User talk:IFaqeer/Archive001

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

On Wikivacation.
I will be checking my Talk page—as rarely as I can help it :D.
...and maybe Partition of India.
You can help me resist Wikitemptation by helping with
Africa-related, Islam-related, and South Asia-related topics.

User page in main namespace

Hi IFaqeer! I noticed that your user page redirects to the article IFaqeer, which is in the main article namespace. Since the main article namespace is for encyclopedia articles, your user page shouldn't be there (that's not a jab against you -- nearly all Wikipedians are unencyclopedic ;-) I'm going to list the IFaqeer page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, where others will chime in. (Please don't take offense to what some folks might say -- they're often harsh when it comes to vanity pages.) The IFaqeer page will probably be deleted in about a week; to preserve its contents, you might want to do a cut & paste job over to your real user page at User:IFaqeer. Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 18:16, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Usernames are Case-Sensitive?!!

For some reason, my username is set to User:IFaqeer--not User:iFaqeer, not User:ifaqeer, not User:Ifaqeer, but User:IFaqeer! That is frustrating.

I agree! I would rather have been benc myself. It may be possible to fix this internally by submitting a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Alternately, you can just use a nickname as explained at m:Help:Preferences#Your_nickname (which is what you're doing already, I think?) • Benc • 03:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I am doing. Thanks for the help.--iFaqeer 03:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thakhallus

Hi iFaqeer — please let me offer a belated welcome to the Wikipedia. :-) It's good to have you here: looking over your contributions, I see you've edited many India-related articles, which is excellent. The Wikipedia is a little on the U.S.-centric side, though we aspire not to be.

Anyway, about the Thakhallus article that you wrote. I agree with you that it doesn't have much potential to grow. To be honest, I added the {{substub}} tag (which is a request to other editors for article expansion) with reservations. I initially considered listing it on Votes for deletion, because it's technically a dicdef. As the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy says, dicdefs don't have the potential to grow. So rather than having millions of dictionary definitions, we have a sister project for these entries, the Wiktionary.

My suggestion? First, redirect the Thakhallus article to Urdu poetry. Then, add a thakhallus entry to the Wiktionary. In the future, avoid creating articles that don't have the potential to grow into a full-fledged encyclopedia article. Does this sound like a good solution to you? • Benc • 03:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just looked it up and saw that the Wiktionary is multi-lingual. I will look into that. One point is that I see there being a difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedia entry. And this term is an important piece of figuring out the structures and formats of Urdu poetry in general and the ghazal form in particular. I will be working on that further. See Talk:Ghazal.

Just looked at the Wiktionary again. Wow! You mean I will have to work on two projects now? Seriously, that is actually exciting. Being a "communication major" I might actually end up more involved in the Wiktionary...--iFaqeer 03:59, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

British India

I just discovered British India. I am proposing that we use that for stuff that happened under that geo-political entity. What say?--iFaqeer 04:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. British only fully exercized control over most of India after the 1860's, when the East India Company gave way to the monarchy. In that sense, while the British exerted powerful control in India for upto 100 years, India was not "British India" for more than 90 years. When we're talking about movements, like literature, or histories of peoples, that extend across kingship and political and historical period boundaries, India is the safest and, beyond all, most accurate term to use. The usage can, of course, be qualified by mentioning the particular state or region in which the person or event in question is situated.--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:05, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but now you're saying what I was saying, that limiting a poet or artist to one, rather limited geography doesn't do them justice. Like saying that the Buddha was an Indian religious leader.

You didn't address the issue of India being specifically a link to something describing the Republic of India--iFaqeer 18:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not really. It is accepted that there's been an idea of India, under the names Bharat, Hindustan and India in different eras, referring to the same larger geographic and morphing cultural entity. No one means anything different when these names are mentioned. As for the India article going to Republic of India, the article in question clearly discusses India's history and states that the nation-state was only created but 58 years ago. The general lay of the land, the bulk of ancient, medieval and British India, however, is still located on the modern Republic of India. There is a clear connection running through the histories and for this reason a "History of India" would go from the early Harappans and Mohenjodarans (now located in Pakistan) to the Aryan migration to the development of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism to the Mughals to the British to the present state of India. Pakistan and Bangladesh were carved from a greater India; it was not the other way round. Iqbal, in spite of his desire for a Muslim state, also spoke not of his "British India" but Hindustan... "Sare jahaan se acchha, hindustan humara / Hum bulbulein hain iski, is gulsitaan humara." Can you now argue that even Urdu poets of the British era considered themselves to be part of India? No. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:51, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to deal with it this way, but unless we create India (disambiguation or something of the nature of Hindustan, I don't buy it. I understand that "Al-Hind"/"Hindustan"/Bharat/etc. has existed over the millenia and been seen to. But I am not satisfied with a link going from, say Faiz to a page that starts out with an intro to the Republic of India. Over 300 million people live in what you want to describe as India, but who do not see themselves as Indian in any way, shape or form. I am not saying we drop the use of the term. I am just saying that we find a better way of characterising this. Ghalib saw himself as Hindustani, yes. But I doubt he considered himself Indian.

I sincerely wish we could use Hindustan as a way to describe the Subcontinent; but that's not something that will happen any time soon, since even most Pakistanis see that as a counter-point to Pakistan.

Last point; I just saw that you have introduced the concept of a "greater India" in there. While this might have its technical merits, please, please, please take a minute to consider the implications and baggage that phrase might have in people's minds in terms of being associated with the chauvinistic dream of nationalistic fanatics of creating a Greater India.--iFaqeer 19:03, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with paranoid fanatics. I'm concerned with writing things as they are. In spite of your weasling with the term, people born in 'British India' were Indians, considered themselves Indians, though some felt religious pressures, and for this reason the major organizations under the Raj were often called, gee, yes, Indian. Indian Administrative Services, etc. It's the term that's used and the India page explains the situation clearly. In addition, it's clearly written on this Faiz page that he was born in a Sialkot still a part of undivided India (That's a common term! See? It's not an invention of nationalists) and subsequently a part of a new Pakistan; it's mentioned that he then stayed in Pakistan and was hence a Pakistani. Lastly, it's called the Partition of India, not the Partition of British India; there's a reason for that. We can't go changing names willy-nilly in retrospect in an effort to revise history to accord with some people's hyper-sensitive national leanings. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:16, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is not "some people"; it's 300 million normal people, 5% of humanity. And you had put in "greater India" (a term with lots of other baggage), not "undivided India", which I might be okay with.--iFaqeer 19:17, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Though what do you think of "pre-independence India"--better/less good than "undivided India"?--iFaqeer 19:19, Sep 15, ]]

No, we're not talking about 300 million people. For one thing, most sane individuals in Pakistan and Bangladesh will understand what one says when one says India in reference to pre-1947 history. Secondly, most Bangladeshis don't see eye-to-eye with Pakistanis and would probably laugh to the heavens were they to be asked to say "Indo-pak subcontinent." Even my Pakistani friends think it's stupid. Remember how much flak Indians got when they tried to retroactively change Bombay to Mumbai? The whole idea about these names is that they be understood in context. Greater, undivided, pre-independence, etc. all describe the same thing, India. As for your edit, I've mentioned on the Faiz page that it looks fine.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Pray, have you been to Pakistan? Bangladesh? You are predicting what they will think? Or mandating it? And names matter; as the Bombay/Mumbai thing shows. Or the "War of Independence"/"Mutiny" thing does. Though on the whole, especially in an encyclopedia, as I said on the 1857 issue, I am for providing explicit information on the name issue; IMHO, the picture is incomplete if we just pick a one characterization, since it gives the impression that it is undisputed.--iFaqeer 19:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is nothing to dispute. It's India. The Bombay/Mumbai issue is not relevant here because no one's calling historical Bombay "Mumbai". When one speaks, say, of a film in that city in the 60's one will call it Bombay. As for Pakistan, I've never been but my family's closest friends are Pakistanis (who grew up there); I also, individually, have two close Pakistani friends who were raised in Lahore and Karachi. As for Bangladesh, being half-Bengali (of the West) and half-Rajasthani, I speak Bengali and interact with Bangladeshis all the time in my city of New York, where, if you didn't know, there are huge populations of them all over. I also happen to have a good friend who's Bangladeshi (the girlfriend of my Pakistani friend). So, yes, I do happen to know something first-hand, if not nothing. Anyway, even someone living there cannot claim some sense of authority since he/she is but one of many millions.

But beyond all this nonsense, we're not writing articles to cater to a minority population (this is international academic writing, not nationalist propaganda); we're using objective and accurate fact-telling English to describe various items of interest.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Urdu literature

While I foresee a windstorm of edits and exchanges, I look forward to having you work with me on a new page I've begun, one on Urdu literature. Urdu poetry is obviously about 90% of the tradition, but that is the very reason we should represent it fully, and not unilaterally. A side-project, preferably done afterwards, would involve writing about Urdu prose, which might focus on such works of the best prose-writers, like Premchand's and Ismat Chughtai. I'll be working on it slowly over the next few weeks.--LordSuryaofShropshire 22:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful. And necessary. Thank you for initiating and taking up the project.--iFaqeer 22:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Musharraf

You wikified MMA, but the link goes to a disambiguation page that has nothing to do with the MMA you wikified. Can you create an entry for the MMA that is discussed, otherwise those initials should be de-wikified in this article. - Thanks Nv8200p 19:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please look again. I have added a line to the MMA disambiguation page. Even without a Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal page, it be useful in descring what MMA is in that context.--iFaqeer 19:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Salafi explanation

Thank you very much for your reward however I must inform you that I wasn't the one who wrote the most there. I believe some one else did. I'm planning to make it bigger, insha'allah. Again thank you A. 20:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know what you put in last wasn't too large; but I think it clarified an important point--and saved me some effort :D. You deserve the Award. Shukran/Tashakkur/Shukriya again.--iFaqeer 21:23, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Tiranga

Thanks Faqeer for the compliment (hope you don't mind me calling you by your Thakallus). Am a newbie to Wikipedia, but hope to be involved more closely in the future.

--Mahesh

Actually, the nick is iFaqeer. But you're welcome. And please drop by once in a while. Wikipedia needs some objective voices on South Asian issues.--iFaqeer 03:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates and edits

Newbie at wiki, but I do agree with your idea of introducing more south East Asia to the wiki reader and to the world. Thanks for wikifying it isnabeel

See User talk:Isnabeel for further conversation.67.118.240.18 02:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First Urdu text open for proofreading

Dear IFaqeer,

I spend MOST of my time working for Distributed Proofreaders, which prepares e-books for distribution by Project Gutenberg (and anyone else that wants to distribute them -- they're FREE!) We have an experimental site in Europe, [1], which uses Unicode. DP-EU is now working on their first project in Urdu, an edition of the poems of Iqbal. So far as I know, they have only the one Urdu-speaking proofreader. If you could help with the project, and even recruit some more Urdu speakers to the fray, that would be wonderful! DP should be preserving the whole human literary heritage, not just the books that can be written in Latin-1.

It's not necessarily a big commitment, though it can be just as addictive as Wikipedia. You can do just one page whenever the mood strikes you. Zora 20:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would be honoured to help. I am regular user of Gutenberg's English texts.

My written Urdu is a little weak, but I have a copy of the Kulliyat-e-Iqbal (by Ferozsons) and access to friends that should be wonderful resources. Please feel free to give my e-mail address to team members.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 21:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Registered at the page.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 21:09, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jirga

I disagree with the redirect from Jirga to Loya jirga. It's like redirecting Parliament to House of Commons. —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:28, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to delete it, but firstly could you tell me what a Jirga is?! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ignore that comment. Has been removed. Could you make a dictionary definition on Wikisource? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i for Islam

H'lo Faqeer. Just wanted some advice... someone changed a line in the Pakistan article that i have no idea how to check up on but suspect is incorrect. The change was made by Abdulhaseeb86. Should I simply revert the line to what it previously read or put it up for discussion somewhere?

I know. I have been thinking about what to do about it. Never heard that said before. I would vote to remove it and request documentation before adding it back.

BTW, I am talking to User:Hulleye, right? The description on your user page is interesting. Nice talking to you and good to see someone with that kind of position participating here.

Also, you can sign and date things you write on pages like this by typing four tildes (~~~~), or three tildes (~~~) for just a signature.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:54, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, just forgot to stamp. I've reverted it back to the original and put it up on Talk:Pakistan. If anyone can provide documentation, great. if not, i think it should read exactly the way it is right now. Thanks, Hulleye

Copyvio

Hello. I notice that you marked Adil Mansuri as a possible copyright violation, but didn't add a listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Adding a listing to WP:CP gives other editors a chance to look at the copyright problem and puts it in line for deletion if necessary after its time on WP:CP is up (I won't say it ensures action, but that's another matter). Besides, the {{copyvio}} template states that the marked article is listed at WP:CP, so we should try to be consistent with this. Please remember to add WP:CP listings when marking articles with {{copyvio}}.

Please could you also add the source of the copied material to the {{copyvio}} template, either with

{{copyvio|url=http://www.example.com/source}}

or

{{copyvio1}} 
*source of copyrighted material
{{copyvio2}}

(The latter can be used for offline sources or more than one source).

I have fixed the template at Adil Mansuri and listed it on WP:CP on this occasion.

Thanks. --rbrwr ^± 11:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ali ibn Husayn

moved to User talk:Leo Africanus

Isnabeel

Thanks for the feedback, I am looking forward to add more. Keep in touch.

Islam and clothing

Thanks for putting some work into the article. It's a bit sparse. Pictures would be nice. Heck, some history of costume articles re India, the Punjab, Pakistan, etc. would be nice. See Clothing, there are bunch of stubs to fill out.

I just hope we don't end up butting heads over it <g> Zora 07:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for the welcome! I'm glad to see other Pakistanis contributing here. AmeriDesi 09:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Calipahte

Caliphate starts with Abu Bakr. Why not leave it as it is to make it clear he was the first caliph? On the buttom it clearly stays See Muhammad. People can find it there. OneGuy 02:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check Clothing and Islam

I ended up revising the article extensively. Moving things around and adding some material. Please take a look. Zora 09:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moving Pashtuns to Silipedia

Faqueer: I just don't get it -! I took a lot of time getting the references and putting together prose that politely explained why Swatis should not be listed in the main tribe listing because they are a mixture of tribes that are already mentoined on the tribal listing. I even had a reference to the discussion page. And yet no-one bothered to give me a counter argument or anything - just simply deleted what I wrote as if they owned the page !! Is this Wikipedia a Joke?? Or is it meant to be a free online encyclopedia?

I even asked "Others" to intervene when "this guy" removed my additions to Pashtun, because there should be an explanation. Noone bothered. Hence I followed the Pashtun code of Badal and did the same - These tribal wars are spilling over into the Interent!!

The only way we can stop this is in future is to back statements with references. Otherwise Wikipedia is really a joke and doesnot have anything that you could challenge people with. Because word does get around.

There are people on thie Site, like yourself who are putting up good work, but the credibility of the site is being tested now. It is a critical time to act. Otherwise everything you do on this site is "just a waste of time"

I don't know how to revert on Wikipedia what I orginally wrote over the weekend. But if YOU do, as a neutral party that would prevent the "feud" from escalting. I hope it works and we can together make Wikipedia an site to be reckoned with.

Best wishes as always,

Insaaf.

Great Idea, although I'm not sure how to do the links - can you do that? -I am sure it will help diffuse the situation. By the way, I did the reversion and then saw your note on my user talk page. I deleted my edition and decided to "User Talk" with you first as you asked.

Insaaf.

