Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Suggestions

The article has become disputed and it needs cool and calm discussion.There is no hurry at all.We must reach on consensus on all proposed issues.Many editors are involved here in editing and discussions.Each and every issue needs proper discussion.It would be better to get it edit by other neutral and un-involved editor who may have some knowledge of the Islam subject otherwise edit warring is most common here.Msoamu (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been cool and calm, though neglected. That's why I started adding more comments today; I'm still waiting for cool, calm explanations as to what was wrong with my improvements to the article. That's reasonable considering how much time has elapsed; based on Wikipedia:The deadline is now, it doesn't seem there's much reason to wait on many of these issues. Keep in mind that per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, the quality of arguments matter more than their volume, and so far I haven't seen any quality. Given that I haven't seen responses aside from GorgeCustersSabre above, I do have the right to assume consensus per the aforementioned subsection of Wikipedia:Consensus, though as a measure of good will I've held off until now. If I see more of what seem to be distractions or attempts to avoid getting to the point, then it seems fair based on the guidelines above that I can just implement the changes with the discussions as they are right now. The "Recent suggestions" subsection above was an obvious example of that. Given that your appeal here seems to serve no purpose given that discussion was already cool and calm, I'm not entirely sure if this section itself is of the same nature.

If I have somehow misunderstood these editing guidelines, then someone please explain things to me here. I want to do things right, but I also feel I've explained my motivation here sufficiently. The article has been in need of improvement for a long time, and if consensus can be assumed - and as it stands right now, I think it can be - then we need to be proactive and just do this thing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, I agree that things are cooler and calmer and that we are proceeding in a more constructive fashion. I also think you are explaining your proposed or real edits fully. Thank you. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The more I search, the more reliable sources I find in favor of my edits; I was apparently being conservative with the number of sources provided. Given the overwhelming amount of material I'm finding (I couldn't even add all of it by myself), along with the lack of responses or unquantified responses I've seen here, I think it's fair to say that the suggested edits need to be reinstated as the new version of the article, and any desire to reverse those edits should be discussed here before any reverting actually takes place. There's no reason to sit around with what appears to be valid material removed during the discussion; the default should be that reliable sources stay in the article until they can be proven unreliable. This has dragged on for way too long. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

in this topic barelvi i just added some more beliefs with reference from some sites but someone questioned me let me explain

• this site is a barelvi site see here so it conains only teachings of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi
• All the Belifs i added are present in this site see topic aqeedah
• can you prove these beliefs wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Child Star Grown Up (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sectarian violence - new section

It seems that there are still some objections, but given the long, bloated nature of the above discussions, I've opted to start anew here. In the sectarian violence section, I not only implemented the above suggested edits but I also added further reliable sources. Beyond what I suggested above, the new sources included:

• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
• Time (magazine)
• Viewpoint Online (suggested by Msoamu)
• The Times of India (suggested by Msoamu)
• The Express Tribune
• Dawn (newspaper)
• Voice of America
• Current Trends (suggested by Lukeno)
• The Nation

All of these are reliable sources, and the wording I used held very, very closely to what is contained therein. I'm going to reinstate just this section for now and I will not reinstate any other edits for a few days. If someone feels the need to revert, they really need to explain the reasons why here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, I think that's very helpful for fellow editors. Thank you. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have discovered some more reliable sources which support the information already found in the article:

• The Express Tribune: Dawat e Islami had never been under surveillance by the government before because Barelvis were previously perceived as non-violent
• Time magazine: some Barelvi scholars congratulate the assassin
• The Hindu: formerly "moderate" Barelvi faith supports the assassination
• The New York Times: 500 Barelvi clerics urge boycott of Taseer's funeral
• Dawn: Barelvi group Sunni Tehreek wants to reward the killer's family
• The Express Tribune: Barlevi Sunni Ittihad Council, which was once funded by the US for anti-Taliban protests, now support the assassin
• The Nation (Pakistan): Sunni Tehreek ready to reward the assassin's family
• Sydney Morning Herald: Sunni Tehreek threatens Taseer's daughter

All of these are from mainstream media sources, and inserting them into the article will not require any actual addition of content; it merely supports what is already there. I hope the serious attention the news has given to this incident, in addition to the Pakistani and American governments rethinking their previous views of the Barelvi movement being 100% peaceful, will dispel any notion that this is just a random collection of news links. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Upon review, I have opted not to include the first link about Dawat e Islami because it only mentions Barelvism in passing, and the comment about Sunni Ittihad Council doesn't overtly mention Barelvism at all - just user comments. I expect that no one will disagree with leaving those two links out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the comments weren't properly posted here in the new section, I have implemented some of the sources suggested by Msoamu (most of them were irrelevant to the point). I have ensured that the language is neutral and taken care to express that not all of the Barelvi movement agrees with such violent attacks. There is a large number of links for several points; perhaps they could be merged into one citation with bullet points. Anyway, I think this concludes the needed work on the section. I will let things sit for another day or so before continuing work on other sections, though I don't expect there to be any objections here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with Msoamu putting this information under the blasphemy law heading, I will be reinstating the deleted content. It seems that you (Msoamu) don't understand how Wikipedia works. We have some sources describing all the Barelvi movement as peaceful, and some sources describing the movement as affected by violence (though not entirely violent). The answer isn't to delete some sources in favor of others; it's to balance all the sources and synthesize all of them in order to include them. The picture I painted with my edits showed both the good and the bad based on sources such as Time magazine and other major media outlets. If you remove these sources again without valid reasons, then I will be forced to take this to the next level of dispute resolution as you're removing reliable sources and thus damaging the quality of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You did not reply to me and just inserted your biased language again ,removing my neutral and validly sourced content.

MezzoMezzo,I provided you many sources which says they are moderates and Peaceful and you used them with out actually inferring meaning from them and insisted on your biased version.Which present one view.This is your vision of keeping Articles neutral?The language and wordings used by you is cherry picking and is biased.There is not at all no requirement relevance to present every minute details of an incident.One incident from history can't portray majority of South Asian Muslims as radical.This view is personal opinion and Biased one.Radical and intolerance are highly biased wordings.I hope you will work with more coordination.I would support this view which is more neutral.Scholars from all sects boycotted his funeral.Prayer leader of Badshahi Mosque (Deobandi)rejected a request to lead prayer.

On January 4, 2011, former governor of Punjab Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by a member of the Barelvi group, supposedly by Dawat-e-Islami due to his opposition to the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Over five-hundred scholars of the Barelvi movement voiced support for the crime and urged a boycott of Taseer's funeral.His funeral was denounced by some (in fact the majority of) clerics and religious scholars (from all sects and groups) from mourning Taseer.Taseer was against the blasphemy law and termed it a black law.It was suspected that this was the main reason for his assassination. During the same period of time, a number of Barelvi scholars also condemned the assassination.It was suspected that this was the main reason for his assassination. I have retained your para which you proposed in earlier discussion and removed every Minute details of the incident obviously which is not only irrelevant and POV but also clearly WP:UNDUE.To present both views I have added neutral lines with source.I have accepted your para but you should cooperate with me in accepting its neutral version.Please don't try to prove a point through an old story.There are thousands of such stories about each and every movements.We ca't add such stories in such details here to give them Undue weight.Msoamu (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have changed your first line in this heading due to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.Giving importance to both views.

Though by and Large Barelvi Movement is considered a moderate and peaceful Movement , but in Pakistan some analysts have claimed that the Barelvi movement is as affected by intolerance as other Islamic movements in the region,.Msoamu (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, you're making a lot of hefty accusations without referring to Wikipedia policies. You're mentioning them, but you're not actually referring to them.

