Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada

Survey

• Yes Every noble family and prominent house ever has tried to trace their history back to somebody important. The Romans traced their lineages back to Romulus and Remus. Americans try to trace their history to the Mayflower. Medieval Europeans all claimed they were the true heir of Charlemagne, and he claimed he was the true heir of Rome. Some of those are provable, some aren't. I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by trying to get in the weeds and argue about whether this clan traces its roots back to Muhammad or not. Its not an objectively verifiable truth; it is something that might be culturally or spiritually true, and we can absolutely say what they claim. But we shouldn't be trying to litigate it because it isn't falsifiable. Like, nobody has Muhammad's DNA profile in a lab that they can cross reference someone with. We can say "they claim lineage back to Muhammad" and leave it at that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - per CaptainEek, and because that statement is nowhere mentioned in Bantani's book (i.e. the primary source used to cite that statement), as the book is his own research of the lineage, and not a statement issued by multiple figures and researchers. A(n) article/section about the modern lineage dispute should be created during or after the RfC since there are enough sources to establish its notability, although according to Muhajir et al, 2023, Bantani's research is not enough to discredit the family's lineage 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure creating an article about the lineage dispute is a step in the right direction, and it would threaten to become a WP:POVFORK. It was sensibly removed from this page--the sourcing was garbage and the approach problematic. That's not the stuff of a standalone article. If we discuss the lineage dispute, it probably needs like...one paragraph max, on this article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  yeah that should work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  On what basis do you claim that the references used are rubbish? All Wikipedia requirements have been met, including the inclusion of an ISBN. The references are indeed in Indonesian—my question is, have you read them before concluding they are rubbish? It should also be noted that I didn’t only include books as sources; official YouTube interview videos from various sources have been provided as well. And to user Abo Yemen, how did you conclude that the references lack relevant content? I suspect you haven’t read or reviewed all the listed references and are deliberately making a flawed conclusion. Kabul madras (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well then I invite you to show me the quote from that book where Bantani was able to perform mitosis and split into "several public figures and researchers" in his own book 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  You haven't carefully reviewed all the references provided. 'Some public figures and researchers' is a paraphrase of all the references listed there. I could have directly quoted the references, but that would result in a biased, non-neutral sentence that could even be insulting and undermine the credibility of the Ba Alawi clan, as is currently happening in Indonesia. Kabul madras (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  what other references? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  As can be seen in the post from June 20, 2025, 3 references were used there. Two parts of the references from YouTube were removed by another editor. I have reinserted them into the page for others' consideration. If it is later decided to remove them, feel free to do so again. Kabul madras (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  youtube videos are not reliable sources. I have removed them 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  When I said it could be removed again, that didn’t mean you should delete it immediately as you did now, but rather that the YouTube reference should be removed only if this forum later determines that the sentence in question needs to be deleted. I have undone the deletion. Clearly, not all YouTube sources are usable, but the two YouTube sources I used meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable sources. Both YouTube sources were presented in their entirety from the primary source, which is the personal channel of credible figures. Kabul madras (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• No Yes, just put they claim lineage to Muhammad for the lead (ie. WP:ATTRIBUTE). Practically every Muslim royal family I can think of (at least in Africa) traces their lineage back to companions of Muhammad for prestige, and it gets more dubious the more geographically distant they are from Mecca. Lead follows body, and the section on lineage has just one inconclusive study for the questioning section, which doesn’t seem to support dueness. It’s not clear what the relevance of Indonesian public figures’ opinions are, and the sources aren’t great. Just move that sentence to the body. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  The substance of this argument seems to indicate that it is intended to be a Yes remove the sentence !vote, bolded portion notwithstanding. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, read the question wrong, changed the !vote Kowal2701 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, per Eek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, per all the above, basically, but also remove the claim itself from the lead. As Kowal2701 points out, pretty much all Muslim royalty make such claims. Pretty much none of them can prove it, so it's just self-aggrandizement, and WP is not in the help-subjects-self-aggrandize business. Similar claims are made all the time outside this context (e.g. various European and even British royalty have tried to claim descent Biblical figures, and English, Scottish, and Irish ones have claimed descent from legendary and pseudo-historical ones like King Arthur, and our leads to not dwell on this crap. The reasons for these claims are to bolster in minds of the governed the majesty/ancientness/eliteness/holiness/whatever of the present rulership's ancestry. It's "borrowed nobility", in a similar vein to the "stolen valor" of pretending to be a war hero while in reality never having worn the uniform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  That sentence is there because the claim exists. If all those claims are pulled from the article, of course I’d be fine with that. Kabul madras (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• No The references used comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, and the wording is neutral and unbiased. As long as the claim of descent remains in the lead paragraph, the sentence is appropriate to retain. I suggest everyone take a close look at all the references, read them carefully, and then draw conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kabul madras (talk • contribs)

Discussion

pinging @Kabul madras since they're part of this and haven't participated yet 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I used three references as sources for that sentence, and it turns out two of them were removed by user Abo Yemen for being deemed unreliable. However, I have now reinstated both sources for further review. I invite everyone who participated in the vote above to re-examine the three references I used. If any source is considered unreliable, please provide me with the specific Wikipedia policy that supports this claim. Kabul madras (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Kanul madras, I recommend reading WP:RS and WP:IS if you haven't already. The book is a good source because it is by an academic with relevant expertise (WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BESTSOURCES), but because this is English wikipedia English sources are preferred (WP:NONENG). Basically, because very few editors speak Indonesian, it harms verifiability. The Youtube videos aren't reliable sources (WP:RSPYT). They are also by a singer and a politician respectfully, meaning they have no relevant expertise, and this is compounded by them being in a different language. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to point @Kabul madras to their own comment on this talk page about the reliability of Youtube as a source Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Using YouTube content as a source 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, based on the written rules in WP:NONENG, it is clear that citations to non-English sources are permitted. In fact, it is our responsibility as Wikipedians to verify such sources. However, it is also stated there that English-language sources are preferred for practical reasons. Therefore, I will add an English-language source to the references related to this issue. This is the source I will use: https://archive.org/details/kh.-imaduddin-utsman-al-bantanie-unraveling-the-scientific-scandal-of-baalwi-history-and-genealogyNow, regarding the use of the two YouTube videos I included, it is clearly stated in WP:YOUTUBE that 'while there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page. (See § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided.) Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.' The two YouTube videos I used meet all the criteria mentioned there. It is also noted that YouTube links can still be used after case-by-case evaluation. I have evaluated them, and the three figures featured in the videos even have their own Wikipedia pages in the Indonesian Wikipedia (Mahfud MD, Said Aqil Siroj, and Imaduddin Utsman al Bantani). Although both videos are in Indonesian, there is software that translates their content into English subtitles (in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines). The two YouTube videos I used are also presented in their entirety by the original uploader and do not violate copyright.Of course, there are many YouTube videos that cannot be used, and I have already removed some because their authenticity could not be verified and they were extensively edited, including one YouTube video that was a clip of a TV interview with a female assistant professor regarding DNA (as mentioned by @Abo Yemen). Kabul madras (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon legobot had marked this RFC as expired, does this mean that it should be formally closed or something? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably worth listing at WP:CR Kowal2701 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It says "Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself." Only one person opposed the removal so I think that Robert could do that since he's our moderator on DRN 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)