection, I'll block the offending editor(s). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for implementing my request for protection. My stance is that what the source states - 60-65% Shia - is what should appear. I viewed the other party's actions as tampering with cited statistics; which I took as constituting vandalism, per WP:VANDAL:

"Vandalism is any [..] change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Irānshahr (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is very much not what that edit was. Since the editor changed it from 65% to 60%, and claimed the existence of other sources (though the other user did not provide one), that's clearly not an attempt to make the article worse--that's a disagreement with the content of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tampering with extant citations compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Claiming the existence of other sources in the edit summary doesn't materially change anything. Example: changing the cited age of a person while claiming of "other sources" in the edit summary. Breaking the synchronicity between text and citation compromises Wikipedia's integrity. Irānshahr (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But its not with the deliberate intention of making Wikipedia worse. The other editor believes that the 65% figure is wrong based on some information or another. That's not vandalism. Vandalism would be if the number had been changed to 1%, or "OVER 9000%" or if someone writes "Shi'a RockS!!!!!". The term never applies to content disputes, even in cases where someone is not citing properly. I only mention this because using the term that way can hurt you (doing it repeatedly will result in you being blocked under the restriction against personal attacks). You can still revert the information (though not edit-war)--just don't include a highly negative judgment of the editor.

Regarding the dispute itself, could I suggest that you change the line to something more complicated that shows the different numbers in the two different sources (60-65% in CIA World Factbook, 65-70% in Pew Report)? Simply calling the number 65% does not seem to match the sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that suggestion. Irānshahr (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a noted description by the British and the Ottomans that the Arab tribes continued to join Shia Islam. Whether it is due to poor treatment on the Ottoman part or not is one thing. However describing each conversion as “they were forced to because of mistreatment by the Ottomans.” Does not indicate whether they *wouldn’t* have if the Ottomans did not mistreat them (since the trend of conversion continued long after the Ottomans). For the sake of neutrality, stating that they converted is all this page needs. Not who forced whom. JasonMoore (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]