Talk:Alawites

Requested move 4

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Alawi → Alawites –

This article was moved to "Alawi" some time back for some shaky reasons. Now with all the media attention, "Alawite" seems to in most common use. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per supports at #Requested move 1, and nom -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support a move to Alawites (i.e., a return to the article's original title) per WP:UE (cf. Britannica). In addition, Alawi is an adjective form and we should have a noun here. —  AjaxSmack  05:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – The New York Times used "Alawite" in this December 12, 2012 story: Members of Assad’s Sect Blamed in Syria Killings – "Scores of Syrian civilians belonging to President Bashar al-Assad’s minority Alawite sect were killed Tuesday in the first known Alawite massacre since the Syrian conflict began." Most groups in Category:Ethnoreligious groups are in plural form, thus Alawites seems preferred over Alawite, though perhaps Alawite people would be acceptable as well. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  Support for "Alawi" seems to come from Arab media such as Al Bawaba – Syrian Alawi village targeted in bombings, leaving over 125 dead. Washington Post and Al Jazeera support Alawites – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  Category:Alawites also is consistent with this move proposal. Should the current title be retained, then this category should be renamed to Category:Alawi – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's by far the most common use. Although I will rather miss the slight smugness when I could tell people that the correct term is Alawi and look that up in Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Page moved as requested, along with this talk page. I've also manually moved a couple of archive pages - if I've missed any let me know.  An optimist on the run! 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Many weird allegations against Alawites have been made over the centuries to demonise them, and now a user wants to repeat some of it here, without providing proper sourcing; a radio programme is not a scholarly, reliable source. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

look you dont OWN this page - i'll link to the programme if you like - extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence' - is that your own coinage - its apparently a kind of gnostic- , secretive religion - the source for the reincarnation material was an alawite woman, - she didnt uae her own name, and by your doolally reaction i can see why people are a bit wary - you cant dismiss radio 4 reportage because you know better - who the hell are you/ - your just an anonymous editor - pulling rank on journalists and academics wo madethe programme?! - and calling me a retard is offensive, - disgusting. Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't call you a retard. And yet again, read up on fringe theories. What you "like" is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Find scholarly sources or don't add anything. That means, you can add what you want, as long as it is stated by several, reliable sources. "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." If it is widely believed by scholars, that should be possible, no? As for the intro, events that have happened within the last two years should not be given undue weight. Alawites have existed for a millennium under worse pressure, what happens now is a footnote in history. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• And just to be clear, an interview with an anonymous person claiming to be an Alawite during a time of conflict isn't exactly reliable and scholarly, when the purpose of said interview is demonisation of a religious group. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

so you know she not an alawite? the bbc is out to demonise the alwaites now? great the way you trash the testimony of an alawite woman - what could she possibly know? are you an expert? wheres the policy says radio programmes compiled by academics and journalists are no good? why would she lie about her religion? if you know about it , is it a kind of gnostic-y, secret-y religion? are only men allowed to learn about the arcana side of it. do they not believe at all in reincarnation? is that a fringe-y belief anyhow. i thought it was pretty mainstream religious fare. i believe she told the truth so you are calling me a retard actually - how come you never get cautioned btw - you arent half bloody rude and uncivil. Sayerslle (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Only the initiated know the secrets of the Alawite faith. Since your anon woman claims Alawite women can not be initiated, yet claims to know about these secret beliefs, there's a huge lapse in logic that indicates it is utter bollocks. Do you follow? She can't know what she claims it is impossible for her to know. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with FunkMonk on this. I've been doing some research on the Alawites in the last few weeks for another article and (a) those aren't claims I've seen in any of the standard works (b) there's a long tradition of weird claims about what the Alawites believe, going back centuries both from orthodo Muslims and Western orientalists (c) the current situation in Syria means that any claims about Alawites need to be looked at very closely as they will inevitably be highly charged politically DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

well , thats settled then. Not. is it gnostic-y?Sayerslle (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can tie it in with any reputable works on the Alawites, yes it is. DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

