Misplaced Pages

Talk:Barelvi movement

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 00:57, 31 May 2013 (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 30d) to Talk:Barelvi/Archive 5.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:57, 31 May 2013 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 30d) to Talk:Barelvi/Archive 5.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
WikiProject iconIslam Start‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

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

Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri Barelvi

i have collected some third part sources which say that Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is sunni hanafi barelvi here.i want to add it to sir tahir ul qadris page and in barelvi article too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am Not New (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Then go handle the dispute on the man's own article first, because you obviously don't have much support there. And if your suggestion doesn't fly over there, then by virtue of that it won't fly over here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
RS says he is of barelvi background here ...so it can be added. Baboon43 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It isn't that simple. Check the discussion on the talk page for the article about Qadri. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
the source says he is so it doesn't matter what that discussion is about over there. & it seems tahir is part of a breakway group within barelvi called JUP so i guess that might be the slight difference..nevertheless academics point that his group is part of the barelvi movement. Baboon43 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No Baboon, it does matter, especially in regard to how such a suggested sentence would be worded. Again, please go check the relevant talk page because nothing about Qadri's status can be added here until the conflict regarding his status is settled over on the talk page on the article about the man himself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Babboon, for most information, you would be correct. And, in fact, you can add information here that states something like "Charles H Kennedy clasified Khan as a Barelvi"....on Khan's page. You may not add it here. This is because the governing rule is WP:BLPCAT. Whenever we want to add a religious or ethnic category to a person's page, or to add a religion to an infobox, or to list the person in another article (like the list here, or on a "List of Barelvi" page), we must follow WP:BLPCAT, and that policy says that 1) you must have a reliable source 2) the person must self-identify as that religion, and 3) the religion/ethnicity must be related to the person's notability. While you've satisfied 1 and 3, you haven't satisfied 2. So, at this point, as I said, you may add information, in prose, to Khan's article, and you must say something like "According to Source X". I hope that makes the policy clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The official website of Minhaj ul Quran (qadris organization) labels him a barelvi ..also while being interviewed to promote his new book the interviewer introduces him as a braelvi ...NY times says he is barelvi . another thing that should be noted is that the political wing of minhaj ul quran is Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP), which is a barelvi group. stated here ..Baboon43 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if I'm being blind and missing something, but has he identified directly as being a Barelvi himself in any of those sources? If he hasn't, then although information about him being believed to be a Barelvi may be added to his article, his name should not be added here, as Qwryxian stated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
i wouldnt recommend a cat..a simple line of him characterized as barelvi by academics can be added...barelvi is a term invented by their opponents as they call themselves sunnis..by this method we can blank the page..on qadris official website he says barelvi doesnt exist and there's people trying to label sunnis as barelvi..."He warned that efforts were afoot to confine the Sunni school of thought into a sect. He categorically stated that no Brailvi sect ever existed as Hazrat Ahmad Raza Khan Brelvi never referred to any sect by name of Brelvi in any of his books". Baboon43 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not on about a category, but for him to be included in this article, then he must have self-identified as a Barelvi. I'm not sure what your point was with the above post, and can only guess that you catastrophically misunderstood me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

he can be included somewhere in the article as there is RS as suggested right after "according to". even if it is included in this article it wouldnt conflict self identity as we are careful to say that its an academic thats refering to him as barelvi...it wouldnt make any sense to put it in this article but rather his own article page though unless a proper section is created for possible barelvi members etc. i would remove all the so called barelvi scholars but i dont have the time. Baboon43 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi is a term given by opponents.this sector is known by the name ahlesunnat wa jaamat in all over the world.these beliefs were present long before alahazrat Ahmed Raza khan fazil e barelvi.But the others term it as Barelvi.so this is the reason.he use the name Ahlesunnat wa Jamaat instead of barelvi as he said in his lactures.you will ask refrence.in oxford dictionary of religion.this sector is named as ahlesunnah wa jammat.so there is nothing wrong if he is using that name instead of barelvi.his beliefs are same as attested by third parties.i again recommend addition of his sector.because this is also a name of this sector which he is using.Dil e Muslim talk 18:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