First and foremost, I never claimed that the Barelvi movement is affected radicalism; the United Nations, Time magazine, the Washington Post and so forth are claiming that. My language simply reflects what is already in the sources, and if you feel that I am cherry picking then you need to explain why.

As for minute details, then following the assassination of this person, his son was kidnapped and his daughter threatened by Barelvi groups. That is not minute; that is a serious act and while it doesn't represent the whole group as reflected in my edit, the fact that the news is reporting on it is absolutely major. Also, it's important to note that not all Muslim groups boycotted Taseer's funeral, as even many Barelvis defended him, again as mentioned in my edit.

Msoamu, your suggestions are not a compromise because, quite simply, they don't reflect what's in the sources. In the past, analysts always regarded Barelvis as peaceful; that is no longer the case with analysts all around the world, and when the United Nations feels the need to mention it then it is no longer cherry picking or POV. Not only will I be reinstating my edits but I will be taking this beyond the talk page as you are refusing to allow the article to reflect the sources and mainstream media. I don't care about the reasons, but the behavior has to stop.MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to do compromises with a biased paragraph.We can't have here,each and every line of a given source,each and every detail of an incident.Keeping article balanced and Neutral should be our priority.I have not suggested something unwarranted.Barring this incident,Most of the Barelvis are considered peaceful and moderate force who are counter to growing extremism in South Asia.They have lost their prominent leaders in this war against extremism.I am of the opinion that citing an incident which is now also old should be in such manner that it should be according to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. You are not replying me and to my edits but just trying to enforce your choice.Wikipedia is not a place to prove your point that Barelvis are intolerant.Msoamu (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Msoamu, it's not my point. I don't know any Balrevis personally, I probably never will know any and I don't care about what's happening in South Asia. I'm not saying it isn't important; it just isn't important to my life. Thus, I have no point to make. My edit reflects what is in the sources, pure and simple; yours does not. I'm not going to respond to you if you keep rehashing the same old claims, either. Come with something valid or you will simply be reverted. It's silly to spend so much time on an edit when it's clearly supported by sources and you don't have any other editors who agree with you. I'm sorry if that seems rude and I don't intend it to be, but I need to be frank here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What are Yyu talking MezzoMezzo?My edits dopes not reflects what is in the sources?Have you read my sources.What wrong i have inserted?I am emphasizing on neutral sentences what is wrong with that? I am trying to present other side also what is wrong with that?Now I am not seeking your opinion.My question is to other editors,what is wrong with my sources and my points that they are considered Peaceful and moderate too?Whether my sources or my language is invalid?Msoamu (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was talking to merely inform you of what's going on. Since you've been reverted by more than one editor now, I will go ahead and restore the new consensus version. That is the default of the article; please respect that while you wait for feedback from other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Please wait for new Insertions,

I was expecting much active participation in the discussion but most just stayed away.Article has history of disruption and POV by opposition camps.New Proposed edits are very lengthy and needs discussion.It is reasonable it may take much time.There are numerous headings which are in discussion.I request all to be patient and wait don't insert new edits until the issue is resolved.This is not batlle ground.Msoamu (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The edits have been discussed for over a month. You have consistently repeated the same points over and over without appropriate referral to site policies, hence my disqualifying of your protests from consensus. It was a lot of material, so I started the above section; it's right there, along with the reasons for starting a new section.

And yes, Wikipedia is not a battleground; your frantic reverts in response the first time I edited the article in a long time, however, suggest otherwise. If you want participation in discussion, then please walk the walk. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

First, let me note why I'm here: MezzoMezzo has been asking for my advice on how to proceed on this article. He actually ended up acting before seeing that advice (as it took me some time), but I do want to be clear that I was invited here.

Now, let me express the administrative problem with what you just said, Msoamu: you're the one who hasn't been discussing. Looking up at section 7, I see all sorts of places where very direct, specific questions were asked of you, or where your objections were answered, where you, in fact, are the one that didn't discuss or answer back. I also note that you're rejecting sources for reasons that are not acceptable per Wikipedia rules--you seem to be declaring some sources as "biased" without providing a WP:RS compliant argument; plus, you seem to cite sources that are themselves non-RS.

However, having said that, I can completely understand why you would reject MezzoMezzo's edit--it was very extensive, and I also find it very uncomfortable when someone makes a huge change to an article that I've worked extensively on. So I don't think that your revert was, itself, unreasonable.

So, what I suggested to MezzoMezzo that he do is, instead of trying to make all of the changes at the same time, pick just one section and change that. Looking over the discussion above, there are a number of suggested changes where MezzoMezzo's suggestions clearly improve the article, by improving sources, etc. Then, that one section edit can be discussed. I think part of the problem with the previous discussion is that there's just way too many different things going on at once, and not everyone can or wants to spend hours to work through every point at the same time. Even if every one of MezzoMezzo's suggestions are good (and I'm not saying they are; I haven't read any of the sources or even the entirety of the article), there's no harm in it taking a reasonable amount of time to make the adjustments. From having worked as both an editor and an administrator in strongly disputed topics, I find that focusing on only one or two issues at a time is far more productive. Of course, this cannot be used as an excuse to prevent all improvement to the article, but I don't think anyone here wants that. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you're busy Qwyrtzylu, but would you be able and willing to referee the new discussion from scratch? If you started from the beginning and we keep things to the point, you could feasibly follow the discussion without much difficulty. Considering that Msoamu seems to feel that he is discussing things while I am only pushing my POV and making the site a battleground, it might help to have someone uninvolved to reel the discussion in if it gets lengthy without reason, uncivil or otherwise unproductive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind mediation Qwyrxian.I welcome your suggestions actually I was in discussion and I have not seen such lengthy proposals ready to be insert,that too on disputed topics,in such a manner on wikipedia.Even today I was just replying to MezzoMezzo.Qwyrxian I would request you to kindly supervise this article if you can.Msoamu (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to watchlist the article, at least for now. About a month or so from now I expect to start having much less Wikipedia time, but I'll do what I can. Note that I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter, though I actually think that will help since I can assure you I'm unbiased and since I tend to look more abstractly at the matter, through the lens of Wikipedia policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• MezzoMezzo brought this up again on my talk page (I've got it in my watch list, so I'd have shown up anyway), and I couldn't put things better than Qwyrxian has. The whole point of discussing each edit, section by section, was that it was supposed to be a gradual improvement/update of the article, not one lump change. That said, Msoamu, you barely participated in any of the discussions, so you can't really complain too much about MezzoMezzo's edits - they were certainly not rushed in. Certainly not in the manner of your complaints, which are generally blanket complaints, that either ignore Wiki rules and guidelines altogether, or misinterpret them hugely. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So, MezzoMezzo (as the main initiator of change), I recommend that you take one section and change it in the article, with a new section below here on the talk page to explain the change). Msoamu, if you then revert, you are required to immediately discuss in that new section why you are reverting. Note that you may not revert simply because consensus hasn't been achieved yes, as behavioral rules do not require that people seek consensus prior to making changes; rather, you need to have a specific, policy/guideline based objection. Discussion should continue until a consensus is formed, though Dispute resolution can be used as necessary. However, if there are no objections, then MezzoMezzo (or someone else) could move on to a new section after a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

History - new section

I have reinserted history section which I originally wrote. The necessity of such a section is obvious; a religious movement as significant as Barelvism has a colorful history which readers will undoubtedly want to know. I have done my best to ensure that only the most relevant details are included, and that language has been both fair to a movement which inspires millions and honest to historical realities. The sources are from:

• Penguin Books
• Princeton University Press
• columbia University Press
• Journal of the American Oriental Society
• The Eurasia Review
• The Express Tribune

And more. It is my intent to paint a picture of both the movement itself and how it has interacted with the historical backdrop of South Asia. I hope that my fellow editors find the history section to be the needed addition to this otherwise poor article which I found it to be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You have not cooperated in first section and now you have done this.Assume Good faith and dont be in such haste that it may lead to edit warring.I have accepted most of your edits and points and you are not accepting most neutral ones.Be patient untill issues are resolved.Dear Lukeno i request you to participate in discussion and just don't revert my edits with out knowing actual reasons.I also request you to read about this movement.Msoamu (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're reverting the restoration of the history section yet you're not providing any reason why? Are you being serious? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, you seem to be under several misconceptions. First of all, you cannot require editors to gain consensus before they edit. You can, of course, revert an edit that you disagree with, but there is never a requirement for "talk first, edit later". Second, when you revert, you must have a specific, policy based reason for that revert, and you must explain it in the edit summary. If the reason is too long for the edit summary, start a section on the talk page to discuss it. Third, when 3 different editors are all telling you you're wrong, you should probably listen. Furthermore, in that case, you are the one who is edit warring against consensus. At this point, please provide the reasons for your revert here. If, after discussion, you cannot gain consensus, please use some form of dispute resolution to try to get the input of others. If you do not know which one to pick, I will advise (some of the problems above can be handled at WP:RSN, others at WP:NPOVN, and still others through a WP:RFC). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed

History section first Para-Highly exceptional claim to allege,Khan and his movement, being among the foremost campaigners for Sufism, were largely responsible for pulling Muslims into conflict with Hindus. It is just one highly biased claim and also an opinion presented as a fact in history section.Wikipedia article on Hindus Muslim relations rebutted this claim which says that Sūfism is a mystical approach to Islam which encourages brotherhood between the Shias and the Sunnis, and promotes tolerance between Islam and other religions like Hinduism. Next Para says something about Barelvi Jihadist groups. There is not even a single so called group of Barelvi which is Jehadi.This highly exceptional claim can't be presented here about this community on the basis of a personal opinion. The false allegations picked up by this MezzMezzo must be proved from various exceptional sources.See WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:Fringe theories. Whole history section and previous section is full of lies and fringe theories and non neutral.If no editor is ready to discuss the verifiability and neutrality of the content of MezzoMezzo, he should not revert my edits.Neither MezzoMezzo has neutralised his langauge nor he has relied to my valid objections in accordance with this policy. Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.Msoamu (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The conflict between Muslims and Hindus and the Pakistan Movement is sourced by the Eurasia Review; it is neither a fringe theory nor an exceptional claim, and I can bring more sources if it makes you (Msoamu) happy, though I am not required to do so.

The second source is from Sushant Sareen, an expert on extremist movements in South Asia, and Shareen merely mentions the ineffectiveness of Barelvi jihadist groups - this by no means paints the whole movement in a negative light. Again, the source is a reliable one - you (Msoamu) disagreeing with the source doesn't change that fact. If all you can bring is "the source is wrong" - which is what you've been doing since January - then I will simply put the source back in and ignore your protests.

As for accusations of my language not being neutral, then again, simply making the claim is meaningless. Can you point out how my language is not neutral? Until you do, your protests will again be ignored.

Msoamu, after three months you still don't seem to be playing ball according to the rules. Just claiming that edits and sources are wrong aren't enough. Were that the case, every editor could do so and nothing would ever get done. Other people have mentioned site policies and guidelines to you, and now you're quoting them, but I have to ask: have you ever read any of them beginning to end? I'm not being snarky, I'm being serious. You could, theoretically, make your case were you to do so. As of right now, I haven't seen anything substantial - not now, and not since January. Make strong, policy-based arguments or stop reverting. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu, if you carry on this way you're likely to end up back at ANI or some similar noticeboard. It's perfectly fine that you disagree with sections of an article (regardless of whether your disagreements are correct or not), but what you cannot do is blank sections you disagree with, and then attempt to edit-war against consensus. You've had 3 or 4 editors (excluding MezzoMezzo) whom have told you that you're going against a consensus, and that when you had the chance to discuss the edits, you were completely silent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The Proposed edits are really POV and lacks WP:Verifiability and to certain extent exceptional claims.Sunni Barelvis are neither Jehadist nor there was (or is conflict)due to them.When you are using a word of Jehad for their organisation it should be proved from exceptional sources.I don't know where and in which country Barelvis are waging Jehad ,what are the name of their Jehadi organisations.I opposes these edits and thinks that MezzoMezzo should not try to enforce just negative points from various newspapers. Shabiha (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headdesk time here. MezzoMezzo has NEVER stated that the entirety of the Barelvi sect are jihadi/jehadi, and it is completely incorrect to say so. He has said that a section of the Barelvi are Jihadist, which is highly likely - most sects of Muslim will have a Jihadist (or similarly radical) part of them, just like most sects of Christianity will have a radicalist part. I'm seriously doubting your English skills, Msoamu and Shabiha, if you still think MezzoMezzo is trying to make the claim that the entire group are Jihadis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Temporary full protection requested. Again. For what it's worth, I would say that MezzoMezzo's edit is by far the more balanced and the more neutral anyway... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to simply disregard the comments of both in this case; they're unsubstantial and shouldn't be considered in consensus. Msoamu is clearly pushing some sort of a POV and is reverting edits which add sources to a poor-quality article without suggested alternatives. Shabiha is currently edit warring on several related articles while refusing to discuss the issues in dispute, and has already been reverted left and right by people other than me. I think it's safe to say that neither are contributing positively and if no one else raises any issue with the edits in a few days, we can just continue as normal. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lukeno,using such highly controversial term really needs exceptional sources.you can yourself find if there is any Jehadi Barelvi organisation? In fact there is none.MezzoMezzo prove that Barelvis were in conflict with Hindus.There is no consensus. Shabiha (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• The article is fully protected now. Anyway, Shabiha, if you have an objection to the specific term of Jihadism being applied, then why are you supporting an edit that actually makes the article look less favourable to the general Barelvi population? With regards to Barelvis and Jihadism, I've found [1] which explicitly states that one Barelvi group are practising Jihad (for want of a better term). So does this: [2], and this: [3]. It's clear that, as I've said myself, there are sections of the Barelvi who do practise Jihadism, just like there are sections of all of the Islamic sects that will do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's also clear from my edits that these Barelvi jihadist groups are marginalized within the wider movement; check the wording again. Though as I said, further sources can be brought to beef things up and Lukeno just did, so we could just add those once the article protection is complete.