at amazon books i just googled 'alawites and reincarnation' and got Nicholas Pelham, A New Muslim Order, p.236 - saying they believe in it - and the womans testimony is plausible, and sourced - this is the problem with wp - a religious clique can pov control certain pages. Sayerslle (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yes, I'm a one man clique now. Get over yourself. I dare you to add that Jews like to poison wells on the page about them, or add how many people the Germans killed during WW2 to the German people intro. And yet again, if you can find several, reliable sources that support your claims, no one is stopping you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The programme didnt say it was one of their secret beliefs, one of their super scret men-only beliefs - i've already found the nicholas pelham rference about the reincarnation belief.. to dismiss the programme out of hand as an exercise in demonisiation,( without having heard a word of course) and dismissing all testimony outside of an elite - who will stay mum about beliefs - bit stifling really. the artcicle is pretty pov - the start to the hafez era for example - and where is the policy says radio programmes by academics and journalists are not RS enough? stifling,- if you dont hear 100% your version of the world in a programme, like from this Alawite woman, do you reflex dismiss it as an exercise in demonisation? Fanaticism that is. Sayerslle (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you tried to add controversial claims to the article about Jews, based on a radio interview with anonymous person, would you then whine about a conspiracy if you were reverted? Try to use some common sense. It doesn't matter what the radio show claims, the problem is that a radio show is not a reliable source for controversial claims on Wikipedia. As for other issues with the article, add whatever you want, as long as it is properly sourced. Partisan and "anonymous" sources are unacceptable. Also, what has happened within the two last years should not be given undue weight, there are other events in the history of the Alawite that are not even mentioned yet, but are much more important. For example history during the medieval, and various massacres. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

in your opinion. - the programme started with a early 1500s klling of alawite religious leaders in one of the squares of Aleppo actually - this 'it doesnt matter what the radio show claims?' is that just you again, or is that policy? no radio programmes are to take precedence over Funkmonk? i wonder if she is anonymous because of intolerance and fanaticism? loads of religions are a bit misogynist , its not a great fringe leap. Sayerslle (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The content is irrelevant. The issue is that we need several reliable, scholarly sources for extraordinary, controversial claims. Not one anonymous person on a radio show. And even then, many modern sources just parrot erroneous 19th century scholarship, or rumours spread by fundamentalist fanatics centuries ago. Also keep in mind how other articles about religious and ethnic minorities are written. Does Wikipedia say that Jews rule the world, or that Africans are violent? Some "anonymous people on radio shows" have unquestionably made these claims, yet I don't see them here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

oh dear. how many is several to be considered? and what is scholarly enough? and obviously alawite women are no good as they wont know about the religion. well the article just remains in your hands then. and no-one can convert to find out. its all closed up. but its not misogynist at all - just take funkmonks word for it. get over yourself. Sayerslle (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Two texts by non-partisan, reliable scholars is hardly too much to ask. In fact, it is the norm, if not less than what is generally expected to backup controversial claims on Wikipedia. You can whine and accuse all you want, but neither I or the worldwide Alawite illuminati made up those policies. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

and i dont like being told i'm whining - double standards - you whine when you see Alawites 'demonised' as you (wrongly) put it, but its different rules for you when you seek to portray anti-Assad elements isn't it? - then you set about a bit of 'demonising' yourself dont ya? Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor babies. If I added a radio show to the Syrian war articles where an "anonymous person" was interviewed about the terrorist methods used by the Syrian opposition, you can bet your balls that it would be removed in a second by your FSA-cheerleading pals as "unreliable". FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

the regime has itself committed atrocities i believe. you want to start editing for the sake of enlightenment and not just backing your 'team'. what a yawp you set up when i added a few edits to your page here on alawites- you think they interviewed a woman who was just pretending to be an alawite? as if the BBC would risk that, the grief they get for the tiniest mistake. Sayerslle (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're wasting our time. This is not a forum where you can share your personal musings all day. The point is: reliable sources, or nothing. As for BBC credibility...[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

remember WP:NPOV your personal pov is wasting our time when we read your articles. Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My "POV" is that reliable sources are needed to back up controversial claims. This is also the "POV" of Wikipedia itself. Quit whining, and add reliable sources if that's what you want. If not, please stop wasting time here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

again, just googling alawite beliefs, theres an article in new york times from june 2011 says -"Nusayris believe in metempsychosis or transmigration. The souls of the wicked pass into unclean animals such as dogs and pigs, while the souls of the righteous enter human bodies more perfect than their present ones.

