Talk:Barelvi movement: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Start‑class Mid‑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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. South Asia C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. India C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guidelines for developing and editing Islam-related Wikipedia articles are at: Wikipedia:MOSISLAM

I saw a discussion here and am commenting because that user talk page should not be used while the user is away, per the notice at its top. The first point is that I will block ScholarM or Youbat if there is any repetition of comments that poke other editors (for example, nonconstructive edits and vandal edits). The second point is that discussions here will focus on specific text in the article and proposals to improve that text based on policy—attempts to deflect or talk about other things will be regarded as disruption. Regarding WP:DR, if one party does not want to engage, that avenue should be ignored as unproductive. Discussions on noticeboards might get attention but ultimately an WP:RFC may be needed.

I have no opinion on the disagreement but as a first step towards resolution, I would like to establish an overview setting out the disagreement. Please comment here regarding what the disagreement is, with sources, but do not use this section to comment about other editors or policies or anything else.

I think the problem concerns Barelvi#Etymology and edits like this which asserts that "Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah or Barelvi is [a] movement" and more. The source is oxfordreference which states that Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah are certain people, also known as Barelvis. That does not seem to be relevant to the etymology of Barelvi and does not support the "pejorative" label used several times in comments above.

Would editors please comment on my above understanding of the first part of the disagreement and also whether there is any reason to believe the term is pejorative other than the opinion of an editor? If yes, please provide a source. If not, everyone needs to stop using that term because it avoids the central issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UserJohnuniq

here is the reference

mentoning the term was used by opposition movement, some more references here , here relevant to the etymology of movement. Youbat (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving those two links? Are they used as references in the article? What about the reference which is used and which I mentioned above? Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, first of all, thank you for your efforts to mediate as I was unsure of how to move forward.

Second of all, yes, your understanding is absolutely correct re: the first part of the disagreement. Although ScholarM has been using the Oxford Reference link you posted as a source, notice that Oxford Reference's main page on the movement, the Overview page, still uses the term Barelvi only. That main page actually is relevant to the term Barelvi and its etymology, but it's not the source which ScholarM seems to prefer; I hope I'm not speaking out of turn there, and he's free to correct me if I've erred, along with my apologies.

As for it supposedly being a pejorative term, then so far, only ScholarM and Youbat have said that; we don't have any prominent RS claiming that. If we take a look even at the sources which Youbat posted:

• The first states: "The Barelvi movement dates back to the early 1900s in the city of Bareilly, India, where its ideology is rooted." From there, no further mention is made of the term's background.
• The second merely features a footnote in which the author states her preference for using Barelvi and Ahle Sunnat interchangeably, but she does note that: "They are often referred to as Barelvi."
• The third is a not only a Wikipedia mirror, but is a copy-paste of my own very edits which I recognize. Those sections were deleted by ScholarM later, some of them in sections irrelevant to the dispute, but I'm just making the point that the source is not only unreliable but also based on my own work which already confirms the versions of the section I support in this instance.

As we can see above, none of the sources Youbat posted here - or which ScholarM posted above - denote the term Barelvi as being a slur or pejorative, and in fact, all of them confirm that the most commonly used term for the movement is Barelvi and not Ahle Sunnat. I hope I've responded appropriately to your first two inquiries. All are free to correct me if I've used any unfair terms or diction. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright page confirms your "third" link came from Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I am using those link to prove the article's original name as wikipedia is continuously facing the edit warring on the etymology section of the article. As far as inclusion of those reliable sources in the article it can be done anytime. I think MezzoMezzo must need to read my first reference/link carefully instead of just skimming it here which is pointing to a book name "Indentured Muslims in the Diaspora: Identity and Belonging of Minority ... " which is a reliable source clearly mentioning "the term Barelvi was a reaction to opposition Deobandi movement" and founder and its followers used the term Ahlesunnat wal jamaat .

My second link/reference is quite clear and needs no further explanation

MezzoMezzo may be correct regarding the third link that the book "Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion" by Mahboob Illahi may be a Wikipedia:Mirror. but again they have not prove their claim by giving necessary evidences.

and here another link to the book by reliable author Usha Sanyal "The movement was seen as Barelvi by others". Youbat (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th link from [MEMRI] saying Barelvi calls themselves as Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat.

