Comments

Template made!

Hope we can add content now. --Enzuru 06:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update

After creating the template, I've slowly added and changed it around. The biggest change yet I did was recently, and it was converting the Imam names into their proper Turkish titles. --Enzuru 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

that is one of the ugliest templates I have ever seen, why is it so different from all other templates on wikipedia?Rcduggan (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is very beautiful! It serves to make Alevism a totally seperate topic, and is totally in keeping with the theme. - Ezra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.238 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes up too much space. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yunus Emre, Ibn Arabi

Neither Yunus Emre nor "Muhittin" (Ibn) Arabi were Alevis, but given their importance to modern and medieval Alevism, respectively, they deserve to be in the template. Muhittin Arabi is mentioned all over the place and it isn't clear to the general reader that the reference is to Ibn Arabi at all... ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad-Ali

Does Muhammad-Ali refer to a belief or a person like Hajji Bektash Wali? I think it should be put into belief section like Haqq-Muhammad-Ali. Kavas (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleviness, instead of Alevism

Aleviness should be preferred because the original Turkish term 'Alevilik' (Aleviness) to define broader Alevi phenomena rather than Alevism which is sounds more like a political ideology or a social movement. Nobody use 'Alevicilik' (Alevism) in original Turkish milieu from villagers to scholars. Please let me give an example to make it clear: as in 'Muslim-Islam-Islamism' terms, it should be 'Alevi-Aleviness-Alevism', but this is also wrong, because there is no such a thing like 'Alevism'. Thanks. Ongan (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix "-ism" is not exclusively political. It's very productive also in the formation of names of religions (see Buddhism, Hinduism). "Aleviness" cannot exist in English, the suffix "-ness" is not used this way. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huge template

The template is currently extremely long (4x A4 page in Mozilla Firefox print preview), and in many articles it is several times longer than the article itself. Instead of listing all relevant articles in a non-navigable single template, I propose the template be organised into a very short master template linking to several (3-5) children templates. This way, in articles we would only have to put the main template and a child template relevant to the topic of the article. This will not only improve article format, but will also provide better readability, as readers would be able to navigate through it more easily.Anonimu (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this should at least be collapsed. It dominates some articles out of all proportion to its relevance. --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the template is such a oversized one that extends down even below the reference section!, look at Esoteric interpretation of the Quran.Kiatdd (talk)

Replaced that gigantic with the current widely used one. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Jingiby I reverted your recent edit. Please discuss here your evidence for the image you have chosen as a universally recognized Alevi symbol instead of the Tengrian Crescent which tops all Alevi shrines? Thanks. Bulgarios (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any source that this sign is a recognized Alevi symbol? Jingiby (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a picture of Demir Baba Teke known as one the most sacred places for Alians. Where is Tengrian Crescent on the top of the Alevi shrines? Jingiby (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right is an 18th century mirror writing in Ottoman calligraphy. Depicts the phrase 'Ali is the vicegerent of God' in both directions. If you do not provide reliable source supporting added by you image (described as an allegedly (according to the uploader?) unsourced symbol used by "Tengrianism" revivalist groups in Yakutia?) I will reset the calligraphic symbol. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a pic side on you can't see the crescent it just looks like a line. But if you look at it from the front you can see it like in this pic. Alevi Ali is not the same as Caliph (that means viceregent) Ali. The Alevi Ali is an aspect of Allah something like the Holy Spirot and not a human being. As said in this article: [http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ozgur-korkmaz/atheist-alevis-and-the-sunni-ization-of-alevism-65801 “if loving Caliph Ali means being an Alevi, I’m the world’s biggest Alevi.” Well, sir, it does not; so you are not.]. In Alevism, Muhammad and Ali are "simple manifestations of the Allah", hence "they are not separate independent entities", "only Allah is a real entity". They are certainly not the human Ali and Muhammad known in Islam. (See Imaginal worlds, William Chiittick(1994), pg.53 and Souad Hakim – Unity of Being in Ibn 'Arabî and Ibn al-'Arabi, Muhyi al-Din (1164–1240) Best regards. Bulgarios (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon please peeps. We need to talk about this. If there are still objections to the Alevi crescent how about the 12-pointed star of the Alevi associations? [1]Bulgarios (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Alevism, where another user calls into question the use of a Tengrian crescent to represent Alevism. Honestly, are you even bothering to read the name of the file you're adding?

As for that twelve pointed star, that says it's for the British Alevi Federation. Using that to represent all Alevis would be like like representing Christianity with the symbol for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Removing the image entirely is the best suggestion you've had but you've still failed to demonstrate that a calligraphic representation of Ali is inappropriate (given that, per the sources you've cited, Ali is regarded in Alevism as a manifestation of Allah). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's always best to assume good faith. I don't think the name is important. It can be called a Tengrian sausage on a skewer if you like, the only important thing is that it is the symbol that top of every Alevi shrine. Ali in Alevism is not Ali ibn Talib. As long as the calligraphy does not have extra terms which insinuate that ibn Talib is mentioned then it could be appropriate in an Alevi context but should not be taken as the symbol of Alevism without some proof that it appears in at least one famous Alevi shrine. Wiki procedure is to have discussed the reversion here on talk before restoring your rejected edit but since you decided to revert anyway without discussing and without providing any of the requested evidence. I don't see much point in wasting too many words on the matter here. It is frankly as ridiculous as replacing the cross in Christianity with the word "Huios". Let my rational objections simply stand that consensus was not achieved. Take care. Bulgarios (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]