Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Alawites/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Change from "Alawite" to "Alawi"

This change was recently made throughout the article, but it should be changed back, since Alawite is the English word, and this is the English Wikipedia, not Arabic. FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We call the Sunnis "Sunni", not "Sunnites"; we call them "the Shi'ah", not "Shi'ites", "Ismailis" not "Ismailites", "Alevis" not "Alevites", "Hanbalis" not "Hanbalites", "Shafi'is" not "Shafi'ites".
We should move the article instead if it's an issue, because the English translation "Alid" is not used as such (although the Persian pronunciation of Alavi does, in fact, refer to a decendant of 'Ali - an Alid). ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well yeh but the sect is more known as "Alawites" ,with "Alawi" being an adjective in Arabic and if used its used as "Alawi sect" if we are going to use the exact Arabic term its “Alawiyoon” (when used by itself and not followed by “Sect” or “school of thought” ), so if we are going to use the exact Arabic words then Sunni should be Sunnah and Ismailis as Ismailiah and that might be confusing for those who don’t know Arabic .You do have a point but I think we should use the most common English name. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 10:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, according to Wikipedia policies we have to use the most common English name, and that's "Alawites" with no question. Let's not over-exotify Muslims with all sorts of weird signs either. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, could you run the numbers for Alawite, Nusayri/Nosairi, and Alawi? I don't know how to run the search properly (the parameters) and I was frankly surprised Wikipedia didn't use Nusairi. Perhaps it's because I'm used to reading about them in French. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
What does "run the numbers" mean in this context? Sorry, English isn't my first language. Alawites don't use the word Nusayri for self-identification. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess she meant that we should use a search engine to see the occurrence of each word ??? If that what she meant, well I did that and yes "Alawi" is widely used though its hard to narrow down the search results to the Alawi (sect).Even though English is my second language and I'm not that good in linguistics but "Alawi" is in singular and if used it should be used as "Alawis" for example the phrase "‘Alawī practice religious secrecy" is similar to the phrase "Christian practice religious secrecy".Though many websites did use it in this way but it might sound weird for people who use Arabic as their native language.
I think a good Arabic comparison is Maronite since they are called after Saint John Maron as the Alawites are called after Imam Ali. But in English its more adequate to say Maronites rather than Maronis or Maroni.I guess the other names should be mentioned at the introduction as alternative names because they are not widely used as the name "Ash'ari" isn't widely used by Sunnis. « Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, search results would be misleading, since Alawi is also a last-name among other things. Alawites are sometimes referred to as "Alawis" in English, but mostly as Alawites. I haven't seen them referred to as "the Alawi" until now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant "check the search engines" because it also is a surname, used for the Alevis and Alavis, etc. Personally, I've only seen "the Alawi" and "Nosairis/Nusayris". It might be because I've encountered them in specialist literature, as I noticed in a few other places the use of "Alawite" (though not "Alawites"). I guess it just struck me as weird and unusual... as a native English speaker, it sounds wrong where something like "Alawism" sounds okay. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're reading older literature? Personally I don't really give a damn what word is used throughout, as long as it isn't Nusayri, but Wikipedia policy is to use the most frequent English word I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thing, Emily, I'm not sure it's a particularly good idea to have this talk page automatically archived, it's not a particularly active page, in fact it hardly ever changes, so a new section might not get a reply for several months, and by that time, it will already have been archived, and thus harder to find, and people won't be able to reply directly to it. But archiving manually is fine enough, of course, and most which was here already was old. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I am alawi and this page is full of LIES! and most of what you have tired to explain, is wrong, we believe Ali is the true successor but however you have to VERIFY~!! we do not believe he is the true successor in PROPHETHOOD!! only as chief of the aincent tribe back then .. and many other things are VERY wrong is this article .. all the Alawites i know hate this page because it tells lies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.159.229 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, then help improve the article and find some sources. My paternal family are Alawites, so I'm not exactly motivated to "spread lies" about them, if that's what you think. I just looked through the article, and a lot of the more unusual claims had no sources or had bad sources. I have removed those. Whether those claims were true or not is irrelevant, as long as they are not backed up by valid sources. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Not only is the spelling style changing, I think that it shows more respect to use the -i ending instead of the -id or -ite endings. The former endings sound contrived. Furthermore, they lend themselves to an air of objectification. In the case of the word "Shiite," it does not even look nice. By the way, it is a nice tip of the hat to use the accent mark ` to indicate the consonant `ayn, but since the articles are in English and are not translations of Arabic texts, it is not necessary to use the mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Could the sign before the word, which doesn't really add anything to normal people, at least be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be Alawi and not ‘Alawi, although at least the current form is typable with a regular keyboard. There is a terrible problem with Wikipedia Islam pages that keep getting renamed to forms using the technical Arabic transliteration - when a page is moved to, say, ‘Alawī, there's not a keyboard around that can type a macron. Ogress smash! 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also Alawi and I refute %80 of what's written there, *sigh* I can't really do anything about it since we're hated for all the wrong reasons. We DON'T have a trinity, we pray, fast and some of us do pilgrimage! What more proof do you want other than myself and my friends/family!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjabbour (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus It seems that the arguments are waited slightly towards keeping the article at 'Alawi, so the prior move will not be reversed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, "Alawite" is the most widely used term by far, so that's what the article should be called. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ for several reasons. First of all, while you and at least one other person have asserted that this is the "most widely used term", no specific convention or other proof of this is offered to back up this claim; therefore, this is merely your own subjective, personal understanding of how commonly a term is used. While I can understand why you would state this, in actual fact, even a cursory examination of the prevailing, current peer-reviewed academic literature will demonstrate that this particular usage is not only antiquated, it is no longer employed by most prominent scholars today. While it may persist (much as the term Shiite persists, which if enetered into Wiki, is automatically redirected to Shia Islam) there is no specific Wiki policy that demands that an antiquated English usage be the standard for a Wiki article. As I pointed out in my preliminary edits, the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopædia Iranica do not employ "Alawite" except in passing, but 'Alawī (or 'Alawi without the final accent mark on the letter "i", although admittedly, the articles in question do appear under the heading of "Nusayri": I fully agree with you that this latter should not be used for this article ). The current convention is also readily observed in most current academic articles and publications on this sect, for example those published in the Journal of the Middle East Studies Association and the Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies. Finally, the move is in no way an attempt to "over-exotify" this term (as you mentioned above), but simply an effort to term bring it in line with the proposed ALA-LC Arabic transliteration standard for ALL Arabic terms in articles in Wikipedia, which "is based on the ALA-LC Transliteration method, with a few simple changes that make it easier to manage and read". I might concede that the accent on the "i' could be dropped, but as it is now being used for Arabic terms in other articles, I think it's perfectly fine to employ it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)Jemiljan (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia prohibits the use of SPECIAL CHARACTERS. This page must be moved immediately to Alawi. ‘Alawī uses disallowed characters. Ogress smash! 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I have never read that Unicode UTF-8 characters characters are specifically prohibited in Wiki naming conventions. Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) for a list of prohibited characters. I do not find the accent used here listed among the prohibited characters, but perhaps I am overlooking it? If so, can you point this specific prohibition out? The fact that the ALA-LC transliteration standard for Arabic has been proposed for consistency in transliteration only would seem to support my point.Jemiljan (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I just found it: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic)"Avoid diacritics, dots, lines, or other unprintable character in page names for content pages (e.g. "ḍ"): page names should always be usable as hyperlinks, so, depending on browser/operating system/font/stylesheet combination the sign under the letter gets crossed and would be indiscernable". Thanks for alerting me to this issue.Jemiljan (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That page has been {{historic}} for almost two years. The browser problems which made those characters unprintable have mostly been worked around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia uses the most commonly used terms, so there's no real argument here. The article should be moved back to "Alawites", which is the term almost exclusively used today in English. The Druze article isn't named "Durzi" either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Funk Monk, You keep reiterating that "Alawite" is most commonly used, yet your provide no support whatsoever for this claim. Simply citing this as a vernacular precedent without supporting your position is not a very strong argument. It would also appear that I am not the first to argue this position here either. I have pointed to several to preeminent English-language publications in which the term 'Alawi is actually the more current, commonly accepted usage, which effectively contradicts your position that "Alawite" is "almost exclusively used today in English". As to your point about the Druze, you will find it used in most English language academic publications I referred employ that term, not "Daruzi" or "Durzi". I have pointed to several preeminent English-language publications that employ the term 'Alawi. Part of Wiki's goal is to cite credible sources. Would you like me to provide more? Some of the reasons that this usage persists is due to a combination of European colonial influence, as the French adopted the term, and the English continued using it. Secondly, Christian sects are often distinguished by the suffix ending "ite", e.g. Maronite, Malkite, etc etc, but these are official usages by the churches in question; that is not at all the case by Muslim sects. Yet when discussing Islamic sects and schools of jurisprudence in English, this antiquated style of usage has been long abandoned in favor of a more accurate transliteration, even though it may persist in vernacular usage in the former English and French colonies. For example, I mentioned the usage of the term Shiite, and similarly the terms "Shafite", "Hanafite", "Hanbalite", and "Malikite", or even "Jafarite" and "Wahhabite" have all fallen out of current use in favor of Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, and Ja'afari jurisprudence. If you enter Wahhabi, you are redirected to a page on Wahhabism. Note that the use of the suffix "ism" to designate a sect or school of though (e.g. Sufism) is still an accepted convention, but the practitioner of the sect is no longer commonly written with the suffix "ite" (e.g. a follower of Sufism is a Sufi, not a "Sufiite", nor is a followr of Wahhabism a "Wahhabite", but a Wahhabi) . It is for this reason that I oppose moving the article back to 'Alawite. Jemiljan (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not "some Iranian Lexicon", but a leading, primary reference source on the Persianate world for the last 35 years! Alawite is an antiquated term for an adherent of teh sect, along with the term Alawism for the sect itself. These are not at all uniformly practiced contemporary, common usage. The fact that Britannica uses the term "Alawite" is due to the fact that the article in question was first published in the late 19th century, and is simply an example of a holdover of an antiquated Victorian usage. Then it occurred to me, that this issue may be due to American and British English spelling differences. So, I checked the AP Stylebook, and sure enough, it only contains the term 'Alawi, not "Alawite", although it doesn't explicitly state that the latter cannot be used. While the latter may be an accepted usage in British media such as the BBC, and in Commonwealth countries, it is not an American standard by any means, and therefore not at all "common", "universal", or "correct" in English. It certainly is NOT the current usage favored by scholars on the topic as published in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (both the 2nd ed. and the initial entries in which it is mentioned that have been published so far in the 3rd ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica, the JAIS[1], theInternational Journal of Middle East Studies published by MESA, the Middle East Studies Association of North America, the Middle East Report published by MERIP, nor the Middle East Quarterly). In light of this, I will stick to my argument that Wiki articles should be updated to reflect current usage by scholars in the field, as well as current media usage, just as Shiite has been similarly updated to Shia, and anyone who types the former in Wiki is redirected to the latter. This view is supported in turn by the fact that it is the transliteration of the term that is primarily used in common Arabic to refer to the sect in question.Jemiljan (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait for a third opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a move (return) to Alawites first because this move should not have been made without consensus and the threshold for a move should be attained by those favouring ‘Alawi. Furthermore, as noted above, ‘Alawi, even in English, is an adjective form and we need a noun here. More importantly, a perfectly good English noun already exists for the subject (Alawites) so use it per WP:UE. The current title a half-aʃʃed transliteration; either use ‘Alawī or Alawi but not a mixture of both. — AjaxSmack 22:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
'Alawi is not adjective, as it is clearly refers to those who practice the 'Alawi faith. Used as noun in contemporary usage by scholars, just as the terms Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki refer to schools of jurisprudence. Shall those be reverted too? Furthermore, the acceptance of the term in all of the sources that I mentioned is as a noun, not an adjective. I have at least provided numerous sources to support my position. I cannot help it if others make unsupported statements that the term is an adjective. While I may have acted unilaterally in moving the article (for which I apologize), I would also point out that there was no real broad consensus reached in the previous comments above. Funk monk merely asserted that Alawite is the common usage, but provided no support for that position.Jemiljan (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I support 'Alawi. I never liked Alawites, it's exceedingly awkward and I've read quite a bit about the group and they rarely are known by that name by specialists. I note the most prominent book on the subject in English, Meʾir Mikhaʾel Bar-Asher & Aryeh Kofsky's 2002 The Nuṣayrī-ʻAlawī religion : an enquiry into its theology and liturgy, calls them "'Alawis". However, the move was made without consensus or even inquiry; moves often happen on smaller articles without inquiry but in this case, it was clearly unwarrented. The issue has even been discussed in the past! I say park it here for now until we get a new consensus, but I prefer a form without the -ites ending. "'Alawites" sucks IMHO. Ogress smash! 02:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Not liking a word is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
How about Ogress' observation that "they rarely are known by that name by specialists" followed by specific examples? Is there a specific Wikipedia precedent that says that we must use the suffix "ite" as it was once common usage? Again, I refer the example of how Shia has beomce current parlance instead of Shiite, which is also a more correct transliteration of Arabic.Jemiljan (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Alawi but lose the single quote to fit with naming conventions. I know jack-crap about this topic, but a cursory overview with webtools supports the argument that "Alawite" is an old Victorian-era term, with diminishing currency. The AP style book is what cinches it for me, with no mention of Alawite. This means no self-respecting news organization in the world uses "Alawite" except by rookie mistake or old custom. In fact, a Google News search reveals 2,220 hits for "Alawite" but 7,620 for "Alawi", more than three times the mention. Google Scholar is more impressive in the pro-Alawi sense: 1,250 "Alawite" vs 6,150 "Alawi", almost five times the mention. Before anyone protest using google in an argument, remember this is a quantitative, not a qualitative discussion, based on notability, and that I am not using the general search, but one that targets pre-approved news organizations, and peer-reviewed academic and scholarly articles. I do want to hear on what evidence does FunkMonk base his assertion of "Alawite" being more used, because it certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Cerejota, thanks. Is the use of the single quote as an accent acceptable according to naming conventions, as it is not outside of the parameters for naming conventions, as it falls within the ASCII set? Ex. Isma'il PashaJemiljan (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC).
  • Support a move to Alawites: Though Jemiljan ,Ogress and Cerejota supplied valid reasons why Alawi should be used but also Funkmonk did supply good reasons why to keep “Alawites”. And both names are used interchangeably. But I’m still convinced that Alawi is an adjective rather than a noun. Alawi alone without being followed by “sect” or “school” seems awkward if we want to consider the Arab usage of the word. So if we are going to use the Arab term then Sunni should be moved to Sunna to be similar to Shia because the adjacent term to Sunni is Shi’ii. And probably some Arab language enthusiast would get so pumped up about translating exact Arab names and move the Sunni page to “Ahl Al-Sunnah wal Jama’aa” the official name of the Sunni sect.
Yes, but Arabs also do use the term Sunni quite commonly, as well as the terms Shia. Tune into any Arabic language news report out of Iraq today, and you will hear them both.Jemiljan (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The –ite means the follower of and the Alawites are the followers of Imam Ali. So I don’t think it’s a big issue if we use the term Alawites. As for the terms Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki well yes that’s a valid usage because they refer to schools of jurisprudence. But Alawism is a religious sect rather than a school and the term Alawites can be used by itself rather than being followed by school or sect.
  • As for a prove that it’s widely used well this is one of the websites for the Alawite sect : http://www.alawites.org/
  • And Cerejota yes Alawi has more search results because it’s also related to the Alawi family which is a large one and its the family name of the Iraqi PM
  • Anyway I have no problem if Alawi is used ,but in the article it should be used with the word sect.

