Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Most of this article is a copyvio of this [1] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Most? I've not yet compared the content or checked copy right permissions but I think that might make up a major part but that doesn't warrant a article deletion rather rephrasing or content deletion. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-write

Great. Created some related redirects to it. Will check on the article from time to time to help along. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Hoping to make it a GA this time. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On what basis was this article deleted? The content here appears to be from at least 2006, which predates by two years the earliest archive.org snapshot of the supposedly infringed text. Could someone point me to the discussion detailing the evidence of copyright violation? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was only able to compare the two for a couple minutes before it was deleted, but I think the tagger had pretty good reason...ask him/her or Fastily. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Was there any discussion anywhere? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As with all CSD's, consensus was achieved with a tagger, an admin, and the silence of the masses. So no, not to the best of my knowledge =/ Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to temporarily get the deleted version to a subpage of the article so that every one can help rewrite the content (after all it's been there since years - wont do much harm on a subpage with the aim of being deleted later)...? --lTopGunl (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It was a featured article on June 3, 2006. How on earth was that possible if it was a copy vio? If that revision and the previous ones were not, it will be good to get that one back for improvement. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You previously told me that the article had been tagged for copyvio because it had identical content to some website. Is it not quite possible that the reverse may have been the case too (i.e. the website copied the content from Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia copying the content from the website) and thus the copyvio having been wrongly tagged? I just find it hard to believe that this article has plagiarism. It's been on Wikipedia since 2003, which is almost a decade. I also have some concerns over the credibility of the user who tagged this article as well since he seems to have a history of content disputes and issues on Pakistan-related articles (did he properly verify that this article indeed contained excerpts of info from somewhere else, before tagging? Did he pinpoint which text was plagirised? Has he ever tagged, or had an experience/understanding of tagging/working on copyright violations before? Looking at the fact that he's been on Wiki for less than a year, I'd say probably not) And if so, was the whole article a copyvio (which I seriously doubt) or was it just a specific section? And if it was a specific section or paragraph (most likely the case), why was the whole article speedily deleted and no attempts were made (or adequate time given) to work on the copyrighted material? Something's not fitting the puzzle. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is very much possible (but disna is one of the dedicated content websites for Iqbal I assume). If they copied content from wikipedia without attributing it (or maybe they did or had their content permitted to be copied - I did not check the website yet), then this surely raises a redflag. Fastily (the admin) has also deleted a previous page quickly which later turned out to be not per the criteria but this time he mentioned a deletion summary of something like "unambiguous copyvio of disna". I surely have concerns about the user who did not make any attempt to discuss on the talk page and tagged a long standing article for CSD - the only reason I did not remove the tag was that I had not checked the disna website. How about asking Fastily if he counter checked and telling him about its featured status? If this turns out to be an incorrect tag I'll suggest ANI for the tagging user given his dispute history, other wise atleast there's no possibility of the article being a copy when it was a featured article. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I was surprised too, and immediately asked help from User:Nolelover in this regard.Page was deleted,but I saved the article,and disna link,I compared the text among the different websites,and disna website,there is no any sign that disna website's article version is copied of the wikipedia article.But of course,some contents are same or look like same,the need was to rewrite the text in own words rather than deleting the whole article?.I tried same article with same references,to rewrite but was not accepted due to same copyright problem.Now I am busy to write from beginning,though it is a bit difficult but I am busy to do my best what I can ,surely I need help all of you in this regard,Iqbal is the national poet of Pakistan and India,known to whole world,no doubt about it.Justice007 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that I had also saved the content, so I'm comparing it right now...and...well, would it be alright for me to post it to a subpage? I have no idea what the article looked like one year ago, two years, three, etc., but the content was clearly copied one way or the other. Compare the third paragraph of WP's lead when it was deleted:

Iqbal was a strong proponent of the political and spiritual revival of Islamic civilization across the world, but specifically in India; a series of famous lectures he delivered to this effect were published as The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. One of the most prominent leaders of the All-India Muslim League, Iqbal encouraged the creation of a "state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims" in his 1930 presidential address.[1] Iqbal encouraged and worked closely with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and he is known as Muffakir-e-Pakistan ("The Inceptor of Pakistan"), Shair-e-Mashriq ("The Poet of the East"), and Hakeem-ul-Ummat ("The Sage of the Ummah"). He is officially recognised as the "national poet" in Pakistan. The anniversary of his birth (یوم ولادت محمد اقبال – Yōm-e Welādat-e Muḥammad Iqbāl) on November 9 is a holiday in Pakistan.

with the second paragraph from disna's lead:

Iqbal was a strong proponent of the political and spiritual revival of Islamic

civilisation across the world, but specifically in India; a series of famous lectures he delivered to this effect were published as The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. One of the most prominent leaders of the All India Muslim League, Iqbal encouraged the creation of a "state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims" in his 1930 presidential address. Iqbal encouraged and worked closely with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and he is known as Muffakir-e-Pakistan ("The Thinker of Pakistan"), Shair-e- Mashriq ("The Poet of the East"), and Hakeem-ul-Ummat ("The Sage of

Ummah"). He is officially recognized as the "national poet" in Pakistan.