Anyway, I don't know why Shabiha is claiming that the comments are unproven; they're clearly sourced in the current version; there is no problem. The bigger problem here seems to be that we have two editors who recently showed a tendency to edit war against consensus. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The bigger Problem is that there is one editor who is just running here and there to remove content from Sufi Barelvi pages,to add criticism and to bring all minor opinions as a fact to present against this movement.People have understood your intentions so don't attack me at least.Dear Lukeno your first source is totally vague and does not say anything about Barelvi Jehad or Jihad second source is about other movement not about Barelvi movement third source is vague and does not at all present facts that any Barelvi organisation is actually waging Jehad.further linking this movement with conflict with Non Muslims is again a personal opinion and must be proved from exceptional sources.These points and other points are not only personal opinions presented as facts in history but also untrue,factually incorrect,biased and false.They are neither verifiable nor neutral.I request to Lukeno to read neutarl hsitory of thsi movement from reliable sources.For ex-A reputed Non Muslim historian has done extensive research on the topic which can be utilised Here.Her name is Dr.Usha Sanyal. Shabiha (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno's first link mentions Barelvite jihad here:

• "There have been additional indications of new forms of Barelvi militancy in recent months. In September 2011, for instance, it was reported that the Pakistani military had decided to curtail the proselytizing activities of the Dawat-e-Islami, out of fear that the Barelvi organization was penetrating the ranks, seeking to radicalize soldiers.67 (Mumtaz Qadri, it must be recalled, was a member of Dawat-e-Islami.) Also in September 2011, amidst rumors that the U.S. might invade Pakistan to disrupt jihadist networks along the country's Afghan border, the Barelvi Sunni Ittehad Council issued a fatwa declaring jihad against the U.S. to be obligatory should it encroach upon Pakistani soil.68 The fatwa additionally urged the Pakistan government to abandon Pakistan's role as a front-line ally in the struggle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, to realign the country geopolitically, and to prepare the country as a whole for a jihad in the way of God."

This is beside the fact that my version is already sourced. Please don't ignore that fact, Shabiha.

Also, I thought we were done with this Usha Sanyal thing? You keep touting him as the only scholar who knows about Barelvis, yet he's merely one of many, and he contradicts scholarly consensus in many areas as demonstrated on the talk page for the Ahmed Reza Khan article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• If I thought the source was ambiguous in the slightest, I wouldn't have listed it here. There are several others that are ambiguous, and I left alone. Shabiha, it may be MezzoMezzo proposing these edits, but when will you realize that the majority of users, be it admins, myself, George Custers Sabre, or anyone bar a handful (generally, Msoamu, occasionally a few others) actually agree, and that this is the consensus-decided edit/content? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

He was just blocked for 48 hours due to edit warring. I remember when he was first blocked back in 2006 he seemed repentant, so he might understand what you're saying now. Not sure about Msoamu - he seems to log in only every few days. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Relations with other movements - new section

I have reinstated the remaining edits within this section; that includes a lead for the section which comes before the lower subheadings, information toward the end regarding the Nadwa Council and a source for an already existing sentence in the article which Msoamu removed for some reason. The sources I have used include:

• Former World Bank economist Arun Shourie
• Indo-Asian News Service
• Khaled Ahmed, already cited in a source above
• Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, the source which Msoamu removed without explanation

There are a few points to make. Because the relationship of the Barelvi movement with other movements in the region is complex, I felt that a lead before the lower section headings was in order so that readers unfamiliar with the subject could gain some background info. Information on the Barelvi movement's reactions to the Deobandi movement are especially pertinent, as these are the two most significant Muslim religious movements in the region; the fact that the Barelvi leader declared Deobandis, the second major movement, to be infidels is significant and one of the defining factors of how Barelvis relate to other movements.

I also included information on the Barelvi movements participation and secession from the Nadwa Council, as that was an early attempt to unify all South Asian Muslims under one banner. Additionally, the Indo-Asian News Service reports that the Barelvis and the Ahle Hadith - perhaps the two most diametrically opposed Sunni groups on Earth - are reconciling in some areas. This is extremely significant and a positive sign for the region; its mention, in addition to being in line with notability policy for events, is also a good balancing element in contrast to the information on inter-Muslim conflict in this article.

Some issue has been raised with the fact that Barelvis and Shi'a Muslims have been mixing in recent years; in fact, Msoamu branded this as a lie. How, then, is it reported by a valid and reliable source? The source, in fact, is Khaled Ahmed himself; Msoamu has actually defended this source in the past and upheld its inclusion in the article, so how can he oppose it here? Ahmed is a respected journalist in the region, and I don't understand why he should be used as a source when Msoamu agrees with him yet rejected as a source when he says something with which Msoamu disagrees. This is an entirely inconsistent editing policy.

Lastly, I have reinstated the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses as a source for the sentence on conflict with the Deobandi movement. Msoamu removed the source, yet left the sentence. It's a reliable source, an accurate sentence and the removal didn't make any sense. Given that my previous edits did not incur any legitimate opposition, I expect that the case will be the same with this round of editing. I look forward to seeing the feedback of other concerned editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased Non neutral claims

You still have not replied regarding your

• Exceptional Claim that Barelvis ha begun to mix Shias-Please provide exceptional source to prove it.For your kind information Barelvi Scholars have criticized Shia beliefs along with Salafis/wahabis in general as Un Islamic.This is just personal opinion of an editor can't be inserted in this Article.Any one can accept it if it is fact.
• to my point and evidence that Arun Shaurie is Muslim Basher and obviously non neutral.
• Why you are deleting this view to balance the sentence?,Though by and Large Barelvi Movement is considered a moderate and peaceful Movement ,
• In Sectarian violence section-Analyst have linked Mumtaz Qadri to Dawat-e-Islami but it was not confirmed that he was a member of Dawat-e-Islami.There were speculations regarding his linkage not confirmation.So it will be neutral to add his name and supposedly

through this leading source.

• Why you removed this source with out discussion? His funeral was denounced by even Deobandi (in fact the majority of) clerics and religious scholars (from all sects and groups) from mourning Taseer.Taseer was against the blasphemy law and termed it a black law.It was suspected that this was the main reason for his assassination.

During the same period of time, a number of Barelvi scholars also condemned the assassination. Msoamu (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• For goodness sake Msoamu. Your first reversion is invalid, as it is sourced, your second deletion is invalid, you've provided NO evidence that person is biased. As to the third edit, the section is solely about the sectarian violence, and besides, it was already neutral - as it says they are no worse or better than other sects of Islam. So, I've rolled back your edits. Again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks Lukeno,these questions were asked to MezzoMezzo,initiator of the changes.Your reply that first is sourced second has no evidence third is neutral is clearly not an attempt to not understand the problem.You don't know what is the differences between Shia and Sunni,i would say then.

• Barelvi leaders have key differences with the Shia community and Khaled's personal opinion can't nullify those differences.Adding this sentence,In more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than beforeto give a general impression to readers that Barelvis and Shias are mixed,it is nothing but highly biased non neutral claim.I am saying time and again if equating a movement with its opposition on the basis of a single personal opinion is not biased non neutral than what it is ?If for instance the opinion is not biased then would you like to clear what type of mixing he is talking about Lukeno?If that is fact,can you elaborate and explain it?Can you clear it?Can you provide other valid source to support it?Moreover his claim is about a particular gathering of Tahir ul Qadri, which again can't be a fact about whole Barelvi Movement, which conducts thousands of gatherings on daily basis around the world by various other Scholars.
• Arun Shourie is associated with right wing highly communal Hindu political Party Bharatiya Janata Party which is political wing of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh a fascist organization of India ,involved in massacre of Muslims in various parts including in 2002 Gujarat violence.RSS runs disinformation campaigns against Muslims,Shourie is one of the meber of it.
• Lukeno,when MezzoMezzo added that Barelvis are intolerant and radical with some sources,I have other sources which says they are moderate and peaceful.I am saying my this line that By and Large they are considered peaceful and moderate (with sources)should be in the Article along with MezzoMezzo's version.Msoamu (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, you're touting the same claims over and over again without even considering the advice regarding site policy which multiple editors have given you.

1. "My" claims regarding Sunni and Shi'a are not only well-sourced, but by a source you have defended as a reliable one in the past.

2. Your issue with Shourie is a result of your refusal to understand or acknowledge WP:SYNTHESIS, not to mention the fact that the source you're providing in order to make a synthesis-claim that Shourie is biased doesn't say he's biased; please brush up on your English and learn what "co-opted" means.

3. Your attempt to paint the assassin as not definitely being a member of Dawat e Islami is dishonesty on your part; the story which you used to source your claim is from January 2011 and is outdated. Recent reporting has found that he is a proud member of Dawat e Islami, he named himself after the organization's founder and the organization supports the politician's murder.

As for other groups agreeing with the murder of the politician, then what's the point of including it here? This article is about Barelvism and should include relevant material regarding Barelvism. The position of Deobandis in regard to Salmaan Taseer has no relevance to this article and just seems an attempt to defend his assassination.
I'm reverting your latest round of insertions for the reasons stated above. When you're ready to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines, perhaps your peers will listen to what you have to say. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have since your proposal objected this personal opinion of Barelvi Shia mixing.This is highly exceptional claim and fringe theory as i have said earlier,bring exceptional source to prove this.

• Shourie is biased and a Muslim basher, a BJP activist is certainly non neutral about Indian Muslims,'The World of Fatwas' just to name one. The book was authored by an extremist journalist Arun Shourie whose Muslim enmity is earlier proved as he started crusade in 1981 against Abdul Rahman Antulay, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, which caused his eventual resignation.
• Regarding Barelvis being peaceful and moderate which is well sourced, you kept mum.Why can't this point be inserted in the Article.
• Don't attack me personally that I am dishonest.Don't impose your personal understanding on us,The name Qadri is not taken from name of founder of organization Dawat-e-Islami.It is baseless personal opinion of yours.You know it well that Qadri is Sufi silsila which is followed by millions of Muslims in Pakistan.Where Mumtaz Qadri has accepted that he is member of D.I?Your source says ,Mumtaz is said to be associated with ‘Dawat-i-Islami’ and you are then writing him a confirm member.Msoamu (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You saying something is a fringe theory doesn't make that true; the burden of proof is still on you and no one else.

Shourie being biased is still an issue of you violating WP:SYNTHESIS. If you edit again based on this point and you don't show some acknowledgement that you have read and understood the policy, I will immediately revert whatever edit you did without discussion. (Your source to prove he is biased, by the way, is a Barelvi fatwa website.)

The issue of Barelvis being peaceful or not has been resolved. I'm not going to respond to your rejections of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

The fact that he named himself after the founder of Dawat E Islami is mentioned on the Wikipedia article for the founder of Dawat E Islami, Muhammad Ilyas Qadri. Specifically, this source mentions that as the reason why the group and its founder are now under investigation. Considering that you only edit those articles in addition to this one, I find it hard to belive that you wouldn't be aware of that; the assassin took the name Qadri as a form of hero worship for Muhammad Ilyas Qadri and this is now well-known even in the English-language news media.

Msoamu, this is becoming somewhat taxing. It's clear that you haven't accepted any of the policies or guidelines multiple users have thrown your way, even if you might have read them. To simply have to point out that you're rehashing the old points every single time you comment is not only a waste of other editors time, it also destroys any good will you may have built up. I'm not insulting you; I'm trying to get through to you that if you want others to take you seriously, you need to undertake a massive change in your editing behavior. And if you do so, you will see a difference in how your edits are received. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

if burden of proof is on me,then Barelvis being Sunni ,is enough to prove that there are huge differences between Shias and Barelvis and they have differrent practices and beliefs,a single personal opinions can't prove their mixing.Barelvis have issued many verdicts against Shias and consider them on deviated path.

• My source has proved that Shourie's work is biased, created to target a community and is non neutral.I am just demanding neutral source in this regard.perhaps you don't have.
• Dawat's chief followers adds title Attar which is his silsila,Qadiri is general Sufi silsila,not a name of Ilyas Attar Qadri.When it is not his name ,it can't associated only to him.When you are not relying on my valid source, how can you insist me to rely in this regard on your source which may also be not true.
• I understand your problem MezzoMezzo,Don't overreact and assume good faith.I have full right to object what you propose.Msoamu (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo,it was not expected from you that you will start telling lies to support your cause.Your sentence,(Your source to prove he is biased, by the way, is a Barelvi fatwa website)is blatant lie to misled others,you know?The http://www.markazulmaarif.org/easterncresent/ec_January_2012/ecJanuary12cs.asp is a Deobandi site which is just opposite to Barelvi movement and more close to Wahabism.

How it can be Barelvi site MezzoMezzo?The fact is that Shourie is considered biased by Deobandis also strengthen my points that he is actually baised and non neutral who has written with malafide intentions against Muslim community.Msoamu (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still not getting it, are you Msoamu?

The sources added are reliable. Go read WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:IRS. Until you start respecting these policies, not only will other editors continue reverting you (notice that the latest person to revert you wasn't me), but I for one and likely others will stop responding to your comments here in detail. More than one editor has told you that your entire line of reasoning is contradictory to site policy and then quoted those policies to you.

Also, if you continue reverting others while posting useless comments like those above as your justification, you really will be edit warring against consensus and I will personally start another ANI thread against your efforts - assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I requested a WP:3O here, Msoamu, if they disagree with you, please, drop the stick and stop this farce. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Intervention

I've been somewhat following this, and Msoamu just asked me to jump in, so I will. Here are some specific questions:

1. Msoamu, please provide a reliable source that states that Shourie is non-neutral. So far you have not. You provided one RS, but it doesn't state he's biased (it just states he's "co-opted", which really means almost nothing, and tells us nothing about whether or not he meets RS); the other "sources" are themselves opinion pieces, and so have no bearing on our discussion here.
2. MezzoMezzo, please provide evidence that Shourie's opinion is so important that it meets WP:DUE. Don't forget that being verified in a reliable source, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition for information being included in a WP article. We also need to meet WP:NPOV, as well as need to use editorial discretion to determine which of the million facts we could include are important enough for a very broad summary. Note that in this case the WP:BURDEN falls on you (the person/people wanting to add the info) to show that he's a reliable source of due weight; other editors can't just say "no", but somewhat more burden falls on you.
3. Msoamu, you have a number of sources listed above that you claim support the idea that Barelvi are considered to generally be a peaceful movement. First of all, most of those don't seem to meet WP:RS. Second, in the ones that do, I don't see information to support your claim (in fact, I sometimes see the opposite). Please provide here no more than 3 sources, with an exact quotation, that a) meet WP:RS and b) state what you claim. You ought to re-read WP:RS first. Note that this is very important, because I am trying to determine here whether you understand/accept our guidelines and how to evaluate sources.

It is probably the case that one or more of the above have been answered somewhere on this page, and I apologize if I'm making any of your repeat yourselves. I'm trying to cut to the key matters and thus will find it helpful if they can be restated in a simple, coherent summary (so please try to avoid massive walls of text). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I will provide my reasoning here so it can be scrutinized by others. If it is found to be undue weight, then I will not oppose its removal; I have been in error before. Though, in this case, I feel I am right, hence my defense; this will be a good way to see.

The line which Msoamu removed because it was sourced by Shourie is the following: "Having formed as a reaction against the reformist Deobandi movement, relations between the two groups have often been strained. Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism, went as far as to declare not only all Deobandis infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis."

Here's the thing: in theory, we can drop Shourie as the source altogether if it really bothers Msoamu because I know for a fact I could do a twenty or thirty minute search on Google books and find half a dozen other sources for the same thing. This isn't Shourie's opinion; it's a well known fact and I just used Shourie as a source because he was already used as a source in this article, so it was easy.

I still don't think Shourie should be removed as a source because as a World Bank economist and former editor of two newspapers in India, he knows what he's talking about in terms of South Asia's social climate. However, as a token, we can throw in this source to add a second source to the same statement:

"Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India, Part 3, , vol. 1, pg. 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989."

I took that from the article for Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, as the text in question is about him. If it's necessary for me to find other sources, then I will put in the time (again, half an hour tops and maybe less) and bring some more.

In short: Arun Shourie isn't biased as can be seen on his own wikipedia article, but that isn't the point; in fact, I think it's a red herring. Even if we removed him as a source theoretically, I can find more without even altering the text in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Qwyrxian for taking time to mediate-

Arun Shourie-And, as always, selectively twisting and turning the facts to fit his preconceived conclusion, and hoping no one will notice.,Analysis by Non Muslim that his writings are inflammatory in its invectiveWorld of fatwas quoted by MezzoMezzo,Even a Hindu source questioned his integrity Why is it that Arun Shourie completely omits the impact of the Persian and Indian civilisations on Islam? proves him not only controversial but biased in academic terms.

• The Article has already these lines ,Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.

Fatwas(Judicial verdict) was issued by him against founders of these movement but Shourie misquoted him said that it was against all.Which is factually untrue.The paragraph about fatwas is already in the article with these sources,there is no need to repeat it by giving it other meaning.

reputation for tolerance and peace,Moderatemost moderatemoderate Barelvi school of Sunni Islam

• Qwyrxian,please also guide me can on the basis of a single personal opinion, a large Movement,be written as mixing up with its opposite movement ?( Sunni Barelvi Movement with Shia Movement.I am requesting exceptional sources for this major baseless claim which is also not clear about mixing? This statementIn more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before.I think that this is fringe theory and exceptional claim,am i right in this regard?The whole statement is giving an impression to general readers that Barelvis mixed up with Shias.As a matter of fact Barelvi leaders have issued verdicts (fatwas) against Shias and don't mixed up with Shias anywhere.Both have different faith and beliefs and have separate Mosques and Institutes.

I have full respect to Wikipedia guidelines and policies and articles must be edited on the basis of these points.There are just allegations and negative utterances against me to show my genuine objections in bad light.Msoamu (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at point 1 first: Msoamu, only one of those sources you provided even comes close to meeting WP:RS; the one that does, in Outlook India, is praising Shourie and the book. It does indicate some slight problems, but overall says the book is well researched and demonstrated. So, the one and only RS you gave on the subject implies that Shourie's book is a reliable source. I'll look at your next set of links next. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

On point 3, whether or not we can describe the Barelvi as moderate or peaceful, lets look at the sources in order:

• [4] Yes, this does seem to make that point. Not exactly a great source for judging a whole religion, but okay.
• [5] The sentence is "” Since the Barelvis are moderate and against the Taliban, the Deobandis look upon them as the state’s stooges, who as heretics should be put to death anyway, Ali argues." That is, it is Ali's opinion that Barelvi are moderate. However the person in question Mubarak Ali, does appear to be an expert on the subject. Thus, this seems like a Good source.
• [6] Not RS. This is a Master's Thesis. These are never, ever, under any circumstance, reliable sources. Even PhD theses are generally not RS.
• [7] Claims to be a reprint of an article in the UK Times, which is generally RS. Here, they really describe the Sunni Itehad Council as being peaceful/moderate...but I think it's close enough, so this seems 'Good.

So, we have 3 reasonable sources, and 1 non-useful one. I think that this is probably sufficient to support some sort of summarizing sentence, though I think the one you (Msoamu) have suggested is a bit too strong. However, I leave it up to the involved editors to figure out the exact wording.

However, along with this, I'd also like to make another strong claim: Msoamu, I don't believe that you can be trusted to put sources directly into the article. 5 out of the 8 sources you provided, in response to my direct question that contained a strong recommendation that you review WP:RS, don't meet that guideline. I do not know why this is occurring, though my best guesses are one of the following: 1) lack of understanding of the guideline. 2) lack of English ability to read sources (though this seems doubtful, since you don't need much ability to notice, for example, that something is a blog post or Master's thesis) or 3) a POV that is so strong on this matter that you are unable to see past it when trying to edit articles about it. As such, I think that given your persistent inability/unwillingness to follow RS, you should strongly consider always recommending sources on talk pages first (on any article) before editing mainspace. I can't compel you to do this...but I can tell you that if you continue to fail WP:RS much longer in mainspace, someone is going to request formal sanctions.

Finally, on point 2, it seems like the easiest compromise is to use a different source...but I also think that this specific point is one that would be amenable to a very focused dispute resolution. I'll think about it and recommend something later. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Points one and two seem closely related, so since we're waiting for further comment on point two, it seems to me that waiting for that comment before considering either point resolved would be prudent.

Regarding point three, I think I have a solution that will resolve the issue, as not all of the information has been presented here. This will be a bit long, unfortunately, but I feel it's important to present all the information regarding the point, which Msoamu hasn't done.

Msoamu is presenting information regarding Barelvis being peaceful in an attempt to remove the references to many analysts not considering them peaceful; essentially, he is saying that some sources are better than others and that he wants some sources removed. Please allow me to show the sentence in question:

"Analysts have claimed that the Barelvi movement is as affected by intolerance and radicalism as other Islamic movements in the region,[44][10][45][46][47][48] despite contrary perceptions in intellectual circles.[49]"

Both the fact that some consider Barelvis peaceful and some don't is already included within this article. I note that analysts hold that the movement isn't entirely peaceful because of the sources themselves. The sources who mention that the Barelvi movement isn't entirely peaceful are:

• Eurasia Review, courtesy of the South Asia Analysis Group
• The Jamestown Foundation courtesy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
• Time (magazine)

All of that is in addition to normal periodical sources including The Hindu, The Washington Post and The Guardian. For the opinion that intellectual circles have traditionally held the Barelvis to be a peaceful movement, then I wrote the sentence in what way because the sources include periodicals but no professional political analysts. Those sources are:

• Viewpoint Online
• The Times of India
• The Globe and Mail
• Mail & Guardian

This is in addition to the sources Msoamu provided; one is already provided in my version above, one is not RS, while two are RS but only one speaks about the Barelvi movement as a whole. The other one only speaks about the Sunni Ittehad Council which already has its own article where the source could be worked in; I say worked in because the Council itself has conflicting opinions from analysts, with both the American and Pakistani governments now distancing themselves from the Council due to its terrorist ties. Because the source mentions the Council rather than the whole Barelvi movement, and the Council's nature as peaceful or not is itself under dispute from security agencies, I would argue that it can't be used here.

So where is this solution I was talking about? It's simple. The sentence is already here in the article:

"Analysts have claimed that the Barelvi movement is as affected by intolerance and radicalism as other Islamic movements in the region, despite contrary perceptions in intellectual circles."

If we take the one acceptable source Msoamu provided which isn't already in the article, we won't need to change anything; we can just use it as another source for the second half of the sentence. This is the simplest way to incorporate one more source into the article without giving undue weight to the opinion, as the question of the Barelvi movement's nature as being peaceful or not has been demonstrated here to be one of discussion.

I think this is a good solution to point three. Obviously, I need to hear what others say about that first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats all right Qwyrxian,I am with your suggestions.In reply to MezzoMezzo's objection,I would say that When the wording intolerant and radicalism can be written which is a minor view about a large Movement,then basic image of Barelvis which is moderate and peaceful should be here to present a Neutral view point. Qwyrxian,in this Article,from Times online ,it was written earlier that in U.K Barelvis are considered a moderate force.Here I would like to make clear that Barelvis are spread in many countries beside forming a majority in Pakistan they are huge majority of Indian Muslims, similarly in Bangladesh,South Africa,Sri Lanka,United States of America,in parts of Europe.They are all Sufi oriented and distance themselves from existing terrorist ideologies of Wahabism/Salafism.Even in Pakistan they are struggling to save composite culture and peace.They have lost their leaders while opposing Taliban and Al Qaeda and their suicide Bombing.Terrorist ideologies captured their institutions and killed their Scholars in Pakistan but there is not a single Barelvi organisation which is in the terrorist list of the Pakistani Govt.Even we don't find these harsh wording in the articles of various other movements which are running terrorist organizations around the globe.Msoamu (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that that is your opinion, Msoamu, and it may even be "true", but it has nothing to do with the discussion here. However, I also don't think that MezzoMezzo's version is neutral either; first, MezzoMezzo's version doesn't explicate what the opposing viewpoint is (merely that they don't share the "as effected by intolerance as other groups"). Plus, leading the way it does, it really makes it sounds like "Yeah, most people think Barelvi are just more of the same, even though a few people don't". I assume that's not what you're trying to say, MezzoMezzo, but that's how it comes off. A more neutral statement would say something like "Analysts and journalists have produced conflicting opinions about the underlying nature of the Barelvi movement, which some describing the group as moderate and peaceful,(refs) while others describe it as being effected by intolerance and radicalism in ways similar to other Islamic movements in the region.(refs)" That last part is clunky, but my main point is that absent clear evidence that one position is more strongly held than another one, using a neutral lead in before explicating both positions will serve WP:NPOV better. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• How's this sound? "Analysts and journalists have produced conflicting opinions about the nature of the Barelvi movement. Some have stated it being moderate and peaceful - for example source 1 says this,(ref), source 2 says this,(ref) and source 3 says this.(ref). However, others have disagreed, stating that intolerance and radicalism is prevalent - for example, source 4 says this,(ref), source 5 says this,(ref) and source 6 says this.(ref)" Obviously, you replace source n with the source data, and this with what they say, but how does it seem as a basic structure? If you've got 3 points either way, then it will clearly pass WP:NPOV, and having 3 points for each reduces reference clutter, and also looks good (that rule of 3 English thingy). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you both mean about neutralizing the leadin with plainer language. But Lukeno, wouldn't the suggestion above expand the leadin even more? I'm not saying it's clunky, but do we want it to be longer? Also, were we to cut the sources to three points for each side, how will we choose which ones to keep? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need a "lead", as such, in a section. Personally, I think this whole bit actually needs moving elsewhere in the article, possibly into beliefs and practices, but I'm not sure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several other options. It could go to beliefs, though it could also go to presence because it's describing the movement's actions and attitudes; it could also just go under the relations with other movements because it's about how the movement relates to other ones; it could go under opposition because it relates to the movement's opposition to other movements. But before we figure that out, would you still prefer your version with three explanatory points or Qwerxian's more general version? Your suggestion seemed weird to me but there might be a good reasoning behind it. As long as we get this point resolved, we're good to move on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• What's weird about my suggestion? :) I wrote my section as Qwyrxian's was, as he admits, clunky (also, effected is the wrong word: affected would be correct, but that's a minor point) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps weird is too pejorative. To cut to the chase, I'm not opposed to either suggestion. I guess I just liked his more initially, but that's not a vot against your suggestion either. I'm with either one as long as we can move on and finish with this; I have a lot of other articles which need attention once I'm done with this, and I'm sure you do too, and Qweryxian is always swamped. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's the plan, guys? I still have three more proposed edits before I'm finished with attempts to improve this article - to "Practices," "Presence" and then finally the lead to summarize everything more accurately. Then after that, I have a growing Wikipedia to-do list as I am sure everyone else does. Qwerxian, have you given points one and two some thought? Everybody, are we ready to close out point three with a new suggested version? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to stay closer to a mediator than an editor. I think that Msoamu has failed to establish that Shourie is non-neutral. However, given that there are concerns, it may be safer to either say "According to Shourie, a (description of the position that lends his opinion authority), blah blah", or to replace Shourie with another source. Which you choose to do is up to you. As to the other phrasing, again, I leave that up to involved editors, except to note that neither the current version nor Msoamu's suggestion seem to be NPOV to me. One thing that you may want to think is that it's not good to let perfect be the enemy of goood (i.e., improving it, even if the final result isn't perfect, is probably a good plan). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Both suggestions are very much neutral,I think Qwyrxian should change the wordings as he is acting as mediator.Msoamu (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If Qerxiyan is acting as a mediator, then it would actually be better for others to make the changes, which seemed to be the implication here. I have replaced Shourie as a source here while still noting that Shourie is a good source, as some of my final proposals include him. I have also implemented Qerxian's suggestion as doing so was easier in terms of keeping the formatting of the refs; let it be known that I have no serious objections to Lukeno's suggestion and if he or anyone else looks at the article's current state and really feels it would be a better direction, then I have no problem with that either. With all that being said, can we consider this episode to be concluded? We're nearing the end of this whole ordeal here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please MezzoMezzo trim down the sources of intolerance and radicalism also.There are many controversial points which you have proposed MezzoMezzo and they are being opposed due to many genuine reasons.One sided and biased personal opinions should not be on the Article.First the source Shourie was controversial and second as I have said time and again that the lines are repeated in these words,Having formed as a reaction against the reformist Deobandi movement(Non neutral,Barelvi Movement is also reformist),relations between the two groups have often been strained.(Repeated) Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism,went as far as to declare not only (not all deobandis but founders of all these movements )all Deobandis infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis.This line is factually incorrect and the point which it is trying to make is already in the Article in these words with RS,The movement's founder, Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy(infidelity) against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.There is no need to repeat this point and write factually incorrect sentence.Msoamu (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, my edits are supported by the sources, and what you're repeating here is the same old stuff which, as has been explained to you more than once, isn't resting upon actual policy. Unless someone else echoes these concerns, not only will I leave the edits as they are but I also won't spend time replying again, to the same inaccurate claims. In the meantime, if there isn't any legitimate, policy-based opposition, can we consider this section closed? Like I mentioned before, I would like to wrap this up, finish out the remaining proposed edits and move on to other articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While the sourcing and neutrality issues have been dealt with already, I do have to say that Msoamu seems to have a point on the repetition. I don't see why the following two sentences need to both appear in the article, especially since they're only 3 paragraphs away from each other:

Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism, went as far as to declare not only all Deobandis infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis

The movement's founder, Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.

It would be better, just from a quality-of-prose standpoint, to not repeat like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the second sentence since the first was already sourced and the second was not. Having now resolved the sourcing, neutrality and repitition issues here, could we safely say that we're ready to move on? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo you removed a well explained point to keep your own which I have said many times is factually wrong.Verdict was against founders of Deobandi,Shia,Ahmadi,Wahabi movements not against each and every person.I am unable to understand why you are insisting again on a point which is neither factually correct nor is complete.Ahmad Raza Khan issued fatwa or verdicts against founders.This line is also written in Ahmed Raza Khan along with your contradicting point.Qwyrxian,the removed line in opposition section was a good explanation against various movements that the verdict was issued against founders of Deobandi,Shia,Ahmadiyya,Wahabi movement.

