User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2010/February

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sufism

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I don't really know anything about the subject, I'm just trying to put a stop to the edit war. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying for wikipedia to have true statements and not false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.27.188 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you, too. Esowteric+Talk 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this- I'll be sure to leave a detailed explanation for my edits on the talk page. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 09:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Seems to have calmed down now. Esowteric+Talk 10:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

References and punctuation

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see you've been going through a number of articles, changing nothing but the relative placement of references and punctuation. You should probably be aware that a number of well respected publication place the references before the punctuation, and that that style is perfectly permissible at Wikipedia. Indeed, WP:REFPUN (part of the Manual of Style) states that, provided it is used consistently, the system of referencing should not be changed. There are plenty of articles where the referencing does need to be fixed up, and I applaud your efforts to improve Wikipedia in that regard — it's a boring and thankless task, I know — but I feel there may be better channels to explore than "correcting" articles that are already fine. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry: you're quite right. Thanks for the information. Esowteric+Talk 09:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Brook (historian)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For my own reference: Timothy Brook now has the following eight currently unassessed articles. They're hopefully at least "start class"; hopefully the guy himself will be a "c". Please leave any comments or gripes; etc here. Esowteric+Talk 10:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Brook (historian)

.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

Sister projects: Sister project roundup

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. For my own reference. Esowteric+Talk 10:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Deleted at long last. Esowteric+Talk 10:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm remembering right, I was led to this article by a "Can someone please look at this article" kind of notice you had placed somewhere. I wonder if you could LMK where it was? Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you know I'm really not sure now. My memory is like a sieve. Someone put a speedy tag on the article; that was declined as the article creator claimed the guy was a Sufi saint. You may have seen my comments on the article's talk page or at Articles for Deletion? Esowteric+Talk 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with Islamic titles

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics like PBUH or R.A.). I cannot find the Wikipedia policy document which discusses this. Will appreciate it very much if you can help.

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Have a look at WP:MOSISLAM. With good wishes, eric. Esowteric+Talk 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of articles like Inayat Khan, since a lot of folk know him by his pen name Hazrat Inayat Khan, I usually leave the full name in the lede on first mention, for clarity. Esowteric+Talk 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSISLAM was the first thing I looked at. Unfortunately, it talks only about honorifics, and not about titles like Imam, Qazi, Hazrat. Any other suggestions? Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Hmm, can't find anything specific to Islam. All I can find is biographies#Honorific prefixes Esowteric+Talk 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And honorific titles on the same page: biographies#Honorific titles Also something on article titles somewhere. Esowteric+Talk 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh well! Thanks for your time and effort! (Would you say, though, that generally not using titles like titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it may not be written down anywhere?) --Sarabseth (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I just took "honorifics" to mean both honorific suffixes and also honorific titles/prefixes. Your best bet is to ask Jayen466. He's well versed in such things and a Vet IV editor. Esowteric+Talk 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:MOSISLAM discussion specifically talks about honorifics like PBUH, RA, SAW, but does not address titles like Imam, Qazi, Hazrat. There's also the term Syed, which can be a given name, but which I understand to also be widely used as a title for descendants of Muhammad.

After my last message above, I posted a "please help" in Talk:Sufism. If I don't get any useful pointers from there, I'll ask Jayen466, as you suggest.

It looks like the editor I have a dispute with is not going to agree to remove such titles unless I can cite him a specific wikipedia "thou shalt not". Or unless a consensus of other editors develops, but no one else seems to have any interest in that article. He produced the following wikilinks: Imam Ali, Imam Hussain, Imam Zain-ul-Abideen, Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq or Imam Moosa Kazem, and argued that since they point to articles about the concerned individuals, the use of such titles is valid. I did point out to him that, in every case, the links redirect to an article with a different title, that neither the title of the article nor the name of the person in the lede includes the title Imam. But judging by his past responses, I don't expect him to pay any heed to this.

Thanks very much for all your help! --Sarabseth (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)