UserJohnuniq seventh link here pointing to "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam edited by John L. Esposito". Page no 10, mentions " Ahl al Sunnah wa'l Jamaah" peoples of the Prophet way and the community also known as Barelvi or Barelwis. Founded in Northen India in 188os based on the writings of Mewlana Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi.

again in my sixth link pointing to the book The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies

Book by Muhammad Moj the word Barelvi and Ahle Sunnat wal jamaat was interchangeably used.

so if any editor (even with little knowledge of editing Wikipedia) will go through the mentioned links above by me carefully can easily conclude that Barelvi is a perjorative term for the movement, so the article must be moved to its correct title/location instead of present one (Which is misleading). Youbat (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2021 :(UTC)

UserJohnuniq, It sounds good that you have at least tried to read the references/links, But mentioning that I have not only provide a single link but six links and all from reliable sources, hope you will take more efforts to read them carefully. 04:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Barelvi' is a derogatory term created by opposition groups of Ahle-Sunnat movement. This gives an impression to general Muslims that 'Barelvi' is a new religion or sect and some thing other than main stream Sunni Muslims.

• 1. Foremost opposition group of Ahle Sunnat movement are Deobandis. Their leader Hussain Ahmed Madani wrote a book 'Ash shihab us Saqib' in 1979 published by Darul Qutub, Lahore, Pakistan. He used Barelvi term in his book Ash Shihab us Saqib several time in a derogatory way and criticized this movement.
• 2. Talibani Deobandi Nizamuddin Shamzai wrote (Mirror to Barelwis) written by Anwar Hussain and published by Maktaba Islahe Millat, Karachi, Pakistan.
• 3. Ehsan Elahi Zaheer in 1983 wrote [1] to criticize this movement.
• 4. [ https://www.scribd.com/document/36571522/Tohfa-e-Barelviyat Tohfa-e-Barelviat Gift of Barelvism] by Matiurrahman published by Gilani Academy Karachi.
• 5. Mutala-e-Barelviyat (Study of Barelvism) by Khalid Mahmood published at Darul Uloom, Deoband.

• These title and content in these books is written with the term 'Barelvi' to portray the movement as something new and different from Sunni Islam. This was an attempt by their adversaries to denounce them by giving them a new identity. It has been opposed by the Sunni Muslims of Ahle Sunnat Movement. They maintains that their movement is not something called Barelvi but Ahle Sunnat Movement. As written above (In some source section) all their organisations and Institutions carry Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat or Sunni titles. Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan Qadri former Grand Mufti of India specifically told in an interview that We are not Barelvis but Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah. Qadri explained that we are called Barelvis by our adversaries.page 26-28

• Another argument is that Wikipedia has articles about Islamic movements by the terms they use in their literature and in public discourse. It has no articles about movements with the pejoratives or with the derogatory terms.
• Wahabism in India has movement named Ahle Hadith. The movement calls themselves Ahle Hadith and they have a proper article about their movement but their adversaries continue to call them Wahabi.

• Likewise, the people known as Ahmadi are called Qadianis by their adversaries. They are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, a village in the Punjab, India. They are called Qadianis in derogatory manner by their opposition groups. The article about their movement is known by the official name of that movement. Read its etymology section. Ehsan Ilahi Zahir, who wrote book Barelviah against Ahle Sunnat Movement, also wrote a book against Ahmadis, titled 'Qadiani'.

Above movements are reflected by their literary names at Wikipedia not by the pejoratives of their adversaries. Therefore, it will be justifiable to correct this article title to Ahle Sunnat Movement and later its etymology section.

• Reliable researches have used Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah (Adherents to the Sunnah and the community) or Ahle Sunnat movement in their books/Journals/Papers because it gives a clear picture about this movement. It expresses the ideology of this movement.
• The Ahle Sunnat Movement is covered by only few researches. Prof. Usha Sanyal is one of such notable researchers who has written extensively. Her research about AHL-I SUNNAT MADRASAS and this movement is also notable.
• Recent Research, 'Syncretic Islam : Life and Times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi' by Anil Maheshwari, Richa Singh · 2021