[8]

The movement's founder, Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.

It was sourced and the sources are already in the Article.I am now providing more sources to this existing point.[9] [10][11].All of the websites of Barelvi Movement explicitly confirms this including all researches on him.So removing a clear and valid point to present a doubtful picture is unacceptable.This is clearly bad intention on his part.Msoamu (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So by removing an unsourced sentence and leaving in a sourced sentence, I am displaying a bad intention? Are you really sure about that statement?

Anyway, you've provided a scribd document and something from Raza.org, both of which appear to be Muslim polemical sites. The other two links you've provided appear to be linking to only one book rather than two, and it mentions one specific fatwa from 1906 which does specifically target Deobandi leaders. The other source (which is already in the article) mentions the general declarations against all members of the Deobandi movement as well. The two sources don't contradict one another, and even if they did I don't think you understand how to deal with differing views in sources; you seem to think it's an issue of "my source is truer than yours" (which is a non-issue anyway since there isn't a real conflict).

So we have what appears to be two polemical works which I suspect don't meet up to the standards of RS, and another source which doesn't contradict what is already in the article. Msoamu, even after cutting through the personal remarks I really don't think there's any reason to remove the SOURCED sentence already in the article and replace it with the previously unsourced sentence which now has one RS to support only some of what was originally in the sentence anyway. Perhaps others can bring better justification for hearing your concerns because right now, I have failed to find such justification. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Raza.org is good source for Barelvi Fatwas and their beliefs, It is a Barelvi site.Scribd document is actually original Fatwa(Verdict) which clearly and specifically says Fatwa is against founders of Deobandi movement not against all. Can you change the fact by citing Non verifiable source? See Wikipedia:Creating controversial content.Msoamu (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have seen Wikipedia:Creating controversial content. It doesn't apply, and I'm not in the mood to rehash the same baseless arguments again and again. Msoamu, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Everyone else, I feel things have been wrapped up but would prefer to wait for positive confirmation from other editors before moving on - there is always the chance that perhaps something did slip past me but will be noticed by others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Respected mediator,Qwyrxian,I hope you must have read my concerns in my above comments.I have given Verdict of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi in question confirmed by RS here ,[Gregory C. Doxlowski. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 1999] by Barelvi source and confirmation of this verdict.The verdict was issued against founders, How can we twist the facts?The source of MezzoMezzo may or may not be reliable but authors is not well informed.He has done a clear mistake here and we can't insist on ill informed sources.So my point supported by RS should be in the Article and MezzoMezzo's factually wrong and controversial point should be removed.Msoamu (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if I accepted the use a primary source over a secondary source, your own source proves you wrong: "whoever doubts their Kufr or tries to avoid calling them as Kafirs, they themselves become Kafir,"; "that Gulam Ahmed Qadyani and Qassim Nanotwi and Rashid Ahmed Gangohi and Khalil Ahmed Ambethwi and Ashraf Ali Thanvi and those who are with them". So, it appears that you are again in error about what the source says. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Then this MezzoMezzo's suggestion is wrong dear, Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism, went as far as to declare not only all Deobandis (All Deobandi founders were declared infidels not all deobandis)infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis.Fatwas were not limited to Deobandis,Qadiyanis but were also issued against Shia,Ahle hadith.It would be more clear to write a similar to earlier written line in the Article.In 1896, Ahmad Raza Khan had written a fatwa in which he characterized a number of contemporary movements from Sayyid Ahmad Khan's modernist Aligarh movement, to the Ahl-e Hadith, Deoband, and the Nadwa, not to mention the Shi'a as having "wrong" or "bad" beliefs (bad-mazhab) and being "lost" (gumrah).These people were misleading ordinary Muslims, he said.He, in his Fatwa Husam al-Haramain,he declared founders of Deobandi movement,Shia,Ahle Hadith,Qadiyani group Kafir i.e he issued verdict of (Kufr)infidelity against Gulam Ahmed Qadyani and Qassim Nanotwi and Rashid Ahmed Gangohi and Khalil Ahmed Ambethwi and Ashraf Ali Thanvi and also declared that Who ever doubted the apostasy of these will become apostate. ,, .For the Ahl-e Sunnat, this effort was crowned with success when twenty 'ulama from Makkah and thirteen from Medina certified Husam al-Haramain, giving it their support. They belonged to three different law schools, namely, the Hanafi,Shafi'i,and Maliki. This is true position.First he issued verdict against the founders of these movements then he declared and cautioned not to doubt their Kufr.Msoamu (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Excessively wordy, oversourced (to some non-reliable sources, I might add), ungrammatical, confusing...in short, not an improvement over the current version. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I will re frame it.Msoamu (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First Proposal- </ref>The movement is primarily centered in South Asian countries of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka,where it is a majority force and has spread to Europe, the United States of America, North America, Africa, and in parts of Asia through their organizations World Islamic Mission and Dawat-e-Islami.

Second Proposal-Who is considered Re-newer Mujaddid of the fourteenth Islamic century

Third- Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and DeobandiMovement.Many are regular visitors of their mosque and to various events such as Dhikr and Mawlid famous Islamic author Gibril Haddad defended Sunni Barelvi faith and criticized Deobandi for Wahabi influence on it.

Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,,Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil Habib Ali al-Jifri is regular visitor of Sunni Barelvi Institutions in India.Habib Umar bin Hafiz Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy,Sayed Sabahuddin Rifaai of Baghdad,Iraq takes part in Sunni Barelvi Practices in various countries.

I will be much obliged if I am told the problems in these paras as I have tried to add neutral and third party sources.You tube may be concern but in exceptional cases it may be used I think.Msoamu (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, the onus is on you to explain why these paragraphs should be in the article, not for everyone else to explain why they shouldn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been about four days since any response. While Msoamu is formulating justification for these, would anybody (other than him, really) take issue with me continuing my proposed edits? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, MezzoMezzo. You have been patient and fair. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo,I need not to formulate justification for neutral points.This para is even consented by you,Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and DeobandiMovement.Many are regular visitors of their mosque and to various events such as Dhikr and Mawlid famous Islamic author Gibril Haddad defended Sunni Barelvi faith and criticized Deobandi for Wahabi influence on it.

Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,,Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil Habib Ali al-Jifri is regular visitor of Sunni Barelvi Institutions in India.Habib Umar bin Hafiz Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy,Sayed Sabahuddin Rifaai of Baghdad,Iraq takes part in Sunni Barelvi Practices in various countries..Here the issue is of sources,content is fine.I am removing you tube as source and will add more source soon.George,it would be better if do some effort to improve this page rather just praising with out knowing your patient and fair friend.His all proposals are non neutral one sided,partial and minor views ,Don't you see the changes brought by the efforts of respected mediator to maintain this page neutral?Msoamu (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend Msoamu, I have relatively little interest in the Barelvi-Deobandi debate, not being either a Barelvi or a Deobandi (although I am Muslim). Yet I am very interested in the neutrality and reliability of this page, like all Wikipedia pages, and so I watch how various editors go about the process of shaping the page. I do not criticise you for your perspective, nor do I criticise MezzoMezzo for his. Lately I have commented very rarely because both you and he seemed to be in a healthy dialogue lately, with each of you explaining proposed edits, etc. That is the right thing to do. I am sorry I do not seem more supportive. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Msoamu, but you really do need to formulate justifications for your edits. Enough concerns have been raised regarding your neutrality, familiarity with site policies and quality of composition to put the onus on you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

References