So yes, someone's doing something wrong, but I think we need an admin (not AN/I) to look how far back this goes. What's interesting is that I think that if disna copied, it did so from an earlier edition of the article (possibly from 2009, as their copyright logo suggests?) because a couple sections are missing or incomplete from that site. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll need to request the deleting admin to restore it to a sub page instead of doing it our selves so that we can all give it rewrites section by section. It might be copied by any side as we don't know yet, but the fact that it was a featured article gives wiki's copy some reason to be rechecked against that. We'll need to involve the deleting admin in anycase. About ANI, that was suggested for the user not for the article - an admin would be enough to deal with the article issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mention it at first because I was just looking for an admin to go to, but I've asked at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Muhammad Iqbal. And my mistake re:ANI. Sorry about that. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem and great. Hope we get some progress. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment

There was clean content in the article's history, which makes WP:CP the proper avenue for handling the issue, not WP:CSD#G12. I've restored the article's history and moved it to Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Article history (has to be in talk subspace, as we can't have subpages of article space). I've had to blank it pending a full investigation, but the material is accessible in history. The earliest archive of the page is May 19 2008 ([2]), which can help, but only if the content in our article postdates that. If it does, there's no question that we copied them. If we predate them, though, that doesn't mean that we didn't copy it from a prior home at another URL. In those cases, I look for signs of natural evolution. I will happily help look to see if I can find assistance of reverse copying, but this can be time consuming and I don't have time at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot. If the article is a violation as a result of this investigation, I'll advise the fellow editors for the article to be rewritten from this version as it is the last good version [3] and then add any content added afterwards (thought not much expected). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks MRG! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

History review

This may or may not help...at the very least, it may be a decent starting point for those who know more then I do:

  • When the article is deleted, it is just a touch under 60k bytes.
  • Prior to this edit on Christmas Eve though, it was only 45k bytes, so that's the article size I'm going off of.
  • Around early 2009 (this is not an exact diff), this article most resembles the disma site.
  • In July 2006, the article becomes Featured, at about 36k bytes. Over 5 years, and despite a difference of 9k, the core of the article is still the same.
  • In March 2006, we finally see a big difference in article size. In a month long expansion of over 50 edits by User:Falcon007, the article goes from a steady size of 14k bytes to well over 35k. Here's the article prior to expansion, and here's the article after his last edit.

Hope that helps, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications and evidence

To correct a few points above - it is not automatically impossible for article reviewers to miss a copyright violation. Thus that it is an FFA does not necessarily exclude a copyvio. The archive.org version linked above [4] is from May 2009 according to the datecode in the URL.

  • 23:42, 26 June 2006, Rama's Arrow adds a sentence to a paragraph. That paragraph, including that sentence, appears in the off-wiki version. The rest of that paragraph had been added 12:21, 31 May 2006 by Rama's Arrow. This edit gave the article most of the structure it retained for years.
  • 23:20, 21 March 2009, UnknownForEver removes a sentence from Early life that is present in the off-wiki version (with a spelling change in one word).

Gimmetoo (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So I was wrong in my assessment of it being a copyright vio then? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It's somewhat unclear to me still, but I don't think the wiki page was copied from disna.us. However, there were some changes after March 2009 that made the article correspond in some details to the disma.us version. It's possible that someone copied the wiki article, edited it for use off-wiki, then also made some of the same edits to the wiki article. It's also possible that elements of some older source were used as a model. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not there is a copyright violations, Darkness Shines, it wasn't a good candidate for WP:CSD#G12. :) That criterion is only for clear cases where there is no clean content in history. With a 9 year old article, that's unlikely, and when you look at the earliest edit, you can see it's very different from that external source. You're right to flag this kind of thing for investigation - very important to do! - but {{copyvio}} is probably the way to go. It allows people time to evaluate the evidence and clean up the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a visible violation of WP:Copyright,but I suggest too,as lTopGunl says that the article was a featured article on June 3, 2006, it should be back to article page for further improvement and information with reliable sources,rather than writing a article from biginning point,it will put extra burden to editors who involve.Justice007 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The article one being a featured article might not automatically make it a non copy vio but that does make it a highly unlikely article to be a copy vio... under such conditions tagging it with a speedy deletion criteria wrongly raises a red flag. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seemed fairly clear from the diffs above that the article here predated the disma.us one, and that disma.us copied the wiki article before 21 March 2009. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we've got two different admins reviewing independently, finding reverse copying, and nobody has offered any evidence that anything of theirs came into ours later. I'm going to do the mop up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's investigation

I did a duplication detector check on the article as of 12:21 31 May 2006, as it was where the article was substantially rewritten. The results won't be visible always, but you can see that there's quite a few matches. I next did a duplication detector check on the article as of 20:54 30 May 2006, the edit immediately before that one. Less matches, but that there are any is in itself a good sign because it makes a copyvio less likely. Copyvios are usually in a couple of edits at most. From there, I searched for the text "is addressed to the world's Muslims", to find it was added in March 2006, here, by User:Falcon007. This is bit more evidence towards their copying from us, unless two different editors copied from them in multiple takes. I like to be very thorough, though, so I ran a duplication detector report from the edit before Falcon's changes there. It still shows matches, although fewer. I selected one of those, from our article as of 20 March 2006:

Iqbal died on April 21 1938 in Lahore, British India (in what after 1947 became a part of (Pakistan). The tomb of Muhammad Iqbal is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort (which face each other) in that city.