Chapter 6 with the title Ahl-e-Sunnat: Energising Faith in Rough Times

• Religion Data base definition about Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah.
• Research on, 'The Role of Ahle Sunnat Wa Jamaat (Barelvi/Sufi School) in the Creation of Pakistan'.
• The term Barelvi (which is taken from the home town Bareilly of its main leader) does not gives a clear picture about the movement. Its like New Yorker or Londonites which is not helpful for an Islamic movement. Neither it is Arabic word nor it is meaningful in any sense except that residents of this city are also known as Barelvi see Wasim Barelvi.
• Another problem created by the forced use of this derogatory Barelvi term is that Scholars and Organisation about which the 'Barelvi' term is not used by reliable sources, they can't be added to this page or in the template of this article. Though they may be part of Ahle Sunnat Movement or its associations. See edit dispute about Indian Grand Mufti from the template of this article because hardly any source mentioned him with that derogatory term though he is very much leader of Ahle Sunnat Movement as mentioned in his article. The scholars/literature and organisations of Ahle Sunnat Movement never identifies with that term so it becomes practically difficult to include those scholars/Organisations/books. Therefore, in order to present neutrality and to avoid future disputes also Ahle Sunnat term should be used in the title of this article. ScholarM (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the walls of text but I wanted to start by understanding the first sentence at Barelvi#Etymology with the oxfordreference source that supports it. May I ask a simple question: does anyone think that source supports that sentence? If so, why? That is, what words in the source support what words in the first sentence? If not, why was the sentence/source added? Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq I think the problem which you are facing while understanding due to the the use of term "Barelvis" there in the reference, but please read further what author discuss is "Founded in 188os in northern India. Based on the writings of the Mewlana Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi." Which is a clear explanation that the movement Barelvis is nothing but the movement of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi or Barelvi. Hope this helps and I will also recommend you to read all the above mentioned sources by me and ScholarM thoroughly for better understanding. Also if you are satifsied with the above mentioned sources then kindly move this article to its correct location as mentioned above. Thanks. Youbat (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence at Barelvi#Etymology includes "Qadri". What is that and how does it relate to the "Barelwi" in the source? Is there a Wikipedia article on that person? Please don't mention anything apart from the core disagreement which I am attempting to summarize. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:johnuniq, Yes Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Qadri is the same person Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, I think you must read his article now on Wikipedia to confirm whether he is Qadri or not as it is clearly mentioned there. I also want to make clear "Qadri" is the sufi order of the movement's founder Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi so ScholarM might have used his name along with his Sufi order. Hope this helps. Youbat (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, that source supports that sentence in general. The dispute was more about whether or not the section reflects the body of all RS accurately, hence my restoration of the original community-drafted version from 2013. I don't think there's a strong disagreement about what's specifically in that first source, to focus on your question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, initially, you asked for disagreement with the sources. I have elaborated differences. The pejorative is forced upon this article and in all sections. Almost all researches proved that it is Ahle Sunnat Movement. Therefore, the etymology should reflect the origin and history of Ahle Sunnat Movement. The movement is not shown here with actual title of this movement or with its full name. The etymology section will naturally discuss about origin and history of that pejorative 'Barelvi' only. That is cutting the strength and scope of the movement and making it some thing new or ambiguous. That is exactly the propaganda of its opposition that it is not Ahle Sunnat Movement which is also reflected here in this article. Later, you asked for the sources for this pejorative term. I gave those sources. Now your questions are different to which i will respond. ScholarM (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but everyone replying here should be addressing my "simple question" and I cannot understand why people keep padding out replies with advice and other issues. If you want to do that, put it in a separate section so we can move towards resolving at least the simple question. Regarding that, the source does not verify the first sentence because, as is obvious from the replies here, extra information is required in order to interpret the source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies, User:Johnuniq. I've reviewed my own replies here and realized that I've contributed to that by typing too much irrelevant content in my replies; I'll reconsider my approach and proofread all replies from now on. For the time being, what's the next step? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Johnuniq extra info was needed to interpret that source. But now I have self reverted my own edit there, per the source, let me know if there is any other problem there so that it can be solved/improved. Youbat (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq just checking on the current status of this. Will you still be assisting, or should we move on to an RFC per your first comment? All the best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been caught up elsewhere. I would like to spend more time establishing the basis for disagreements before moving to an RfC because it's very likely that a complex or vague RfC would not assist.

The first sentence is still not right—for example, it refers to "Mawlana Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi" (Ahmed with an e; Raza with an a; Barelwi with a w) with no wikilink, while a short while later we see "Ahmad Raza Khan" (Ahmad with an a) which is a redirect to Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (Barelvi with a v). The source spells the name as "Mawlana Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi". The spelling is just a transliteration into English and so will be spelled differently in different sources, but isn't it obvious that Wikipedia should use a consistent spelling? The replies to my questions say that that the two names refer to the same person so ideally there would be a note somewhere explaining what happened to "Mawlana".

