Talk:Druze/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Palestinian resistance

That would be against the Israeli occupation: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Territories

Why do you put Israel/Palestine if the Druzes live in Galilea, Haifa and Golan? That's not the Palestinian territories, so you shouldn't put Israel/Palestine as they were the same land...--Enkiduk (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The Druze...are a religious community found primarily in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, whose traditional religion is said to have begun as an offshoot of Islam, but is unique in its incorporation of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and other philosophies, similar to other followers of Ismaili Shi'a Islam.

Such is the opening sentence. But it doesn't make any sense. Other followers of Ismaili Shi'ism don't incorporate Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, do they? And if they do, then in what sense are the Druze unique? There's some serious clarity problems here. john k (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

well john the Druze are originally Ismaili's and still maintain a lot of similarities with other Ismaili branches and the most important similarity between the druze and other Ismailis and what makes them unique is that they incorporate religion with philosophy, now in the intro I think the "other followers" is intended to signify this point in other words the Ismaili's including the druze are unique when it comes to this point.

And here is a google query about the relation between Gnosticism, Neoplatonism & ismailism:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Wkl&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Gnosticism%2C+Neoplatonism+ismailism&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

« Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 11:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the opening sentence I read, while somewhat different than the version you quoted above, was still incoherent, this time due to the placement of commas and the possible (it's hard to tell) misuse of the words "that" and "which". The version I read must have been changed from what you read, since there was no mention of Islam, just of Ismailism. I just went in and tried to make sense of it while adding to the description of Druze. What I entered I found elsewhere in Wikipedia, but am not sure if citing Wikipedia entries is allowed. So have at it, but it's very important to include that the Druze are considered to be a branch of Islam, even though many Druze think their religion is now distinct. They are a fascinating people.Wlegro (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Druze religion more eclectic than Christianity or Judaism. The use of the word eclectic seems a little disparaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.160.240 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnics of the druze

The druze are converted turks, they had two families (cete) of warriors who were stationed in lebanon, the taniklar and the aslanlar. Both names are turkish. And at that time (around 1100-1200) most warriors were turkic. Also if you look at druze, they have these turkish moustaches and spliteyes besides looking like a stereotypical anatolian white turk. It is highly likely that they evolved to be an ethnical turkish/greek group of converts that embraced islam from christianity but continued to use some form of greek/christian culture/philosofy etc, after intermarriage occured between turkic male descendants of these two families with their own distinctive culture with the greeks of that time alexandretta. There were at that time a lot of greeks there in the region. 77.249.201.75 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't. The two main groups of Druze are Syrian and Arabian. Today many are mixed, so you get to see some dark skinned Druze with blue eyes. TFighterPilot (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Jumblatt family is of Kurdish origins. Druze are a religious group, so they can be of any ethnicity in theory, but most are Arab. There is probably some Turkish ancestry among them too, but not to the extend the IP suggests. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

/* Ethnics of the druze */ the druze are just as mixed as other inhabitants of the Levant, there is no significant ethnic or racial difference between the druze and other Levantines.

Hello, I am druze myself, and I wish to comment on same of things that you discussed in the article, we don`t see our self is Islam. we are Muwahidoun or Unitarians. we may speak Arabic and have similar customs; but essentially we have similar custom and beliefs to many religions and nations. I believe what special about us is that it doesn't matter if you are a Religious or not if you druze than you live according to our beliefs every second of the day; our religion may be philosophic but we try to live according to its teaching. unlike the Islam and Jews we don't fast, because we eat enough every day no more and no less. we interact with others in respect on matter what is there religion status or; and if we Offensive anybody or make mistake than we don’t hastate to admit that we are mistaken and ask for forgiveness and try to fix it. It just how I was raised... today not many in the druze society are raised this way because of what called the western influence. If you have any question: Roseanne_101@hotmail.com – Zaidan. H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.208.126 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

POV of Golan Heights

This article smacks of POV with the Golan Heights placed in Syria. Israel annexed the Golan Heights following the Six Day War with the 1981 Golan Heights Law and all of its resident may carry Israeli citizenship. That being said I don't think we should make claims on Golan's country either way in this article and instead have it as a separate entry from both Israel and Syria. Valley2city^‽ 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Who but hardcore Zionists would not regard Golan as Syrian territory? We don't want fringe[2] views to affect the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should consider this a fringe theory. The Golan Heights is de facto part of the State of Israel. Whether or not a lot of people consider it occupied territory, it does not belong in the article and instead we should not attach a state to it on Wikipedia just like we usually don't for Jerusalem or locations in the West Bank. Valley2city^‽ 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza are internationally considered to be stateless territory: they belong to no state. The Golan Heights are universailly considered to be part of Syria by every country in the world other than Israel. The analogy is no good. john k (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it pov to say that the Golan Heights is in Syria when its internationally recognized as being in Syria? Israels control of the territory is an occupation and whatever "extending of laws" Israel has proclaimed has no valid effect:[3] Also it doesn't matter what the citizenship of the Israeli settlers is since they're presence in Golan is illegal:[4] and they are not the owners of the land. Its not a "claim" to say that its in Syria - its a fact. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I will concede here that consensus is pretty against me here and I will stop after this. I'm trying to avoid a political argument (In fact my position on the issue is that I'm trying to make this article apolitical and remove a state title entirely) But to reiterate, de jure and de facto are two different things. De jure, international entities may be pretty against Israel's control of the Golan. However de facto, whether you like it or not Israel controls and governs it[5] (moreso than they do the West Bank which are only Israeli territories as opposed to Golan and Jerusalem which are annexed) and the residents are granted Israeli passports andIsraeli citizenship unlike the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza who do not, but claiming in the article that Golan is part of Syria denies the fact that Israel controls it. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Valley2city^‽ 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Druze a lost tribe of the Jews ?

Here is an interesting article that claims that the Druze are actually descended from the Jews. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140251 -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I saw that too and added it. His evidence is weak, but worth noting as speculation at least.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeat quote

In the "Modern History" -> "In Syria" subsection, the quote: "My enemies are like serpent. The head is the Jabal Druze, If I crush the head the serpent will die" appears twice, recommend removing one and adjusting the paragraph accordingly.
Mrbynum (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Split Into History of Druze Article

This article is A. becoming too long and B. more focused on the history than is usual for an ethnic group article, so it makes sense to me to split off a History of the Druze article to better organize the content, makes sense? Jztinfinity (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do Druze Consider Themselves Muslims?

http://www.ain-zhalta.com/druze.asp

http://thedruze.com/

http://www.israel-al.com/content.php?id=33

http://www.middleeastcouncilnc.org/home/MECC-religions.php

According to the above sources, most of them do consider themselves Muslim. I think this fact should be acknowledged in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.86.241 (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah but Muslims don't consider Druze people as Muslims (as far as I know)-- Someone35 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

notable druze people

Wiam Wahhab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydar Haydar (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Druze religion

Why don't we have a separate article for the beliefs of the druze religion? I understand that the Druze do not let other people see their religious beliefs and are a closed community, but shouldn't we have different articles for druze people and druze beliefs?Everangs (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I love how the article in English is re modified to make it more acceptable for the western culture. Middle Eastern do great job twisting facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.140.120 (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling the article was written by Middle Easterners. Just see how hard it tries to excuse away incidents of Christian violence against Druze as not being religiously motivated. Guinsberg (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The article sure is long enough for a split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of Mohammed and the Quran?

As the Druze emanated from Shia Islam, do they recognize Mohammed as the last prophet? And do they recognize the Quran and the hadiths? These questions do not seem to be adressed in the article, and I'm curious... Nick Michael (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No we don't, I don't know why we are addressed as part of Shia Islam by the way; I find it offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.197.238 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer. The article does claim the Druze emanated from Shia Islam. It would be really helpful if this could be addressed in the article, together with the non-recognition of Mohammed as the last prophet, and the Quran. I hope someone qualified to do so (not me...) will edit the article accordingly. 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic origins claims are fringe speculation

The purported Vedic references to the Druze ethnic group is unsubstantiated in the source referenced. Specifically, that work speculates a link, and certainly does not mention anything about the Sudas of the Rig Veda, for which no reliable source has been provided by the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.12.119 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The section on "genetics" has to be improved. Take this statement: "These findings are consistent with the Druze oral tradition, that [sic, should be "which"] claims that the adherents of the faith came from diverse ancestral lineages stretching back tens of thousands of years." Really? What human being does not come from ancestral lineages stretching back tens of thousands of years?--98.114.178.61 (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The section itself should not be removed, but all original research should be nuked. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Israeli citizens in the Golan heights?

This article says 500 out of 20K are Israeli citizens, other WP pages claim 10% (ie. 2K). I couldn't find any sources, except some saying applications have soared with recent conflict in Syria, and others claiming this was just propaganda. Ketil (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why the first paragraph does not mention Israel?

the first paragraph mentione the Countries Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and then a geographical area - Palestine ( As the linked article shows).

Would be more accurate to replace Palestine with Israel?

80.74.111.178 (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Because someone changed "Israel" to "Palestine". Even though all references mention "Israel". I've fixed it. Rcaetano (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy places section

The Holy Places section, and the next two sections seem to be automatically translated and are hard to follow. Can someone edit these sections? August 14 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.199.3.165 (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The second para. as at May 21, 2013 appears to be gibberish.

I suggest that editing of this page be restricted. I see that there was an attempt to remove the word "Israel" and there are plenty of people out there who love doing that sort of vandalism.

I amy have missed this in the article, but what is the Islamic attitude to Druze? Are they dhimmi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.80.88 (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent attack in the news

Apparently, some Sunni dude and Druze chick eloped in Lebanon and the guy got attacked by the woman's family. See: Colorado News Day, Gulf News, News.au.com, New Straits Times and Yahoo News. I'm not sure if it would fit here, but perhaps it could serve as a source in some sort of a "Druze-Sunni" relations article? I don't normally read the news much and never edit regarding current events on Wikipedia, but given the subject matter it certainly got my attention this morning. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• That is not about Druze and Sunnis, it is about sectarianism in Lebanon. If he had been Christian or Shia, the same would had happened. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do you think it might fit at the Religion in Lebanon article - like a section on sectarianism? I'm just thinking out loud so maybe it isn't a good idea, but it's obviously an eye catching story which is why I suggested it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Something like that, but it would obviously have to be a much broader segment than just about this. A guy got his dick cut off, but people are killed all the time for similar stuff, it just doesn't attract as much attention. On a related note, a man "honour killed" his sister in Lebanon earlier this year, to hide tha the had made her pregnant. FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Damn how did you reply that fast? Anyway the perpetrators of honor killings often do use religion to justify their crimes, might a general "religious-based violence" section work? I have a feeling that despite Lebanon's small size, we might find enough material to make a whole new article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Two minutes isn't little for a short message. Anyway, yes, if you can assemble sources, you could try to make a proposal for such a section. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am a Druze and I have to say we do not use the Quran at ALL. It may have had some influence in the founding of the religion but I do not see "the Republic" as one of our scriptures, because if you add the Quran then you would have to add that, too. I would encourage the editor of this page to eliminate the Quran from our holy scriptures. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melek Mizher (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic origins

The ethnic origins section appears to have many outdated theories which at best have some historical interest. I removed some stuff and even more stuff should probably be removed, or at least the article must make clearer that such theories are not considered valid today. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Druze population

According to the orginal population they claim to be 1.5 million but a small percentage of that have converted out of the religion according to the American Druze Assication an estimate of 75,350 druze have been displaced or presumed dead due to the Syrian war Also by calculations a good 127,430 have left the religion and or converted out. Ill work on getting a census data from The ADA.ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Druze are not Muslims

Since people have trouble reading through references

"The Druze do not:- practice recitation of the creed, reciting prayers five times a day, wed to multiple wives, fasting during the month of Ramadan and making a pilgrimage to Mecca. Thus, they are not regarded by Muslims as Islamic"

http://www.druze.org.au/religion/

"Though they believe Mohammed was from God, cannot be considered as Muslims any more than they can be Jews or Christians" http://www.muslimhope.com/Druze.htm

"“The Druzes re not Muslims,” wrote Peter Gubser, a mild enough judgement considering their glaring heterodox deviation.” This was indeed the view of Islamic scholar Ibn Taimiyah, who in his fatwa from 1300 rejected them as unfit for inclusion within the Muslim community."

Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression, 2d ed. By Mordechai Nisan

“Sunnis and Sia alike regard the Druze as heretics and usually do not consider them Muslims."

The Arab Americans By Randa A. Kayyali

"They do not perform the hajj, nor observe Ramadan and their religious writ, including the Kitab al hikma, contains both Quranic and non Quranic text passages, thus leading mainstream Msuslims to regard the Druze as not true Muslims."

Global Security Watch-Lebanon: A Reference Handbook: A Reference Handbook By David S. Sorenson

“These Druze and Nusairis are kaafirs, according to the consensus of the Muslims.” “Shaykh al Islam also said, refuting the ideas of some sects of Druze: The fact that these groups are kaafirs is something concerning which there is no dispute among the Muslims. Rather whoever doubts that they are kaafirs is a kaafir like them." Islam: Questions And Answers – Schools of Thought, Religions and Sects By Abdul-Rahman, Muhammed Saed

More sources

"The Druze are a peaceful, small religious sect who live in their own villages and are generally loyal to the governments of the countries in which they reside. In Israel they are members of the Israeli Defense Forces and have achieved high positions.

They are not Moslems and have their own holy book. There has never been a Druze terrorist or suicide bomber, yet for ISIS they are kafir (unbelievers) or takfir (apostates) and deserve death."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/07/16/druze-syria-united-states/30263643/

"Even though they are not Muslims, why do the Druze frequently present themselves as such? The answer is related to the fact that the Druze renounced Islam in the tenth century and consolidated a faith that stands in contradiction to Islam, leading to their being persecuted by Islam. In order to save themselves the Druze faith advocates taqqiya (dissimulation), a practice whereby the Druze conceal their true belief and outwardly (Zāhir) accept the dominant religious faith, while inwardly (Bātin) they continue to be true to the unique Druze faith, the belief in al- Hākim as the embodiment of god etc"

http://app.shaanan.ac.il/shnaton/15/14.pdf

“Our Lord has commanded us to hide in the dominant religion, be it what it may; with Christians, Christian; with Muslims, Muslim, and so on." A History of the Druzes, Volume 1 By Kais Firro

"The Druze as a religion is not a Muslim sect. It is a monotheistic, unitarian, neo-Platonian independent religion. We believe that the notion of universal equality has never escaped God’s mind. The Druze believe that the mind and the soul are two sides of the same coin. The reincarnation or transmigration of the soul, with human dying and being reborn, ensures that all humans live the same amount of time, but under different living conditions; in their next life humans “exchange” their living conditions. The Druze also maintain gender equality, outlaw polygamy and grant women full rights to seek divorce."

http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/75869-150623-i-cannot-stand-by-and-see-my-druze-brothers-slaughtered By Yakub Halabi (Druze Author)

HamzaWahabi (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Im a druze schoolar and yes we are muslims. We preform salat at least 5 times a day, thus we do not pray towards mecca. Hajj is preformed by some though it is not a law. We preform ramadan(the uqqal) And we belive in the shahada, la illah illa allah muhammad rasoul allah. I should also point out that we do not regard caliph al hakim bi'amr allah as god incarnate. We reject that completley. We belive that al hakim reached a high level of purity in soul(after hundreds of reincarnation) and thus he was a link from earth to the cosmic mind( al aql) The quran and torah are our holy books. Our own scriptures are about morality and about the holy quran Allah knows best Sofianeabijomaah (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Druze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://druzestudies.org/druzes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426105258/http://www.druze.ca:80/AboutDruze.html to http://www.druze.ca/AboutDruze.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150511092145/http://www.druze.com/education/DruzeLuminariesAlHakim-English-level3.pdf to http://www.druze.com/education/DruzeLuminariesAlHakim-English-level3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518085757/http://www.sacredtribesjournal.org/images/Encyclopedia/The_Druze.pdf to http://www.sacredtribesjournal.org/images/Encyclopedia/The_Druze.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150110125835/http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/10/03/the-tower-of-the-sun/ to http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/10/03/the-tower-of-the-sun/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610204302/http://www.meib.org/articles/0305_ld.htm to http://www.meib.org/articles/0305_ld.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Separate religion

While Druze evolved from Shia Islam, Druze are generally not considered to be Muslims, but a separate religion related to Gnosticism and Yazdanism. They are considered to be an independent religion. Throughout this article, it maintains that Druze are just a branch of Shia Islam which is not true. That is like saying Christianity is a branch of Judaism. HamzaWahabi (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

but surely Christianity IS a branch of Judaism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.117.100 (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor English in Section "Pact of Time Custodian"

The quotation from the "Pact of Time Custodian", is in very poor English, and should be replaced by a better translation. It begins in the first person, but switches immediately to the third. The phrases, "God . . . who is out of couples and numbers;" and "permissibility aversive is obedient and not forced" make no sense. Many of the expressions employed are not idiomatic (e.g., "the lonely God", "to repudiate from all creeds", and "he does not know something"). Others are just wrong (e.g., "in a healthy of his mind and his body", and "beliefs on the differences varieties"). The use of the past perfect tense in the last sentence ("he had handed") is also incorrect.

The accompanying text is no better. Even the title, "Pact of Time Custodian" makes no sense in English: does it refer to a (or the) custodian of time? Or is "custodian" an adjective describing time? (Cf. "time immemorial".) If the former, is the "custodian of time" the person who makes the declaration, or the one to whom the declaration is made?

A pact, moreover, is a reciprocal agreement, which must have more than one party. Is this a pact between the declarant ("I") and the "custodian of time"? Or between the declarant and "(someone) son of (someone)"? Should this "pact" instead be called an oath or an affirmation of faith? It is also referred to as a "Charter" (with an inappropriate capital C), which all Druzes are supposed to have "signed". This implies a physical document, but no such document is identified in the article.

The phrase "entrance to the Druze religion" is unidiomatic, and, in the context of a closed religion, seems absurd.

Finally, the section ends with a reference to "the ʻUqqāl", a foreign term not defined until much later. It should be defined (or at least linked to a definition) the first time it appears.

Most of the article seems to need improvement in its English, but this section really stands out. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetics: clarify or remove

As it is now, the paragraph is of some use only to qualified geneticists. The user misses here a summary bringing it to a point: what conclusions were drawn from the different studies? It can be done in the form of headings to sub-paragraphs, or (less good) of a mini-lead. Each sub-paragraph needs some more simply-formulated conclusion.

The long list of cryptic data at the bottom is useless in an encyclopedia for the wider public. Add explanations and interpretations, or else remove it.

The Eran Elhaik theory placing the Druze ancestors in the Caucasus is not mentioned. However controversial, it deserves being mentioned. Then editors can offer the counter-arguments and allow the user to make up his mind. See Eran Elhaik, How we solved the 1,000-year-old mystery of the Druze people's origin – with a genetic Sat Nav, in The Conversation, November 16, 2016 via [6].Arminden (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep the Marsh Arabs and Mehri out

Mahmadshawady has this "thing" with other Arab populations he claims would also worship Jethro, but he either doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, or has issues with the English language. With all due respect, but please make sure his additions, which are never sourced (but seem to be so at first sight because he inserts them into existing, well-sourced sentences), are consequently removed. This at least until he can bring some articulate arguments in favour of a connection to the topic, and opens a new paragraph somewhere appropriate (that is: NOT in the lead). Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Any news?

So there is nothing about the ongoing civil war in Syria. To this not consern them? Do they support a side? What do ISIL or Al-Nushra(?) think of them. I have never heard about this group before. But This is questions that comes to mind when reading the article. Section modern history in Syria ends in 1967.

If someone know, pleace update the article. That would make it so much more relavant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Druze http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/26/the-syrian-civil-war-comes-to-the-druze/ This has some info. But I don't know how to edit wikipedia.

--128.39.131.128 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This should answer your questions: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-massacre-of-druze-villagers-in-qalb-lawza-idlib-province/ FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Skordiac (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I'm just reporting as someone who witnessed the event. Multiple Druze villages were massacred by ISIS/Nusra in Suwayda and the surrounding areas while others that refused the Syrian Arab Army's call to arms to have a proper Southern army to defend the mountain there were abandoned by the SAA. Left defenseless and with little arms, these were prime targets for more massacres by Nusra directly. No official numbers yet but I, personally, expect the number of Druze to be well below 350,000 left in Syria after the SAA, Nusra, and ISIS have had conflicts directly in their areas leading to mass refuges to neighboring countries and a huge death toll. Overall the entire Druze population is getting smaller and smaller in Lebanon and Syria while it remains growing in Israel.

Skordiac (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Update: Some are reporting that around 20 to 30 thousand are attempting refuge into the Golan Heights to join their community there. Thi information is not accurate and could be wrong though. Forced migration is also a possibility in this case.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Druze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614005531/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_07x.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_07x.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201657/http://www.druzeheritage.org/dhf/Druze_History.asp to http://www.druzeheritage.org/dhf/Druze_History.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Navbox" referred to in article text

The section Closing of the faith transcludes {{Shia Imam Chart}}. Being a navbox, it does not display on mobile, so the reader is left wondering what the text is talking about. As a temporary measure I've altered the template to allow a custom class, and changed it on this article (only) to   (i.e. a space). If it is important encyclopedic content, then it is not a navbox and should be altered to reflect that, but I don't have the time or inclination to figure out what class should replace it. If it is purely a navbox, then there should be no reference to it in the article text. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Druze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214100847/http://www.druze.org.au/religion/ to http://www.druze.org.au/religion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214100847/http://www.druze.org.au/religion/ to http://www.druze.org.au/religion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203003230/http://www.druzesect.com/?p=184 to http://www.druzesect.com/?p=184

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Druze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005012522/http://www.eial.org/mesp/Swayd.rtf.rtf to http://www.eial.org/mesp/Swayd.rtf.rtf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Druze are a branch of Ismaili(not to be confused with Nizari) Shia Islam?

The Druze seem like a sect within the sect of Ismailism (Containing many other sects such as the Bohra & Nizari[Aga Khan] amongst others) within the Hia sect of Islam, similar to the Bahai who are also an offshoot of Shia Islam.

So are the Druze a subset of Ismaili Islam or a group of Shia of their own separate from the Ismaili subset of the Shia set within Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.243.109 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Response: The Druze historically started as Ismailis but later separated from them and are not a subset of Ismaili Islam. They do not obey the Aga Khan, leader of Ismailis, and their teachings, s well as their obedience. diverted from Ismaili teachings centuries ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.142.16.9 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

12th century

Benjamin of Tudela wrote about the Druze at Mount Hermon. Surely his account is worth a mention in the article.--ארינמל (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

On a different note, I have come across another description of incest among the Druze, which Tudela also mentioned. Apparently this was a common libel for a long time. This 18th century traveler, who, like Tudela, repeats hearsay, writes that it was "commonly reported" the Druze were "inter-marrying with their nearest relations." Philip Hitti covers these charges in his book. Articles 12 and 13 in the 1948 Personal Law of the Druze forbid incest.--ארינמל (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

COMMENT: The Druze intermarry a lot; in particular Druze marry frequently their cousins. While this is not considered incestuous in Druze culture, it is considered 'incest' in some other cultures, in which marrying a first cousin is prohibited by tradition. This has led to Druze being viewed as incestuous in some other cultures which have come into contact with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.142.16.9 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It says in the Tudela book: "This nation is very incestuous; a father cohabits with his own daughter" this should be mentioned in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

this is ofcourse not true , because the druze were a very secretive society lots of fake stories were told about them , today not so relevant but I heard people even saying that druzes are a people that grow tails and that is why they wear baggy trousers, which is ofcourse not true , incest is one of the gravest sins in the druze religion, but cousin marriage especially back then was not considered incest and is not considered incestuous in the druze society and the middle east today, I mean Einstein married his cousin so... , ofcourse today cousin marriage is less common because people are more aware of its health risks. 109.67.13.58 (talk)

Other beliefs section and the god section

hi ,about the part where it says that the druze believe that when there souls are purified they ascend to the stars and that they will join al-hakim to reconquer the world from China ,is as reticulus as it sounds and is very misleading, you can read sami makarems book ,dr anis obeids book and interviews with druze sheikhs in arabic and know that this belief is not exactly true ,certainly how it is written is very misleading. With regards to the section where it is written that the druze believe that if a person were to annihilate his humanity the light of God can be experienced ,it is to be noted ,if you read Dr sami makarems book and sami swayds article that what is meant is the annihilation of one's ego (or controlling one's ego (in arabic "ترويض النفس" literally "taming" ones ego using ones mind and rational self, since ones ego is primitive and animalistic in nature )) which is very different from the term annihilation of one's humanity, which is very different in meaning and implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali1618 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a small error change in the name of Muhammad (who was listed as Mohammed in the specified area) as every where else in the page he is listed as Muhammad.

Change the "being among the seven prophets (including Mohammed)" to "being among the seven prophets (including Muhammad)" as that is the Prophet's name. Rishoval (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Rishoval:  done, and thank you very much, good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Druze flag and star

What is the history of the Druze flag? The link Druze flag points to this article, and the article says almost nothing of when, where, and by whom it was invented. The same goes for the five-pointed star. Both appear to me as quite modern, and indeed all sources used as references are dated between 2008 and 2015.

Is it widespread among the Druze? is it a fundamental symbol or is it just promoted by a sub-group? In which case it may not be worthy of a place in the infobox.

Kahlores (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Plural form

I changed all the plurals to be Druze, which is consistent with the majority of the text and also with the style used in the Encyclopedia Britannica. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

In The Druze article, paragraph 3, a major Druze population center is listed as Mount Lebanon, but the colored map, in the Lebanon article, section Religion, clearly shows that this mountain is Mount Hermon. 84.124.243.73 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thank you, Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Whole sections appear to have been copied literally from this source https://books.google.com/books?id=_4JJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=pact+of+the+time+custodian+druze&source=bl&ots=5_u-Q7V33Z&sig=ACfU3U2fggKWrHPTNZRI5-PWAjF22o37cw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjM3e-xls70AhXPIjQIHcw8CG0Q6AF6BAgiEAM#v=onepage&q=pact%20of%20the%20time%20custodian%20druze&f=false

--Severian79 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Severian79 May I suggest that you follow the instructions at WP:CPI? I would do it myself but I can only see one page of the source (gbooks accessibility is geographically dependent). Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wham2001 I went ahead and did it, but upon further research I'm not sure now who plagiarized who. The book that contains the chapter was only published in 2018, while many of the sections in the wiki predate it by many years. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case

--Severian79 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Severian79 I've taken a look and I agree that this is almost certainly "reverse plagiarism" (i.e. the author has copied from Wikipedia). The author does not appear to be a recognized authority on religion, and the publishers look suspiciously like a self-publishing outfit, though their website doesn't say so explicitly. The first chapter of the book fairly clearly has sections copied from Religion that on-wiki date back to at least 2015. There is no obvious acknowledgement on the book's frontispiece, though it could be elsewhere in the text. I am going to post at WP:CP to request further help. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Posted here. Wham2001 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and closing. I also found replication from Judaism. MER-C 18:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Initiates

"The Druze do not recognize any religious hierarchy." The article then continues, with much detail, about al-ʻUqqāl and al-Juhhāl, pretty clearly a hierarchy. Yitz711 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This article should be renamed as "Israeli druze"

This article from beginning to end is clearly intended to show how nice Druzes are treated in Israel, even though the bombs and stones, I mean, the facts say otherwise.

(Please don't censor me.) Enviousbarbarian (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Please feel free to improve the article with reliable sources if you think some information is missing. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Women

Why is the role of women understated? This is clearly a religion in which women are secondary/lesser participants but that isn’t worth a discussion? Of course this is not the only religion for which this is true but the total lack of discussion speaks of a blind assumption that it is not a problem to hold half the population at arms length from discussion/decisions/knowledge/etc of an esoteric tradition. There’s no reason for that assumption except for the patriarchal blind spot dominating history. 135.180.132.254 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@135.180.132.254 the should write about druze women true , I suggest reading the book Gender and Religion: Druze Women. Intisar J. Azzam. 2A02:ED1:F000:6491:FF90:D92F:5A54:6250 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is a mess

This article is a mess, especially the part about the early history. I'm going to make a few changes to help put it on a better track, and hope that others can carry on the work. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

infobox debate

There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

populations

If we include the Golan Druze in the Israeli count then the text, not just the footnote, must specify that this includes the Golan Heights as that is not "Israel" and it is a basic NPOV violation to claim in Wikipedia's voice that Israel includes the Golan. nableezy - 21:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Uh Daveout, you have a reason for removing that material? It is not redundant despite that claim, saying that the Israel numbers include the Golan does not make it so that Wikipedia can imply in the narrative voice that Israel includes the Golan. This is also long-standing material (random diff from last year), your personal dislike shouldnt be a cause for reverting without discussion. nableezy - 03:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I just removed the footnote instead, relieving even that silly objection. nableezy - 03:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not silly nor pedantic. If you can't see the redundancy that exists between a line of text and a footnote that says the exact same thing, I'm sorry buddy, but you're having some WP:CIR issues. The footnote is simply better and neater. No one is trying to imply that Golan is part of Israel (that's why the explanatory note is there). –Daveout(talk) 03:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you cant see that saying in Wikipedia's voice "Israel" and then including the Golan Heights in that is a NPOV violation, then Im sorry buddy, that is a problem. If you actually think dropping a CIR link here is a good idea well do it again and we can take that up at AE. You may not simply include the Golan in Israel, here or any other article. If the number includes the Golan then the text needs to specify that. And if you think you can edit-war in a NPOV violation and then make a personal attack well then, buddy, we can take this elsewhere. nableezy - 03:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Take it to AE or wherever you like. I stand by what I said. Your failure or refusal to recognize an obvious redundancy is crystal clear. –Daveout(talk) 04:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your failure or refusal to recognize a NPOV violation is crystal clear. Ive addressed the pedantic claim of a redundancy (hello, the footnote is clarifying that Israel includes the Golan population in its statistics, the article text was listing the locations). If you are unable to discern that difference thats ok, but I dont feel the need to explain it further. This is long-standing material, and it has a consensus in the archives for including it in the text (here), so youll need a consensus to change that. Further edit-warring and POV-pushing will be reported. Toodles, nableezy - 04:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It must be included directly after "Israel" that the numbers also includes Golan Heights. Footnote or no footnote, doesn't matter, it must be in the infobox so the reader immediately can see it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as the bogus "restoring prior to edit-warring", this has long been in the article, and was only removed, in violation of ARBPIA, by an account with 2 edits saying the Golan is in Israel, giving lie to the claim that No one is trying to imply that Golan is part of Israel, restored, then changed in to a footnote by another ineligible account. This is long standing material with an affirmative consensus for its inclusion, notwithstanding the Greater Israel contingent of Wikipedia not liking that. The stable version is the version with the material as presented in the text. nableezy - 09:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this was started by Supreme Deliciousness on July 12: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1097710480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall Clarks (talk • contribs) 09:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not true, and if you look back to Jan 2022 youll see that. Or 2021. Or hell lets go all the way back to 2009! nableezy - 09:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, can you make it smaller? (similar to the original version in 2009). Right now it looks too big of a text for a simple table, which is why I tried to reduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall Clarks (talk • contribs) 09:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just did. You agree to not make any more edits that violate WP:ARBPIA? Would like to withdraw the AE report. nableezy - 09:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I like your change. The dispute is over as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall Clarks (talk • contribs) 10:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason for the text "and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" to be smaller. It should be the same size. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Does it really matter tho? nableezy - 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. By having it in small letters after Israel it minimizes that its a different entity than Israel and also makes it look more like its officially a part of Israel. By having the text in the same size it makes it more clear to the reader that the two regions are two different separate entity's. Also there hasn't been any good reason provided here why it should be in small letters. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Daveout, you need to explain why you disagree:[7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Druze don't worship Muhammad

In the "A Shorter Druze Catechism" which is inclusive mentioned in the Historical Dictionary of Islam (2009) shows that they consider him a false messenger

"The following abridged Druze Catechism came into the possession of Professor W. B. Stevenson of the University of Glasgow. It is written in not unimpeachable Arabic-probably towards the end of the 19th century. Generally speaking the writing is good. A few minor points do not tally with the Article on the Religion of the Druzes in the Encyclopedia of Islam." > Q. What are the letters of the Falsity and what their number? A. Twenty-six and they are an indication of the Devil and his children and companions-and they Muhammad and 'Ali, the "Imam" of those who believe in them, the Mutawila and his Twelve Descendants.

191.8.72.105 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@191.8.72.105 this source is disputed and is shown as most likely Christian propaganda by scholars. 2A02:ED1:F000:6491:FF90:D92F:5A54:6250 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Your source doesn't have him labelled as a false messenger, as they explain he is part of the 5 prophets, though it does say they don't worship Muhammad but worship Al-Hakim.