yes but unfortunately when you got into a dispute on the other article the old per label policy was revived..you can instead point that his group is affiliated with barelvi as i posted a source that he has political ties with barelvis. to add that here perhaps an affiliate section might be needed not sure though. Baboon43 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I just want to correct Baboon43, the political wing of Minhaj ul Qur'an is Pakistan Awami Tehreek and Minhaj ul Quran has no links with Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP). Pakistan Awami Tehreek is not a religious or sectarian political movement. The link from his official website that states that he is a Barelvi is not an official article or text posted from his organisation but it is a copy of the following news article: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-new-saviour-arrives-in-pakistan/article4280225.ece Many perceive him to be a Barelvi but he has never self-identified himself as a Barelvi. The New York Times have misreported that he belongs to the Barelvi sect as have some other news articles. The majority of news articles refer to him as a Sufi scholar. Since Tahir-ul-Qadri has never self-claimed or self-identified he cannot be added to any list. Rather you can put something along the lines of "Tahir-ul-Qadri reportedly belongs to the Barelvi sect although he has never identified himself as someone belonging to that sect." and then add the source. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
barelvi doesnt technically exist as i have quoted him saying above that they are trying to label sunnis as barelvis for being against extremism and pro sufi. under that classification sufis who dont have wahabi leanings are labeled barelvi by academics..even if tahir has a falling out with JUP (main barelvi body). Baboon43 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have a good reference stating that the organization is Barelvi, add that information. I think that perhaps you're not understanding the purpose of WP:BLPCAT here, as everything you're both saying is exactly why we 'shouldn't label him as Barelvi. The whole reason the policy exists is because real, direct harm can come to people if they are associated to a religion that they do not align themselves with. This can range from direct persecution to indirect mental harm. If Qadri does not consider himself a Barelvi, please be sure that any description of him as a Barelvi is very clearly labelled as a specific source's opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
im explaining his stance religiously not regarding content inputs.anyways brd is more effective then going on talk page and asking if he/she can insert the following. the source says his group is politically connected to JUP so unless there's a source dismissing that then i dont see why it cant be used. these are suggestions for Am Not New as i dont intend to edit the article at this time. Baboon43 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43, what specifically, exactly, are you suggesting be added? It's possible that we actually agree, but I can't tell because you're not proposing a specific edit. I know that what Am Not New wants (which is to add a category, and to add him in a "List of" section) is not allowed per policy. But maybe you're suggesting something more refined. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we provided enough sources I want to ask tommy fenton.what souces you provided to prove him non barelvi.you are just reverting and speaking.Dil e Muslim talk 07:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided a source that meets WP:BLPCAT. The fact that you don't seem to care what our policies are is of absolutely no consequence to me...but you'll have to abide by them as long as you edit here. I've repeated several times exactly what we can and cannot say if we don't have a self-declaration. If you want to suggest an edit that meets those rules, do so. Otherwise, the matter is pretty much finished. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

another news source discribing him as barelvi Dil e Muslim talk 18:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

well i was hoping a compromise can be achieved by stating some academics describe him as barelvi & his group has political ties with barelvis..that can be added on his article page. Baboon43 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices - new edits

I have taken the liberty of reinstituting the edits which I had made some months ago to the "beliefs and practices" section but which were reverted by Msoamu and his army of sockpuppet accounts. I feel it has been long enough and I would now like to explain my rationale behind these edits.

The first change which I have made is to the lead for the overall section. This involves changing the claim that Barelvis base their beliefs on such-and-such to that Barelvis claim to base their beliefs on such sources, just as other sects do as well. The Barelvis are like other subdivisions of Sunni in that the group's status is controversial; thus, what they claim about themselves should not be presented as objective fact, just as is true for Deobandis, Salafis, Ahle Hadith and so forth. Additionally, I have removed the reference to Ash'arism; from what I recall, Msoamu - who was really the only opposition my edits received - could not produce reliable sources stating that any Barelvi scholars follow other than Maturidi theology (which I have added instead of aqidah, which native English speakers won't understand). Similarly, Msoamu was not able to find any instances of a Barelvi following any school of jurisprudence (fiqh in Arabic, also changed) other than Hanafi. As I also established, no Barelvi scholars are documented to have followed the Naqshbandi Sufi order, so that has been removed as well.