There are other hurdles in the text but I might ask about a more significant issue soon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for an apology, User:Johnuniq; I don't envy your position and just wanted to check on progress.

User:ScholarM, please STOP with the contested edits you're doing. Until now, you're still inserting claims into this article of Barelvis being the only Sunnis in South Asia as you did here. You and Youbat know very well that this claim of exclusivity is the crux of the entire content dispute, and you should stop now while the process of mediation is still ongoing as a sign of goodwill. You're essentially creating more work for all of us, including yourself, because all of those contentious claims will eventually need to be checked. This goes even double when you're inserting claims, all of which fail verification, which directly contradict the sourced edits of mine which the two of you reverted to keep out of the article:

• You inserted a claim of Barelvis (using the term "Sunnis") oppose terrorism which is fine, yet you deleted the entire section on the Barelvi movement's ties to terrorism at the lower part of this reversion
• You inserted a claim that relations with other Sunni groups are strained, yet you removed evidence of the Barelvis declaring those groups to be outright apostates (same link as above, also the lower part)

Please stop editing in this way now; notice that I also stopped once we had an uninvolved person helping us to talk this over. This doesn't give the appearance of good faith editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MezzoMezzo, I did not touch etymology section and other parts which you mentioned after this discussion started. I just added information in the heads of various countries with reliable sources. The term added by me in South Africa head was based on source though i added Barelvi with that term after your objection. I never meant in any discussion that Sunni means only Ahle Sunnat Barelvi, please don't accuse me of that which i have not stated. I meant that this movement is known as Ahle Sunnat Movement or Ahle Sunnat Barelvi Movement. There may be other movements which can call themselves Ahle Sunnat, i don't object their nomenclature or their use of the term. For example- people who are commonly known as Wahabis have many literary terminologies such as Salafi, Muhaddithun, Ahle Hadith or Najdi. They also count themselves among Sunnis though non Salafi Sunnis reject their use of Sunni terminology. I have added some images which are relevant and related to the article so it may be counted as good article. I hope you will also like it. ScholarM (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScholarM, please stop taking this as a point-by-point debate and listen to me. What I'm writing now will save both me and you a lot of time down the road.

Every edit you're making now will be checked eventually. I have to because of the clear problems with accuracy and true representation of RS you have. Take a look at the summary you left for this edit which I chose at random:

"Added Barelvi with Sunni as per talk, though the source has only Ahle Sunnat or Sunni"

Well, ScholarM, I checked the cited source by Patrick Eisenlohr and found out that your claim in the edit summary simply isn't true. At the bottom of page 400 and the top of page 401, the author writes:

"The Ahl-e Sunnat, also known in South Asia as the Barelwi tradition, is one of the reformist traditions which emerged in in nineteenth-century Indian Islam. In contrast to other, more familiar reformist traditions of Indian Islam, such as the school of Deoband, the Ahl-e Sunnat is known for its great emphasis on practices of intercession (Sanyal 1996)."

So your claim in the edit summary that the source "has only Ahle Sunnat or Sunni" is clearly false and paints an inaccurate picture of the state of reliable sources, especially when we realize that Eisenlohr is merely quoting Sanyal, who isn't representative of the wider religious scholarship and media coverage of South Asian religion.

That is why I'm asking you to stop. I picked one of your edits at random, ran a verification check, and already found that your summary was inaccurate and thus your characterization of your edit as some sort of a compromise is also incorrect. And for every other edit you're doing, based on your recent history both here and on other articles where you've gotten into trouble, I'm going to have to run verification checks. If you think that my perception is wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, and meeting my request that you stop editing during a third pair of eyes from an uninvolved admin would be a real, actual form of compromise and a great sign of goodwill. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though, the sources confirms my argument that Ahle Sunnat is actual terms used by almost all academicians and researchers. That was this source of which i saw snippet view and used Ahle Sunnat term while editing and added this source which also used Ahle Sunnat and Barelwi term both. Both sources confirms my arguments that movement is written as Ahle Sunnat by various academicians having presence in various countries. You have talked about compromise let's see it how it can be arrived at ? ScholarM (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute User:ScholarM, you didn't even READ the source? You just looked at a snippet view in a search engine? Then that means you don't truly know what it confirms or doesn't confirm! This type of behavior doesn't even conform to the content guideline on citing sources; check WP:SAYWHERE and note that you should actually read the sources you cite.