Penname

Since you were one of the two people on the Talk:Urdu poetry page: I've taken some of the info from the Urdu poetry page and a couple of other wiki-articles, and used it to add some info to the penname article, trying to make it less-exclusively European in outlook. Since I really don't know Urdu poetry, could you take a look at what I wrote to make sure that it makes sense. (The haiku/haiga stuff I also wrote, but I do know Japanese poetry). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Christmas tree insult

If its not directed at anyone and only documents what someone has said, then I don't have a problem with noting it on a talk page. If the comment is directed at someone, this is a personal attack and unacceptable on Wikipedia. I think that's what you were asking... does this answer your question? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ummm...so you're saying it's kosher to go to his talk page and quote it?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't make the original comment, and I am not directing the insult to him. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to remove personal attacks on sight. Just make a note of it in the edit summary field. --Viriditas 20:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

You should ask User:Pename about it. He's the original author (check out edit history of Jihad), I merely moved his table to a template. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really think asking him will help? :D—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well, his track record isn't good, but by all means ask :) his problem (as I see it) is he's an ideologue newbie that doesn't understand how to gain consensus or operate in Wikipedia. But assume good faith and ask him. If the template becomes POV, add an Template:NPOV header, by all means. Or list it on WP:TFD (though I think it could be improved!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put in comments on the Talk page for that template that (I hope) is a constructive suggestion how to make it much more that it is now.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Pename

There is nothing wrong with asking users to tone down their POV. There is something wrong with treating newcomers as if they should know better. I don't think I was picking on anyone. I thought I was merely observing that the treatment of newcomers should be focused in the direction of polite and gentle policy guidance. Sadly, we have people who have been here for months that are still acting like Pename, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed. --Viriditas 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, well. I wanted to speak in support of Ta bu shi da yu because I thought that, even though he wasn't necessarily coming from an opposing POV, he took it on himself to challenge a strong POV. That's all.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:36, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's definitely a good thing, no question about it, as long as he isn't shooting fish in a barrel, which is how it appeared to me. But we must not forget about civility, respect, and a desire to help collaborate in the creation of better articles. IMO, that is much more important (and more difficult) than challenging two-day old editors who haven't the slightest idea about policy. There's no sport in hunting Bambi. --Viriditas 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sigh. I've already told him that's not what I was doing. A pity he doesn't beleive me. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I never said I didn't believe you. I said that from my perspective it appeared that you were biting the newcomers. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong. And FYI, my comment above, Sadly, we have people who have been here for months that are still acting like Pename, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed, does not pertain to you. I was referring to Alberuni. --Viriditas 19:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RFC on Pename

As Pename has been attacking both A;beruni, myself, OneGuy and RickK, I was wondering if you would like to certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pename? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you be willing to certify the RFC? Please, I'm not asking to pressure you. I won't be upset if you don't :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I did. Check again, under Outside Views.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:26, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the first is to verify the validity of the issue (in other words, it exists), and the other section is to endorse what was said on the RFC page. You can sign both of them. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gah! I got this wrong! The first section has the comment: Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section, and the section section (others) has the comment "If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section.". Sorry if I mislead you... that was entirely unintentional. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

168.209.97.34

I submitted an arbitration on this guy here. Let's see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests_for_Arbitration

OneGuy 09:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits

Moved to Talk:Islamism#Minor_edits.

COTW on Partition of India

The Partition of India article is up for a Collaboration of the Week if yer interested in helping out. Article needs a lot of work but for the moment you can simply add yer vote for it. Hulleye 08:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I entirely agree this will be a contentious issue for several people... myself included... but at the same time, it should be an exercise worth doing Hulleye 14:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Hello

Returning your greetings. I wonder what you might disagree with in my recent edits, most of what I've done today has been rather minor. Acsenray 21:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi -- I'll have to defer to you on "badshah." It seems your info is better than mine. But I really think the "Hindustani language" article needs a major rewrite. Acsenray 14:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wos Up?

HussaynKhariq

Actually, i'm interested in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Bangla, Yemen, Hijaz, Pakistan, India, sunni, shia, kharji, mutazali etc. etc. etc. I'm concerned on how people have just pasted their official histories in a neutral encyclopedia!!

Islamism

According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows:

Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj.

SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t23.e29279>;

He also found the following:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t125.e1819>;

I'm confused. Our Islamism article says something totally different. The Oxford reference is relatively authoritative. Help! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Authoritative? How? It is basically one quote from one writer (John Esposito) with one POV. The POV of someone who thinks that something that lasted almost 1400 hundred years "failed". How long did the Roman Empire or Communism last? I am replying on the talk page for that entry. See you there!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:46, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. could I get you to respond on the timeline article talk page? Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome message and the invitation. I would like to opt out of joining Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pakistan... atleast for now. Regds Nazli 17:29, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

POV pusher

OK, I see the problem. I'm watching the page very closely. If User:68.107.102.129 does it again I'll block for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, don't put yourself in danger. If I don't notice, please tell me and I'll revert then block them myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, he did it again. He's blocked for 24hrs. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth Template

See User talk:SimonP#Commonwealth

There is a difference between Commonwealth countries and former British colonies. Countries often move in and out of the Commonwealth, e.g. Zimbabwe, Pakistan, South Africa. Being a Commonwealth member is a far more ephemeral quality than having been a British colony. I still think Commonwealth membership is a pretty trivial factoid. Your example of a child doing a project on the Commonwealth proves this point. For this child the useful page would be Commonwealth of Nations, not the dozens of pages on member countries. Also there is an organization for French speaking countries the Francophonie, that is essentially identical to the Commonwealth in scope and import. That you, and most people, have not heard of it is further illustration that these post-colonial organizations are of little importance. - SimonP 21:13, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a Commonwealth category, but there is no rule against it and if you proceed with creating the category I will do nothing to stop you. - SimonP 21:32, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the whole discussion on SimonP's page until after I posted. Thanks for pointing it out though. I do believe that the Commonwealth is an important organisation - not from the sense of being a relic of British dominion, but rather as a fraternal grouping among countries and people with the shared history of British colonialism. Britain's membership in the organisation is really incidental - it's real value is among countries that were once part of the Empire...and recall, that the only Imperial title was of India. Makes Britain just another subject territory ;) Guettarda 22:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Islamism

I've just realised something about the definition from Esporito that Pename gave. Tell me if this sounds right:

Pename, let's see what you quoted: "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." OK, let's look at this a bit more carefully. Firstly, the concept is "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims". Next sentence is "Has existed as a religious concept since the days of Islam." OK. Now, does that mean that "sociopolitical solidarity" has existed as a religious concept since the days of Muslims? it would seem so. After all, as I've stated below Islamism comes from the French word islamisme, which was itself coined by Voltaire, who existed in the 18th century. The context of what is written would also bear this out because the next sentence is "Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." So it emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s? Well, look at that. It appears that you've misread your own source. How delightful.

This is what I just replied to Pename. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback on the talk page. That's what I figured! :-) Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aina

Thank you for your contribution to the Aina page. Do you think it would help to add the actual Urdu word for "aina"? Personally, I think it would be great, as I like to look at the actual language. It would be even better if we could link back to the word in the Urdu Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. --Viriditas 02:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, I am asking if you could add both the Farsi and the Urdu to the page, in the original script, and if possible, link to the word "mirror" in those Wikipedias. Obviously, you may not be able to fulfill this request, but if you can, that would be great. I am looking to add the Farsi/Urdu script to the English disambig entries. Let me know if that makes sense. I think it is important for people to see the original language, for example, the arabic script on the Qur'an page: al-qurʾān أَلْقُرآن. --Viriditas 07:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Africa stubs

Wikipedia:Stub defines a stub as "a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less." Stub messages are not for any article that needs expansion, but rather for articles that are so short they aren't even real articles. I see what you are trying to do with Category:Africa-related stubs, but I feel a better solution would be a list at Wikipedia:Africa related articles in need of expansion. Such a list could be broader in scope than just stubs, and could also be annotated so that exactly what is missing can be pointed it. - SimonP 18:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I took out Category:Sultan of Sokoto because it was linked as an article and not as a category and I felt that the link in the article to Sokoto Caliph was enough. It would be great if you could create some more articles on the Sultans of Sokoto. I have been trying to fill some of these massive gaps in Wikipedia's coverage, but my knowledge of these matters is very limited. - SimonP 20:20, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)