It does not take much imagination to see how such beliefs, programmed into the community’s values for more than a millennium, and reinforced by customs such as endogamous marriage — according to which the children of unions between Nusayris and non-Nusayris cannot be initiated into the sect — create very strong notions of apartness and disdain for the “Other.” "

So beliefs the alawite woman described that you said were the demonising fantasies of the BBC believed in only by retards keep showing up when i google alawite beliefs - she said she got grief too for dating a Sunni lad - i must say your extreme whining chimes very well really with an exclusive inward-looking paranoid set up. are the Alawites over-represented in the security forces btw. Do you know? Sayerslle (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does that say anything about women? And I repeat yet again, so little is known about Alawite beliefs by westerners that erroneous 19th century sources are still cited today. No wonder you find the same shit all over the Internet, they just parrot the same old sources. And wow, a minority that looks down on exogamy? That's really unique! FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

are the Alawites over-represented in the security forces. Do you know . westerners are dupes and mugs in your gospel generally, arent they? can you suggest a good book on the alawite sect written by an easterner i could read with confidence? Sayerslle (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt you read Arabic. Regardless of the views of the man himself, this 1989 article isn't bad. http://www.danielpipes.org/191/the-alawi-capture-of-power-in-syria Even that article falls into the trap of using hostile medieval and 19th century sources as basis for statements about theology. As for theology, there are no authoritative sources, because all is based on 19th century scholarship. Contrary to these odd statements, Alawite women are treated far better than mainstream Muslim women, on par with how Middle Eastern Christians treat theirs. And no, the latter do not like exogamy (or "Sunni lads") either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No i dont read arabic.are the Alawites over-represented in the security forces? daniel Pipes rings a bell, not a good bell, hes a right wing bloke I think,but i'll read it - that stuff about the french wanting 'the most warlike races' - you happy with that? it looks really lame to me. Sayerslle (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what we "like", what matters is that the sources are reliable. And the take home message of the Pipes article is as follows: "Unveiled women and several other 'Alawi practices - in particular, that wine drinking is permitted, and that some ceremonies take place at night - long excited Muslim suspicions about 'Alawi behavior. Then too, the obsessive secrecy inherent to the religion suggested to many Sunnis that the 'Alawis had something to hide. But what? Over the centuries, the Sunnis' imaginations supplied a highly evocative answer: sexual abandon and perversion.

Thus, the theologian al-Ash'ari (874-936) held that 'Alawism encourages male sodomy and incestuous marriages and the founder of the Druze religious doctrine, Hamza ibn 'Ali (d. 1021), wrote that 'Alawis consider "the male member entering the female nature to be the emblem of their spiritual doctrine." Accordingly, 'Alawi men freely share their wives with co-religionists. These and other accusations survived undiminished through the centuries and even circulated among Europeans. A British traveler of the early 1840s, who was probably repeating local rumors, wrote that "the institution of marriage is unknown. When a young man grows up he buys his wife." Even 'Alawis believed in the "conjugal communism" of their religious leaders. Such calumnies remain a mainstay of the anti-'Alawi propaganda circulating in Syria today." In short, most info on Alawite theology circulating today is based on the imagination of fundamentalist Sunnis or 19th century Orientalists. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is what retards believe? but what the alawite woman was saying was nothing like any of this. Nothing near it. not remotely close. you aligned her personal testimony with this stuff? wow. no wonder we dont see eye to eye Sayerslle (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense, propose some changes based on valid sources, or don't. Everything else is a waste of time. And PLEASE, do not add duplicate material and misquoted material to the article, as you just did. And can you perhaps try to use the comment indent properly? The damn talk page is zigzagging. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