This is why I'm asking you to stop editing while we wait for the admin to return. That's the compromise. I picked one edit of yours at random, found that it failed the verifiability check, and now you're telling me that you didn't even read the entire source. THIS is what I'm talking about when I say that you're creating more work for us all; we don't even need to get into WP:UBO and what RS confirm as the movement's name because you haven't read the RS in one single edit I chose to look at as a test.

Coupled with the fact that you just got caught with mass Wikipedia:Copyright violations on other articles, and that you even admitted to doing so, the true compromise here is that you STOP EDITING THIS ARTICLE. I can't be clearer than this; there's an issue with your edits, and it's not personal, but it will require a lot of hours spent on the part of me and other community members. Please show goodwill and stop editing for now. Is my request for a compromise clear now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MezzoMezzo, every time and ever where the JSTOR subscription is not available. The paper was not open to download. Later i could download it to read completely. I have given here several sources after properly reading in various languages and those sources supports my arguments and stand of other editors that Ahle Sunnat is a most used term by ACADEMICIANS along with Barelvi. The Barelvi is pejorative term as used by Deobandi scholars in their books. I am not touching the etymology section and also waiting the outcome of this discussion.

In his book, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat' published by Darul Qalam, Delhi authored by Allama Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi at page number 128, discuss how Deobandi sect calls Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat by this term and this pejorative term is rejected by scholars of Ahle Sunnat. He quoted a Fatwa of famous scholar Mustafa Raza Khan where Mustafa Raza told that 'Wahabi and Deobandis call traditional Sunnis as Barelvis but Sunnis must not accept this new term for them. They should reject it. ScholarM (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScholarM, you appear to have stopped editing the article for the time being; am I correct to understand that?

I don't know why you keep changing the subject and arguing. I made a simple request based on problems with your editing; failed verification is a problem, not simply a difference of opinion. You seem to have fulfilled that request after my above post. Further argumentation about the efficacy of your and my claims isn't needed nor was it the point; the point was my request based on legitimate problems. If you're willing to fulfill my request on a voluntary and gentlemanly basis, then there's no need for you to continue pushing the point. Just wait for the admin input and, until then, you and I can both go edit other things. This isn't a point-by-point argument, as I've mentioned before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per User_talk:ScholarM#Blocked, ScholarM has been blocked for breaching a topic ban on editing any articles about Islam and India/Pakistan. The topic ban is indefinite and was placed over a year ago, meaning that none of the above content disputes should have even occurred. Considering that the topic ban was for repeated disruptive editing and POV pushing on these topics, and coupled with the clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior in the discussion above, I'll be amending this article based on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and what can actually be verified. This will include:

• Changing all references to the article's subject as simply "Barelvi," which is the movement's most common name in all media and scholarship;
• Amending the etymology section to reflect the actual etymology of the term rather than one user's theological arguments;
• A long-term verification check on the numerous edits which ScholarM made to the article in breach of the topic ban; and
• The reversion of any other material which appears to be pushing a theological POV rather than simply providing a neutral encyclopedic description of the movement.
  

I don't expect this to be a fast process, but it's worthwhile given the long history of content disputes on this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While copyediting the article I saw the same content repeated in Persecution Section which states

During the 1990s and 2000s, sporadic violence resulted from disputes between Barelvis and Deobandis over control of Pakistani mosques.[236] The conflict came to a head in May 2001, when sectarian riots broke out after the assassination of Sunni Tehreek leader Saleem Qadri.[168] In April 2006 in Karachi, a bomb attack on a Barelvi gathering celebrating Muhammad's birthday killed 57 people, including several Sunni Tehreek leaders.[237][238] Sunni Tehreek activists attempted to seize a Karachi mosque in April 2007, opening fire on the mosque and its worshipers; one person was killed and three were injured.[239] Militants believed to be affiliated with the Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba attacked Barelvis celebrating Mawlid in Faisalabad and Dera Ismail Khan on 27 February 2010, sparking tensions between the groups.[240]

The similar content was seen in the section Sectarian Violence which states

 During the 1990s and 2000s, sporadic violence resulted from disputes between Barelvis and Deobandis over control of Pakistani mosques.[236] The conflict came to a head in May 2001, when sectarian riots broke out after the assassination of Sunni Tehreek leader Saleem Qadri.[168] In April 2006 in Karachi, a bomb attack on a Barelvi gathering celebrating Muhammad's birthday killed 57 people, including several Sunni Tehreek leaders.[237][238] Sunni Tehreek activists attempted to seize a Karachi mosque in April 2007, opening fire on the mosque and its worshipers; one person was killed and three were injured.[239] Militants believed to be affiliated with the Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba attacked Barelvis celebrating Mawlid in Faisalabad and Dera Ismail Khan on 27 February 2010, sparking tensions between the groups. 

