Talk:Badi' al-Din

Paid link spam

I see someone spamming paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it? 37.111.219.223 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Since most of the content is based on Brill online, I am restoring it to last stable revision. 37.111.219.223 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Apaugasma, I am ready to discuss the changes on the talk page, May I know, Why you think using only Brill there is compulsory? 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for commenting here. I don't think using sources published by Brill like the Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) is compulsory, though I do of course think it is a good practice: the EI is the standard reference in the field, and Brill is among the most reliable publishing houses in the field.

In these edits, you removed a lot of information sourced to the EI, for no apparent reason. You have done the same thing in the past, and two other editors have reverted you in these instances, which means that your edits are against consensus. If you want to remove this info because you believe Brill is unreliable, you can ask about the reliability of Brill on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. In the mean time, you should not reinstate the edits for which there is no consensus here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Using Brill there which is a paid source, and only available to it's subscribers or paid users, citing Brill/ any other paid sources makes it difficult to verify the content of cited sources to the users who do not have access to those sources, which can be extra trouble to other editors who do not have those access, so being compassionate to fellow editor it is good practice to cite easily accessible sources. Also since as you said you have no compulsion to use Brill, I see there is no need to reinsert again, as I can see article is fine without Brill too and does not need it, and if you want expansion of article, please ping me so that I can expand it with your kind cooperation, based on the available sources in the article along with other good sources which is easily accessible. Hope you Understand. Thank you. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSC. As long a source can be verified in a reasonable amount of time then they are fine to use and often these sources can be verified by editors through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Difficulty to verify sources is not a good enough reason to remove the content. Suonii180 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no reasonable access. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again 37.111.216.141! I concur with Suonii180. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, a part of our verifiability policy: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

I will grant you that I am not a fan of Brill's closed access policy either (nor of their enormous prices!), but accessibility is just not a factor in determining which source to use on Wikipedia. We use the WP:BESTSOURCES, and Brill is very much part of that. It's also not only the sourcing: the article was much improved by the editor who used the Brill source, and it is not acceptable to undo this improvement without a good basis either in policy or in other sources. If you want to gain access to a Brill source, please ask on the WikiProject Resource Exchange.

I see that you've gone ahead and changed the article to your preferred version again, twice. This is called edit warring, which is not allowed. Please self-revert, and get consensus at the talk page. This is your last warning. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Habs-I-dam

Want to add the concept of Habs I dam by citing this peer reviewed journal article. Are there any objections? 27.123.253.176 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please post the exact text that you would like added to the article here on this page, including a proper citation (see here on how to do that) with page number included, and use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template (click on it for guidance). Someone will then answer your request and add the text to the article if it is properly sourced. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Why are you in so hurry to add the content, let the community decide whether the provided source is reliable or not? Anyways, point is not to edit the semi protected page but about reliability. Also you seem to controlling this article for so long, let other decide it. I assume this article is not your personal property. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I literally advised you to let someone else decide: when you use {{Edit semi-protected}} someone else will come and answer your request. They will only be able to do so though if you provide the text that you would like added to the article, including a full bibliographical reference. As an unregistered editor you cannot edit the article, so others will need to copy the text you provide here into the article. However, they will only copy the proposed text into the article if it is in line with core content policies.

The journal looks acceptable at first glance [1] [2] (unfortunately the doi won't resolve at this time and the website currently seems to be down, but googling the journal name yields no red flags), and though I can't speak for the reliability of the author it generally looks okay to me at this time. It will depend on the actual content and if it duly fits into the article.

Please try to assume good faith (a fundamental principle on Wikipedia). I'm not watching this article anymore, but if you treat the next editor like me I can guarantee that things won't work out the way you would like them to. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: What do you mean by this, I can guarantee that things won't work out the way you would like them, You are assuming that I have Coi, mind it, I don't care if things won't work in ways what you are assuming. I am just here to improve the article, not like you to control this article. I am here because I was guided by an admin to put this on talk, otherwise I would never had interacted with you. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean your baseless assumption that I am here to 'control the article' and your general hostility, which is entirely uncalled for. Please assume good faith. I didn't even think about a COI, but if you should have one, that's entirely okay, just declare it by putting {{connected contributor}} on the top of this talk page. It's all good, just post the text you would like to add to the article and someone will evaluate it. If you believe the admin who guided you would help you better, why don't you ping them instead of me? Or you know, just use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template which will summon an uninvolved editor? Someone will help you along to improve the article if you just follow the guidance. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty silly, Apaugasma. I will need to ping you because I am talking with you. I will ping DragonflySixtyseven later, once the discussing get closed. You are the only participant here, let others decide it. We need consensus here. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I told you: post your suggestion on the talk page. Wait a week to see if anyone objects. If no one does, go ahead and implement it, but if there is an objection, then negotiate with that person.

It would help if you are more specific about what your suggestion is. DS (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• The journal is not reliable. Not indexed in any reputed database. Runs out of Meerut, hmm. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WalrusJi: Thanks for your response, atleast this journal appear more reliable than our blacklisted filmcompanion.in. lol, as it is there in data bases such as [3] and [4]. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Who is "Walrusji", and what is the relevance of "filmcompanion.in"? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

oops! I thought I am talking with User:Walrus Ji. Filmycompanion is the junk garbage which you had requested to whitelist few days before here on this talk page. I meant to say it is better than that filmy garbage, as it is listed in data bases and it is needed here to add info. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I came here from your post at RSN and have never edited this page or any other relevant topic; so, I have no clue about the reason behind your hostility, which was also directed at Apaugasma. Nonetheless, it is evident that you are a returning sock and NOTHERE. Requesting attention at WP:AN. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Walrus Ji: Usually the sock puppets like you on Wikipedia consider other as sock puppets. If you think am a sock puppet then you should open an SPI instead of speaking bullshit. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources are reliable for not depending on what content you wish to add, that's why the highest rating at WP:RSP is "generally reliable" not "always reliable". Unless you're willing to state what you want to add, there nothing more to discuss. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested: Just want to add line from that source,

Habs I dam , a kind of breath holding practice in Sufism is relevant to the founder of Madarriyya brother hood, Shah Madar

• Note:Citation style will be changed later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.123.253.165 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry my knowledge of the differing translations of Arabic names is limited, but on which page is the subject mentioned? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Page 175. First para second last line. Many thanks. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Just double checked the translation, and a bit on the journal. Also the journal seems reliable on a surface level. The detail seems a bit like a factoid is there a reason it's due in the article? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The source referred to here (Sezer 2022) states on p. 175 with regard to the Habs-e Dam exercise: It is known that the inventor of this application is HazratBadiuddinZinda Shah. It is known that these breathing exercises are meditation [sic] that Naqshbandi Sufis often resort to. It is known? Who 'knows' this? What is Sezer 2022's own source for this claim? They do not cite any source. When a person claims that something is known this is often a sign that they have heard the claim repeated often, but that they have never done any proper research themselves to verify it. In other words, hearsay. Clearly, this is not reliable in context to say the very least. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I was troubled by it in relation to Eleven Naqshbandi principles and Baha' al-Din Naqshband, but I can't quite say why. I'll have to do some more research. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Apaugasma, Source has been cited for it, although not inline, but it is there, I can see the info is verified from the source cited there, please see it properly. If you still think it is hearsay, and unable to find it then let me know, I will help you. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see that a source is cited after the list of six steps on p. 175, reference number 7. Since this source (Qadri Shattari Silsila's Online Platform, located at a link that I can't post here because it is blocked by Wikipedia's blacklist (!), but replace the .com by .xyz in https://www.qadrishattari.com/p/habs-e-dam.html) does indeed state that this Sufi practice was associated with Hazrat Badiuddin Zinda shah Madar and other sufis, I'm assuming that this is the reference you mean. But apart from the fact that Sezer 2022's inventor of this application is not quite the same as the associated with in Qadri Shattari Silsila's Online Platform, this 'online platform' is in fact a mere blog, which wouldn't even qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia (see WP:SPS), let alone for an academic paper. We simply need a better source for this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My problem with the journal reference is that it states that Badi' al-Din was the inventor of Habs-e Dam. But this appear to be the first principal of Eleven Naqshbandi principles, and that article says Baha' al-Din Naqshband added the last 7 principles later. As Baha' al-Din Naqshband is a contemporary of Badi' al-Din I don't see how that works. Does the source mean that Badi' al-Din was the inventor of a particular method? Also I can find very little elsewhere to back up these claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The Naqshbandi principle is hosh dar dam, not habs-e dam. 2601:403:C201:1170:9C66:DDE8:7D30:E631 (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Apaugasma, it is completely fine to use blog as the source if the research scholar considers it as reliable and primary and this very case is not an exception. Melih Sezer, a PhD scholar from Osmania University consider that blog as reliable and primary so they have used it. In my journey I come across reputed journals citing blog as a source, for example you can see this paper published by Journal of Sufi Studies by Brill, where Latif had used a blog to support his research and article passes rigrous peer reviews and publication process of Brill. Use of blog to support the research (which had gone through reliable peer review and publication process) does not provide any specific ground to not use it. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Why yes that Journal of Sufi Studies article is rather badly referenced, even though it cites only one online source (unfortunately another non-working URL) to verify something, and even though that online source is used as a primary source (verifying a position of the article subject as president of an association on the website of that association). This can't be compared to Sezer 2022 use of multiple blogs and other trash sources as secondary sources. But even if the Brill journal's article were comparable, Sezer 2022 uses a source that even Wikipedia would never allow, so Wikipedia sure is not going to allow Sezer 2022. You might want to drop that stick. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Apaugasma, Once my uncle told that I will be meeting nonsense who will try to prove their points even if they are proved wrong and while dealing with you I remembered that statement. Anyways I am not droping the stick and will be citing Sezer based on my sound argument. For this I will need to create an account and wait for four days right? tajbaba.org was clearly a WP:SPS per wayback machine. Your poor knowledge of citing the blog in research is forcing me to post this link from Cambridge University. Your adamant approach clearly gives me an impression that you are bossing this article. You literally said in your previous edit that you are not watching this article any more, but still you are putting your nose here in this article just like it is your personal property (which is not true). 27.123.253.83 (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, in original research in general blogs can be used as primary sources. Wikipedia in some cases also allows this per WP:ABOUTSELF. But the spam-blacklisted blog https://www.qadrishattari.com/p/habs-e-dam.html (replace .com with .xyz) is used as a secondary source here, i.e. to support a claim about something else than the (author of the) blog itself, for which blogs are never reliable given their lack of editorial oversight and independent fact checking. Moreover, despite the blog being used as a secondary source, it does not itself cite any primary sources, but just makes a claim without any backup in research whatsoever.