The second change is removing the Arabic terminologies from the section about Barelvi beliefs regarding Muhammad. Since this is in accordance with WP:MOSISLAM, I don't expect it to be controversial.

The third change I have made is to remove anything from the "practices" subsection which is sourced by a primary source. As we have seen with Msoamu and Am Not New, the propensity to utilize primary sources is typically to promote a certain viewpoint; often, this viewpoint isn't even less negative or more positive than what is already written in the article, though sometimes it is. While primary sources can be allowed under strict conditions, the controversial nature of this article is proof enough that those conditions do not exist in this case and likely will not any time soon.

The fourth change is the issue of veneration of the dead. Now, the given reliable source (globalsecurity is not reliable as has been established on the appropriate noticeboard and hence has been removed) does not delve into Barelvi beliefs on the issue on the page given in the source. It's a reliable source but I read page 149 and didn't find what is being cited. I have left it out of good faith because the source is reliable and perhaps what I read recently was a different addition. Regardless, about sources. Almost all sources mention that Barelvis see their practices at graves/shrines as praying to God through the dead in addition to venerating those shrines as special places due to the piety of the saints who occupy them. Every reliable source also mentions that the opponents of Barelvis view this as polytheistic and that Barelvis are - as quoted by many of these sources - "tomb worshippers." Such language obviously isn't appropriate, but neither is the current version where it is simply phrased as seeking intercession; in both cases, a certain view would be presented. Instead of letting the subsection become an ideological battleground, it's better to just sidestep the issue and relate the practice to what is very obvious upon scrutiny of the veneration of the dead article: a common human spirutal behavior which is evident across numerous cultures which had no contact with one another at the times in which they developed said spiritual behavior. Note that this isn't claiming that Barelvi practices are the same as what people of other religions do; it's simply an issue of terminology. It's the most neutral way to phrase it, and the Arabic phrase currently used is obviously inappropriate per WP:MOSISLAM. The issue of saying that the Sufi saints ultimately intercede on behalf of the individual with God is also a clear violation of WP:NPOV as it presents religious belief with fact; that is a huge, glaring issue that absolutely cannot remain.

The last change is the beard issue. In short: Msoamu, again the main opposition, agreed with my point, but his bad English and combative nature prevented him from seeing that. I'm not saying bad as an insult, but having once taught English as a second language at a large, public university in Asia for a period of four years, I can objectively say someone's English skills are bad without it being personal. He attempted to counter my edit by providing a primary source - again, unacceptable - which Msoamu claimed portrayed Barelvi belief regarding a man's beard in a less negative way. The thing is, it was the same thing; the primary source which Msoamu provided which was a fatwa by the movement's founder referred to men who shave a being fasiq. My version mentions that Barelvis view men who trim the beard as sinners and who shave as committing an abominable act. Fasiq comes from the Arabic work fisq, which is how you refer to bankers who embezzle millions of dollars or drunkards and gamblers. If anything, my version is actually a lot less harsh, and it is actually supported by a reliable source. For all Msoamu's clamoring about Arun Shourie, no bias or lack of reliability on Shourie's part was ever proven. The fact that a primary source confirms what is in that one only strengthens the case which I am making.

I apologize for the frequent mention of other users, but because almost all of the opposition came to a small group of sockpuppet accounts I feel the need to respond. So far, the improvements I have been making to this article have been well-received and I don't think it's disingenuous to make mention of that. I await responses to the latest edit from others concerned with this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Special:Contributions/119.154.11.196 reverted the recent edits via this diff, stating in the edit summary: "rv to last revision by Qwyrxian............POV push.against senctions.effort to make page non neutral." I don't think it would be assuming bad faith to state that, after everything multiple users have witnessed here, the language matches the common method of writing used by the sockpuppet accounts which were recently banned after an SPI. Suffice to say that while it's possible my edits are not entirely correct - I am human and I err - the reality is that these accounts and the person behind them never brought any policy-based opposition and this instance hasn't been any different. If this happens again, I will simply revert again, though if there are real, actual, policy-based reasons against my edit then by all means they should be discussed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear MezzoMezzo, the Beliefs and Practices section is now stronger with your edits. I suspect that we might soon see a wave of new attacks, but I hope not. Thank you for a very thorough explanation. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The last change on Barelvi article is a clear violation of WP:POV.Your accusation and changes not supported by a single source and is just Conspiracy of your mind.The changes of a large amount of text to a sensitive topic like beliefs removal of a large amount of contents against sources, an effort to make it lessinformative show this movement in bad light.you are relating this movement to other terms is clear violation of nutral point of view.*YOU CANNOT CHANGE TEXT ACCORDING TO YOUR WILL.*