So I am removing the duplicate section of secterian violence. Youbat (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While doing further copyediting, I found further Duplicate Section, which were Barelvi#Stand_on_blasphemy_laws_2 and Barelvi#Stand_on_blasphemy_laws so I am retaining one of the section and removing the other duplicate section. Youbat (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even when trying to put on an air of being neutral, your attempts at pushing sectarian POV is obvious. Although I wouldn't normally reply to a sock/meat puppet, this is a teachable moment.

Yes, the content was duplicated in the edits that ScholarM/Youbat/whatever you want to call yourself added later. This was clearly for a reason. The version of the content which you copy-pasted was added into the "persecution" section designed to portray the Barelvi movement solely as a sort of pacifist victim group. Barelvis have been victims at times, but they've also been perpetrators, just like other Muslim groups. The section from which you copied the content - and from which it was originally written around 2013 - was the "Sectarian violence" section which contained evidence of Barelvis also victimizing others.

Specifically, you removed the following well-sourced text:

• "Analysts and journalists have conflicting opinions about the underlying nature of Barelvi. Some describe the movement as moderate and peaceful" (cited by four reliable sources)
• "others describe it as affected by intolerance and radicalism, similar to other regional Islamic movements." (cited by five reliable sources)

The intention is clear: to remove any material at all which appears unflattering to the movement. Just like the case with User:Msoamu a decade ago, User:ScholarM/User:Youbat/whatever name they'll use next have a bias so unbelievably strong that it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Because they came to Wikipedia only to promote their own ideas, they think that anybody opposing them must have opposite ideas; the notion of people editing without agendas or biases is an alien concept. That's why we see all the personal attacks against me, against the admin who finally blocked them for topic ban violations, the insinuations that their opponents hate Barelvis, and so forth.

I don't expect anyone to portray the above as a serious or legitimate dispute; it's merely a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Users may see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScholarM for the whole fiasco as to why I'm reverting the entirety of all ScholarM's/Youbat's illicit edits at once. I won't be considering them at all as they shouldn't have been made in the first place per the topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I've already reached the limit of my patience for the day. Good Lord, there's a ton of work that needs to be done. Much of the article isn't even written in proper English anymore. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudiced edits removed. 185.96.163.173 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to take a long time. Every line seems to have been edited, against what's actually in the sources, in order to conform to the topic-banned user's own peculiar POV. Every section I chose to look at today failed verification checks in ways which pointed toward the same tendentious, sectarian language. The history section needs a serious look over because right now, it isn't even about the history of this movement. It seems tailored to deny Ahmed Raza Khan's seminal role, deny connection to the town Bareilly, and claim descent from clerics who were already dead at the time of the Barelvi movement's founding. MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started going through the history and already noticed some serious funny business in there. The Barelvi movement was founded by Ahmed Raza Khan in the 1880s by unanimous consensus of all reliable sources. However, much of the history section focuses on unrelated religious events predating the movement's founding (and even Khan's birth) anywhere from a few decades to over a hundred years. I'm not joking.
Quite often, religious revival movements appeal to "the good old days" and some sort of aggrandized past, and that should certainly be made clear as a belief of the Barelvi movement if RS can be found establishing that they hold this belief. That absolutely can't be presented as objective historical fact, however, and as of right now, I have no evidence that it's anything other than the personal belief of the topic banned individual who used this article as a pulpit for the past few months. I'll see if some of that material can be selectively merged into other articles, but if unrelated materials about whatever happened in the 1700s can't be moved anywhere, then I'll just delete it as one quirky editor's personal essay. The history section of this article should be about the history of the article's subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest adding a section for criticism at the end of the article, because I think this will help reduce bias and improve neutrality by presenting multiple points of view on the topic.--TheEagle107 (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheEagle107, that could be done, in theory. It's certainly a delicate topic, but I think such sections exists on other movements within both Islam and other religions. Do you have any potential structures for such a section in mind? Or maybe a similar article with a fair criticism section as a good model? MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section but read it carefully including "if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole". Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my knowledge is limited on this topic, which is obviously controversial, but all I know right now is that Ehsan Elahi Zaheer wrote a book that criticizes the Barelvis. The book examines their history, beliefs, and rituals in depth. You can download it in PDF from HERE. Actually, there are some editors here who probably can provide some help and can shed more light on this subject, and have a better knowledge of the details of this topic than I do. I'd like to tag @TheAafi:, @GorgeCustersSabre:, @Vice regent:, @Owais Al Qarni: Do you have any ideas or suggestions to improve the neutrality of this article? Thanks in advance.--TheEagle107 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to see some comments from the others. The wikilink which Johnuniq posted above is useful but also makes me cautious about such a section. For the record, there was a criticism section on this article up to 2019, if I'm not mistaken, but it seems to have been removed along with a lot of other material due to the mess in talk page sections above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not prevent the existence of a specific section for criticism, as long as it's written neutrally and briefly as possible, because there are indeed many (or at least several) articles that contain a section for criticism, but at the same time, criticism section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject! So it's preferable to integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole. I am just sharing my view on this point and hope to see other opinions soon. Good luck and all the best!--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through what appears to be a good source -- Syncretic Islam, the life and times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barlevi -- which starts chapter 6 with:
"It was through the 1870s and 1880s that the Ahl-e-Sunnat movement took shape in Bareilly";
while the publisher's blurb included the sentence:
"An Islamic scholar, jurist and an Urdu poet, Ahmad Raza Khan was the founder of the Barelvi movement whose defining feature of thought is the active veneration of the Prophet as the most exalted of all beings."