« Hiram111ΔTalK Δ 15:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiram, I'm fine with using Alawi sect and then Alawi for the adherent of the sect.
* Secondly, just to reiterate that the suffix "ite" was used for "Shiite" sect as well, and is also falling out of currency in favor of Shi'a, and Shi'i as an adjective describing the for an adherent of the Shia sect. There was no particular reason why the term was applied to both sect and schools of juriprudence. An Alawite is an adherent of the sect, NOT a term for the sect, which would be Alawism- a term that is used in the article right now.
* Thirdly, 'Alawi is any strictly adjective, but a nisba or Nesbat; a locative specifier, used not only for adherents of sects and schools, but also places. For example Urduni is Jordanian, Masri is Egyptian. These terms can refer to a dialect spoken in those countries, or a person whose origin is from that country. By comparison, when using the older terminology, an Alawite is a follower of Alawism. See the usage of Ismailism Therefore, your own argument that the term 'Alawi is an adjective, describing an adherent, then the article should be moved to Alawism, and not back Alawite. That said, I do agree with you that it is better to delineate the term 'Alawi sect" versus an Alawi(Arabic plural العلويين Alawiyeen) as someone who is an adherent of the sect. So if a move to 'Alawi sect you prove to be a satisfactory, compromise, I'm all for it, along with a disambiguation page for the surname, as well as the Yemeni dynasty. The Arabic Wiki does have a redirection page from ṭā'ifatul 'alawiya الطائفة العلوية literally means "Alawi sect" (although the main article in Arabic is actually Nuṣayriya نصيرية).
*Fourthly,the alawite.org link is not working for me. Just because one web site uses it, doesn't mean that it's "widely used" at all.
Finally, is there some compelling reason to not rely on the pervasive, contemporary scholarly usage, the same usage found in current sources cited as references for this article?. Wikipedia may state that articles be named for common usage, but there is also an emphasis on INFORMED, i.e. current scholarly usage. Again, I have cited numerous examples of primary sources that could be used for this article on this very topic, which do not employ the terms Alawism and Alawite.Jemiljan (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move to Alawite as common usage.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on which precedent, exactly? Like I've asked of Funk Monk, we need to cite a precedent for this, not simply state that it is "common". You also need to show that this usage is common not only in conventional language, but primary sources on this topic. Is the common, predominant usage of 'Alawi among Western scholars and specialists in the region somehow inapplicable for some particular reason? Secondly, should the article be about the adherents of the sect, or the sect itself? If the latter, then the antiquated usage was 'Alawism, whereas the adherent was referred to as an 'AlawiteJemiljan (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Alawites are almost exclusively referred to as such in recent English-language news. That should be easy to research. Also, see the Britannica article, which uses "Alawites". FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't beleive you for the simple fact that the AP Stylebook lists the term as `Alawi, not Alawite. As I previously pointed out, US media in no way exclusively uses Alawite, as they follow AP. While specifically British news services (i.e. BBC) do employ the term Alawite, it is neither universal, nor is it any longer "exclusive", much less "most common". Also, as Hiram has pointed out, the term should describe the sect, not the adherents. As an Alawite is a term for the adherents of the sect, not the name of the sect itself, then it should either be entitled "`Alawi sect" or "Alawism"Jemiljan (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


121.214.102.56 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC) i agree i think we should leave it as Alawi. There is no such thing as an "english" for the word alawi. The word is 3alawi people should stop having a sook and deal with it.

FunkMonk that is the problem i dont know if you know how to speak internet arabic? bas ma 7a hie l din l 3alawi sir, w l 3alem lezem efarjona e7tiram b nesbit 7al article, fi aghlat ktir. In other words, the Alawi deligion is secret, you should respect that and if you say your parternal parents are alawi well i am sure that your father, your grandfather, and your great great great grandfather would be very very upset, in concern to this artilce. If have to understand we are not liked very much, and other muslims on the internet sometimes create websites if information that is allegedly meant to be about the "alawi faith" when in actual fact its what THEY think we believe, and dislike us so much, then wikipedia uses there websites as "sources" to apparently justify that what is written here is right, and then as a result you end up with a lot of upset alawi people when they see this page. Thus you must source your information from Shia orientate websites. Translate it from arabic to english if you can. Take care In my opinon i think the article should just be deleted because there is no way you will be able to find sources on the net that are correct. I have looked myself in arabic and english.

+++I'm "Alawi" and I take offence to being called an "Alawite" don't you people have morals or at least some respect for how we want a page that talks about us to be!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjabbour (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Other Alawites (Padrinio of the Eid family for example) supported "Alawite" here as well before, so there is no agreement among Alawites. Most Alawites in English speaking countries live in Australia, and Alawite seems to be the common name there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Notation of ibn Saba as an 'Alawi founder

The inclusion of ibn Saba is very charged... while Nusayr is a known historical figure after whom the 'Alawi are named (they are called Nusayri after him), ibn Saba is one of those historically unclear personages who has been used by Sunnis for sectarian reasons. In fact, Wikipedia's article on ibn Saba notes that Shi'ah and indeed many modern Sunni scholars deny he even existed. He is blamed for "Judaising" the faith (he was a convert from Judaism) by claiming 'Ali was the Messiah. I don't believe his addition here is warranted without significant citation. Ogress smash! 16:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus on whether or where to move this article. -- Aervanath (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  • if that is the reason, oppose. From WP:UE "Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used." Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me... Jasy jatere (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Modified request

Please review the discussion above and participate in further discussion in favor of options below.

‘Alawi (current title)

  • keep for the moment until someone addresses the arguments brought forward by Jemiljan in the last discussion. We cannot have the same discussion every three months and ignore what has been said in previous discussions. I am likely to change my vote if someone brings forward sources for their claims that "Alawite" is more common nowadays. As it is now, it seems that "Alawite" is a Victorian term, which has little current usage in the relevant literature. As such, it is a bad title for a wp article. Claims "Alawite is the most common term" need to be substantiated by reliable sources. For the current name, we have the AP stylebook, for "Alawites", we have nothing Jasy jatere (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you Jasy, but I will say that the BBC does use the term ""Alawite", and other English media that follows the BBC standard does the same, but the AP, and news agencies who follow the AP style, do not. this boils down to a Brit v. US convention. That said, an overwhelming amount of current prevailing literature ranging from peer-reviewed journals on Middle East Studies, Encyclopædia references, and the general trend of favoring a transliterated form of 'Alawi over the older Franco- Anglicized form of "Alawite" leads me to think that the former is more acceptable today. You almost never hear anyone refer to a Sunni Muslim as a "Sunnite" today. While the Melkite church uses the -ite suffix today, but I do not see any official 'Alawi body stipulating that the term "alawite" be used in English.Jemiljan (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alawites

  1. — AjaxSmack 00:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC) per WP:UE and WP:UCN.
  • comment please see prior move request above, which was closed as "No consensus It seems that the arguments are waited slightly towards keeping the article at 'Alawi," I feel that the arguments made in the above discussion should at least be considered before making the same request again (and before voting, of course).
  • Again, whenever Alawites are mentioned in the news, they're referred to as such. That's their common name, what they're called in literature should be irrelevant, as it is not what they are called commonly. I can't prove it to someone who doesn't follow news related to Alawites, such as I do. In any case, the current name should be changed, even if only the ' is removed, since the saign is cetainly not part of any common spelling of the word. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
FunkMonk, if "Alawites are mentioned in the news, they're referred to as such", then why have you routinely been unable to support your claim with a shred of evidence? In contrast, I showed before how the BBC seems to prefer "Alawite", but another standard news reference, the AP Stylebook, specifically stipulates the usage of 'Alawi in US media (and those who follow the style, such as CNN International). As I noted before, "Alawite" is in no way universally accepted as the only correct common English spelling, nor is there any stated preference for British English spellings on WP.
Previously, I also pointed to many examples by other scholars and encyclopedias. This is not irrelevant as you say, but rather, quite the opposite, as WP promotes the verification of information in peer-reviewed scholarly literature. While spelling choices in Wikipedia should generally be made accessible in common English, the fact that an overwhelming number of CURRENT encyclopedias, scholarly journals, and media references in use today employ the term 'Alawi, and not 'Alawite, which is something that should be acknowledged when editing articles in WP.Jemiljan (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alawi

Support Ogress smash! 01:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

since wikipedia is not a democracy, substantiating your vote with arguments would surely improve the discussion. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Other (Alawis, etc.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Comment: I do not think our article names should be decided solely on the basis of academic usage: we are optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. Hiram has answered the arguments for the present name in detail above. I therefore do not find the arguments for the present name convincing, and think the unilateral move which brought the article here should be reversed, and we can then relax into "no consensus" if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree but it requires an admin to do it. The current setup rewards undiscussed moves and the unaccountable admins are unwilling to institute any type of oversight or appeals process. I will ask for an overturning of the original undiscussed move here but I don't expect any action on it. — AjaxSmack 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree, the article was moved without even a notice on the talk page, without any form of consenus, so it should be moved back to "Alawites" in any case, until a new consensus is reached. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I respectfully disagree. Septentrionalis, the usage of the spelling `Alawi is not solely an academic usage at all, but also a media usage as specifically stipulated in the AP Stylebook used in all US news media. Secondly, it also follows both the standards as outlined under the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, and also the proposed Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic). Are these merely "academic usages"? Or are they standards empployed for editing WP articles? Note that in this regard, the usage of the term `Alawi- together with the apostrophe to represent the letter `ayn- is perfectly allowable, as it is listed on the chart comparing standard and strict transliteration standards. By way of comparison, note that English articles with Spanish terms using the letter ñ can be found; for example, El Niño, or the letter ç with a cedilla as can be seen in an article on the Provençal (dialect), so the use of special characters to represent these sounds is in no way entirely banned in WP articles.
        • On the other hand, if there is a consensus that the apostrophe is too cumbersome, I would be OK with removing it. That said, I would not support the move back to 'Alawite" based solely on the current usage by the BBC and a small handful of associated news agencies, and Funk Monk's oft-repeated, albeit unsubstantiated claim that it is "used all the time". If current encyclopedias, peer-reviewed academic journals on Middle Eastern Studies of the last 30 years, and US media, and even this recent United Nations publication all employ the term Alawi, and do not use the term "Alawite", then it seems there is in fact a very strong case for keeping it the article the way it currently is.
        • Interestingly enough, just now, I checked the Oxford English Dictionary online and found that it uses BOTH terms , citing various sources for both usages (though it shows that "Alawi" has been used by The Times of London since the 1920's and it also appears in more recent literature and news reports). The two terms then redirect to each other. Britannica uses the term `Alawite -with the apostrophe- but then, confusingly enough, then uses the term 'Alawi in the body of the article: "Though well established in Syria since the 12th century, the 'Alawites were not able to fully adopt the name 'Alawi until 1920, the time of French occupation of the area..." I suspect that the usage of `Alawite in this instance is a holdover from earlier editions. Just now I also checked the Grolier and Worldbook encyclopedias, but they only employ the term Alawite in a passing reference to the late Hafez al-Assad, but have no actual articles devoted to the sect in question. In contrast, the Encyclopedia Judaica uses Alawi in their entry about him. Finally, should we just overlook all of the articles cited as the sources for this WP entry, the majority of which clearly use Alawi?Jemiljan (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jemiljan has done quite thorough work on sourcing. Would the proponents of "Alawites" please do the same, in a similarly rigid fashion? Then we can compare the usage of verifiable and reliable sources. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, even if we didn't find other sources, it should still be moved back, because it was moved without consensus in the first place. Why can't this article be moved over redirects?
The word "Alawite" is used most frequently on websistes where the group is commonly mentioned, such as Syriacomment and other Middle East related sites in English. When it comes to general news, writers are much less consequential. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
FunkMonk, for the umpteenth time, you insist that in your view, the term "Alawite is the most common usage", but despite repeated requests over the many months, you have yet to do any thorough sourcing, despite having been repeatedly asked to do so. Once again, I reply that as per my previous message, I have found quite otherwise, and the use "Alawite" is NOT as pervasive or commonly accepted as you insist on claiming. For proof of this, please refer to my previous message, esp. concerning the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic), Oxford English Dictionary, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, AP Stylebook, and The Times of London (including their Middle East edition) for commonly accepted written usage of the term 'Alawi in English. In addition, Jasy jatere has also asked you to provide thorough sourcing for your assertion. So please, before you take the time to post your sassertion again, take a few minutes and provide us with sources that support your assertion.Jemiljan (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

121.214.102.56 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC) i request that we make a chat area to allow fellow alawiyeh to be able to chat with one another :) 121.214.102.56 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so founders of the alawi faith were Al Imam Hassan l A3skari (3alyo bl salam) and Imam Mohummad Nysari (3alyo bl Salam)

"Alawite" is consistently used when talking about their seat in the Lebanese governemnt. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Throughout this whole Syrian revolution period, "Alawite" has been used in every article I've read on the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alawis allegedly Ismailis

The cite from that military info site is just so wrong... Alawis, as cited elsewhere in our article, are 12ers, are accepted by Allamahs as 12ers, and any resemblance to Ismailism is accidental. Not to mention that Ismailis don't believe in "reincarnation".

Specific Alawis beliefs should be added and cited, but the idea that they are Ismailis is just nuts. In fact, they and the Ismaili communities have long been at each other's neck for religious reasons, as Ismailis don't accept the "12 Infalliables" who are at the very centre of the Alawi faith.

I'll see if I can find a reliable scholarly work, because in this case a random military website appears to be insufficient and totally at odds with the cites in the rest of the article. Ogress smash! 12:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Khasibi Alawi the followers of Alsayed Abi Abedallah Alhussein Ibin Hamdan Alkhasibi.

As known alawi are found all over the world even though they are considred one of the least numbered religious sects.

Alawi believe in the only one God and his Prophet Muhammad. Alawi believe in all the messengers sent by God from Adam to Imam Muhammad Almahdi and they are 124000 messenger .

Alawi were named after Imam Al A'ima Ali Bin Abi Taleb and they are loyal to Ahil Albayt and the 12 Imams.

Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb Imam Hassan Imam Hussein Imam Ali Zein Alabideen Imam Muhammad Albaker Imam Jafar Alsadek Imam Musa Alkazzem Imam Ali Alrida Imam Mouhamad Aljawad Imam Ali Alhadi Imam Hassan Alaskari Imam Muhammad Almahdi

Alawit are Muslims and they believe in the 5 Pillars of Islam.

Belief in one God and Prophet Muhammad Establishment of the daily prayers Concern for and almsgiving to the needy Self-purification through fasting The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

We implore peace all over the world, we discard violence, and we want to live in peace with all people in the world.

There is few hundred alawi in Iraq There is few hundred alawi in Iran There is few hundred alawi in Africa There is few hundred alawi in Brazil There is few hundred alawi in Argentina There is few hundred alawi everywhere There is about 15000 alawi in Australia There is about 50000 alawi in Bulgaria There is about 100000 alawi in Lebanon There is 2 million alawi in Turkey There is 3 million alawi in Syria

La Saifa ila Zoualficar wala Fata ila Ali لا سيف إلا ذوالفقار و لا فتى إلا علي

>> Extra info (that is well known in the middle east) They live in Syria, mainly in the mountains near the city of Latakia, but many also live in the cities of Hama and Homs, and in recent decades there has been a migration to Damascus & there is around 50,000 Alawi living in north Lebanon in a Place Named Jabal Muhsen Alawi are often referred to as Nusayris. Their exact number is not known, but estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 million. Most of them live from agriculture, but the Alawi are also central in the leadership of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad being an Alawi (similar to his late father, Hafez). Their name is a recent one — earlier they were known as Nusairis, Namiriya or Ansariyya. The names 'Nusairi' and 'Namiriya' came from their first theologian, Muhammadu bni Nusairi n-Namiri. The name 'Ansariyya' came from the mountain region in Syria where this sect lived.

Of doctrine Flyover Many believe that Alnasirih Task separate from the rest of Islamic sects, and classifies some of such Atntmi of Islam because of the beliefs and prayers have different, and the Alawis remnants Arab tribes that fought with Imam Ali bin Abi Talib in the battle grades, which migrated with time, until their case awarded riverain In rugged mountains. And consider others in the religious origins to the development of BC. Only Nasreh themselves consider themselves of Shia Ali bin Abi Talib, the first that does not distinguish on the front and Shia branches anything. Talked about them a lot of researchers such as: Sheikh Mohammad Reza Shams al-Din in writing (Alawis in Syria) - Dr. Mustafa Al in writing (in reconciling Islam between Sunnis and Shia) - Professor Adham of the soldier in his book on the history of revolutions Mandatory Syrian-French writer Munir Sharif Damascus Latakia former governor-Professor Mohamed response to the plans in writing-Sham ... Etc. and many others ...

Tags added June 2009

I will attempt to add reliable sources in the near future to provide more accurate information about the alawites. The flat statement that they are "a sect of shia islam" with no qualification is pretty much inaccurate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shows how much you know about AL ALawi ... you know jack shit. I am alawi and strongly offended by the summary of the beliefs you have attempted to make about my religion. My friends and i and my people from the alawi community are FED UP WITH IT and demand changes to be made. Alawi come from shia thank you very much, how do we know this? Well because the founders of the sect were "SHIA IMAMS" hence we come from the shia, even shia people themselves tell others that thank you very much. This is disgusting the amount of disrespect being shown on this page. People from the alawi community demand that changes be made to this page in concern with the summary of our beliefs.

Plural

Is it erroneous to use "Alawi" in English as the plural of "Alawi"? Unfree (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see now that Hiram111 has already answered my question. It is erroneous. Unfree (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Connection not evident

"The Alawis take their name from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib..." The sentence leaves one wondering What's the connection between "Alawi" and "Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib"? Unfree (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit button

Shouldn't the "[edit]" button for "History" appear on the same line as the word, rather than beneath the box on the right? Unfree (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Contesting edit

This edit by FunkMonk removed a large amount of text with the explanation that "Not sure this is a good idea, the sources are not exactly scholarly, so it is equal to adding controversial rumours to a biography."

The deletion was:

According to some sources, Alawis have integrated doctrines from other religions, in particular from Christianity. It is thought that when Christianity flourished in the Fertile Crescent, the Alawis, isolated in their little communities, clung to their own preIslamic religion. Contacts with the Crusaders may also have added Christian elements to the Alawis' new beliefs and practices.[1] Alawites celebrate many Christian festivals, including Christmas, Easter, and Palm Sunday, and their religious ceremonies make use of bread and wine.[2] Alawis also share Ismaili Shias' belief in divine incarnation.[1] Nusairis also have much more in common with the Ismailis in terms of overall beliefs, and they are sometimes regarded as "an offshoot of this group." Like the Ismailis and related groups, Alawis believe that the Shariah has both an esoteric, allegorical (Batin (Islam)|Batini) meaning and an exoteric, literal (zahiri) meaning and that only the hidden meaning is intended. Alawis believe the exoteric meaning is known only to the Imams and later to the Bab and was hidden even to the Islamic prophet Muhammad himself. Only the Bab has access to this esoteric meaning in the absence of the Imam,
Alawites believe in a holy trinity[1] of `Ain-Mim-Sin, which stands for the three persons of the trinity: `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farsi, the Persian Companion of Muhammad. Each of these three is said to have been an incarnation of God. Ali, however, constitutes the most important part of this trinity. The Alawi testimony of faith is: `I have borne witness that there is no God but He, the most High, the object of worship [al-'Ali al-Ma'bud] and that there is no concealing veil (hijab) except the lord Muhammad, the object of praise, (as-Sayyid Muhmmad al-Mahmud), and there is not Bab except the lord Salman al-Farisi` The Nusairis believe in the subsequent incarnation of God in other persons after the passing of `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farisi...[3]

to be continued --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much of this is possibly just outdated hearsay, andd unless some more credible sources that state the same are found, including such rumours that are largely believed by anti-Alawite radicals would be quite damaging. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There are three sources for the deleted text.
  • Kaplan, Robert (1993-02). "Syria: Identity Crisis". TheAtlantic.com. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199302/kaplan.
  • Abd-Allah, Umar F., Islamic Struggle in Syria, Berkeley : Mizan Press, c1983, p.43-48
  • www.globalsecurity.org
global secruity may be a bit dicy, but I put it to you that Atlantic monthly is a very credible source, a venerable magazine employing factcheckers, and The Islamic Struggle in Syria has a preface and notes by noted Islamist academic Hamid Algar, i.e. a scholar of Islam, (you might not want to take his word for it on the wonders of the Islamic Republic but he certainly has no reason to slander the leadership of Iran's close ally).
Yes, "rumours that are largely believed by anti-Alawite radicals would be quite damaging," and have been (Hama uprising)! But would wikipedia be the place that Salafi jihadis or future Salafi jihadis would use to find out about apostasy of alawi? Would they care what a secular, non-salafi source has to say? Would censoring wikipedia of text based on reliable sources do anything to eliminate jihadi websites calling alawi murtad?
I propose we keep the text while qualifying it with the phrase "some sources" more thoroughly. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is another source: The New Encyclpedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse, Altamira, , 2001, p.37
The Alawis are often called Shiites but, despite the referrences to Ali in their preferred name today, their doctrines do not correspond in any way to Shiism as such. Their doctrine bears an unmistakable resemblance to Ismaili teachings with their characteristic Gnostic, or dualist ideas. Their peculiar schema of Muhammad as ism, or "name", Ali as bab, or "door", and Salman al-Farsi as ma'na, or "meaning", with both Muhammad and Ali considered to be emanations of Salman al-Farsi, point to roots in the earliest stirrings of the Sevener movement, proto-Islamilism as found in the book umm al-Kitab, which dates from the 2nd/8th century. ...
"The beliefs and practices of the Alawis, ... are extremely heteroclite, and vary from group to group. .. The eclecticism of their doctrines goes far back in time; besides theories of Divine emanations, they include elements of astral religion which are ultimately of Babylonian origin .... They also have elements of Christianity; the Alawis use certain Christian names and mark, in their own way, certain Christian holidays; it is reported that the religious services of the khassah... include a mass-like ceremony, with a blessing ... of the species of communion, and even includes reference to `body and blood` which are `eternal life`.
They also practice a religious feast called by the Persian name naw ruz ..... The mixture sugggests that, as a small, historically beleaguered ethnic group living in remote mountain regions, with a strong feeling of clan solidarity .. they have absorbed elements from all the religions which have passed by them since Hellenistic times, .... whilst maintaining their own beliefs, they have pretended to adhere to the dominant religion of the age in order to escape persecution, in the style of Shi'ite taqiyyah ..." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

in progress
According to some sources, Alawis (or Nusairis) have integrated doctrines from other religions, in particular from Ismaili Islam and Christianity.[1] It is thought that "as a small, historically beleaguered ethnic group", the Alawi "absorbed elements" from the different religions that influenced their area from Hellenistic times onward,[4] while maintaining their own beliefs, and "pretended to adhere to the dominant religion of the age."[4] Alawites are reported to celebrate certain Christian festivals, in their own way,[4] including Christmas, Easter, and Palm Sunday, and their religious ceremonies make use of bread and wine.[2] They also practice a religious feast called by the Persian name naw ruz. Nusairis have much in common with the Ismailis in terms of overall beliefs, and they are sometimes regarded as "an offshoot of this group."[3]
Like the Ismailis and related groups, Alawis believe that the Shariah has both an esoteric, allegorical (Batini) meaning and an exoteric, literal (zahiri) meaning and that only the hidden meaning is intended. Alawis believe the exoteric meaning is known only to the Imams and later to the Bab and was hidden even to the Islamic prophet Muhammad himself. Only the Bab has access to this esoteric meaning in the absence of the Imam. [3]
Alawites believe in a trinity [1] of `Ain-Mim-Sin, which stands for `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farsi, the Persian Companion of Muhammad. Muhammad is known as ism, or "name", Ali as bab, or "door", and Salman al-Farsi as ma'na, or "meaning", with both Muhammad and Ali considered to be emanations of Salman al-Farsi.[4] Each of these three is said to have been an incarnation of God. Ali, however, constitutes the most important part of this trinity. The Alawi testimony of faith is: `I have borne witness that there is no God but He, the most High, the object of worship [al-'Ali al-Ma'bud] and that there is no concealing veil (hijab) except the lord Muhammad, the object of praise, (as-Sayyid Muhmmad al-Mahmud), and there is not Bab except the lord Salman al-Farisi` The Nusairis believe in the subsequent incarnation of God in other persons after the passing of `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farisi...[3]

--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but for each individual controversial claim, it would be nice with at least two separate reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten proposed rewrite

added some sources and qualified statements giving sources

According to some sources, Alawis (or Nusairis) have integrated doctrines from other religions, in particular from Ismaili Islam and Christianity.[1][4] According to scholar Cyril Glasse, it is thought that "as a small, historically beleaguered ethnic group", the Alawi "absorbed elements" from the different religions that influenced their area from Hellenistic times onward,[4] while maintaining their own beliefs, and "pretended to adhere to the dominant religion of the age."[4] Alawites are reported to celebrate certain Christian festivals, "in their own way",[4] including Christmas, Easter, and Palm Sunday, and their religious ceremonies make use of bread and wine.[2] Glasse writes that they also practice a religious feast called by the Persian name naw ruz.
Nusairis have much in common with the Ismailis in terms of overall beliefs, and they are sometimes regarded as "an offshoot of this group."[3]
According to scholar Umar F. Abd-Allah, a Alawite named Sulaiman al-Adni converted to Christianity and in 1863 compiled a book called Al-Bakurah as-Suliamaniya fi Kashf Asrar ad-Diyanah an-Nusairiyah or The First Fruits of Sulaiman in Revealing the Secrets of the Nusairi Religion. From this and other sources Abd-Allah concludes that Alawis, like the Ismailis and related groups, believe that the Shariah has both an esoteric, allegorical (Batini) meaning and an exoteric, literal (zahiri) meaning and that only the hidden meaning is intended. Alawis believe the exoteric meaning is known only to the Imams and later to the Bab and was hidden even to the Islamic prophet Muhammad himself. Only the Bab has access to this esoteric meaning in the absence of the Imam. [3]
Alawites believe in a "trinity" [1] or "schema"[4] of `Ain-Mim-Sin, which stands for `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farsi, the Persian Companion of Muhammad. Muhammad is known as ism, or "name", Ali as bab, or "door", and Salman al-Farsi as ma'na, or "meaning", with both Muhammad and Ali considered to be emanations of Salman al-Farsi.[4] According to Abd-Allah, each of these three is said to have been an incarnation of God. Ali, however, constitutes the most important part of this trinity. The Alawi testimony of faith is: `I have borne witness that there is no God but He, the most High, the object of worship [al-'Ali al-Ma'bud] and that there is no concealing veil (hijab) except the lord Muhammad, the object of praise, (as-Sayyid Muhmmad al-Mahmud), and there is not Bab except the lord Salman al-Farisi` The Nusairis believe in the subsequent incarnation of God in other persons after the passing of `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farisi...[3] -21 January 2010 BoogaLouie BoogaLouie (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Alawi Islam globalsecurity.org
  2. ^ a b c Kaplan, Robert (1993-02). "Syria: Identity Crisis". TheAtlantic.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Abd-Allah, Umar F., Islamic Struggle in Syria, Berkeley : Mizan Press, c1983, p.43-48
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j The New Encyclpedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse, Altamira, 2001, p.36-7

Section "Heterodox" devoid of actual content.

Are the (current or former) "heterodox" beliefs of this group still so secret that they can't be written down here? -- 92.229.115.131 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Australia has been in the infobox for a long time and has never been sourced, it should be removed if no one can provide sources for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there was a source, which broke. Anyway, I know for a fact that there is an Alawite community, and this I only say to encourage searching for proper sources, not as original research. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In 2008 and 2007 it was unsourced: [2] [3] In 2006, 2005 and 2004 it wasn't in the article:[4] [5][6] In fact, it was you who added it, and it was unsourced from the beginning: [7] I'm sure there are ‘Alawis in many countries around the world just like other Syrian sects but I don't think Australia is any different from any other country in this issue where Syrians have immigrated. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I thought there was one. And no, Australia is exceptional in having a very large population of recently arrived Lebanese, among them many Alawites. I dobn't care whether them mention stays, all I'm saying, as I made clear earlier, is that looking for sources wouldn't be in vain. There is an "Alawi Islamic Association Of Victoria", they might have some numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have found two sources: Arab-Australians today: citizenship and belonging p40, - this book says ‘Alawis are 2% of the lebanese in Australia. And The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins p564, "The Alawi are a very small community". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that is too insignificant, remove it. But keep in mind how small the worldwide Alawite population is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No it shouldn't be removed but it should be sourced. If someone has the number for Lebanese in Australia, and we calculate 2% of that, we would have a number for the alawi population there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This source from the 2006 census:[8] says lebanese born in Australia are 74 848 people. The first book I mentioned from 2002 says 2% of lebanese born Australians, so that would be around 1497 people. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
That's only by birth, by ancestry it's 181,751, according to the source on the Lebanese Australian page. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In your edit: [9] You should have written 2% of Lebanese born Australians, instead of Lebanese Australians. The book says Lebanese born, if you count all Lebanese Australians its maybe not 2%. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


‘Alawi → Alawi — Relisted.-- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The most problematic thing about this article is that it was moved to the current, non-consensus title. If "Alawi" is the way to go, please at least move it there, don't keep it at ‘Alawi, which is hardly used by anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support that move. Yazan (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose No case has been made that overrides the decision in 2009. Verifiable evidence was then produced of the use of 'Alawi in recent prose. No such case has been made for the proposed move. Whining about the original move being made without discussion is not an argument to revert. Editors are encouraged to be bold, and make the move unless they think it will be controversial. If you want it moving back, produce evidence of the use of Alawi in recent English prose. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You're confusing it. Yes, it was argued that Alawi was common use, not 'Alawi (notice the sign in front of it). This is not about moving the article back to Alawite, but to Alawi. The ' sign is not commonly used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
So produce some examples then. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you paying attention?! Do I really have to summaris the old discussion? Ok, first, this article was moved to 'Alawi (notice the sign in front of it) from Alawite. Then we had a discussion about whether Alawite of Alawi (notice that there is no sign in front of the word) was the most common name. After that discussion, even the editor who moved the article to 'Alawi agreed that Alawi (without the sign) was more common. So you're completely missing the point.
'Alawi is less common than Alawi (hardly used by anyone who are not specifically trying to convey how the word is pronounced), just like 'Ali is less common than Ali. In fact, if you search for 'Alawi on Google, only sites the spelling Alawi comes up, apart from this site of course. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouting louder and being a patronising git is never a good way of convincing people. If what you say is true, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to produce examples of use in English prose. You are the one proposing the change: it is up to you to convince other users. Constantly repeating that something is the case, without producing a shred of evidence to back up your assertion, is just not good enough. Go on, convince me. I am quite open to a reasoned argument, you know. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Evidence (of Alawi without the character ') is provided in the former discussions, that's why I get annoyed. There is no reason to repeat them. Anyway: http://www.google.dk/#hl=da&safe=off&q=%27alawi+syria&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bb0346e080fe6bae No '. And see below when it comes to special characters. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alawis and women

I have heard that some Alawis, most notably the Syrian president, believe that women have no souls. Could this be put into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What you "have heard" is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There are sources for that they don't believe women have souls:

Most info like this is based on research done in the early 20th century when an Alawite published some holy texts. Alawite women are by no means treated badly today, they're arguably treated better than other Arab women. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Their treatment has nothing to do with that they don't believe women have souls.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
But that's what's stated in at least one those sources. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The "lower status" the first source speaks about could be about something else not related to souls.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but is it Wiki policy to leave something out of an article because the editor of the article feels it is embarrassing towards his self-admitted sect? What does the treatment of women have anything to do with what is being discussed here? The sources, one of which dates back less than 10 years, tell us that the Alawi faith believes women do not have souls. What exactly is your reason for refusing to add this to the article, other than personal feelings and motives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.31.42 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Syncretic

are Alawis syncretic? --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 07:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To some extend, but what is the source for them being "mystical"? FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alevis

Speaking as a completely uninformed lay reader, could someone please clean up the references to Alevis in the first two sections (Population and Name)? They're a mess. Pdronsard (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem is someone keeps writing they're the same, which they are not. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Alawitewomen.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alawitewomen.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Avaya1g, why wont you discuss changes to the lede? Per WP:LEAD, we should cover the most important aspects in the lede, but you keep adding its possible origins. The origins of Alawi is already discussed in the history section. By the way, that very source you presented says "Alawis present themselves as normal Shias". That in itself makes your reference also supports my version. Wikipedia should present religions how they present themselves, not how others represent them. Pass a Method talk 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pass a Method - why did you put the 3RR warning on my page? The lead can mention that, I don't object to it. The important point that I was reverting in the last edit was the deletion of 'esoteric'. The Alawi's esoteric hermeneutics of the Quran is one of the most distinguishing features of the religion, as noted by all the sources or books about the subject. So it is included at the top by WP:VNT. Avaya1 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I asked you to discuss the edit, but you did not, even though you've been reverted by two editors. That behavior is counter to wikipedia policy. Since you changed a long-standing version of the lede, the onus is on you to explain yourself - which you didn't. I would like you to self-revert, but i dont mind the esoteric part in the lede. Pass a Method talk 07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I said feel free to edit constructively. I don't see why you would blanket revert the multiply-sourced material from the lead, but why not add to it, for example the quote "Today in Turkey and Syria, the Alawis try to present themselves to their Sunni compatriots as "normal" Shiites, not as some special sect". Also could mention some distinguishing features, as per WP:Lead. Avaya1 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph is supposed to contain the most important material. You removed the most important material and replaced it with the history of Alawis. Are you going to self-revert or not? because you have been reported to WP:AN3 Pass a Method talk 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Blogs

The label on the top is not what determines whether or not an item is RS. The question is whether or not the writing is under the editorial of a publisher: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. (WP:SPS). The fact that this group was once considered non-Muslim, but is now Shiite, certainly seems lead-worthy. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 other problems with your edit
  1. You spelled it shiite, even though WP consensus decided to spell it as Shia (see Shia talk page)
  2. Its repetitive. The information you added was already mostly covered in the previous edit. Pass a Method talk 14:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alawi

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alawi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Moubayed":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Source?

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2012/1/20/main-feature/1/whither-the-alawites/r I read most of the above (JID) and skimmed the current WP article. The author (whom I personally know to be thorough and reliable,) brings some points I don't see here. It may be worthwhile sifting through JID and finding other verifiable sources to back them up, for inclusion here.

  • Many misconceptions stemming from early Western literature basically based on hearsay is still circulated today. Therefore controversial claims need exceptional, scholarly sourcing, not just news articles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Lebanon/Golan Heights (in Infobox)

Although there is "Lebanon" in the infobox, what about the other "Lebanon/Golan Heights" section? Where is Israil? Is Golan not Israeli occupied Syrian territory? Please edit (correct) or explain... --E4024 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it should be Lebanon/Syria, not Israel. It is much less controversial as is. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Where is Israil" ??.. Nowhere, as Ghajar is not located in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I took the below text ("Al-Ghajar" section) from the Golan Heights article. The text made me think, "Where is Israel in this, Alawi article?" (Dark letters in the below quoted text are mine.)

Quote "Al-Ghajar

Overlooking Al Ghajar village Al Ghajar village is another complex border issue west of Shebaa farms. Before the 1967 war this Allawite village was in Syria. It is divided by an international boundary, with the northern part of the village on the Lebanese side since 2000. Residents of both parts hold Israeli citizenship, and in the northern part often a Lebanese passport as well. Today the entire village is surrounded by a fence, with no division between the Israeli and Lebanese sides. There is an Israeli army checkpoint at the entrance to the village from Israel." Unquote --E4024 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote contained inaccuracy's and it has now been corrected by me at the Golan Heights article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Therefore my Edit Request served something. It makes me happy... --E4024 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Alawite map

for the map, please see File:Alawite distribution explained.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Alawite_distribution_explained.png Moester101 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not a "source", that is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean "original research"? I clearly posted all my sources on the link on the right. Apparently you only bothered to look at the first link. And besides, your image is extremely inaccurate, for example it shows Afrin district (kurdish) and Qusair district (sunni) as being alawite, not to mention a lot of other places!! lol are you kidding me bro? If you don't like my image, then at least don't show any images at all b/c yours is misleading to make it look like all northwestern Syria is somehow Alawi, and its not! Moester101 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You've used Wikipedia as source for Wikipedia, are you kidding? Read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The map I created at least reflects the sources used in its creation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You keep claiming that my sources don't match my map, but if that was true then I wouldn't bother making the map in first place. Not my fault you can't see how my map draws from my sources, which are far more numerous and accurate than yours. My map is not original research, it has a lot more sources than yours. And WP articles used are sourced themselves. Your map is inaccurate, it overexaggetes Alawi distribution. Cheers Moester101 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, text should not be used as source for such maps, only other published maps. Furthermore, there is no excuse at all for using Wikipedia as a source. Your map is simply unreliable. The map I made does not exaggerate anything it simply reflects the published maps. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


Most published maps I've see about Syria's demography are produced by journalists or outside observers who base their map on a statement they've heard such as "northwestern Syria is alawite" which is very vague and only half true. Few maps are actually based on studies and research. You yourself should know that a lot of the places on your map that are labeled as alawi are actually not, and you know that. Not to mention, your map makes it look like the green area is 100% Alawi, whereas my map is more specific by saying when they have a simple majority versus when they are a significant minority in a certain area (this is another reason why I think that my map is more accurate on the micro-level) Moester101 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Both maps are inaccurate although Moester101's is nicer looking. Mouester, you have Hatay province as predominantly Alawi and it's not. 1.5 million residents (the majority over the Greek Orthodox minority) are Muslim of which about half are Alawi. According to your own legend the Hatay province should be cross-hatched green as an Alawi significant minority not solid green as a dominant population. Why a minority? Because if you add the numbers of Sunni and Greek Orthodox population together they outnumber Alawi. With the flood of another 30k Sunni refugees and more on their way the disparity grows. If this civil war resolves itself into a Alawite State emerging and migration of Alawites out of Damascus and other regions of Syria then your map will again have to change. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Funkmonk's concept is simpler to maintain as just a shaded region of Alawites in significant numbers (1 or 2% or greater) but the boundaries of the map are obviously inaccurate. Neither of you own this page so put your egos aside and work together on a single map and give credit to both of you. I'd go with the single distribution concept because over the next couple years it will be easier to maintain. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is another map that doesn't show the weird holes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444506004577617420413468652.html FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This[10] gives some insight into how the Moester map was created, which is somewhat iffy. Too much original research. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Alevis are not Alawis

Just for the record. Any equation of the two is erroneous and will be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alawi or Alawite?

This article was moved to "Alawi" some time back for some shaky reasons. Now with all the media attention, what is actually most commonly used? If "Alawite", it should be moved back. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alawites/Archive_2&oldid=1142541544"