Talk:Markazi Masjid, Dewsbury

Islam: Mosques Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mosques task force.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Markazi Masjid, Dewsbury is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

Does anyone have sources on when the mosque/school was founded, by whom, etc.? That seems to be the biggest hole in the article at the moment. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 10:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markaz has been around for 30 years and passed government checks

why is doubt and suspicion all that is presented all that can be found on the page? Why is irrelevant exclusion of a child from a different school being mentioned? The articles provided a sources are obviously emotional reactions to the crimes of individuals who had no connection to the institution. is wikipedia a place to find useful correct information or a place for properganda? i expect many post will be reverted, and justification given using jargon. Correct information will be removed to make way for suspicion and slander? Many wikipedia pages are made by those who hold dislike to a group, so providing unfair unbalanced information. when it is challanged, jargon is used. may wikipedia be guided to the correct path! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.40.185 (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you found the policies I linked to "jargon". I felt the same way when I was new to Wikipedia, but they're actually the hard-won consensus that makes this place work. They spell out how to collaborate effectively on Wikipedia, and how we keep it focused on being a high-quality encyclopaedia not just an indiscriminate collection of information. They're well worth a read if you plan on sticking around.

I agree there is too much material critical of the mosque in the article, but unfortunately that's the only way it can be based on the sources I have been able to find. I refute the idea that it's "propaganda" though (which would be violating one of our most important bits of jargon: WP:NPOV), because I've tried my best to present the critical sources neutrally, as allegations not proven facts, and add rebuttals where I could find them. It would be great to get more positive sources to balance out the article. As I mentioned above stuff on the history of the mosque and school would be especially useful, but I just haven't been able to find the sources.

However, when I say sources – we do work exclusively on the basis of reliable, independent published sources so we can't keep information simply claimed to be "common knowledge". If it is publicly available, cite a source and there is no problem. I notice you have cited some references in your latest edit, but note that this is an article specifically about the Dewsbury mosque. Detailed information about the beliefs and/or practices of the Tablighi Jamaat movement belongs in Tablighi Jamaat. As Wikipedia articles are linked together, readers are pointed there when we say the mosque is associated with that movement, so there is no need to duplicate the information here.

One last style point: try to make your contributions fit into what material is already there. You've just dumped a lot of text at the start of the article and then copied and pasted a paragraph from lower down, breaking all the links and references. I'm sure you'll agree in it's current state, it doesn't look or read like a cohesive encyclopaedia article. joe•roe^t•c 09:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Markazi Masjid, Dewsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905014000/http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/tablighi_jamaat_indirect_line_terrorism to http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/tablighi_jamaat_indirect_line_terrorism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Markazi Masjid, Dewsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130422065903/http://www.thepressnews.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=2009 to http://www.thepressnews.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]