I propose the lede include Ahl-e-Sunnat and its first paragraph read:

Barelvi^[1][2][3][4] (Urdu: بَریلوِی, Barēlwī, Urdu pronunciation: [bəreːlʋi], also sometimes called Ahl-e-Sunnat or Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah) is a Sunni revivalist movement following the Hanafi and Shafi^[5] school of jurisprudence, with over 200 million followers in South Asia and in parts of Europe, America and Africa.^[6][7][8] It is a broad Sufi-oriented movement that encompasses a variety of Sufi orders, including the Chistis, Qadiris, Soharwardis and Naqshbandis.^[9] The movement drew inspiration from the Sufi doctrines of Shah Abdur Rahim (1644-1719) founder of Madrasah-i Rahimiyah and father of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi (1746 –1824) and Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi (1796 – 1861) founder of Khairabad School.^[10] --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there User:Louis P. Boog, and another disclosure for any other editors that I wasn't aware of who you were when you first posted here. Anyways, I'm drowning in tasks at work, hence my absence for a few days. I'll try to look over your research here during the next few days and then, I hope, log back in before the end of the week.

In the meantime, if you're so inclined and have a high tolerance for walls of text, perhaps you could look over past comments here on the obsession of a few accounts (mostly socks of each other) with naming/misnaming the movement:

• Talk:Barelvi#Duplicate_content_in_the_aricle
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive 7
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_6#Term_Barelvi_and_Ahle_sunnat
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_6#Rephrasing
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Propose_we_move_this_article_to_Barelvi
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Claim_to_term_"Ahle_Sunnat"
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Agree_with_Coercorash
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Change_in_etymology

There's already a bit of material on other sources there which could be synthesized with what you've found above. It also gives a bit of background info behind the previous discussion on this subject with certain other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarM contacted me 4 August by email via wikipedia, giving me his pitch about all the sources that support his case for changing the name of the article along with some flattery. I hope that doesn't violate any Wikipedia canvassing regulations. Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Louis P. Boog, thank you for the full disclosure. I do want to refer to User:Bishonen, User:RegentsPark, and User:Yamla before engaging in this. I respect your own efforts to research this, but I also don't want to engage if this is an extension of ScholarM's open attempts to violate the topic ban, both through contacting you and using the Youbat puppet. As you can see in the long discussions above, the user's bad faith behavior in this topic area caused many problems to the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Louis P. Boog. That is a very, very serious violation by ScholarM and so I have converted their one month block to an indefinite block. We simply cannot have ScholarM continue to act so blatantly inappropriately. Louis, I'll note that ScholarM attempted to use you as a sockpuppet, see WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]