Rishoval (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It says they consider him and Ali the "indication of the Devil and his children and companions" meaning they consider him a false prophet by associating him the the devil

> Q. What are the letters of the Falsity and what their number? > A. Twenty-six and they are an indication of the Devil and his children and companions-and they Muhammad and 'Ali, the "Imam" of those who believe in them, the Mutawila and his Twelve Descendants. 191.17.182.36 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Umm, no religions worship Muhammad - definitely not Islam. It's a little worrying that no one in this discussion seems to be at all concerned by this confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Fun Fact to "Umm, no religions worship Muhammad". Actually Yarsanism is religion which worship Muhammad because Yarsanis believe, that nature of Gof is Haft Tan (in translatuion:"7 persons") and God every cycle incarnates into 7 people on the Earth. During "sharia epoch" accordin Yarsanism God incarnated into Ali, Salman, Qanbar, Muhammad, Ibn Nusayr, Fatimah and Baba Tahir (you have different personas in different sources) and Ali is significantly important because into him was incarnated the Divine Essence so Muhammad is in Yarsanism not so important as Ali, but he is worshipped because Yarsanis believe he is divine in some way. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Druze theophany on 13 October 2022

Theophany

 He proclaimed that God had become human and taken the form of man.[159][160][161][162][163][excessive citations] Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah is an important figure in the Druze faith whose eponymous founder ad-Darazi proclaimed him as the incarnation of God in 1018.[159][160]

This is simply untrue. I am of druze backround and this could cause major conflict and hate from other religions to the druze. The sources are not from druze sheikhs. Authors of the sources that have been provided are not from the druze religon nor have the correct knowledge.

This is a matter of conflict between religons living in the levent and could cause harm, politically and religiously. Thank you 120.22.7.211 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia editors should rely on WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Generally we would not take the religious background of an author into account to determine a source's reliability. If there are other reasons why you believe these sources are not reliable please feel free to discuss them. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is incorrectly listed as being occupied.

The Golan Heights is incorrectly listed as being occupied. 2600:4041:51C2:D100:4965:83EE:5E19:9023 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Typo

It appears that you misspelled "or" in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph. Callum Cuda (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed [8] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Typo under “Culture” section

In the language subsection:

“The mother tongue of Druze in Syria, Lebanon and Israel is Levantine Arabic, except those born and lives (sic) in the Druze diaspora such as Venezuela, where Arabic was not taught or spoken at home.”

I am not yet at 500 edits, so just pointing this out for someone else to edit. -.+ThAYYta+.- (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Elaboration

@Dan Palraz: Please elaborate here, thanks. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you are asking is impossible. If you really can't see for yourself how:

"The Druze are an Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group from Western Asia who adhere to the Druze faith, an Abrahamic, monotheistic, syncretic, and ethnic religion based on the teachings of Hamza ibn Ali ibn Ahmad and ancient Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and Zeno of Citium"

is a better lead than:

"Druze are an Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group from Western Asia who adhere to a religious faith that originally developed out of Isma'ilism, a branch of Shia Islam, although they do not identify as Muslims",

then I simply can't continue editing. Would you be so kind as to actually look at the versions, see if there is any evil bias in my edits or if it's really just someone trying to make it a better encyclopedic article, and, if you do agree it is the case, just allow me to continue doing it? What you're asking, on the other hand - that I "explain" how the above lead is better than the previous one - is not really practical, I hope you will agree... Dan Palraz (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to explain, then that's your own problem. Fyi, none of us are getting paid here. Perhaps that sentence could use a rewriting to make it sound better, but I'm not sure what that has to do with removing 17k information.--HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, do you have a real problem with my proposed lead, or can I now re-add it? Seems like you don't really have a problem with the edits themselves, but with not doing them with your permission... Dan Palraz (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh please, drop the silly remarks. You brought this on yourself [9] [10] [11]. Removing loads of sourced information across several articles with no actual explanation, what did you expect? Let me ask you this; If your main gripe is how some stuff in this article is worded, why remove the cited sources? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not the wording, the article as you put it back now says that Ad-Darazi is one of "the seven prophets of the Druze". Again, if you know anything about the Druze you should know it is absurd, it sounds like a good joke, Ad-Darazi is actually an antagonist to the Druze... But I honestly have no strength to explain every single edit like this... Dan Palraz (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to explain, then that's on you. This is what the two sources (which you just removed here [12]) say;

N. Stearns, Peter (2008). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World. Oxford University Press. p. 574. ISBN 9780195176322. "Druze venerate seven prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Muhammad ibn Ismai'il ad-Darazi."

Seddon, David (2013). A Political and Economic Dictionary of the Middle East. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 9781135355616. "Druze believe in seven prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Muhammad ibn Ismail ad-Darazi. They also have a special affinity with Shueib, or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses."

One is published by Oxford University Press, the other by Routledge. So why are these wrong and you are right? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It would appear that these sources support the idea that Muhammad ibn Ismai'il ad-Darazi is considered a prophet by the Druze. Dan Palraz, could you cite and quote us a reliable source that says that he was an antagonist to the Druze instead? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC) I have now found and quoted sources that say this below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

In the proposed lead sentence here, Pythagoras, and Zeno of Citium cannot be right. Scholars agree that Pythagoras' own teachings are irrecoverably lost and that Pythagoreanism is a very diverse tradition which developed a number of mutually very different doctrines throughout the ages (so the question would always be, which 'Pythagoreanism' do you mean?). As for Zeno of Citium, his writings are lost too and his doctrines have only been reconstructed in the modern age. What reliable source claims that the early Druze had direct access to Zeno's teachings? I would like to see direct quotes from the sources here (see this courtesy rule).

In general, Dan Palraz, please go back to the status WP:QUO version (which would be this one), and make small changes from there, one at a time. When one of the changes get challenged, you can quote the reliable sources that support it at the talk page. If you can show us that your edits are well grounded in the sources, they will likely get challenged less in the future. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This whole article looks like it's been made by trolls. Almost nothing in it is correct. The page manages to get wrong the Faith's Canons, the Faith's prophets, the Faith's founder... Of the seven prophets of the Druze, it is normally said: "They also hold that there were seven great prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Muhammad ibn Isma'il (the founder of the Ismaili sect)". (source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=Sw9YDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT262&dq=Druze+venerate+seven+prophets:+Adam,+Noah,+Abraham,+Moses,+Jesus%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwili4KGnqz7AhVoRPEDHZ4aBscQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=Druze%20venerate%20seven%20prophets%3A%20Adam%2C%20Noah%2C%20Abraham%2C%20Moses%2C%20Jesus%22&f=false)

So clearly the source simply mixed Muhammad ibn Isma'il (the founder of the Ismaili sect) with Muhammad bin Ismail ad-Darazi, the Druzes' antagonist. Can happen to someone who doesn't know about the topic being written. But when someone who does know try to fix it, please... This simple example shows that the article has relied on clearly fictitious work, and that it will take a lot of work to go through the whole article with facts, but if I have to discuss each change with people who don't even know that ad-Darazi is not one of the "seven prophets of the Druze", a work that would already take days will have to take months. So, please, if you're for some reason so much into it, please open yourselves a serious, recent book about the Druzes (such as https://books.google.co.il/books?id=TlCHg5EblxEC&dq=Historical+Dictionary+of+the+Druzes+(Historical+Dictionaries+of+Peoples+and+Cultures)&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y ) to see that all I'm adding is verified material... Dan Palraz (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions doesn't seem to be appropiate in this context, see its author (they specialize in evangelical Christianity?). As for the second book, could you quote a passage that contradicts that of the two sources above. And we get it, you don't like to explain yourself, I think it's the fourth time you have said it now. That is however not how it works here in Wikipedia, where you are expected to be able to work together with other editors. If you can't be bothered to explain, then don't edit, simple. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Just open Google Books, there are hundreds of other sources (for example: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=pYgvLf2GE8YC&pg=PT28&dq=Druze+prophets&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOuoWLnaz7AhXOQ_EDHRV0C0IQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=Druze%20prophets&f=false) that explain how one of the prophets of the Druze is Muhammad ibn Isma'il (the founder of Ismailism) and not Muhammad bin Ismail ad-Darazi, a totally different bloke. I simply don't have the time to edit the whole article and have one chat with you on each of the dozens of mistakes in the article. So, if personally interacting with you is mandatory to edit this specific article, for the sake of my mental health I prefer leaving the article full of mistakes as it is. If you allow me to edit it again using actual sources written by people who actually know something about the Druze and who know how to distinguish two different characters with similar names, I am still willing to help. Dan Palraz (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Dan Palraz is right. I checked a number of expert sources, and while most do not mention a canon of seven prophets at all, the following do:

• The Druze faith can be said to acknowledge the existence of seven prophets of different periods: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Muhammad ibn Isma'il, who founded the Isma'iliyya sect. (Dana 2003, p. 17) Aside from these seven prophets, the Druze recognize other prophets, among them the prophets mentioned in the scriptures of the three monotheistic religions. Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the seventh Shi'ite Imam; he died young in the year 762 and is considered, as stated, the founder of the Isma'iliyya sect. (Dana 2003, p. 187, in footnote no. 8 to p. 17)
• Then there was another declarer, the seventh, in the Druze (and Isma'ili) tra­dition after the Prophet Muhammad. The seventh declarer was Muhammad ibn Isma'il ibn Ja'far al-Sadiq. (Obeid 2006, p. 127; this follows the mention of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as the preceding six 'declarers' on pp. 125–126)
• The second central idea of Druze cosmology involves three types of intermediaries (between God and mankind). These were, first, the prophets or spokesmen and included Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Muhammad Ibn Isma‘il. Second, for each spokesman (natiq), there was a helper or foundation (asas) [...] (Swayd 2006, p. 44)

It would indeed be strange that the Druze would venerate al-Darazi as a prophet, given that al-Darazi was repudiated by Hamza ibn Ali:

• A split developed in the movement, one faction following Nashtakm al-Darazi. Hamza asserts that Darazi had recognized his imamate, but had later claimed to be sayyid al-hadiyyin (chief guide), i.e. superior to Hamza who was hadi al-mustajibin (guide of the neophytes). Darazi styled himself the sword of the faith and tried to bring converts by force, against which Hamza warns, saying the faith is not in need of the sword, and urges persuasion and gentle reasoning. Hamza rebukes Darazi for trying to raise the building without foundation, the foundation being true knowledge of which Darazi is devoid. [...] Darazi did not leave Egypt and he disappeared at an early stage in the da'wa. The name of this man who is repudiated by the Druzes was affixed to the movement, probably because of the stir which he created. (Abu-Izzeddin 1984, pp. 103–104)

As for the two sources currently cited in the article (Stearns 2008 and Seddon 2013), at first I suspected that they were misquoted, but then I checked them (Google Books links [13] [14]) and they do indeed append "ad-Darazi" after "Muhammad ibn Isma'il". However, neither of these two sources is an expert on the Druze, and given what the expert sources above say I think it's fairly clear that our two currently cited sources are wrong. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Abu-Izzeddin, Nejla M. (1984). The Druzes: A New Study of their History, Faith, and Society. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-09705-6.
• Dana, Nissim (2003). The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status. Brighton: Sussex University press. ISBN 1-903900-36-0.
• Obeid, Anis (2006). The Druze & Their Faith in Tawhid. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-5257-1.
• Swayd, Samy (2006). Historical Dictionary of the Druzes. Lanham/Toronto/Oxford: The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-1442246171.

I guess that settles that part. Thanks Apaugasma, I have reverted myself at Ad-Darazi. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Apaugasma, for the effort put into confirming that some of the sources used in this Wikipedia article are mostly not really trustable on what they claim about the Druze faith - a faith whose tenets are kept secret on purpose, even from the majority of the Druze themselves. You are absolutely correct also in your assertion that "In the proposed lead sentence here, Pythagoras, and Zeno of Citium cannot be right", for all the reason you elaborated on above. I will trim this part of the intro too, then, to leave it with what we can know with absolute certainty to be correct. Once I have the time to do it, it would be a great idea to collectively go through the whole article, fact-checking it. My proposition for the intro:

The Druze (/ˈdruːz/; Arabic: دَرْزِيٌّ, darzī or Arabic: دُرْزِيٌّ durzī, pl. دُرُوزٌ, durūz) are an Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group from Western Asia who adhere to the Druze faith, an Abrahamic, monotheistic, syncretic, and ethnic religion whose main tenets are the unity of God and the belief in reincarnation and the eternity of the soul. Adherents of the Druze religion call themselves "the Monotheists" or "the Unitarians" (al-Muwaḥḥidūn). Most Druze religious practices are kept secret. The Druze do not permit outsiders to convert to their religion, nor are Druze permitted to convert away from the Druze faith. Marriage outside the Druze faith is rare and strongly discouraged. The Druze faith is based on the teachings of 11th-century Hamza ibn Ali. The Epistles of Wisdom..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Palraz (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dan Palraz, thanks for the ping. Unfortunately I don't have time to look into this now (the article also currently is not on my watchlist), but prima facie your proposal looks good to me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Link with Atenism of Ancient Egypt

In the Atenism page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism) there's a section saying this: "The modern Druze regard their religion as being descended from and influenced by older monotheistic and mystic movements, including Atenism.[24] In particular, they attribute the Tawhid's first public declaration to Akhenaten.[25]" Considering the article says Druze are syncretic and already incorporate Greek philosophers, i think mentioning this link to Ancient Egypt somewhere in the article would be nice too 138.255.51.40 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Replying to my own to also say something else i found, Akhenaten's own page in the legacy section mentions he is recognized as a prophet in Druze too, i think that also could be mentioned 138.255.51.40 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently holding Obeid, Anis (2006). The Druze & Their Faith in Tawhid. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-5257-1, one of the references in the lead sentence. According to the index, here are the book's two references to Akhenaten. Interpret them as you will, but what I see is a member of a relatively lesser-known Abrahamic sect directly confirming the key ontological role of Akhenaten to their theological framework.

Page 96. "The Druze concept of Tawhid is based mainly on the inner meaning (batin) of the Qu'ran, the Christian, and Jewish scriptures. The Druze path in Tawhid also derived input from a vanguard of pioneers in Pharaonic Egypt such as Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), and from the wisdom of the Greek philosophers, from the traditions of Gnostic groups such as the Hanifs and the Sabaeans of Harran, from the legacy of the ancient sages of the Orient, and from Eastern mysticism."

Page 139. "...Tawhid made its first public appearance in Egypt at the hands of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV, better known as Akhenaten. Akhenaten eventually succumbed to the powerful influence of the priests when their status was completely undermined by the bold universal concept." 2607:9880:3110:F1:EDE3:22D1:8E0A:3139 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What’s the MOS on the Golan Hieghts.

Israel has annexed the Golan heights, so maybe a more accurate wording would be ‘Israeli-controlled Golan Heights’? It is no longer an Occupied Territory under Israeli law. A Tree In A Box (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not recognized by the international community, which has declared the annexation illegal. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Israeli laws are null and void in regards to the Golan Heights because Israel has no sovereignty or jurisdiction in the area.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You can argue Israel has no sovereignty but it definitely has de facto Jurisdiction. A Tree In A Box (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You could also argue that Russia has de facto Jurisdiction over Crimea; Wikipedia still says: "Location: Ukraine", Huldra (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Druze (spelled "Druse" in the document) were listed in the 2021 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census. Would suggest updating the Australian numbers to match the results of this census, as accessed here https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/cultural-diversity-census/2021/Census%20article%20-%20Religious%20affiliation%20in%20Australia.xlsx 2001:8003:3208:9400:B0A4:99A5:206C:4FA1 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 21:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

In the lead Replace “arab-speaking” with “arab”

Druze are an arab ethnoreligous group, there are many sources and statistics stating this, here are a few:

- “They are the only Arab group conscripted into the Israel Defense Forces” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Druze)

- “Druze are ethnically Arab and Arabic speaking” (https://minorityrights.org/minorities/druze/)

Including the statistics of druze inside and outside israel identifying as ethnic arabs that is already mentioned in the article. Chafique (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a controversial change. Some Israeli Druze identify as Arabic-speakers, but identify with the Israeli nation rather than the Arab nation. It isn't clear where is the boundary between "Arabic-speaking", "Arab as an ethnicity" (are Druze also an ethnicity though? a separate ethnicity from Arabs or a sub-ethnicity of Arabs?), and "Arab nation" (as in Arab nationalism).

Non-Israeli sources generally consider Druze to be ethnically Arab. Most Druze in Lebanon and Syria identify as "ethnically Arab", which aligns with viewing them a subdivision of a single Arab people / nation / ethnic group, and that aligns with the mainstream politics of those nations (with themes of Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian nationalism). However, many Israeli and pro-Israel sources treat Israeli Druze as "Arab by language but not ethnicity", and certainly some Israeli Druze appear to go along with this. So, while calling Druze "Arabic-speaking" or "Arabic-speakers" is neutral, calling them "ethnically Arab" is controversial in foregrounding a non-Israeli perspective over an Israeli one. You might say identifying them as linguistically Arabic is doing the opposite, foregrounding the Israeli perspective – in a sense that is right, but unfortunately perfect neutrality is impossible, and at least we can say that the Israel-preferred wording is not false from the non-Israeli viewpoint, just lacking. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Most israeli druze identify ethnically as arabs (ethnically not just linguistically).[1] it’s not something about non-israeli druze alone, all druze whether in israel or outside israel consider themselves ethnically arabs. Reliable sources also state that. Even Minority Rights Group International which support minorities and their rights define druze as ethnic arabs [2]. There is no controversy regarding that. Chafique (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that "Arabs" are an ethnic group with a heavy emphasis on the shared linguistic and cultural elements of similarity, so the identification of a group as "Arab" is already, more than other things, a linguistic identifier. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly the identity politics have got complex in modern Israel though: [15], [16], [17] Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

See this 2016 Pew survey, footnote 1:

Virtually all Muslims (99%) and Christians (96%) surveyed in Israel identify as Arab. A somewhat smaller share of Druze (71%) say they are ethnically Arab. Other Druze respondents identify their ethnicity as “Other,” “Druze” or “Druze-Arab.”

So it seems like the clear majority of Israeli Druze do identify as "ethnically Arab", but at the same time a significant minority appear not to. The Israeli government officially promotes the idea of "Arab" and "Druze" as being separate ethnicities, and while the majority of Israeli Druze still identify as ethnically Arab in spite of that, it appears a minority have been influenced by it to some degree.

I also found this source: Nakhleh, K. (1977). Anthropological and Sociological Studies on the Arabs in Israel: A Critique. Journal of Palestine Studies, 6(4), 41–70. doi:10.2307/2535777. Some relevant quotes from it, discussing how Jewish Israeli sociologists and anthropologists conceptualise the Druze:

That this underlying premise abounds is clear from the persistent treatment of Druze as non-Arab...

The archetype of Israeli sociology (Shmuel Eisenstadt) set the tone: "...This did not apply, however, to the non-Arab minorities, especially the Druze"

Whether in the sixties or the seventies, whether sociologists or anthropologists, and whether Israeli Zionists or American Zionists, all seem to accept the "given" official position on the Druze vs. Arab issue.

The service of Israeli Druze in the IDF, etc, leads to some Israeli Druze (even if only a minority) being influenced by the Jewish/Zionist perspective on the "Druze vs. Arab" issue. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I would caution that all reflections on the Druze in Israel, which contains but a small minority of the global Druze population - the main population being in Syria - are just that; they cannot be extrapolated to a global perspective. Unfortunately, the Druze in Syria page helps very little in elucidating the wider perspectives of the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Israeli Druze are a minority who are in various ways unrepresentative of Druze as a whole. And even a clear majority of Israeli Druze identify as "ethnically Arab", so "non-Arab-identifying Israeli Druze" are a minority of a minority. But I think the problem is calling Druze "ethnically Arab" without qualification doesn't leave room for the minority (however small) of Druze who don't identify that way. I think the proposal further down to use "Arab or Arabic-speaking" is good because it contains room both for the majority of Druze who identify with the phrase "ethnically Arab" and the minority who differ. I'm sure there's some diaspora Druze who have little or no Arabic, but even they still identify with it as their ancestral language. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

First, why should the Israeli government's view and policy regarding the Druze or their affiliation with the Arabs be a criterion in determining whether the Druze are Arab or not?. Israel adopts the separation of the Druze from the Arabs through a policy of "divide and rule" and not based on scientific or historical research and studies. Yes, there is a small Druze minority that claims that they are not Arab, but the reasons are different: including the brainwashing carried out by the Israeli Ministry of Education curriculam through “Druze heritage” lessons (تراث درزي\מורשת הדרוזית) in Druze schools, which claims the existence of a unique Druze culture that differs from Arab civilization. In addition, in Israeli Jewish society in general (without of course generalizing), Arabs are seen as synonymous with an "enemy" or "Islam and Muslims", and thus some Druze try to separate themselves from that by saying, "We are Druze, not Arabs". It is a form of attempting to integrate into Israeli society, especially as Druze youth join the army, and thus separating themselves from the "Arabs" is a form of survival and integration. Especially since the Israeli Jewish youth generally belongs to the Israeli right and many has a negative views of Arabs. The Israeli media also plays a major role in trying to create a "Druze ethnic identity" in the consciousness of ordinary people, through the use of the terms "Arabic-speaking Druze", "Druze language", "Druze cuisine" and "Druze heritage" as if there is a unique cuisine for the Druze or there is a unique heritage for the Druze, which is not exists. The only difference between the Druze and the rest of the Arabs is in the religious traditions only. There is no special cuisine for the Druze, what is called "Pitta Druzet" (פיתה דרוזית) or "Druze labneh" (לאבנה דרוזית) or "Druze kibbeh" or even "Druze tabbouleh" is nonsense.

By the way, even the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics defines the Druze as part of the Arab society or as Arabs. P.3: The Druze community comprises 1.6% of Israel’s total population and 7.4% of Israel’s Arab population..2.55.10.5 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Some druze are ethnically arabs but some are not, for example the Jumblatt family are kurdish. The first line should therefore be: "are an Arab or Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good wording. It acknowledges that most Druze do identify as "ethnically Arab" but the "or Arabic-speaking" clause leaves room for those who do not. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

While it is true that some druze are ethnically not of arab origin (There is no Arab group that is of pure Arab origin; even Arab Muslims in the Levant are not "pure" Arabs), for example the Jumblatt family are of kurdish origin (Saying that they are "Kurds" is nonsense. Their origins are Kurdish, throughout the history, members of this family intermarried with Druze families of pure Arab origin. The family speaks Arabic. Its members do not consider themselves Kurds. The same situation applies to the families of "Arslan" and "Atrash", which have Kurdish origins, there is a big difference between saying that the Jumblatt family is Kurdish or that their origins are Kurdish). But they are largely integrated into the Arab identity, and those who have "Kurdish" origins have become largely integrated into the Arabic identity and language. These families do not speak Kurdish, and do not preserve any form of Kurdish culture. For example, You gave an example of the Jumblatt family. The Jumblatt family, for example, speaks Arabic as a mother tongue. Its members adopt Arab nationalism. Walid and Kamal Jumblatt are the most prominent examples of this. Kamal Jumblatt did not consider himself Kurdish, but was an Arab nationalist.

As for the Druze in Israel, according to the Pew Center study, the majority (more than 70%) defines themselves as “Arab” only, and attention should be paid to the study, while the remaining percentage is divided between those who consider their ethnicity as “Arab Druze” or only as “Druze.” The Druze identity may sometimes be a tribal identity, meaning that many Druze may not be religious at all, but define themselves as “Arab Druze” or “Israeli Druze.” The Druze identity is essential, but this does not mean that they do not see themselves as “Arabs.” Despite the attempts of the Israeli governments to separate the Druze from the 1950s from the Arab society (By building separate schools, separate history, separate narrative; and inventing the concept of a Druze language or cuisine with unique culture in the media, which is something that does not exist), the Druze majority still defines themselves as Arabs. By the way, even the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics defines the Druze as part of the Arab society or as Arabs. P.3: The Druze community comprises 1.6% of Israel’s total population and 7.4% of Israel’s Arab population.

I speak here as an Israeli Druze, we are Arabs, our language is Arabic and our culture is Arabic. Just because there are some israeli Druze who are brainwashed (by the Israeli education system) or (because they are willing to integrate in the Israeli mainstream culture and community or in the military and other places) think or cliams that they belong to unique ethnic group, that does not reflect the majority of us.2.55.10.5 (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Here you can see some propaganda in the Hebrew Wikipedia [18]. There is no Druze dialect - the Druze dialects are different (the Druze of As-Suwayda have a different dialect than the Druze of the Golan), and the dialect of the Druze of the Upper Galilee differs from that of the Druze of the Lower Galilee or the villages of Mount Carmel. This dialect is not exclusive to the Druze. In Suwayda, Christians speak the same dialect as the Druze. Historically, until the end of the eighteenth century, the Maronites spoke the same dialect as the Druze in the Chouf and Mount Lebanon. In the Golan, Christians speak the same dialect as the Druze (some Christian families still live in Majdal Shams and Ain Qinya). In the Maghar in the Galilee, Christians and Muslims speak a dialect similar to the Druze dialect. In the Christian village of Mi'ilya, they have the same dialect as the Druze-majority village of Hurfeish. Even on the Hebrew Wikipedia they try to create a different, distinct identity for the Druze. Of course, there are differences stemming from religion, but there are no cultural differences that make the Druze an independent ethnic group. While its ture most of Druze Arabic dialect is distinguished from others by retention of the phoneme /qāf/, but it not unique for us, Alawis speak in this way, and many residents of Muslim and Christian villages speak in this way. 2.55.10.5 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

An "ethnic group" is a socially constructed concept, not an objective one. While there are frequently differences in language, culture, etc, between different ethnic groups, there don't have to be. All that is necessary is that people perceive two groups to be "ethnically" distinct. And this is a point on which different perspectives exist, which even you acknowledge, when you speak of "israeli Druze who are brainwashed (by the Israeli education system)", etc. It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide whose perspective is "right" – it can just acknowledge the reality that most Druze identify as "ethnically Arab" but some Druze don't. The article should acknowledge both perspectives, including the fact that the former perspective is a lot more common than the later, but should (where possible) try to word itself to be inclusive of both.

While Jewish Israeli/Zionist sources often present "Druze" as a "non-Arab ethnic group", there are other sources which present "Druze" as an "Arab ethnic group"–as in, as an ethnic group within an ethnic group, a "sub-ethnicity". Those non-Zionist sources obviously don't share the political/ideological motivations of Zionism. Saying "Druze aren't an ethnic group" is a position which I don't think all Druze who consider themselves "ethnically Arab" share–"ethnically Arab" and "ethnically Druze" don't have to be mutually exclusive, from what I understand, some Druze identify as both. Many sources describe Druze as an "ethnoreligious group" (a term also used to describe Jews, among others), which acknowledges that the boundary between ethnicity and religion is blurry, and even if true that "there are differences stemming from religion, but there are no cultural differences", a mere religious difference can be enough to constitute an ethnic one, if people choose to view it that way. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Many Mizrahi Jews identify themselves as Arab Jews, and consider Judaism just a religion and their ethnicity as Arab. Does this mean, for example, changing the introduction in the article Jews? To include and acknowledgeall all views and spectrums and perspectives?. Only in Israel a small minority considers itself as non-Arab (With all the Israeli government's attempts (in schools, the army, local councils, the media, academia, etc.) to separate the Druze from Arab society and create a "Druze ethnic identity", it is clear that the majority of the Druze in Israel consider themselves Arab). The vast majority of the Druze live in Syria and Lebanon, and it is not difficult to obtain a number of sources saying that most of them consider themselves Arabs. Even the sources that mention Druze as "ethnoreligious group", it cited as Arabic "ethnoreligious group" or Arabic sub-ethnicity". Only Jewish Israeli/Zionist sources present "Druze" as a "non-Arab ethnic group", it is provided by ideological motives. This does not apply only to the Druze. Since 2010, the Israeli government has been trying to create a “separate Christian identity,” such as the “Aramaic identity” or “Arabic speaking Christians”. Noting that the main official Israeli Christian churches opposed this identity, due to the presence of an actual Aramaic Christian community in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Jaffa, and it is easy to identify any Christian community of Aramaic origin through their church affiliation (such as the Syriac Orthodox or Syriac Catholic Church). Some Israeli and Zionist sources, for example, consider the Bedouin as a separate ethnicity, "the Bedouin" who are the "purest Arabs". It is clear that the Israeli and Zionist sources are not neutral in this regard. It should be clarified in the article that most of the Druze consider themselves Arabs, not just "Arabic speaking". 2.55.9.55 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It should be clarified in the article that most of the Druze consider themselves Arabs, not just "Arabic speaking" I think we should try to get away from debating the underlying issue – which isn't the purpose of this Talk page – and just focus the discussion on what the article should say. I agree the article should acknowledge that most Druze (and almost all Druze outside of Israel) identify as "ethnically Arab". I think "Arab or Arabic-speaking" does that – it puts the mainstream position first ("Arab"), and the minority position second ("Arabic-speaking"), and the "or" makes it inclusive of both. And then maybe add a statement like this: "Outside of Israel, almost all Druze identify ethnically as Arabs; the clear majority of Israeli Druze also identify ethnically as Arabs, but there are a minority who do not". Would you be happy with that wording? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Outside of Israel, almost all Druze identify ethnically as Arabs; the clear majority of Israeli Druze also identify ethnically as Arabs, but there are a minority who do not.

Sounds good, it definitively clarifies the self-identification of the Druze outside Israel and in Israel (the self-identification of some Israeli Druze is a special case and not the dominant one). Regards. 2.55.9.55 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also we could change the first sentence to this:

The Druze (/ˈdruːz/; Arabic: دَرْزِيٌّ, darzī or Arabic: دُرْزِيٌّ durzī, pl. دُرُوزٌ, durūz) are an Arab or Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group.

While adding Outside of Israel, almost all Druze identify ethnically as Arabs; the clear majority of Israeli Druze also identify ethnically as Arabs, but there are a minority who do not. In the fifth paragraph in the introduction, because the paragraph deals with the distribution of Druze communities, this sentence fits the context of this paragraph. 2.55.9.55 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your proposal. Now we just need the agreement of someone who has permission to implement it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. Seems that there is a consensus regarding it. Chafique (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"Outside of Israel..." shouldn't be in the lead. As it puts Israel in the center for no reason.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, "Outside of Israel..." shouldn't be in the lead.2.55.8.245 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the proposal was to put it, not in the first paragraph of the introduction, rather in the fifth. Is that still "the lede"? Anyway, if you think starting the sentence as "Outside of Israel..." puts too much focus on Israel, what if we reword the sentence as: Almost all Druze identify ethnically as Arabs; except in Israel, where a clear majority also identify ethnically as Arabs, but there are a minority who do not SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

if the sentence is included it should say:"in Arab countries..."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. But can you suggest how to work it into the sentence? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree too Chafique (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. An RfC seems to be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

there was a consensus reached by here to mention druze arab ethnicity in the beginning of the lead as well as keeping “arabic-speaking” in place.

The following source are the sources to be cited:

- “They are the only Arab group conscripted into the Israel Defense Forces” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Druze)

- “Druze are ethnically Arab and Arabic speaking” (https://minorityrights.org/minorities/druze/)

- “the Druze are Arabs who formed a sect within islam in the eleventh century” (Palestine and Israel A Challenge to Justice, Duke University Press, p135)

The edit to be made is, in the beginning of the lead, replace:

“are an Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group”

With:

“are an Arab and Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group”(with citing the reliable sources above)

——————

note: the book of “Palestine and Israel A Challenge to Justice” also state that israel is trying to divide druze from other arabs and notes it’s divide and rule policies, as when it says in the same page for example: “in particularly, cultivated the Druze Arabs to split them from other Arabs”, as well as the content of page 134, thus at least any israeli government or government related source regarding this should be discarded, and israeli and zionist sources in general should at least be given a very low weight and not to be compared with other reliable sources. Chafique (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2023: Displaying the flag

The border option should be used while displaying the Druze flag, so that the bottom-most stripe doesn't blend with the white Wikipedia background. Boundary.operator (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede, para.2 (The Epistles of Wisdom is the foundational) second sentence, The Druze faith incorporates elements of Isma'ilism, Christianity, .., lists faiths with links - except to Isma'ilism. I'd suggest adding a link there. (Isma'ilism does have its own article.) 90.244.219.186 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Religion

Druze religion revolves around the worship of al-Hakim bi-amr allah as the incarnation of the one god (Allah), why should this not be highlighted more properly instead of going into extra details in the introduction re: the religions obscure and arcane connections to Greek and ancient philosophy.?

רמרום (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)