You changed the word asking awliya for help to vernation of dead.Barelvi believe in wasila (intermediation) not in vernation of dead which is a completly different term.Your effort to change text asking awliya for help to vernation of dead is a violation of WP:POV and against sources.you removed a lot of text as well.the word that Barelvi base thier beliefs on quran and sunnah is complety nutral.the removal that contents is only only to show this movement in bad way and represent wahabi mindset.The change the wording of sentences in beliefs (a very very senitive topic).i am sorry to say that your wording is not nutral,making contents less informative and of course against sources. You removed a lot of data as primary sources.Am Not New's contents was supported by sources(wether it is primary or whatever) your accusation is not even supported by a single source.you have not done anything to refute them.you cannot remove them without reason.You further changes to bound barelvis by only hanafi school of law warrent sources.

and Now don,t believe that some users have gone and you will change this topic according to your will.it shows a clear violation WP:POV.You will find many more there.194.44.108.164 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Are you Msoamu or Am Not New? Because you must be one of those users, as you can't tell that Am Not New added some rubbish (neutrality didn't come into it; it was just garbage) and that MezzoMezzo has added pro-Barelvi views/information as well as those that aren't so pro-Barelvi. That's the whole point of NPOV - to have a balanced article, which this is close to. You don't provide a single source to support your stance, which is ironic, given the entire stance of your text. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for a month, and will extend that longer if the problem resolves. IPs, I'm certain you are either Msoamu or CGUS or whichever or those recent socks we've been dealing with. You have to understand: blocked means blocked. It does not mean that you can edit as an IP. And I'm sure that if I wanted to I could track down which of the blocked editors you are, but there shouldn't be any reason I have to bother. You cannot edit. If you want to edit, make an unblock request with your main account, acknowledging what was wrong with your previous behavior and how you intend to edit differently in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Qwyrxian,I was neither Dil-e-Muslim nor I was any I.P.I did not use any IP for editing after my Ban.I am sorry for my acts and will not do so in future.I don't have right to say sorry for this mega fault but again Im sorry specially to You.Msoamu (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

how is "seeking intercession" not appropriate?..i don't believe linking to the article "veneration of the dead" is appropriate seeing that article page has yet to even have an islamic section..why also remove arabic phrases? sticking to wikipedia guidelines its per label policy not POV..basically your saying that stating barelvi beliefs is not following NPOV guidelines. Arabic terms auliya and ziyarat must be re-included in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding veneration of the dead, then my rationale is above. Whether there is yet an Islamic section isn't relevant to this section here in this article per WP:OTHERSTUFF. I uphold the translation of Arabic terms into English per Misplaced Pages:MOSISLAM#Translation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
there's nothing wrong with adding brackets for arabic terms. this is needed for informational purposes Baboon43 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You make a very good point. You've pulled me onto the fence, though perhaps feedback from more than just the two of us would form a definite consensus. As far as I know, WP:MOSISLAM states that translation takes precedence but there's nothing prohibiting the inclusion of original Arabic terms. Are there any objections to including this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead - new edits

Returning the final round of edits which I had originally instated, I have now modified the lead to better reflect what is already available in reliable sources both in the article itself and the article for Ahmed Raza Khan.

First, I mention that Bareilly is the hometown of the movement's founder, not merely a leader. Msoamu fought hard against this with his sockpuppet account Shabiha both here and on the article for that founder. He lost over there when other concerned editors noticed that I brought, I think it was eight separate reliable sources all referring to the man as the founder. Four of them are already included below, and I have included four in the lead in case Msoamu or anyone else tries to dispute this fact again. The movement has several main leaders, but its founder should be denoted as such due to his significance to the movement. For the life of me, I can't imagine why there's such a problem with mentioning this.

