Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada

Using YouTube content as a source

This article appears to use YouTube content as a source. Isn't that against Wikipedia's rules? Kabul madras (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the parts of the article that reference YouTube content whose authenticity cannot be traced due to heavy editing. Kabul madras (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Avoid YouTube if there's something better. If not it depends. See WP:RS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC).

A quotation by Shaikh Shauqi 'Allam

Please add references according to Wikipedia's guidelines for citations from Shaikh Shauqi 'Allam. If no references are provided, I will edit the content for removal. Thank you. Kabul madras (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

orrr you could just add a tag instead till someone finds one Abo Yemen✉ 08:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to find some high-quality references on this topic first. If I can't find any, I'll have to edit the content to remove it. Kabul madras (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Abo YemenThe clearest quote from Shaikh Shauqi 'Allam that I could find is in the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJz-FgIL0yw . It turns out he permits the use of DNA testing to establish lineage, but rejects its use to deny lineage. In this context, he's referring to close lineage between father and child. Clearly, the content of this quote is significantly different from what's written in the article. I will revise the article to align with the content of this quote. Kabul madras (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The use of Y-DNA testing to trace distant paternal lineage.

Regarding the ongoing debate concerning the use of Y-DNA testing in tracing distant patrilineal ancestry, I invite several editors who appear to have a deeper understanding of this issue to contribute. I request the following users to provide their input on this article, particularly regarding the Y-DNA testing section. Thank you.@Waddie96@WOSlinker@Picantho@Materialscientist @HelenOnline @DenverCoder19@Fylindfotberserk@Ebizur@CaribDigita Kabul madras (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

the debate was due to your original research and not "the use of Y-DNA testing in tracing distant patrilineal ancestry". There is absolutely no reason for pinging all these people... Abo Yemen✉ 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that I'd say: I have a far deeper knowledge. I included a note in my profile of one of my DNA kits sharing that I have a DNA linke with Egyptian Pharaoh Ramseses III. But I understand he may have had 70+ children so it bounds to happen he'll have decedents alive today. - CaribDigita (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh nice. Im pretty sure that yk that only one dna sample from a random indonesian person who claimed to be a part of this arab family isn't enough to disprove their lineage right? Abo Yemen✉ 08:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, not just one, but two people from Indonesia. Both of them have been validated by the Indonesian Ba Alawi genealogy recording institution (Rabithoh Alawiyah). In fact, Y-DNA can indeed be used to trace lineage back to what science considers " Adam." And in an open meeting of Rabithoh Alawiyah, an official speaker from them acknowledged that the majority of them are G, with J as a minority. Between haplogroups G and J, it is clear that they do not share the same male ancestor (TMRCA) in the last 1500 years. Kabul madras (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

still, original research Abo Yemen✉ 12:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

nope. Secondary references for that information have already been included in the article. Kabul madras (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Disputes and rebuttals section

This section is given too much WP:UNDUE weight to the article. I have added this section to the article, The old Ba 'Alawi sada#Questionable lineage to Muhammad section that is full of OR and the questionable sources that I have mentioned in @Kabul madras's talkpage will should and will be removed along with the text that has nothing to do with the sources. Abo Yemen✉ 04:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. Let's take this to the noticeboard and get other admins involved. Kabul madras (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

sure Abo Yemen✉ 06:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

@JBW,As you know,We're still talking about this on the noticeboard, but @ABo Yemen keeps editing the part we're arguing about. Is that okay? Kabul madras (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Aorry @JBWWrong user , i mean is @Abo Yemen Kabul madras (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Would be nice if you stopped creating new topics in the talk section for the exact same arguments. Plus JWB has stated this on your talkpage: "I prefer not to get involved in the dispute about content of the article" so please stop pinging him Abo Yemen✉ 06:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Abo Yemen, I said I did not wish to become involved in the content dispute, but I also said that I did intend to deal with "the ways in which you can try to deal with that dispute", and I explicitly mentioned edit-warring as one of them which is not good. Kabul madras was totally right to draw my attention to the fact that you have continued the edit-war, and I have blocked you from editing. JBW (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@JBW, while I have refrained from editing due to an ongoing dispute, @Buhadram continues to make substantial edits to the article. What should I do? Am I allowed to edit the newly modified sections, or should I continue to hold back? Kabul madras (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras: Certainly you can edit the newly modified content, but of course avoid getting into another edit-war. I am doubtful about the reliability of at least one cited source, but I haven't checked very thoroughly, so I can't commit myself to any view. I see that you have mentioned Buhadram on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You should post a message on his talk page telling him that you have done that. I know you pinged him, but it isn't safe to assume that editors receive pings from admin noticeboards, because they may have turned notifications off. You should also explain on this page what your disagreements with Buhadram's editing are. JBW (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

okay, i will continue editing it ,thanks Kabul madras (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You just added back the text that was part of the edit war... Abo Yemen✉ 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Would be nice of you to remove that unreliable source and the text along with it instead of letting it stay in a BLP article Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been brought to the noticeboard, I will remove it when an admin raises concerns about the wording and references. Let's wait for another admin to respond soon. Thank you. Kabul madras (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@JBW I've re-edited the article with additional references as you suggested, and I immediately got a complaint from @Abo Yemen. What did I do wrong? If I made a mistake, I'll delete it right away. Kabul madras (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

