Talk:Grave worshiping

Grave worshipping is controversal issue and the artice do contain neur=tral POV.Nestwiki (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I was talking about what you wrote about christianity. THAT did not contain neutral POVFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Hello there, I just read reference 4 on the article page. It is:

http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/7295/what-is-grave-worship-and-what-is-considered-so

I am sorry but I could not stop laughing. Surely we cannot use a chat room or question forum as a reliable source. Also reference 1 is a blog. I have put a unreliable source template on the page. References 1,3 and 4 are almost definatley unreliable. Mbcap (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst there is little doubt that in some parts of the world people do partake in controversial acts at graves, all 4 "references" for this article are taken from unreliable partisan websites which certainly fails WP:RS.

• hiqmahiswisdom.wordpress.com is nothing more than a blog
• http://islamqa.info is a partisan Salafi website
• http://islam.stackexchange.com/. Need I say more.
• http://www.ahya.org/ is another partisan Salafi website

None of the above are of academic value and ought to be removed. The polemic nature of these sites also make it undesirable to use. For example, one of the links claims that:

The Deobandis being Sufis have fulfilled their share in promoting all these beliefs. In fact, Fazaail-e-Aamaal, which is the handbook of the Jamaat Tableegh, may be considered as the most successful book in spreading Sufism. In the garb of virtues of righteous actions, it exposes the reader to all aspects of Sufism, from monasticism and abstinence to exaggeration and innovation in worship, from complete obedience to a Shaikh to seeking benefits from the graves… All these beliefs have led the masses to have immense hope in the engraved to fulfill their needs - Hope in matters that only Allah can be depended upon!

This is nothing more than religious fanaticism by a website that considers all Muslims outside there group as heretics and unbelievers. I agree with @Mbcap: in that we should remove all the above sources. If reliable sources cannot be found I would suggest deleting the article altogether. RookTaker (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish to put forward options on how we go forward since the sources fail WP:RS. However this topic is notable, I have come across it in many books and it has been discussed extensively. I simply do not have the time at the moment due to exams and being a newbie still unfamiliar with wikipedia. I think we have 2 choices:

• We can move to delete the article. (easiest option)
• Or if there are any editors out there in the wide expanse of wikipedia cyberspace who would be kind enough to do a rewrite using WP:RS compliant sources.

Either way, we have to act quickly as this article gives a negetive impression in regards to the editorial integrity of wikipedia. Mbcap (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The previous attempt to delete this article failed only a day ago. The subject is important and relevant if the references are not reliable then we have add more.The sectarian contributor FreeatlastChitchat tried to have it deleted now we have more attempts. Nestwiki (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nestwiki, I have no intention of having this article deleted, provided it is well sourced. I actually agree with you in that the topic is notable and should be included in wikipedia. Unfortunately though the sources are highly questionable and do not fit WP:RS. Could I make a suggestion? Why don't you find WP:RS compliant sources and write the article from that. That way everyone is happy. Please let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I too agree with him on the issue, and not the sources. I have no idea why he thinks that tagging for deletion was a personal affront to him. At this moment he is mixing up grave worshipping and grave "visiting", this will lead to MAJOR warring once this article reaches the eyes of other people. I do not want that. @Nestwiki @Mbcap I will try to redo the page if the both of you can agree to three major facts

1)Grave worshipping should not be equated with just visiting graves

2)Sources should not be from antagonistic blogs,websites etc. They tend to get deleted and are source of warring

3)Sources should be found(and they can be found) where grave worshippers themselves say that grave worshipping is all right.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A sectarian and a stalker whose only assigned job here is to add anti-Muslim references and Ahmadiyya agenda to Muslim pages. The authentic reference will be added in few days I am not a professional wikipedian like you. Nestwiki (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Nestwiki: - what are your views regarding the references that currently exist? I fail to see how any of these pass WP:RS due to the fact they are neither academic or neutral. They should be removed as per WP:BURDEN and the tag should be added as an interim step until reliable sources can be found. Additionally, I did look into the 12 volume Encyclopedia of Islam published by Brill and could not find a single occurrence of "grave worship" so I am not convinced that the subject is notable as per WP:NOTE. We therefore need to establish notability also. RookTaker (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @RookTaker:: This issue is very much discussed in Pakistan and where I have personally seen people going to far in practice grave/shrine worship at Sufi dargahs. The salafi Muslim oppose this custom and some shrines have also be bombed due to these practices. This practice is especially widespread in rural Pakistan and in Urdu press it is called Qabar parasti, Qabar Parasti. There are nearly 30 thousand hits in Google for "Qabar Parasti". I hope to find and add reliable references. Nestwiki (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes freeatlastchitchat, go ahead. I think that is a a good idea. Grave visiting is not the same as grave worshiping as per classical sources. I think sources need to be from across the spectrum, from those who are pro, neutral and against grave worship to make the article NPOV. As for sources, they obviously need to comply with WP:RS. Do not fret Nestwiki, the article shall not be deleted. And please stop the constant allegation, they are not conducive to a productive discussion. If you have problems with other editors then discuss with them on their talk page and not here. Happy editing. Mbcap (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." As per WP:BURDEN I have removed all the above "sources" from unreliable POV sites and added the "citation needed" tag. When you find reliable sources to back up the claims these should be added.RookTaker (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Likewise notability has not been proven as per WP:NOTE and in particular WP:NRV which states that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." As such, I have added the notability tag to the article. RookTaker (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

sufism related?

You claim that this is sufism related , then you say that most orthodox consider it to be a sin.? Please explain. I am in favour of moving to delete this article until a better sourced article can be written, please provide your feedbackFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)