I also returned the fact that Barelvism formed specifically as a reaction to Deobandism; the sources already present in the lead mention this very clearly, and I could bring many more if other editors find that necessary. Again, I don't know why Msoamu opposed mentioning this so much - it's in reliable sources, and a quick glance at any Barelvi websites will show that most of their polemical discussion focuses on Deobandis.

I hope that this is found acceptable to my fellow editors. Obviously, all editors are free to contribute and make their own changes, so the case is by no means closed on this article. I, however, have finished pretty much all the original edits for which I spent hours researching and which various sockpuppet accounts removed in bad faith. So, I will likely relegate my own status here to merely monitoring POV-pushing, much like most of the other concerned editors. I do hope, however, that we can at least form a new consensus for the time being. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Faizan 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear MezzoMezzo, I am once again grateful for your efforts and explanation. I agree with your approach. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

on your second point i believe Msoamu is trying to say that because deobandi is mentioned in every paragraph its clogging up the article. Baboon43 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned wherever the reliable sources mention it. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering that Barelvism is a reaction to Deobandism. Similarly, Ash'arism formed as a reaction to the Mu'tazila and hence references to the Mu'tazila are all over that article too. That's not an actual reason per WP:OTHERSTUFF; I am merely drawing an analogy. The actual reason is WP:RS, and the lack of violation of WP:UNDUE. A movement formed as a reaction to another movement will have frequent mention of the latter movement in it's (the former movement's) own article frequently, that shouldn't come as a surprise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Free Hand to Personal POV

To all admin ,I am really sorry for my other accounts.In future and in present I will not use any thing like that.The absence created by my Ban seems to have given someone a chance to edit this highly Important Article from his own Point of view.While I was mistakenly associated with other user I.D ,Mezzmezzo seems to be very much interested in editing each and every thing in this Article. In many points one side of the story is inserted and he went on editing with out any oppose. In some cases like this-

  • Ahmed Raza is Founder,this is opinion not fact.This is already written and insisted by you but to make it more biased and to prove it a newsect you trying to add it in lead section.
  • It is again Wahabi /Deobandi POV that movement developed as reaction to Deobandi reformist attempts-mentioned in the Article already so why adding in lead section.Means that this Article should be shown from Deobandi/Salafi/Wahabi POV . Don't my fellow editors see that each heading has Deobandism/Ahle Hadis mentioned?

Is it a comparison Article? or a neutral Article? Why one single person that too with history of making Sufi oriented pages in bad light,trying to mention the opposition movements like Deobandism/Ahle Hadith/Wahabism each and every where in this Article?

  • He removed many things from belief section added his OR and POV that Barelvis venerate Dead.This is pathetic on his part.Now Whole Article seems to be written from critics point of view.Msoamu (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Msoamu, are you unable to see that multiple editors - including some whom have not been in the dispute - agree that MezzoMezzo's edit is neutral? You still don't provide any reliable sources for your opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

i get whats wrong with it but can you provide what you think should be put in place for each of your points or are you saying it should be removed. Baboon43 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it. These are the words of multiple experts on the subject published in reliable sources. The only problem is formed by Msoamu's competence issue per Misplaced Pages:Competence#Bias-based. He needs to work on that first before trying to express himself, because it's clear here that the issue is Msoamu's personal opinion vs. the testimony of half a dozen reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

veneration??

the line doesnt make it clear that its veneration towards saints not any dead person. Baboon43 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Common-sense applies here, Baboon43. The meaning is clear. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
More rationale is provided in the "Beliefs and practices - new edits " section here on this talk page as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
change it to veneration of graves or deceased saints. Baboon43 (talk)
That actually sounds like it could be clearer...I take it the concern is that a reader might leave the article thinking that Barelvis venerate just any Joe Schmoe rather than those who were known for piety during life, right? I think you could be on to something, though from my understanding - you might have more insight than I - the Barelvis don't venerate the grave itself. Would it work if we phrase it as "veneration of the dead, specifically those who lead pious/righteous lives"? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
yes not only for accuracy but to prevent angry pro barelvi ip's from edit-warring because they misunderstood the wording. Baboon43 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes the suggested wording is excellent.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright...I guess I'll go change it now. Let's see if this can stem the tide of angry IPs, at least against the subsection in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait, Gorge already did it. Good call. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2314840/Sharif-leading-Pakistans-electoral-race.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Categories: