Wikipedia

Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Archive 3

< Talk:Muhammad Iqbal
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ohnoitsjamie in topic Disruptive edits.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Disruptive edits

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  • Omer123hussain you edited this without concrete and legitimate reasons. Would you please clarify that of/on which policy or wiki rule you removed the Urdu script, and term and changed the text into poor English. According to policy; "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". I restored your illegitimate edits, but you again removed the same, and changed further more with questionable English?,here,here and this. I think "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording". I do not see your edits towards article Iqbal as good faith. The changes by you have been reverted.Please discuss here and get to reach the consensus.Justice007 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Justice007 you reverted my constructive work here without discusing me and blamed it to be vandalism, please prove it vandal if you can ? and how do you support your revert to keep one title in Urdu and not the other that to in same sentence and in lead? and why are you supporting to keep sources in lead ?? and in this way I feel that you are targeting my work on this article with a bias, so please stop that and please behave gently to promote the article to FA. If you are major contributor on this article it does not mean that you target/revert my edits. Every editor is free to develop the article, and if we are ignoring your errors with AGF it does not mean that you should apply your own terms on the editors and it will not take more than 3 hours for me/any editor to become a major contributor on this article, in-fact technically if we talk there are many more major contributors here than you do, so please stop imposing on yourself a self acclaim title of major contributor. Justice007 please try to understand I would really like to see the article as an FA as early as possible, please cooperate with me, please do not argue for each and every edit of my, any way after all there will be lot of c/e and many more peer reviews had to be done by many more established editors and administrators after we make edits, so all grammar and English errors will be highlighted and fixed, nor you nor me is a native english speaker so defenately there will be lot lot of errors, but at least we can arrange the article in proper manner and move for peer review. Let’s do constructive rather than arguing for simple things and waisting both of ours and other editors time which will never come back. Hope for the best, and any way i am removing that urdu title and source from lead and adding national poet in lead first sentence where it deserves. if you can type in urdu please add it but with other titles it wont look good yar to keep one title in urdu and other w/o it, that to in lead which should be at least in uniform manner. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes I see now you constructive edits towards improving the text, citation and other things. I do realy not own the article, of cource we are not native speakers of English, but they can also make the mistakes. I don't think the article will soon be moved for FA or GA, because my plan is to add few more sections, when we are finished, we will ask for further copy edit to be ready for FA. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • But unfortunately you are still arguing by raising some or the other work. Please stop applying forum like sources, use some books, researchs, journals as source, these represents the academic standards. Please do not use just okay sources. I want to make the article upto the standards of Shakespear. And you are still reverting my work without discussion and with degrating comments like here this is wasting my time and will lead to edit warring so please avoid it and i am removing "pakistanupdates.com.pk" source which is like a forum see the about the contributos here. And please stop adding sources in the lead, it is against the standards of WP GA/FA. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added Turkey to the key states where he is very well known and admired - he is also called Iqbal Lahori there. I visit Turkey often and regularly meet with their academics and intellectuals who regularly mention Iqbal whenever Pakistan is mentioned. Iqbal is widely read from translations and quoted:see major political and literary figures discussing Iqbal Lahori on Youtube. Moarrikh (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In wikipedia for everything needs reliable sources, please first provide source for that.Justice007 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Poet of the East

Latest comment: 11 years ago66 comments12 people in discussion
This discussion has been closed by I Jethrobot. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed by I Jethrobot. Please do not modify it.

As an uninvolved editor, I am closing this discussion per the request at WP:ANRFC. Per WP:BURDEN, there initially were two competing claims regarding the use of the above title that both required proof. Given the sources, there was insufficient consensus that the subject should be described as the "Poet of the East" only among Urdu-Hindi speakers or that the subject is universally known as such. However, there was consensus to qualify this title with "In much of Southern Asia, Iqbal is regarded as...". DGG's comment that this be adjusted to ...Iqbal is sometimes regarded as..." is also noted as a suggested alternative. Editors are also urged to avoid commenting on the editor, and instead focus on the editor's arguments and content changes. For this reason, and per recommendation by Cunard (talk · contribs), this discussion will be hatted. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal is known as the 'Poet of the East' only among the Urdu-Hindi speakers. Arabs, Farsi-speakers, Chinese, and other Eastern linguistic groups have no clue Iqbal is being hailed as the 'Poet of the East' by the Urdu speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemendtaur (talk • contribs) 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • You are wrong, first provide reliable sources to support your point, and other hand he is not only known with that title to Urdu and Hindi speakers but also many regional languages and around subcontinent countries as well. Justice007 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

>As said earlier, the burden of proof is on people who believe Iqbal is universally known as the 'Poet of the East.' Cemendtaur (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I am not going to revert you, avoiding 3RR, other editors may soon respond, I consider you a kind of WP:sock,to see your style of language.Justice007 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

>Wikipedia is not the place to advance agenda of specific communities. Please read the Farsi page on Iqbal. They are not calling him the 'Poet of the East.' Arabs don't either. In fact, no one does outside Hindi-Urdu speakers from South Asia.Cemendtaur (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The New Politics of Islam: Pan-Islamic Foreign Policy in a World of States p83 Routledge Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850 p565 Routledge call him the poet of the east. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

>The cited book is written by Desi authors--belonging to the same group that started this lie.Cemendtaur (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

>>Justice007 and Darkness Shines, Please review these Google results for "Poet of the East" http://www.google.com.pr/#q=%22Poet+of+the+East%22&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=HyIkUPbzNYi49QT1qIDwAg&start=50&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=6d90d3c498743e1d&biw=1366&bih=667 Only South Asian sources are calling Iqbal the 'Poet of the East.' Please provide a single reference of non-South Asians describing Iqbal as the 'Poet of the East.' Furthermore, There are 7,800,000 Google results for "Rabindranath Tagore" vs 3,380,000 for "Muhammad Iqbal." If anything Tagore should be called the "Poet of the East." Cemendtaur (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I entirely do not understand you, please clarify, what do you mean here with that above link, what does support that???. May be Darkness Shines would understand, he will explain you if you in mood to realise rather than insisting on "I don't like it".Justice007 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

>>Thanks for writing, Justice007. No, I am not merely insisting that "I don't like it"; I am providing you with concrete proof that supports the edit. With the above link I am providing you with the evidence that only people of Iqbal's linguistic group consider him the "Poet of the East"--and hence the edit. Please provide a reference showing a Chinese, a Japanese, or anybody else out of Urdu-Hindi speakers calling Iqbal the "Poet of the East." Till you provide such references--and you would have to provide a whole bunch of them to establish the universality of the argument that "Iqbal is called the 'Poet of the East'" (as in the whole world calls him the 'Poet of the East')--to support your argument. I hope I have made myself clear. I am ready to listen to your side of arguments, please. warm regards, ali h. cemendtaur. Cemendtaur (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The two sources I provided are from western academic publishers, I am quite certain Routledge is not Urdu/Hindu owned what with it being British and all. The burden has been met, Iqbal was known and is still called the poet of the east. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And as for the books being written by "Desi authors" The first one was written by this guy,[1] Who is British. If you think the sources I gave are not good take it to t he RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And were the hell is your source for this[2] little bit of WP:OR anyway? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

>>>Thanks for writing, Darkness Shines. No, unfortunately providing one contentious reference does not meet the burden of proof. To establish the universality of an argument ["Iqbal is called the 'Poet of the East'" (as in the whole world calls him the 'Poet of the East')] you would have to prove that, if not all, scholars from major linguistic groups are calling Iqbal the 'Poet of the East.' You are far away from establishing such a universality of the claim you are making. As for, "were the hell is your source for this[3] " ? May I request a bit of civility from you? Can you please not scream at me (by using phrases like 'were the hell is')? [And a request to correct your typing errors before you hit 'save.' You meant to write 'Where', and not 'were.' Also, like most people I am not comfortable communicating with people who hide behind dubious nicknames. What is your real name, Dear Darkness Shines?] Now back to the argument about Urdu-Hindi speakers calling Iqbal the 'Poet of the East.' This burden was easily met by showing you the Google results for 'Poet of the East.' You can clearly see that that title is being awarded to Iqbal by Urdu-Hindi sources and only by those sources. You are striving for something much bigger: that the whole world calls him the 'Poet of the East.' So your burden of proof is much bigger. Even the Farsi Wikipedia page on Iqbal is not calling him the 'Poet of the East.' [Hoping that you can read Farsi.] Search for شاعر شرق on Google and you would find sources calling Ibn e Khafaja the 'Poet of the East' in Andalucia. And then look at this source: http://www.ibn-sina.net/fa/okrugli-sto/650-promocija-hafizova-divana-u-mostaru.html/ It is saying حافظ در کنار خیام و سعدی مشهورترین شاعر شرق اسلامی در غرب است. There is no mention of Iqbal here.

So, once again, Please show me references (of Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, Japanese and other scholars calling Iqbal the 'Poet of the East') to prove your claim (that Iqbal is universally known as the 'Poet of the East.') warm regards, ali h cemendtaur Cemendtaur (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is your reference to support your edit, either provide one or get reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

>>>Dear Darkness Shines, I have provided that reference (in fact, not one, but thousands of them) a while back [in shape of Google results for “Poet of the East”]. In fact, you too, inadvertently, provided me a reference that supports the argument that only some South Asians call Iqbal the ‘Poet of the East.’ The reference you provided was of a book written by two South Asians. You are the one who is not providing a proof that Iqbal is called the ‘Poet of the East’ by anyone out of his own linguistic group. It appears that some people like Iqbal to the extent that they would like everyone in the world to call Iqbal the ‘Poet of the East.’ Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to promote such agenda. warm regards, ali h Cemendtaur.

>>>>The above response is being re-added, after it was maliciously removed by someone.Cemendtaur (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Cemendtaur, If you are a literary person, then you have to understand that Iqbal's poetry is universal,his poetry covers all issues of the world especially Islamic world, in this concept, he is known everywhere as a شاعر مشرق. As example, when someone is known as a "Miss Universe" or "Miss World", it does not mean that whole univers has declared her Miss Univers, but she will be known as that title, even one academic person has given her that. You cannot demand clarification from every country, you need just source, and relating poet of east, there has been cited the reliable sources. We just realise and use WP:common sense, and last, to ignore incivility is also civility,otherwise you are the same. I hope this helps.ThanksJustice007 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, Justice 007. [Would like to know your real name too, to address you properly.] No one is debating the fact that for some people Iqbal is the ‘Poet of the East.’ We are arguing if he is the ‘Poet of the East’ for the whole world or just his linguistic group. Evidence supports the claim that only some in Iqbal’s own linguistic group call him the ‘Poet of the East.’ The rest of the world has no knowledge of it. The reference to ‘Miss Universe’ title is completely irrelevant. Miss Universe title is owned by a corporation. That corporation can bestow the title of ‘Miss Universe’ on whoever they choose—even if the whole world disagrees. If there were an entity awarding people titles of ‘Poet of the East’ (West, North, and South), and if that entity had awarded Iqbal the title ‘Poet of the East’ then there was no problem at all.

Please look at the Wikipedia page on ‘William Wordsworth.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wordsworth Many of us know Wordsworth as the ‘Poet of Nature.’ But the Wikipedia page, very intelligently, does not have any reference to that title because of obvious reasons. It would be hard to justify that Wordsworth is universally known as the ‘Poet of Nature.’

Until you (the editor behind the nickname ‘Justice 007’) and the editor behind the nickname ‘Darkness Shines’ (or other people for that matter), provide references showing that English, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, and other scholars are all calling Iqbal the ‘Poet of the East’, we would go with the established fact (proved in the form of Google results for ‘Poet of the East’) that some Urdu/Hindi speaking people call Iqbal the ‘Poet of the East.’

Very warm regards, Ali h. Cemendtaur

>>>>The above response is being re-added, after it was maliciously removed by someone.Cemendtaur (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:INDENT and we use : for indents not >. The WP:BURDEN is on you, not us, it is you who is adding WP:OR, per WP:V the content you added was removed, sources have been given from western academic publishers which call Iqbal "poet of the east" that is all that is needed from us. Read the rules, and perhaps you will get what is being said to you here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks, Darkness Shines. I apologize but I had not seen the Wikipedia page on Iqbal till just three days ago. It has a number of unsupported claims.
For example, the line
“Iqbal is known as Shair-e-Mushriq (Urdu: شاعر مشرق) meaning Poet of the East”
is based on one reference from a Pakistani newspaper.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/04/21/news/national/allama-iqbal%E2%80%99s-73rd-death-anniversary-observed-with-reverence/
The mentioned text suggests that Iqbal is universally known as the “Poet of the East.” This is a huge claim that needs to be supported through hundreds of references. My proposal was to add “Among the Urdu-Hindi speakers,” before the above-mentioned line. That would make it clear about who is calling Iqbal the “Poet of the East.” And the given reference (of Pakistan Today) substantiates that claim that Pakistanis are calling Iqbal the “Poet of the East.” But you don’t like my edit and insist on the universal statement without proper support. This is in clear violation of the WP policies.
[If I had seen this page at its inception, when the mentioned line was being added, I would have had the same question. If an editor is seeing an unsubstantiated claim after it has been there for some time, it does not put the burden of proof on the editor to question that claim. Moreover, this editor is already providing references to justify his edit. In fact, the already present reference justifies the proposed addition.]
Can we work with a via media?
That we completely remove the line about “Poet of the East” till the two of us—with help from other editors—reach to a consensus on how to re-word that line? Please advise.
And,
I am sure I am not the only one who has similar problems with the following unsupported claim.
“He is also called Muffakir-e-Pakistan ("The Inceptor of Pakistan") and Hakeem-ul-Ummat ("The Sage of the Ummah").” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemendtaur (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No, you may not remove it. I have given two reliable sources for the fact the is known as the poet of the east. You have given your opinions only. As for Muffakir-e-Pakistan & Hakeem-ul-Ummat Freedom fighters of India, Volume 2 p28 say he is called that. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Darkness Shines. All the sources you have provided justify my edit: that Iqbal is called "Shaer e Mashriq", "Allama", "Hakim ul Ummat", "Muffakir e Pakistan" ONLY and ONLY by Urdu-Hindi speaking people. Whereas the present text of WP entry suggests that Iqbal is universally known by these titles. After all these arguments you have not provided a single reference outside South Asian writers, calling Iqbal by these names: something from the NY Times, or Al-Ahram, or from Iran, or from China. Till you convince the editors through many references that Iqbal is known by these titles by all major linguistic groups, the present text would be deemed misleading and we would be justified in either removing it or modifying it to clarify who is calling Iqbal by these titles. warm regards.Cemendtaur (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you just playing at being stupid? Sources have been given which say he is all the things you are bitching about. The sources meet WP:RS, if you feel they do not take it here. Per WP:RS & WP:V the content stays per Wikipedia policy. I have no need nor desire in fact to supply you with further references based on what you know to be the truth, as I do not care what you know. I was accepting good faith to being with, now you are just coming across as an annoying little troll who refuses to get the point. So here is what you can do, supply a source for the crap you added, or go play elsewhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I have read this thread and the references provided. It seems to be the fact that Iqbal is called "Poet of the East" only in very specific regions and only by specific linguistic groups. Therefor, the sentence describing his nicknames/titles/honorifics needs to reflect this. I restored the phrase "Among the Urdu/Hindi speaking people of South Asia," to the beginning of that sentence because, in addition to being accurate, it is very clear and informative regarding the actual facts. Please leave the phrase in place; the article still needs real improvements which are being ignored while this rather trite edit war preoccupies contributors. Doc Tropics 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
So now you have added OR to the article, well done you. And your edit will also be removed, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the intervention, Doc Tropics. Through a recent edit I have clarified who calls Iqbal "Muffakir e Pakistan" and "Hamik ul Ummat"--largely Pakistanis, and a few Indians. Before the edit, the sentence misled the readers and implied Iqbal was universally known by those titles.Cemendtaur (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  • It is fact that Iqbal is referred as a "Poet of East", the issue is by whom? Definitely the answer will be among his admirers. and Because hindi/urdu is not appropriate as he also wrote in persian, and it wont look accurate to mention in the lead as hindi/urdu/persian. Thus cited source and I corrected the phrase in the lead as; He is referred among his admirers as a Shair-e-Mashriq (Urdu: شاعر مشرق English; "Poet of the East"), for his philosophical poetry work in multiple languages of the East. The related text should be specified and need expansion in the related section somewhere in the article.
Well over all the article need lot lot lot of c/e, and citation correction. Any way will start working extensively after Ramadan. Any way please do not hesitate to revert my work, if any one feels it appropriate. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. The points you make are valid and the phrasing you introduced seems to address the issue well. I would also agree that while most of the article is written in a scholarly fashion at a high level of English proficiency, there are several individual portions which need refinement. It would be nice to see this article returned to FA status, given Iqbal's importance. Doc Tropics 23:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, Omer123hussain. The only issue is that Iqbal's Farsi admirers DO NOT know him as 'Poet of the East.'[[4]].Cemendtaur (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Poet of the East-subsection

  • As the some editors adding and restoring original text to the article Muhammad Iqbal, violating the wiki rule OR, rather than providing the reliable sources to support their "standing point". There are multiple reliable sources that verify the text or the quote title The poet of the East. The sources neither describe that the sources should be from America, Europe, or Iran, nor academic from any specific country. The wiki community is very strict to enforce the policies in right direction. In the existance of the multiple sources by academic and media,will be not ignored that "we just don't like it".- Doc jumped here violating the policies and supporting, restoring the original research with comment of blaming the editors as "preoccupies contributors."

Here are most reliable sources that are by academic around the world and media. Please take a look at those sources which state directly or indirectly Iqbal as The poet of the East. We have to follow that, not wikipedia of Iran or what ever other thinks.

  • See list of google books by multiple academics.

I hope this helps those who assume good faith- Justice007 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this revert is the one you are talking about [5]... This is useless attribution to "admirers" which itself is a WP:WEASEL term in this context. "Iqbal is known as Shair-e-Mushriq" is just fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


  • Thanks, Justice007. But unfortunately all the references provided above reinforce the argument that only South Asians know Iqbal as the "Poet of the East." In fact, it is even becoming narrower. That only Pakistanis and Indian Muslims are hailing their favorite poet as the "Poet of the East." Here is a review of the references you provided.
http://www.preston.edu.pk/allama_iqbal.php
Pakistani source
http://www.viewpointonline.net/pen-a-progressives.html
South Asian writer
http://www.ummid.com/making_of_legend/iqbal_great_poet_of_the_east.htm
Indian source
http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/04/21/nation-observes-allama-iqbals-74th-death-anniversary/#.UCkw5p2PXZe
Pakistani source
http://www.pakistanhc.lk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Doc1.pdf
Pakistani source
We had some hope from this source
http://www.orient-institut.org/Library/Files/ConferenceIqbal.pdf
[It is from the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg (institute run by a South Asian woman).]
But this article has no mention of the title ‘Poet of the East.’
http://amu-in.academia.edu/TauseefAhmadParray/Papers/400725/Democracy_in_Islam_The_Views_of_Several_Modern_Muslim_Scholars
South Asian source.
But at least it educated us about who started this “Poet of the East” business. [That
Abdullah Anwer Beg started this through his book “Poet of the East.”]
http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/yworld/archive/031108/yworld6.htm
Pakistani source
http://khudi.pk/2012/07/11/iqbals-thoughts-on-the-people-and-land-of-afghanistan-and-their-relevance-for-pakistan/
Pakistani source
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/04/21/city/islamabad/iqbal%E2%80%99s-74th-death-anniversary-today/
Pakistani source
A source from UK,
http://www8.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/mohammad-iqbal
has no mention of the title “Poet of the East”
Facing this overwhelming proof--provided by you--we are justified in qualifying the 'Poet of the East' line in the article.
warm regards, Cemendtaur (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but you simply can not attribute reliable sources like dawn news to be a Pakistani source. Either it is a reliable source or a non RS. Dawn news might be based in Pakistan but is a reliable and old news source. When reliable sources aim to attribute something to a region they do that in their articles. If you think dawn was attributing a Pakistani source, please quote it. The same goes for all the other secondary sources. The source states "Iqbal is regarded as the ‘poet of the East’", no attribution. Also note that if you editwar, you will most probably be blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in, TopGun. Reliability and nationality are not mutually exclusive. Dawn News is a reliable Pakistani media outlet. Time and again the challenge has been presented to people in favor of keeping the original 'Poet of the East' line: Please provide non-South Asian references calling Iqbal the Poet of the East. We have been patiently waiting for such references and with time it is getting more and more clear that only some Urdu-Hindi speaking people know Iqbal as the 'Poet of the East.' This in contrast to the line without the necessary qualification, a statement that implies universality. Without qualification the 'Poet of the East' line, appearing in the WP page on Iqbal, gives the false impression that the whole world knows Iqbal as the 'Poet of the East', that if you go to a school in Iran or Jordan or China, or anywhere else outside Pakistan and the Indian states of UP, Bihar, and AP, and ask students, "Which poet is called the 'Poet of the East?", the students would answer in unison, "Muhammad Iqbal." Not true, at all. warm regards,Cemendtaur (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment-1; I agree with editor Cemendtaur, It is fact that Sir Iqbal is considered as "Poet of the East". But we need to specify by whom Sir Iqbal is considered as a "Poet of the East" and "why".
It is sure that not all the people in the east consider Sir Iqbal as "Poet of the east" and even Sir Iqbal consider Rumi as a great poet and was much influenced by him, and there are many more renowned poets in the east/Asia as for Ex: Li Bai, Rabindranath Tagore-(Nobel award), Umar Khayyam, Mirza Ghalib etc and lot more in Arabic also. We need to specify why Iqbal is considered as a "Poet of the east" and "by whom"? Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Omer123hussain. A lot more people know Margaret Thatcher as the 'Iron Lady' than the people who know Iqbal as the 'Poet of the East.' [31 million Google references for 'Iron Lady' vs. 3 million for 'Poet of the East.'] Now look at the WP entry on Margaret Thatcher--how tactfully the 'Iron Lady' nickname business has been handled. Why can't we show similar finesse at the Muhammad Iqbal page? warm regards, Cemendtaur (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
After a long wait, is it reasonable to assume that editors who wrongfully believed Iqbal is universally known as the 'Poet of the East' are now convinced by the counter-arguments provided above? The concerned part of the article should revert to Omer123hussains's edit.Cemendtaur (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be better if you do not assume that as I stand by my explanation and so does Justice who reverted you already. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, how many times must you be told about your WP:OR? Either cite a reliable source to support your edit or bugger off. I have provided you with western academic publishers which call Iqbal poet of the east, all you have provided is a profuse amount of verbiage, your own opinions and some WP:OR. Get a source, cite it, then and only then will your edit go into this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hell, here is another Taus-Bolstad, Stacy Pakistan in Pictures p70 Lerner. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for writing, Darkness Shines. Unfortunately, it is people who put the current line about 'Poet of the East' need to be told about WP:OR. Responding to your comments: Publishers don't call anyone anything, writers do. All the references you have provided reinforce the argument that ONLY some South Asians know Iqbal as the 'Poet of the East.' We are interested in reviewing your latest reference (Taus-Bolstad). Kindly provide a working link. warm regards, Cemendtaur (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Time and again you have provided references in which South Asian writers have written that ‘Iqbal is known as the Poet of the East.’ You believe that referring to these sources is enough to state that ‘Iqbal is known as the Poet of the East.’ We disagree because whereas it is true that ‘Iqbal is known as the Poet of the East’, it is only part of the truth. We contend that these laudatory remarks, made about a popular Urdu poet, are being made by South Asian writers ONLY—and hence it is very important to qualify in the WP article who is calling Iqbal the Poet of the East.Cemendtaur (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Read the policy's I have linked you to FFS. Per WP:V we have WP:RS which state Iqbal is the poet of the east. Hence the article will say that. I have given you western, not eastern, not Indian, not Pakistani academic sources which say he called the poet of the east. That is all I need to do. What you need to do is provide a source to support your contention that he is only called the poet of the east by South Asian writers alone, till then I have nothing left to say to you as you are obviously being obtuse. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Darkness Shines. Yes, you indeed have WP:RS 'which state Iqbal is the poet of the east', but all these reliable sources are South Asians and without highlighting this fact, the line about Iqbal is known as the Poet of the East is misleading. And no, you haven't provided a SINGLE western academic source making that statement. All your academic sources are South Asian writers and ONLY South Asian writers. warm regards, Cemendtaur (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I do realy not have the slavery thoughts, you are degrading the scholars and academics camparing with the west?. I have stated above in my comment that "The sources neither describe that the sources should be from America, Europe, or Iran, nor academic from any specific country". Is it not non-sense, one institut of the west, if recognized something, that is valid, and whole South Asian's academics and from the whole world's academics who born and studied there you are counting them low. May I ask that have you some promblems for the colours?. Read the sources thoroughly, from academics of both sides, they recognize directly or indirectly Iqbal as the poet of the East, even universal poet. Your comments are not constructive, you are just wasting time all of us. You are repeating same question again and again that has been answered. I hope you will try to understand, rather than insisting to impose your personal view of Iqbal.Justice007 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for writing, Justice007. No one is degrading the scholarship of anyone. The matter is as simple as this: many scholars from Group X call Poet P 'the greatest poet that ever lived' and there are reliable sources showing Group X scholars calling P by that title. Enter Encyclopedia editors from Group X. They write that Poet P is known as the 'greatest poet that ever lived' and attribute this statement to the Group X scholars. Other editors have a fundamental problem with this wording. The contending editors say that either you show that Group Y and Group Z scholars are also calling Poet P the greatest poet that ever lived, or add a qualifier. Group X editors respond back that adding the qualifying phrase Scholars of Group X consider Poet P to be would be considered OR, as no source exists that says so. The contending editors's response to this argument is that the qualifying phrase is not OR, but merely stating the nature of the attributed sources. The references provided by Group X editors are the very references justifying the addition of the qualifying phrase.
Hope the above clarifies things. warm regards, Cemendtaur (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You know it is obvious that none of the editors here are going to agree with you so you'll be better off with not wasting your time insisting. You can ofcourse still follow other dispute resolution steps to gain a (wider) consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Guys, I think User;Cemendtaur words are misunderstood. No problem who says please see what they says.
It is reality that Sir Iqbal is considered Poet of the east but we need to specify by whom and for what he is called a Poet of the east.
For instance; the article says Iqbal is called inceptor of Pakistan Why?? further one can find "because he presented the idea of one Muslim nation". In same way the article reads he is called Shair-e-Mushriq (Poet of the east) but why? and who regard him as a Shair-e-Mushriq (Poet of the east)? there is no information about it. Thus I believe we need to specify Why and by Who he is considered as Poet of the east. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Justice already addressed it that he is generally known by this title, not by a specific group. All the RS present it this way and do not attribute it to a group. In reliable sources, often such things are specified only when they are the case. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Top Gun. You wrote, "none of the editors here are going to agree with you", but obviously you don't speak for everyone. At least one editor, Omer123hussain agrees with the logic. We definitely need input from other editors, besides Justice007, Darkness Shines, Top Gun, Omer123hussain, and yours truly--and input from editors who do not speak Urdu/Hindi would be greatly appreciated. warm regards, Cemendtaur (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
@lTopGunl, as you said above, can you refer were does Justice mentioned "he is generally known by this title" in the article?? I am sure you cannot refer, because the article does not read it any were, in-fact what Justice stuffed is this;
  • Iqbal has been recognized and quoted as "Poet of the East" by academics and insitutions and media and
  • Urdu world is very familiar Iqbal as the "Poet of the East".
and really guys, this all need lot lot of c/e. Any way I believe User:Cemendtaur is correct, here we need opinion from any third person/administrator. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: It seems pretty clear that there is a dichotomy in the use of the term between south asian sources and sources throughout the rest of the world. In any other context, with any other subject, a split among Reliable Sources would necessitate characterizing attribution, in accordance with WP:DUE, where a significant minority viewpoint would be presented, and minority and majority viewpoints clearly marked as such. This particular issue is a lot less contentious - it doesn't actually deal with a minority viewpoint, just a regional characterization - and much simpler to resolve than the robust undue weight policy, but it contains the seeds of the principle: present both viewpoints, and clearly label them as such - in this case, something along the lines of "In much of southern Asia, Muhammad Iqbal is regarded as the 'Poet of the East'." VanIsaacWScontribs 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks Van, I have added suggested sentence, I hope involved editors will be agreed that. Now discussion should be closed. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I accept this phrasing as a good and useful compromise between the different points of view; hopefully others will accept this as well. Doc Tropics 13:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment from another uninvolved editor: I agree with the reasoning given by Van above and support the inclusion of his wording. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
another outside comment: I prefer the wording "In much of southern Asia, Muhammad Iqbal is sometimes regarded as the 'Poet of the East'. (Unless you can show that everyone refers to him in that fashion. Such views are normally not universal, and an absolute statement cannot be based on what is included in selected sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@ DGG, yes you are correct, is it okay if we include that in related section rather than in lead. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I am glad to see a resolution of the matter. However, ‘Southern Asia’ is a not a generally accepted term for the geographical entity we are trying to identify—South Asia is. Moreover, Many Hindi-Urdu speakers even outside South Asia—say in UK, USA, Australia—know Iqbal as the Poet of the East. And many in South Asia, for example Bengalis, South Indians, Sri Lanksans, Nepaleses, and others DO NOT know Iqbal as the poet of the East. In light of all this, why can’t we simply say “Among many Hindi-Urdu speakers, Iqbal is known as the Poet of the East.” Please advise.Cemendtaur (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it

  • Your point is very weak, thin and poor, you are continuously repeating, persisting same thing rather than providing reliable sources to support your claim. Sources justify and support Iqbal as the poet of the East. Van has already sloved the dispute wisely and fairly, now there is no way for repeated insisting and pressure. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No matter how many sources refer to any particular person by a term like "the poet of the east," and no matter how poetic and satisfying that term may be, it is not encyclopedic. The problem is that the term is completely exclusive, and completely subjective. This is covered by WP:Puffery. I realize that this isn't precisely puffery because the title is deserved, but the policy applies nevertheless. Abhayakara (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for writing Justice007. The only resolution so far is on identifying that a small portion of the world calls Iqbal 'Poet of the East.' How to word that sentence is still being debated. The wisest thing would be to remove mention of 'Poet of the East', 'Hakim ul Ummat', and 'Muffakir e Pakistan' titles. Muhammad Iqbal is big enough to stand on his own, without these titles.Cemendtaur (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. All this discussion about pointless dilemma poet of the East or not leads nowhere. My advice to Justice007: write your own blog about this poet.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have been patiently waiting for a response from Justice007. It appears Justice007 is coming to the realization that Iqbal is a big enough name to not need manufactured titles from the group that holds Iqbal in high esteem. Is it not the time to either remove or reword the sentences about the 'Poet of the East', 'Hakim ul Ummat', and 'Muffakir e Pakistan' titles?Cemendtaur (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
First you raised your concerns about the text of poet of the East and that has been changed or fixed with good faith compromise, but you did not satisfy and then you began to raise your other concerns Hakim ul Ummat as above etc. Yes I am coming to the realization that your concerns are not based on good faith, editors who are referring the rules, those do not apply on that term and discussion. Editors Darkness Shines, TopGun and others have better explained, if you are not going to pic up the meaning, I cannot help you.Justice007 (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to solve the dispute with new compromise, as this "In much of Southern Asia and Urdu speaking world, Iqbal is regarded as the 'poet of the East. I hope this helps and discussion will be closed for the further improving and expanding the article. Justice007 (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Khilafat movement

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

From the second sentence of Muhammad_Iqbal#Political: "He did not support Indian involvement in World War I, as well as the Khilafat movement". Does this mean he did support the Khilafat movement, or he did not support it? The sentence needs to be made clear. Maproom (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was not clear, so I have removed phrase, and thanks for notice of that.Justice007 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

difference of Iqbal and Jinnah ??

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I deleted a paragraph in section :Iqbal, Jinnah and concept of Pakistan

reasons: 1. Iqbal did not backed khilafet movement. 2. In recent years some people have been claiming that Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted a secular constitution for Pakistan. In support of this view they quote his speech of August 11, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. This speech was made while the East Punjab had been engulfed in massive killing of Muslims, and shortly after the Quaid had been informed of the bombing near Bhutinda of the special train carrying Muslim government servants from New Delhi. He was rightly afraid of reprisals against the Sikh and Hindu minorities in Pakistan. This speech is about law and order, and assures the minorities that they have nothing to fear, that, in the administration and justice, the state shall not practice any discrimination. This speech does not deal with the constitution, nor does it mention secularism. It gives assurance to the minorities that in Pakistan there shall be no discrimination on religious grounds, which is exactly what Islam teaches. The remarks of Mr Hector Bolitho about this speech are, “The words are Jinnah’s; the thought and belief are an inheritance from the Prophet who said thirteen centuries before, “All men are equal in the eyes of God. And your lives and your properties are all sacred: in no case should you attack each other’s life and property. Today I trample under my feet all distinctions of caste, colour and nationality”. Regarding the treatment of minorities in his speech at lslamia College Bombay on 1, February 1943 the Quaid said, ” As far as we are concerned we make this solemn declaration and give this solemn assurance that we will treat your minorities not only in a manner that a civilized government should treat them but better because it is an injunction in the‘Quran’ to treat the minorities so.” It may be argued that in Pakistan the term “Secularism” is used to only mean the separation of religion from politics and statecraft. The Quaid did not subscribe to even this limited definition. where dose Quran comes in Secularism ? In 1948, whie adressing Sibi Darbar Mohammed Jinnah set out his hopes for the country he had created: ”I have one underlying principle in mind: the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam.” Addressing Bar Association in January 25, 1948, the Quaid-i-Azam said: “I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago.”Where does the term “Islamic Sharia” exist in secularism? Here, Quaid-e-Azam crystal clearly declared, how his personality was, his deep affection to Islam and his desire to see Pakistan as an Islamic State. In 1946, Quaid-e-Azam declared: ‘We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.” In his message to the frontier Muslim Students Federation, he said: Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but Muslims ideology which has to be preserved which has come to us a precious gift and treasure and which we hope, others will share with us. (Address on 18th June 1945) Quaid e Azam said :We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play. (Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi (11 October 1947) why he used word Islamic social justice ? why not Secular social justice ? any answer ? Jinnah said : The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Broadcast to the people of the United States of America (February 1948) he said : The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed (may peace be upon him). We are members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, dignity and self-respect. Consequently, we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. - Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Broadcast to the people of Australia (19 February 1948) Brotherhood of ‘Islam’ ….. not anything else …… Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s All India Muslim League presidential address on March 22, 1940, he explained the ideology of Pakistan: “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”(politics is just a part of social order.) Wikipedia’s definition of Islamism : Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is “as much a political ideology as a religion”. was Quaid really not an Islamist ? I have full faith in my people that they will rise to every occasion worthy of our pastIslamic history, glory and traditions. (Jinnah’s Message to the Nation on the occasion of the first Anniversary of Pakistan on 14th August, 1948) And stupid secularists like Hassan Nisar are denying Islamic History and it’s glory …… In his message on the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr in October 1941, he explained: “Islam lays great emphasis on the social side of things. Every day, the rich and the poor, the great and the small living in a locality are brought five times in a day in the mosque in the terms of perfect equality of mankind and thereby the foundation of a healthy social relationship is laid and established through prayer. At the end of Ramazan comes the new moon, the crescent as a signal for a mass gathering on the ‘Id day again in perfect equality of mankind which effects the entire Muslim world.” In an Eid message in September 1945, the Quaid-i-Azam pointed out; The Quran is the general code for the Muslims, a religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code. It regulates every thing, from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life, from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body, from the rights of all to those of each individual from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace by upon Him) has enjoined on us that every Musalman should posses a copy of the Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or ritual and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective and individual. The Quaid while addressing the Bar Association of Karachi on the Holy Prophet’s birthday on 25th January 1948, said: “Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago….Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fair play for every body……..let us make it (the future Constitution of Pakistan). The Prophet was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was great sovereign who ruled.” in an address to the Gaya Muslim League Conference in January 1938, the Quaid used the following words to describe his own interpretation of what politics for Muslim should look like: “When we say `This flag is the flag of Islam' they think we are introducing religion into politics - a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. In fact, it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as all embracing word. We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity.” The Quaid e Azam was well aware of propaganda against Pakistan's religious harmony back then. This is what he said in his reply to an address of the Welcome Note presented by the Parsi Community of Sindh, Karachi on February 3, 1948: "As you may be aware, the Government has been making genuine efforts to allay the fears and the suspicions of the minorities and if their exodus from Sindh still continues, it is NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WANTED HERE, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE PRONE TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE ACROSS THE BORDER WHO ARE INTERESTED IN PULLING THEM OUT. I AM SORRY FOR THOSE MISGUIDED PEOPLE FOR NOTHING BUT DISILLUSIONMENT AWAITS THEM IN THEIR 'PROMISED LAND'" His address on occasion of opening of State bank of Pakistan (1st July 1948) is about his Economic vision : I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organization in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.63.129 (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Counterfactual myths

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, Darkness Shines. I browsed Muhammad Iqbal and encountered mythical claim of him being poet of the east. I did not edit it outright, instead placed [dubious – discuss] tag linking to Talk:Muhammad Iqbal to discuss the matter, in a well-summarised edit. My edit was reverted by a reversion with illegible summary, instead of engaging in WP:DR. The mythical claim is WP:OR and amounts to pushing WP:POV. I'm going to re-revert the change and wait for discussion and reliable sources from the proponents of the mythical claim. Cheers. isoham (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the archives, this was discussed before, and that is not how you add tags to an article, read the usage documentation for tags please. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi,isoham, I do no think Darkness Shines the most experienced editor has reverted your edits illegitimately, you have nothing to discuss here, you just need to take a look at few other good links as a newcomer, as;

Please refrain wasting your and our time, most experienced editors have been involved on that issue. Justice007 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Darkness Shines. What makes you believe I haven't already read them? Whims? Revelations? Anything else? Here..you may want to avoid personal remarks in the future. The article is not in line with the dispute resolution agreement. So, again, I repeat that the fantastical claims are WP:OR and amount to pushing WP:POV. I'm going to tag it as disputed. Cheers. isoham (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
You link to APR right after calling me a "nugget brain" because I made a frigging typo. The sources given previously certainly support the section and you are just being disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Justice007. Yes, I think I need to learn much, I always do, but wonder how you concluded that with certainty, especially the statement 'you have nothing to discuss here'. Whether the revert by the 'most experienced' editor was in good faith or illegitimate shall unveil with discussion and time. For now, you are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the reminder. isoham (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Darkness Shines. I repeat, the section is nowhere close to being in line with the dispute resolution agreement. If you haven't read it of late and unaware of the exact contents, may be you would like to read the discussion again; even the first paragraph would shed some light. As for your unencyclopaedic concerns, it's best to answer them separately. Here:
  • Not that it matters. But since you've used that as an alibi for making personal attacks, an alibi that seems escapism and falsehood, I must make my point why your 'typo' claim seems false:
  • You made the same 'typo' error twice. First time with no grammar either. Therefore undecipherable.
  • Typos are substitution type errors (that too limited to keys close-to the desired character), rarely omission type errors.
  • A scroll through the past history of changes and dispute resolution discussions makes it clear that you've been making this 'typo' very often
  • Hence, the inference - 1. You either don't know how to spell the word OR 2. Use SMS lingo. Given the commonality of the word, 2. more likely than 1. - whch s nt rcmmndd snc t mks thngs undcphrbl mr so n ths cse snc it chngs to anthr lgtmt nglsh wrd
  • You may like to avoid that label as well. To cause disruption one would use IP edits and sockpuppetry, not tag article and post links to talk page.

Now, back to work. Poet of the east claim does not stand. And it does not stand at all in its current form for many reasons. But, as a start you'd notice that the very first and apparent reason is it is not in line with dispute resolution agreement. The article boldly proclaims a no-strings-attached global title while the title is used only mostly by Urdu speaking Pakistani population, occasionally by Persian speaking population, at times by Arabic speaking Muslim population, rarely by other muslim populations and never by anybody else. There are other reasons challenging the very question of whether the title should at all even be displayed on the wiki page. They can be discussed later. Cheers. isoham (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The closure of the RFC was against policy in that one has to use OR to add that. If you continue to take the piss then you can fuck off and I will remove your shitty tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I can find no such reasoning in the discussion. It clearly mentions using "In much of Southern Asia, Iqbal is regarded as..." or "In much of southern Asia, Muhammad Iqbal is sometimes regarded as" in the section. But, the article simply ascribes a no-strings-attached global title. Google search gives following hits -

google scholar

  • poet of the east rumi 11900
  • poet of the east tagore 14600
  • poet of east khayyam 7910
  • poet of east iqbal 7150
  • poet of the east rabindranath tagore 9190
  • poet of the east omar khayyam 7350
  • poet of the east allama iqbal 917
  • poet of the east muhammad iqbal 5480

google books

  • poet of the east rumi 17000
  • poet of the east tagore 44400
  • poet of east khayyam 18700
  • poet of east iqbal 22500
  • poet of the east rabindranath tagore 20900
  • poet of the east omar khayyam 17200
  • poet of the east allama iqbal 7860
  • poet of the east muhammad iqbal 7630

which let apart settling whether the title should be ascribed to him or not, raises the very question if the title even belongs to him or does it belong to someone else! Iqbal gets hits not less than one but less than all three others, not on one source but both reliable sources, not with one form but with all names tried! And, I also got hits for poet of the east for Omar Khayyam on google referring to him as 'poet of the east discovered by the west'!!! Which makes matters worse.

Further the references must be stated in good faith. If the reference says A called I as P, the article must state A called I as P not I was known as P. Also the claim warrants the wrath of WP:DUE#Undue weight as per which it falls under bullet 2 or bullet 3. If it falls under bullet 2 (then there are two cases - 1. the article relates to minority viewpoint 2. article does not relate to minority viewpoint). This article would qualify for case 1 and therefore some relaxation but even the policy states However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint (in this case 'not known as poet of the east') wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Further even these resources are subject to 1. WP:NEWSORG which states Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Even here we can make a relaxation and include newspaper sources but in that case the article must say 'XX says I is P' not 'I is P' and 2. WP:BIASED which is self-explanatory and in this case applies to all the sources emanating at least from Pakistan (political) and Islamic authors (religious) which circumscribes most of the sources listed in favour of the tite.

To summarise, although it is evident whether the title should be there in the first place at all going by Google and WP:DUE#Undue weight. But, in any case if it is mentioned the section should follow the regulations I mentioned. As of now it flatly ascribes global 'poet of the east' title.

And, I'd again like to remind you, of WP:APR. Even if you choose to ignore it, it might be of interest to you, in the words of Justice007, 'the most experienced' editor, to note that the correct form is fuck-off not fuck off (#GramErr blues). And please don't threaten me with removing my shitty tag. If you feel like it, Do it. You are 'the most experienced editor', should know best, I'll take appropriate action. Cheers isoham (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

fuck off. Read WP:V The sources I added call him poet of the east, it is sourced to RS. Conversation over. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Isoham, A Google books binary search for exact expression "poet of the east" AND Iqbal gives 10,900 book returns, on the other hand the same for Tagore gives 2,690 returns. You have to search for the exact expression; otherwise Google searches independently for "poet," "of," "the," "east," "Iqbal" anywhere on any single page in any book. Similarly, the same for Rumi gives 1,740. I don't know where the pairing of Iqbal with "poet of the East" comes from (it might come from his own obsession with East and West), but Victor Kiernan begins the preface to Iqbāl, Sir Muḥammad; Kiernan, V. G. (translator) (2004), Poems From Iqbal: Renderings In English Verse With Comparative Urdu Text, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-579974-3, retrieved 13 October 2013 {{citation}}: |first2= has generic name (help) with, "Muhammad Iqbal, the 'Poet of the East,' lived a life outwardly of which there is little to be said, and inwardly of which little is known." That means Iqbal is associated with that particular expression. Whether the page needs a separate section on it, I don't know, but there was really no need to template it either. Please be polite, no need for vulgarity (Darkness Shines) or lame sarcasm (Isocham). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PS We don't need half a dozen sources for "poet of the East;" Kiernan is enough. He is a scholar of Iqbal. Whether the media calls Iqbal that is irrelevant to his notability; it is enough that scholars do. But merely saying he is called "poet of the East" is meaningless. I believe there is a reason why he is called that. I suspect it has to do with his writings and poetry in which much is said about the contrast and opposition between East and West. But I'm not sure. You will need to ferret out the deeper symbolism of "poet of the East" and explain it in the text. Without the explanation, the expression doesn't need more than one sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PPS In its currect state the section "Poet of the East" is unsatisfactory. It is best not to quote extensively, especially when the quoted passage doesn't speak directly to the subject on hand. I'd say dump the two quotes; they are useless. Instead, use page 2 and 3 (and others if relevant) of Faruqi, Shamshur Rahman (2005), "How to read Iqbal" (PDF), Annual of Urdu Studies, 20: 1–33 to flesh out the section. Do it in words, not by quoting, and perhaps even consider changing the section title to "'Poet of the East' and 'Sage of the Ummah'." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, Darkness Shines, he (isoham)is professional level, does not understand you. Iqbal is known as the poet of the east throughout the whole world in the Urdu circles and other asian circles, whether that is said by Asian academics or newspapers or others, there is no any restrictions relating reliable sources, it is said, it is written and it is published in academic books. Mentioning Google hits do not support any thing. To be more Poet of the East, as to be many '"Sir"' by British and many Miss World by Euro Organizations is accepted. He is "Sir" because British king gave him, he is not "Poet of the East", because of the academics , scholars and newspapers of the subcontinent countries, are writing, saying and publishing. Actually what to discuss with those who have limited thoughts, and considered opinion. Mentioning the rules beyond its concept of the exact meaning do not mean one is allowed to misguide the editors to achieve goals, that does not work here.

I have removed the tag per assuming good faith and be bold that is not legitimate before the cited reliable sources, if one is not satisfied, he may reach the WP:consensus at reliable sources noticeboard or discussion on the talk page of the article to tag the section again. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The section and subsection titles have been given more clarity to view the NPOV and for the readers. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Justice007, you don't need to make up such a artificial sounding title for the section. 'Poet of the East' within single quote is just fine, especially because it is a counterpoint to the next section title, "Iqbal and the West." But the problem with the section, and in fact with the entire article, is the quality of the sources and the writing; it has become much worse since I edited it in early 2011. That needs to be improved. Also, even though, M.S. Umar is the director of the Iqbal Academy, his biography at the Academy website is not the best source to use repeatedly for Iqbal. You will be better off using textual sources. Among the better ones are: 1) Mir, Mustansir (2006), Iqbal, (Series: Makers of Islamic Civilizations), Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Oxford University Press; I.B.Tauris, ISBN 978-1-84511-094-9 2) Kiernan, V. G. (translator) (2004), "Preface", Poems From Iqbal: Renderings In English Verse With Comparative Urdu Text, Lahore; Karachi: Iqbal Academy Pakistan; Oxford University Press, pp. xi–xxiv, ISBN 978-0-19-579974-3, retrieved 13 October 2013 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help), 3) Faruqi, Shamshur Rahman (2005), "How to read Iqbal" (PDF), Annual of Urdu Studies, 20: 1–33, and 4) Schimmel, Annemarie (1963), "His Life", Gabriel's Wing: A Study Into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Brill Archive, pp. 35–60. Finally the pictures are too big. They need to be resized down. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PS Also, some corrections will need to be made. His BA at Cambridge was a 2-year BA by Research that the University had begun to award in the late 19th century to students from overseas who had already done their BA's elsewhere (physicist Rutherford (New Zealand), and mathematician Ramanujan (India) received the same degrees). Iqbal wrote a thesis for his BA. He submitted, more or less the same thesis to Munich the next year to receive his Ph.D. You'll have to search the literature to find the sources. They are around. The business with the Kashmiri Brahmin ancestors happened a few centuries earlier in the time of Shah Jahan; there was a reference in my earlier edited text which is much more reliable than "Pakistan Today," that will need to be replaced or something equally reliable. Again, newspapers and websites are no good for a scholar as major as Iqbal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PPS There are other minor errors in the lead. His first published book of poetry may have been in Farsi, but he had written and published (in various newspapers) the first half of the Urdu poems in Bang-i-Dara by 1908. Also, he is much better known both by the public and by scholars in Indian than he is in Iran. Obviously, in the sentence in the lead, India should come before Iran. In fact the sentence should be removed altogether. It is the type of informaton-less sentence with which the article is now filled. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PPPS Also, why is there no "Criticism" section? As it stands, the article looks like a shrine. There is plenty criticism around both of his political and religious views. Where is it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we are discussing here the issue of "Poet of the East"?. It is better not to raise other issues, will be appreciated if you correct the minor things in a minute rather advising half a page with your standard English in several minutes. The article is under construction and being improved and expanded time to time. Please assist the involve editors to correct, improve and add new information with reliable sources, you know. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with the infobox

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "influences" section doesn't have confirmed information, its lacking the common aspects, such as sources, or description in the wikipage itself. Are you sure that those were the people who influenced him? I know he has admitted that he was inspired by Adi Shankara himself, but this name is no where added. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification about education

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As much as I see it it is very clear that he did Bachelors in 1897 and Masters in 1899 from the same college, Government College Lahore. @Sminthopsis84 Can you explain how do you find it ambiguous? -- SMS Talk 15:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"In 1899, he received Masters of Arts degree from the same college and had the first place in Punjab University, Lahore.[7][10][16]" Of the three citations given, the first two do not mention Punjab University, and the third is a book to which I do not have access. In what degree program was he awarded "first place in Punjab University" and was it really in the same year that he graduated with a Master of Arts degree from Government College Lahore? The statements apparently do not both apply to the Master of Arts degree, since the first citation states "Did M.A. in Philosophy and was placed in the 'third Division'." Does "had the first place" perhaps refer to something other than academic standing? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the missing bit is that at that time "Government College Lahore" was affiliated with "Punjab University", so he studied at Government College Lahore but got a degree of Punjab University. Though I tried but am unable to find a source that says GC was affiliated with PU in 1899 (though it was later at least after 1947) but I think it is safe to assume this from Ref # 16. Now about the first source (Ref # 7) saying something completely different; Yes that is ambiguous and that needs to be looked further, I will try to find some good quality sources. -- SMS Talk 21:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • His question was just--- (what?|reason=he was studying at two places at once?), I have already replied him, source no, 16 of chapter 9 and page 151 cearly states and supports the content. he just miss-understood, I have explained him. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please note: Muffakir-e-Pakistan is not the correct transcription, but Mufakkir-e-Pakistan.

  • Muffakir-e-Pakistan is exact transcription----You should first consult the Urdu dictionary please. Justice007 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. They look identical to me, so I'm unclear as to what you want changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In other foreign countries?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We all know Iqbal is known as Iqbal-e-lahore in the Persian speaking world, but is there any independant source that claims he's admired amongst Iranian scholars in Iran, as it states here on this article? The links don't work and there ain't any other (independant) source on the internet wich confirms so. LouisAragon (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • A subject of another Wikipedia article, Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal, as you can see, has exactly the same name and the same birthplace. That is why i am adding the "Not to be confused with....' tag. Is it not Ok to do it or someone has a problem?

Thanks User:S M M Iqbal 13:17 (April 15, 2015), IST

No, it is not the exact same as main-space name. I am not sure, there is a list of such names, I do not think that all we add as the disambiguation page. There is already the disambiguation page that shows a list of such names. Justice007 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits.

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
  • User:AHLM13 is engaging in a blatant pattern of Wikistalking articles that I have edited. The most recently, he has started

editing war including this edit, in which he accused me and ignored to discuss the dispute. He remains reverting and imposing some sort of policy that is not the description of the rules. I asked AHLM13 twice, 1, 2, but he did not notice and he left this on my talk page. In his latest edit war including accusation. I notice that he does not care what the other editors have been asking him to follow the rules this and that. No any editor should have to put up with such blatant accusation that leads to harassment that is clearly intended to be disruptive. I have also reported at WP:ANI. Justice007 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


Justice007, when did i accuse you?-- AHLM13 talk 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If you consider the good faith edits under vandalism, it is the accusation while you were also warned by other editors, but you remained to do that. Justice007 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
yours one is much more offensive. I am sending an email to you, pls reply it -- AHLM13 talk 16:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Please all issues discuss here, I do not reply to email address. Justice007 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
AHLM13, if you need to get consensus for an edit, do it at this venue or dispute resolution. Email or a "private" consensus is not a substitute for editor consensus on wikipedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
User:TopGun and Justice007, I asked some private questions, which are not related to these articles. I asked that he has written that he lives in Holland and he is a native speaker of English, but most of your article are relates to South Asian Ones. Why? Does he have South Asian ancestry? Maybe it was better if she had replied this via email.-- AHLM13 talk 17:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Note

  • I reverted the poor version to last edited by lTopGunl and added to honorific name to info-box that is widely known in Urdu-speaking world. There were also issues per WP:Overlink and encyclopedic standard language. Editors are welcome to correct the errors and expand, and improve the article in accordance with the Wiki-Rules. Justice007 (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Note I just made few changes, as I've written before. See WP:LINKS. He is well known as Dr Allama. He was also a prominent barrister. User:Justice007, you are reverting ALL my constructive edits, without leaving any position for me, whereas I did not delete most of your edits, instead I added the honorific which was added by yourself. -- AHLM13 talk 10:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You are applying, I do not like it continuously. Other editors work, and edits are poor than yours that you are demonstrating. You are also referring the wrong rules that do not support your disruptive contributions. Shair-Mashriq is widely known and used all over the Urdu world, click the Google and see the result. Please stop unconstructive edits that do not help to improve and expand the article. You are busy to waste the time of other editors. I ask you, please reach a consensus and stop reverting. The burden is on you. Justice007 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Ohnoitsjamie, as an administrator, you have some duties and the responsibilities that you should keep in your mind. Your edits on article Iqbal violate the rules if you were aware the editors already disagree, and the issue/dispute I am discussing to reach a consensus on the talk page. Despite you have the privilege to impose the terms during the blocked editor. I have concerns about your edits, please provide the sources to support that edits. There are no any sources that supports the terms academic and barrister. Iqbal studied, but he did not practise professionally. If the terms significantly covered with reliable sources, I do not see that. As the matter of info-box, you mentioned, Poet of the East does not belong in that info-box slot any more than King of Pop belongs in Michael Jackson's info-box. It is a good humour, but it is not what the rule says. If Poet of the East does not belong to the info-box, how you legitimate, Dr Allamah belongs there? while literary meaning King of Literure, both are honorific, one yes, other No!!!!, any specific reason? You endorse your edits giving Michael Jackson as the standard example, but you do not follow that. Similarly, William Shakespeare, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and other articles give the same example, but examples do not work except the rules. I tried to keep that standard, but it is as we are encouraging the vandalism by registered editors. If it is the consensus toward non-standard editings per MOS, I will have not objection anymore. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Admin Ohnoitsjamie was right. It is you who is spoiling the article, not me. You have reverted mine, IPs and other users contributions, which most of them were constructive edits. Now you need to tell me about each edit that I made so far, which you believe that are wrong. Let's start. -- AHLM13 talk 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

One of my duties as administrator is to step into situations such as this and use my judgement to mediate or enforce a policy. In many cases with content disputes, the best approach would be to work toward a compromise. In this particular case, it is clear to me that AHLM13's version I reverted to is clearly better. I wasn't intending to make a joke comparing "King of Pop" to "Poet of the East." The point is they that neither is a true honorific, and definitely not what the honorific box is for. Furthermore, "Poet of the East" is already covered in the lede. ALHM13's version is also more inclusive of Iqbal's interests and influence; I see know reason why those should be artificially restricted. 13:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie, first, you forgot: "Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date." Second, you said; "One of my duties as administrator is to step into situations such as this and use my judgement to mediate or enforce a policy". You did not enforce the policy, you just endorsed the choice and favoured one side rather consensus, even you breached point-illustrating, and the "neutral point of view" policy is to present the subject as they are presented and covered by the mainstream academics. I asked you and again asking, please cite the terms, you added with reliable sources.Justice007 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
As an admin, Ohnoitsjamie knows what to do and certainly he is more experienced than Justice007. Therefore Justice007 needs to assume good faith. User:Justice007 believes that he is always right. If he can disagree even with an admin, how can his behaviour be with an IP? In fact he always considered me as lower being. Regarding the signature, it's very very funny that User:Justice007 is teaching the administrator on how to sign. Ohnoitsjamie wrote the time and date, which should be enough. Justice007 has the necessity to take some good lessons. -- AHLM13 talk 10:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Justice007, you can make up things about Wikipedia policies and consensus that don't exist all day long. My last word on this; if you continue to edit war, you'll be blocked again for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Iqbal/Archive_3&oldid=1142335546"