How is that source reliable? It's like trying to disprove the lineage of the Rothchilds using chinese sources Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Afaik , the reference meets the requirements for use as a reference according to Wikipedia policy. Kabul madras (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy exactly? You keep on repeating the words "Wikipedia policy" and "Wikipedia's guidelines" every time but you never say which one Abo Yemen✉ 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything written at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Content clearly allows me to use those references. However, you will likely interpret it differently due to our significant differences. You want to maintain the status quo, and I want to provide an alternative perspective. It seems we will not accept each other's interpretations. Therefore, let the admins at the noticeboard decide on this dispute. Kabul madras (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No, not everything at WP:GUIDELINES allows you to add your unreliable sources. If you want the admins at the noticeboard decide on this dispute, then please stop editing the stuff that was part of the edit war and don't add new stuff to the article before establishing a consensus Abo Yemen✉ 09:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Abo, as seen above, I have received approval from @JBW to revise the article. If JBW considers my edits a violation, I will remove my edits and await further instructions from the admin. Kabul madras (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No?? he did NOT give you the permission to plaster your OR in every paragraph of this article? Abo Yemen✉ 10:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this remotely encyclopedic? please revert your edit Abo Yemen✉ 10:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The references are clear, what else needs to be explained? Kabul madras (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not. One of them is pay-walled and the other youtube videos are in a language not related to the subject and I don't understand that language too Abo Yemen✉ 14:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't me who added the paid website, it was Buhadram. This shouldn't be considered a problem. Regarding the language you can't understand, it's important to know that the current genealogical controversy originated in Indonesia, so it's natural to have many references in Indonesian. Kabul madras (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to clarify that by clearly saying that who question it are localized to be in Indonesia. only.

Buhadram (talk) Buhadram (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

controversial statement

The controversial statement is placed in the first paragraph of the article because the claim is already mentioned there. It seems that the controversial part at the end of the subsection can be removed. Kabul madras (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

the controversial statement is not notable enough for it to be in the first introductory paragraph of the lede section. I have made compromises and allowed it to be in the lede section but not in the first paragraph where it shouldn't be there anyways. Abo Yemen✉ 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please undo your edits and restore the old version of the lede or else this will end in another edit war Abo Yemen✉ 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because the first paragraph already includes the claim of descent from Prophet Muhammad. The controversial section in the last paragraph has been integrated into the first paragraph. Kabul madras (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to move the mentioned section to the end only if the claim is also moved to the last paragraph. Kabul madras (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Their claim of lineage to Mohammed is way more notable than their badly sourced controversies in indonesia Abo Yemen✉ 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that the claim has existed for hundreds of years; therefore, the controversial sentence explaining it must be in the same paragraph. Kabul madras (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

no? also the amount of text that you've used to refute their lineage is more than that what is used to introduce the claim, which gives makes the paragraph more leaning towards the non-related indonesian controversial claims (which is against WP:Neutral Point of View Abo Yemen✉ 11:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit longer; how about a shorter version? Please provide an example.

In terms of phrasing, the existing sentence is non-judgmental and concludes with a neutral statement. Kabul madras (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

how about something like this:

"They claim their lineage to Ahmad al-Muhajir who was born in 873 (260H), who emigrated from Basra to Hadhramaut in 931 (320H) to avoid sectarian violence, including the invasion of the Qaramite forces into the Abbasid Caliphate, although that claim is contested" Abo Yemen✉ 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

what if " They claim their lineage to Ahmad al-Muhajir who was born in 873 (260H), who emigrated from Basra to Hadhramaut in 931 (320H) to avoid sectarian violence, including the invasion of the Qaramite forces into the Abbasid Caliphate.The claim remains controversial, and to date, there is no agreement between those who refute and those who support the Ba 'Alawi lineage." and i will add my references in the end of it. Kabul madras (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

references=citations Kabul madras (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I know. Abo Yemen✉ 11:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

sure but there is not need for referenced in the lede section as long as it exists in the article itself. See MOS:LEADCITE Abo Yemen✉ 11:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it."

