Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Recent reverts mentioned at AN/I

There have been two recent AN/I sections about a disputed passage: opened on 20 November, opened on 27 November. Maliner wishes to include the material, SalamAlayka has been removing it. Here, at the request of Inomyabcs, is a section for discussion of the matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, there was an ANI topic opened in regards to the material in the Bangladesh section. Reading through the paragraphs and the citations, there are some problems and I'll try and outline them below.
  • Citations (as of 13:40 29 November) 165, 166, 167 in the sentence, "Beside Bangladesh, WSM is active...", are all images and do not sufficent evidence for the statement.
  • The second sentence of the first paragraph is 78 words long with two citations that do not help support all of the information presented. The first part talking about Sufi wisdom is supported by the citation following "Muslim society". The large number can be supported by citation at the end of sentence with the 26% in the Sufi Affiliation table. The missing gap for citation support would be the almost half adhering to the Chishti order and the Suhrawardiyya order.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is repeating some of the second sentence. I would propose removing "and guidance and their Khanqahs and Dargahs as nerve centers of Muslim society" from the second sentence and leaving the last sentence as is.
  • I'm not in favor of the second paragraph. The material doesn't fit well into the section detailing the presence of Barelvi in Bangladesh. I would try to tie in why these organizations were founded in Bangladesh and how they promote Barelvi (without trying to establish conflicts between faiths and orders). The last sentence is filler and accounting for the removal of the citations from my first point, the first sentence is unsupported.
I would keep the section, but it does need a rewrite. Hope that helps. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Inomyabcs: The problem that we have with the first paragraph is that it is entirely focused on Sufism, and has nothing relating to the Barelvi movement in particular. The Barelvi movement is merely one among the hundreds of Sufi movements that exist/existed. It does not make sense for there to be a paragraph on the presence of Sufism in Bangladesh as there already articles which have written about that. Barelvis are indeed Sufis, but not all Sufis are Barelvi. The paragraph talks about the history of Sufism prior to the Barelvi movement even existing. It's clearly just filler-information to make the article look good because honestly, the Barelvi movement really isn't that notable in Bangladesh as the lack of references show. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Definitely your concepts are wrong here Mr or Mrs Salamalayka, Barelvi is clearly a Sufi movement and usually what we consider here as Sufis are Barelvis or vice versa, There is no difference between Sufi or Barelvi atleast in the sub-continent. so your repeated removal of content without discussion is clearly WP:disruptive or WP:bad faith. I will suggest you to do more research on the relevant topics. Maliner (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
You are quick to make horrendous mistakes but can never provide sources for them. The Muslims of the subcontinent are almost entirely Sufi, but belong to different groups and movements within Sufism with Barelvism being one of them. Barelvism is a modern movement, and is not very large in Bangladesh. Your inability to differentiate Sufi and Barelvi shows that it is you who requires further research. All that is mentioned with regards to Sufism in Bangladesh has ZERO connection with the Barelvi movement. SalamAlayka (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
And since you staunchly believe that there is no difference between Sufi and Barelvi, why don't you delete the Barelvi article and merge it with Sufism in India? Your hypocrisy is showing. SalamAlayka (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
So you have decided to not stop fooling others and also not interested to do some home work, let me spoon feed you something from WP:RS, here. is the source regarding Barelvi movement in Bangladesh. Maliner (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
That source is not present in the article, Maliner. I was removing the content because there were no reliable sources. Had you added that instead of undoing my edits this would not have been such an issue. Regardless, it is only mentioned in passing and one source is not enough for two entire paragraphs to be kept. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
few more lollypops and cotton candies for you. There are multiple easily available sources as mentioned above for Ahle Sunnat wa jamaat or Barelvi movement in Bangladesh. By not doing your homework you are wasting the time of the community. Anyways, as a rule of thumb, good practice while editing wikipedia especially while dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced content is to find reliable source instead of removing content repeatedly. Your repeated removal of the content despite reverts shows your Bad Faith. I will suggest you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal of Unsourced Material. Maliner (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Note: User:Salamalayka was reverted by Editonlineforpassion before me for same content removal per history of the article. Maliner (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please knock back the vitriol from both of you? You are both giving good points. One, the sources that are already there are problematic. Two, the paragraphs do not clearly outline the Barelvi movement in Bangladesh with reliable and relevant sources. Three, there are potential sources that we can use to fix the section. I am willing to rewrite the section over the coming weekend but I'll need your reviews to make sure I provide an adequate job. Let's try and read through the provided sources or find more to make this a relevant section. If there aren't then I completely agree with Salamalayka that this section should be removed and maybe we can make a sentence referring to the movement in Bangladesh elsewhere in the article. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
My proposed rewrite can be found here. The resource text that I used can be found above the section. I need to delete after this discussion because of the copy violations, but I wanted to ensure you could see the supporting material used for my rewrite.
There is not much way in the detail of the number of followers. In addition, the ASWJ political group (which some have termed a militant org) is getting mixed with the ability to find good resources that only speak to the movement itself. That leaves only, the way the barelvi movement found its way into Bangladesh and the effect of the movement on Muslims in Bangladesh.
I am not Muslim nor able to speak Arabic or Bengla, so I hope I may not have offended anyone on this research and rewrite. If anyone has any input, please let me know. Thank you all for your time. Inomyabcs (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Inomyabcs: Thank you for taking the time out, but I am afraid to say you have made a grave mistake. Syed Ahmad Barelvi originated from Bareilly district but is in no way affiliated with the Barelvi movement. If you look at the article of Syed Ahmad Barelvi, you will see that he is the forefather of the Deobandi and Ahl-i Hadith, NOT the Barelvis. Take a look at the first sentence of the History section of the Barelvi article. SalamAlayka (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for the mistake. Then I say we should just remove the section. @Maliner: would you agree? Inomyabcs (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agreed that Raibarelvi was not at all affiliated with Ahle sunnat wal jamaat. So he should not be mentioned at least in this article. But as I have mentioned 3 potential sources here, which I think must be cited as Salamalyka said above. 1 2 and 3 are nice sources about the movement and it should be included by removing the pseudosources. Maliner (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
another source for those who do not know Barelvis are sizable portion of Hanfi Muslims in Bangladesh. Maliner (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Maliner: Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamaat is a generic term for Sunni Islam. A lot of these sources do not mention Barelvi movement in particular, but Ahlus Sunnah in general or related groups like the Maizbhandari order (Maizbhandari does not have roots in Barelvi movement, it's a native order of Bangladesh). SalamAlayka (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Either you are fooling us or wasting our time by not reading the sources provided properly, my first source clearly mentions a whole paragraph on Barelvi movement which says Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi's followers are also known as Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat (also see the article's lead), it also says about Barelvi scholar Nurul Islam Farooqi. My second source clearly says Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat situated in Dhaka is the central organization of Barelvi Ulemas of Bangladesh my third source is verified by second source and also by the content present in the article. Also instead of wasting our time, why not you try to read Ahle Sunnat-Energizing Faith in Rough times. Chapter 6, Book-Syncretic Islam: Life and Times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi By Anil Maheshwari, Richa Singh. and “In the Path of the Prophet: Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and the Ahl-e Sunnat wa Jamaat Movement in British India, c. 1870-1921” by Usha Sanyal. Will you please stop your kiddish behavior now, no one is enjoying it rather it is irritating. Maliner (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Inomyabcs: Would you please check the sources in the article section now? If needed any other improvement please let me know, I will try to help you. I can understand, being not from that very particular Sufi background you may find it difficult to deal with this, but as I mentioned above, Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat OR Maslak e Aala Hazrat are interchangeably used terms for Barelvi movement per the sources mentioned above and per this book by Mufti Akhtar Raza khan. Maliner (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but that's very insincere of you. It's a very basic concept that Ahle Sunnat refers to Sunni Islam as a whole and not Barelvi movement in particular. Have a read of the Sunni Islam article. The term predates Barelvi movement by several centuries. This is clear WP:OR, you're mixing two things together so you can have more content. I did look at your sources and they clearly mention Maizbhandari as Ahle Sunnat, not Barelvi. If you even knew the history of Maizbhandar, you wouldn't say such a thing. This is getting desperate now. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
this shows your nonsense attitude that you are not reading the sources. we usually do not follow any baseless claims without WP:RS, and I have presented many to prove my point. If you do not wish to follow WP:RS then go away. I will be keep reverting you if you will remove the well sourced content from article. Maliner (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Author mentions Maizbhandar within Barelvi sect. Even if your Original resesarch are true it can not be followed per WP:original research. We follow WP:RS. Maliner (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
one more source to verify my point from Oxford Reference. Maliner (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The answer is it is both: it is a generic name used by many Sunni groups, see Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, and Barelvi is clearly one of those Sunni groups using the generic name, capitalized in modern times as a proper name for itself. All this really means is another addition needs to be made to that disambiguation page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: So can we please keep to the sources which explicitly talk about Barelvi movement in Bangladesh in particular, rather than ambiguously using sources mentioning ASWJ which have no clear connection with Barelvi? (One example being the Maizbhandari order, which is unique in its own right) SalamAlayka (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to automatically exclude sources that use 'ASWJ', but care definitely needs to be taken to ensure that the subject of any source doing this is the Barelvis and not Sunnism in general. Maizbhandari is a totally distinct subject, so sources should not be confusing this with the Barelvis, but if they are, that would certainly be an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
For instance, there is no reason to not use the Oxford Dictionary of Islam entry, which is clearly about the subject, for reference purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Barelvi → Barelvi movement – The current page title is a bare adjective that is a somewhat unnatural title in English and does little to describe what the subject is. Just as the subject of Sunnism or Sunnis is titled as Sunni Islam, not just Sunni, or how the subject of Mevlevis can be found at Mevlevi Order, not just Mevlevi, this title would make a lot more sense with 'movement' in it, and this is supported by sourcing. Google Scholar shows that this is an entirely normative way of describing the subject, with "Barelvi movement" being used directly as a phrase in hundreds of scholarly works and the term 'movement' being in conjunction with descriptions of the subject in thousands more. The article itself consistently describes Barelvi as a movement throughout, with the word 'movement' being used over a hundred times. Ngrams also attests the general literally usage of the phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I support it to move to Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat or other similarly name such as Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaat or Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaat as I have presented many good sources above where authors have repeatedly used names such as Ahle Sunnat or Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat for the movement. Maliner (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
presenting few sources from above again for clarification
It makes no sense to move it to the term that, besides not being in the English language, is already used by so many other different groups that Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah had to be created as a disambiguation page. Given that the discussion above made clear the confusion with Sunnism in general, I don't know why you would suggest this. This subject has a clear route to natural English disambiguation in the form of the 'Barelvi', 'Barelvis' or the 'Barelvi movement' terminology already in scholarly usage, so ambiguity is needless. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323 will you please look at this Bad behaviour Maliner (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Please kindly raise any content issues outside of the scope of this move discussion in a separate talk thread and don't muddle things here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree with @Iskandar323: with the renaming, however if Maliner wants to go a step further and merge it with the existing Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah article then I am open to discussion of that. SalamAlayka (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

got it @Iskandar323. I have no issue with Iskander323 proposals. Maliner (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@SalamAlayka not at all, I have no time to waste with you by explaining the same things repeatedly. Many thanks to @Iskandar323 for their intervention and understanding the sources as a third agent. Cheers Maliner (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per consistency like we have titled the Salafi movement article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per TheAafi. Without prejudice to a further move request if sources should suggest a more common name, but the current title refers either to a single member of the Barelvi movement or (adjectivally) to things belonging to the Barelvi movement, which is of course entirely inappropriate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination and per above concerns.--TheEagle107 (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not not suggest breaking grammar or RS related rules. There can be individuals and communities which may be directly indirectly influenced by some movement or thought and still not part of formal movement. While discussing titles our usual focus goes to religious thought or movement; same time unknowingly ordinary people and communities may get excluded due to title changes, that makes me feel some what concerned. For example a similar concern I had previously discussed. Usually I shall prefer word 'people' in the title instead of 'movement'. Bookku (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refs

  • Pradeep Singh Gautam (2022) Sufi-Barelvis, Blasphemy and Radicalization: A Critical Analysis, Strategic Analysis, 46:5, 459-472, DOI: 10.1080/09700161.2022.2115237 Routledge.

Bookku (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 9 § Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This has now been relisted here to generate a clearer consensus. Iskandar323, could you take another look at it? It would probably be helpful to clarify your position there, i.e. keep or retarget, and why.
I will also reiterate that the proposed target disambiguation page, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, should probably be moved to Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jama'a. It's one classical expression with myriad possible transliterations, so it's probably best to follow WP:MOSAR and let other transliterations that are not the titles of existing articles redirect to the disambiguation page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@Apaugasma, I feel you are right. Dab page also needs a title/spelling that is more common and prevalent. This is uncontroversial in my opinion and can be taken care of once the discussion is closed. All the alternate spellings should redirect to the dab page. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barelvi_movement/Archive_8&oldid=1213522923"