  I did put the article off my watchlist, and it would still be off my watchlist had I not seen this AN notice about your behavior here. Since after three editors had asked you for this, you finally did post the text that you would like to add to the article, I thought that maybe it would be possible to handle this in a collaborative spirit after all.

  Clearly, I was wrong. You just stated that, even though all three editors who responded opposed your proposal, you are still going to implement it against wp:consensus. You are still being uncivil. You are generally not collaborative, instructing others to look for things or deride them because they can't find it instead of simply and helpfully pointing to them. You should know that this behavior is considered disruptive, and that it will lead to you getting blocked.

  I implore you to reconsider: wouldn't it be so much nicer if you were able to find a reliable source for the Habs-e dam info so we could add it to the article and appreciate each other for helping each other out? I help out other editors all the time here, I can assure you it's a much more fun way to spend time at this website. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Apaugasma Which consesus are you talking about? The whole argument is leading by you and I can't expect any support from such type of adamant user like you. By trying to winning this argument it appears that you have forgotten that after the citation of that blog (not at all a blog to me but looking like a legit Online platform to me, but not here to discuss that platform atleast), Sezer's Work has gone through scholarly peer review and reliable editorial and publication process before coming in our hand which is enough to meet WP:RS. Collaboration can't be expected atleast from such bad faith editors like you. Go away. 27.123.253.83 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested: I am ready to discuss the issue further with you. if you have any objections with my proposal? Many thanks. 27.123.253.83 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have anything more to add. I have concerns about the reference, as it seems to make claims upsupported by any other scholarly source. Also it doesn't appear to have garnered much support at WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References

About age

I read some book in badiuddin zindashah madar age 596 2402:8100:26A0:87B8:AD6A:C174:7A2B:4CA6 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Stupidity

You utter imbeciles. The idiot article states that Shah Madar's teacher was Bayazid Bistami (qs), which would be a pretty neat trick seeing as the latter passed away over HALF A BLOODY MILLENNIUM before Shah Madar (qs) WAS EVEN BORN! Then when I go to correct this OBVIOUS idiotic error, I find that you braindead lackwits locked the fucker. You stupid, stupid creatures. You will be punished. 2601:403:C201:1170:9C66:DDE8:7D30:E631 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. I fixed this. Next time, consider posting an edit request. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)