From that sentence, citations opposing the claim in the article should indeed be included. Kabul madras (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

aight Abo Yemen✉ 11:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

done. Kabul madras (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@WiseRaven268

The sentence you deleted is the result of a long discussion between me and @Abo Yemen. The references used are in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Kabul madras (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to delete your sentence, but I'm going to add mine anyway, their claim is accepted by the niqaba/Naqib Al Ashraf of virtually all Muslim countries including Egypt and Yemen, your sentence gives the impression that there is a worldwide disagreement while the controversy émergé only in Indonesia because of Imaduddin. WiseRaven268 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah sure you can add it if you have a source Abo Yemen✉ 11:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have a reference from a published book, so if he wants to delete my sentence again there will be a edit war again. WiseRaven268 (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the extent of the disagreement worldwide?

The sentence “The claim remains controversial and, to this day, there is no agreement between those who refute it and those who support the Ba 'Alawi lineage” needs to be proven with other links than a source that refers to the controversy linked to the kiai Imaduddin Utsman, have other Muslim scholars from other countries questioned their lineage in the past apart from Imaduddin, some Salafi scholars and the 20th-century polemic with Al Irshad ? The huge “disagreement” emerged because of him, prompting the Ba Alawi camp to publish a collective book in September. WiseRaven268 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Kabul madras because he added all the controversy stuff to the article

kabul said this in the edit war discussion above:

...it's important to know that the current genealogical controversy originated in Indonesia, so it's natural to have many references in Indonesian.

so i am going to assume that the controversy is only in indonesia Abo Yemen✉ 12:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen Well, it should be pointed out that the debate and controversy is confined to Indonesia alone then. (As far as i know it didn't even spread in Malaysia or Singapour) so why he says "The claims remain controversial" without precision ? Is there a lack of neutrality ? If the claim is worldwide or it went beyond Indonesia's borders i invite him to provide the sources. WiseRaven268 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

if the controversy is worldwide* WiseRaven268 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

let's wait for his response Abo Yemen✉ 13:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "controversial" clearly indicates the neutrality of the intended sentence. There is no requirement that a reference must be "worldwide" to be used in an article. The fact is that there are parties who acknowledge and others who reject the patrilineal legitimacy of the Alawi family. Accept this reality, even though it may be bitter. There are no Wikipedia rules that prevent references from Imaduddin Utsman from being used in the article. Kabul madras (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that references from both sides have been used in the article. However, the section on Ba Alawi seems too lengthy to me. It would be better to shorten it to maintain balance, what do you think, @Abo Yemen? Kabul madras (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras Maybe it's too lengthy, but I recommend you to not delete my section at the beginning, I think it's relevant. There is indeed a big controversy in Indonesia only (for now) but the source I quote is probably the best "defense" of the Ba Alawi side to date and indeed their claim is questioned but it's relevant in the context of the beginning of the article, they claim to descend from Ahmad ibn Isa, some people question this in Indonesia, but their claim has been validated by most scholars in Muslim countries and they held Naqib position in Haramayn, this information is present in the book I quote. WiseRaven268 (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the part about Naqib Al Ashraf's position, you're right, it's too lengthy. WiseRaven268 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

how about moving the controversy stuff to be on a new paragraph or maybe not to include it in the lede section at all and keep them in their specific sections? Abo Yemen✉ 05:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen I think it's good in introduction, it gives kind of a preview/taste of the "disputes and rebuttal" section. WiseRaven268 (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant to make it its own paragraph on the lede Abo Yemen✉ 06:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras The statement is not problematical, there are two parties who disagree, but it's important to put it in context and specify that it's only in Indonesia, there's nothing complicated about it. It's also not problematic to quote Imaduddin Utsman's sources, but not to specify is misleading and implies that the disagreement is general or that it has spread elsewhere than Indonesia, which is not the case. So I suggest you clarify this aspect WiseRaven268 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as the references are clear and comply with Wikipedia's rules, I have no objection to including arguments from both sides in the article. About The issue of genealogical controversy is only in Indonesia; actually, several foreign scholars have previously addressed it. Even, if I recall correctly, the book you used as a reference mentions it. In my opinion, you can use the phrase "in Indonesia" but avoid adding the word "only." Kabul madras (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kabul madras Yes it's true, other scholars have already questioned their nasab in the past, especially in the 20th century (before I don't know) in the 21st century, the book I quoted mentioned several Salafi scholars who questioned the nasab at the beginning of the century but it never reached this magnitude, especially in the most populous Muslim country, it has really become a topic of national debate. I'm genuinely curious if Malaysia has been a bit affected by the debate, if you can find sources include it ! WiseRaven268 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to include a controversy in a specific region about a subject in a completely different region then including where the controversy should make sense Abo Yemen✉ 05:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

He is trying to make it sound massive, while only confine to a minority small sector among Muslims, while majaority NU organisation Muslims do not question the BaAlawi validity.

This is seen having a political motive where the end of an Indonesian president era might spark off protests. 2406:3003:207B:340:94E6:49D:BE87:8F02 (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)