look , you said 'the french' then it appeared it was some bloke in a 1935 letter - so 'the french' - all of them - becomes, oh, the minister of war in a 1935 letter - you are just a pov pusher who misuses sourcesSayerslle (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, read the sources before spewing nonsense, and use the indents properly. Thank you. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense? and do you know are the Alawites over-represented in the security forces?Sayerslle (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your above comment is utter nonsense. And now I'll explain to you what indent means. When I have one ; in front of my comment, yours should start with two. Then my next comment starts with three. Get it? As for security forces, how the hell is that relevant to this discussion? FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"the truth will "play into the hands of the Assad regime " - !!lol. i was just curious about the security forces. i mean its not just Assads at the top and in powerful positions. anyway, like your latest ace comment on the syrian civil war talk page makes clear its pointless talking to you and expecting considered npov responses. the truth is for Assad! lol. Sayerslle (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it isn't "the truth" that Israel just attacked Syria. Now we're at it, since Islamist rebels are in vogue among young hipsters[2], why don't you go and do a little POV pushing on their behalf at the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) page? And I see you finally caught up with the indent format, congratulations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

you believe same as Marine Le Pen basically. some 'leftist'. Sayerslle (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Arab Leftists despise Islamists (unless they fight Israel). You know why? Because they have to live with them. You pampered westerlings don't. Yet... You think the Leftists fighting Islamists in Egypt now even know who Le Pen is? Eurocentricity at its worst! FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

well i was talking to you not Egyptian leftists anyhow. personally i dont like Islamists - but do i therefore consider torture in Homs ok? or shooting refugees in Bosra as they try to reach Jordan? two wrongs don't make a right. anyway NOTFORUM. back to articles for me.Sayerslle (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good. But to answer your question with another question, why have you thrown your weight in support of the armed, Islamist dominated opposition, instead of the secular opposition, which is against violence? Seems a bit comical to me. And before you start making spurious allegations against me; no, I don't pretend to support Bashar al-Assad, all I'm doing is countering the nauseating cheer-leading for Islamist insurgents by you and others around here. My own views on the conflict are similar to those of As'ad AbuKhalil. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

who will you consider non-partisan though? and reliable? Radio Four not good enuogh for you - i'll ask at RS noticeboard.Sayerslle (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Make sure to provide a link to this discussion, so they can see what the actual issues are. Radio Four itself is not the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To see an alawite woman saying the religion is somewhat closed to women,more closed than it is to men, to compare that with saying Jews rule the world , or that Africans are violent ? - well, its just bollox , to use your terminology Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, it's besides the point. Which I assume you get now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me chime in as a Sunni Muslim. The Syrian war is absolutely filled with propaganda. Both the government and the opposition have gone full gear and the truth is very to discern. Especially considering the fact that Syria is so dangerous for journalists they ns they often report what Syrians tell them. Syrians who have aren't journalists trying to report the truth but rather people trying to achieve political goals. The opposition is a lot more successful than the government and one of their main talking points in the religious sect of President Assad. The propaganda about Alawis having weird beliefs,doing strange stuff and "oppressing the Sunnis" feeds into the general feeling among a lot of Sunnis that we are superior to other Muslim sects because only we are true Muslims and they wish to harm us. Obviously anyone who knows anything about the Ba'ath government in Syria will know that it's a secular party. The security forces have a disproportionate amount of Alawis because they are more loyal to the President but the government doesn't in general discriminate based on faith. Wikipedia should be very careful and only report what is based on facts. If we report every sensational accusations against the Alawis, then we are setting up an entire group of people to be ethnically cleansed at best and massacred at worst. Don't forget what happened to the Tawerghans in Libya. The media around the world dutifully reporting Rebel propaganda lead to the belief that Black tawerghans were going around raping Arab women. It has lead to 30,000 people being ethnically cleansed, thousands of them in makeshift jails being tortured and murdered by Misratan rebels. Remember genocide always starts with the dehumanisation of the target group. 62.31.145.100 (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)