Talk:Aziz Mian

"Some Lyrics from his Qawwalis": Edits of Jan 15, 2007

There is no need for a translation to be a literal word-by-word translation. The important thing is to come as close as possible to the mood and meaning of the original. Please don't edit translations to make pointless changes motivated by literal word-by-word accuracy. --Sarabseth 09:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

this refers specifically to the changes I reversed on May 12.

The word "limit" doesn't really convey the sense of the lines, especially since the point is that these attributes (love, trust) are unlimited. "Height" works much better.

"I gave my life" is a perfect example of why literal word-by-word translation hurts rather than helps. The line makes sense in Urdu, but when you translate it literally, in English it is not clear how "giving" your life is a sign of trust, since giving would have to mean sacrifice.

Similarly, the significance of the eyes staying open after death is not captured if you say "patience"; it is necessary to explicitly mention "waiting". --Sarabseth 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Milegi Sheikh Ko Jannat

This does not seem to be the correct title. Can anyone confirm that the lines in question are from "Jannat Mujhe Mile Na Mile"? --Sarabseth 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Selected Lyrics" section

Yes, Drmies, WP is not a repository for lyrics. But this section only provides brief excerpts from a few of his qawwalis, so that readers (especially English-speaking readers) can get a flavor of the tone and content of his songs.

I guess the acid test should always be: does this section improve this article? And the answer certainly seems to be, "yes". This section has been in the article for a long time. I suggest that it should not be removed unless there is a consensus among editors that it does not improve the article. --Sarabseth (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, that the answer to your question seems to be "yes" is confirmed by only one voice, yours. There are problems here: first of all, it is not at all clear that there is no copyright on these lyrics or their translations, and this is connected to a second problem: there is no source whatsoever given for these lyrics and their translations--no publication information or anything like that. Worse, there isn't even a context for these selections or a rationale for these particular selections--there aren't even dates. So no, I do not believe it improves the article, and I do not believe it jives with copyright requirements (see WP:Lyrics).

  Until proof can be delivered, or even suggested, that the selected lyrics and their translations aren't copyright violations, until there is some sort of bibliographical information provided, until there is an explicit rationale that explains the selections (with references to reliable, independent sources), and until there is more of a context, I do not believe this improves the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, short excerpts such as these are covered by the fair use provision.

These lyrics were never formally published. There are no publication dates. The lyrics were transcribed from the songs, and translated by the editors who added them to the page.

I think there is a clear context to this section. From the article:

Aziz Mian was the only prominent Qawwal to write his own lyrics...

He was fond of discussing religious and Sufi paradoxes in his Qawwalis. He directly addressed Allah and complained about the misery of man (the greatest creation of the Almighty). Pakistani comedian Umar Sharif has said in one of his stand-up shows about Aziz Mian: "Other people have disputes on earth, his disputes are in heaven. He altercates with Allah."

Perhaps there is no harm in letting other editors voice their opinions before deleting a section that has been included in the article for a long time? Obviously, previous editors did not see any problems with this section. I may be only one voice, but so are you. And at this point, you are asserting your opinion over the implicit opinion of many previous editors. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• You are proclaiming yourself as the voice of the silent majority, defending the unsourced contribution of nameless editors whose authority is entirely unknown. The status of these lyrics, their correctness, is likewise entirely unknown, and I note that you have not addressed any of the other problems I have indicated. Have it your way--I will seek an opinion elsewhere. In the meantime, perhaps your time is better spent looking for sources to verify some of the information in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're adopting this very hostile and condescending tone. Let's just discuss this amicably, please?

"I note that you have not addressed any of the other problems I have indicated": not sure which problems you mean. I thought I addressed everything you had touched on.

Also, just so you know, the book reference you just added (Yadav, Rama Sankar; B.N. Mandal (2007). "Qawwali". Global Encyclopaedia of Education. Global Vision. pp. 330. ISBN 9788182202276. http://books.google.com/books?id=6XCRmgig69MC&pg=PA330), that entire section on Qawwali is lifted from the Wikipedia article Qawwali. It's plagiarized verbatim. So maybe that should be removed. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be sounding hostile. But your implication that I'm some loner going against overwhelming silent consensus, I don't really appreciate that either. That something has been in an article for a long time is, as you should know, no guarantee of its validity or its relevance.

I had an inkling about that book but didn't have time to compare; I'll remove that right away. Thanks.

But to get back to the main topic: there is no attribution for lyrics or translations (and you suggest it's original research of primary sources), there is no introduction or a rationale for these selections, etc. In short, it does not make for a good article, and in my opinion does not meet any of the guidelines and policies in regards to verifiability: right below this edit screen is where it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Regards, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now where these lyrics come from. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the implicit consensus of past editors only because it seemed relevant. I'm sorry you took offense at it, but I still don't see why. It was just a statement of fact, pointing out that this wasn't just a disagreement between the two of us. Since the whole philosophy of Wikipedia is editing by consensus, the implicit consensus reflected in a section that has stood in the article for more than 3 years was worth pointing out, I felt. I'm not trying to claim it is any guarantee of validity or relevance. All I'm saying is that it does reflect an implicit consensus of many editors over time.

Some more bad news. I'm afraid the "Casting" reference also contains material lifted verbatim from an old version of the Aziz Mian article. See this, for example. It's probably not an exact match, but the lifted version is approximately from this date.

I have been editing qawwali-related WP articles for many years, and for many of these articles I can recognize at a glance whether something is lifted verbatim from an old version. Since you can end up spending a non-trivial amount of time working with a reference you've uncovered before I come along and find that it's plagiarized from Wikipedia, if you like you can leave me a note on my Talk page when you find a new reference, and I can vet it for you before you invest time making multiple changes to the article.

As for the lyrics, I take your point that neither the lyrics nor the translations can be verified by reference to a published source. But at the same time, to call this content "original research" is probably stretching the meaning of that phrase. There are no issues of scholarly interpretation here. Anyone who knows the language and listens to the qawwalis (which are, of course, freely available) can verify the lyrics. Anyone who knows the language can verify the translation. Several editors who have worked on the article over time fall in that category. Just as we accept facts that are verifiable by picking up a book and reading it, perhaps we can accept facts that are verifiable by getting hold of the recording and listening to it?

I still think the lyrics section improves the article, by giving a flavor of the man's poetry, and the irreverent tone in which he addressed spiritual matters. --Sarabseth (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, why not introduce the matter then, by giving it some historical or literary context? To the average reader, and I am very, very average, these quotes appear random. I can't tell the size of the original poem, the topic, the intended audience, or the date. To call this original research is in fact not stretching it at all (and you are the only author of and contributor to the section): it's not from verified published sources, so that makes it original research. Providing some sort of context doesn't make it more original and may in fact help it sound more authoritative, or at least more meaningful. But I'm going to leave it alone: I have neither the expertise nor the library to much more useful here, and I hope you see that my intent is to improve the article rather than gut it. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were to try to give it some historical or literary context, that would take me well into the realm of original research, I think. Right now it's just a factual, verifiable transcription and translation.

I can add a brief introduction stating not much more than the fact that the section is intended to give a flavor of the man's poetry, and the irreverent tone in which he addressed spiritual matters.

I see that we disagree about the meaning of the term "verifiable published sources". While you are evidently restricting it to books, I am using it in the sense that librarians use it, to include musical recordings. According to my definition, the lyrics are a verifiable quotation from a published audio-recording. (That's why I don't regard quoting the lyrics as original research.)

Actually, I am not the only author of and contributor to the section. I added the section, and I added much of the content over time. But other editors also contributed, at least a couple, if I remember right, maybe more. If it matters, I can look over the section and identify what was contributed by others.

"I hope you see that my intent is to improve the article rather than gut it": No dispute there, and I don't think I said anything at any point to imply that I thought otherwise. I'm a great believer in assuming good faith, unless it's clearly not warranted. I'm glad we were able to move beyond the initial misunderstanding and arrive at this friendly, amicable tone. As far as I'm concerned, this has been a perfectly constructive and productive interaction. Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Unlimited Timezone

You have repeatedly made the same edit five times now (first using the IP addresses 119.154.41.174 and 119.154.131.64, and then under the name Unlimited Timezone).

Each time the text added was the same: "and also famous for singing ghazals in a unique style of qawwali. Aziz is still one of the most popular qawwals of south asia."

You have ignored comments made in edit summaries pointing out that these are POV statements, representing a personal opinion. When I said I would have to report you to administrators if you persisted in adding this POV material, you added it again and told me to buzz off.

Apparently, the first step in buzzing off is to "be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page". Hence this comment.

Please be aware that you are just stating your personal opinion in this repeated edit. Wikipedia frowns upon such edits, which violate both the NPOV principle and the No original research rule.

Taking the kind of attitude that you have doesn't do you any good. The material will ultimately be removed anyway, since it doesn't conform to WP policies. All you are doing is besmirching your own reputation as a Wikipedia editor. Continued bad faith edits will ultimately just lead to suspension of your account.

So I'm appealing to you to stop inserting this material into the article.

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aziz Mian Qawwal.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)