The external site says:

After suffering for months from a series of protracted illnesses, Iqbal died in Lahore in 1938. His tomb is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort.

Significant moments in the evolution of that language include:

(1) 1640 10 March 2004, when User:Katangoori changed " He died in 1939 and was buried near the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore (present day Pakistan.)" (present from the article's creation in October 2003 by User:Aurum to "Iqbal died on April 12, 1938 in Lahore. He is buried near the entrance of the Badshai Mosque in that city";
(2) 17 December 2004, when User:IFaqeer changed "He is buried near the entrance of the Badshai Mosque in that city" to "The tomb of Muhammad Iqbal is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort (which face each other) in that city", and
(3}5 September 2005, when an IP changed "He is buried in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort (which face each other) in that city" to "The tomb of Muhammad Iqbal is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort (which face each other) in that city."

This is clear sign of natural evolution of that language. After Rama did his major overhaul on 12:21, 31 May 2006, that particular passage read as follows:

Iqbal died in Lahore in 1938. Iqbal's tomb is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort, and an official guard is maintained there by the Government of Pakistan.

He changed that on 2 June 2006 to read "After a series of protracted illnesses, Iqbal died in Lahore in 1938. His tomb is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort, and an official guard is maintained there by the Government of Pakistan." I think the evolution of this passage alone pretty definitively establishes that we did not copy this content from them. That doesn't mean that we didn't copy some content from them after their page copied us. I'll look at that now. The earliest archive for that page is sometime in 2008, but for some weird reason the archive isn't working properly. Clicking on 2008 and 2009 in the timeline bar currently brings up the same two hits. And while there are two hits referenced for 2008 and five for 2009, the two hits are actually timestamped to 2009. So the best we can do is look at the May 2009' version (not 2008; I didn't notice that weirdness earlier). The group itself indicates that their website was launched [http://disna.us/disna_news.html on 6 February 2009, so I think we can safely search for major changes from there forward.

Clearly, they copied from us at some point before that. Does anybody see anything that was added to the article after March 2009 that is also found in that external source? A series of significant additions on 1 February 2010 ([5]) are not included. Is there anything? If not, I will merge the articles together, note the backwards copying at the top of this page with the proper template and close out the copyright investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Restoring the deleted version of the talk page above this section will be a good idea too... the discussions might help as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have finished the administrator mop up. I've merged the subpage back into the article; as a result, the links above no longer work, but the dated timestamps can still be used to isolate the edits in question. I've resurrected the talk page history as well, and stowed the old talk in Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Archive 1, while pulling some of the talk page header material and placing it above, as well as adding the {{backwardscopy}} for this source. (If anybody wants to write to these people and let them know that they are violating the copyright of our contributors, some recommended approaches can be found at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.) The last edit of the older article prior to the copyright tag is here. Any of that content, or any content from even further back, can be mined. While it isn't necessary for attribution, I'd request that anybody resurrecting that material consider noting in their edit summary at least the date of the version they're copying from. This will save a whole lot of confusion down the road if issues with that content arise. :) For instance, if somebody did copy something into the article from somewhere else and you wind up accidentally restoring it, it will make it much clearer to people investigating that issue 2, 3, 4 years from now that you weren't the one who placed it here. (That can be a small annoyance on Wikipedia, if somebody mistakenly assumes you've violated a policy, but a rather larger headache if, say, the copyright owner decides to sue and doesn't realize that you aren't the source of the infringement.) I'm not restoring that last edit to the top here because people have put in substantial work since. I'll leave it to you interested editors to work out how best to merge the material together. Thanks to all who worked on this. :) As much time as I spend working copyright cleanup, I really, really hate to see good content lost to reverse infringement. It's important to clean up copyright issues when they happen, and to investigate them even when they might happen, but equally important to me to protect the rights and reputation of contributors from misunderstandings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Organizing the Sections

To organize the article. I advice to reduce the size of stuff, and to do so we should create pages for Iqbal's different works. First stage

  • Creating separate pages for
  • Iqbal's Work in persian
  • Iqbal's Work in Urdu
  • Iqbal Bibliography
  • Iqbal Political career

Second Stage

  • Removal of repetitive sentences and information from the article, some of those are repeating 4 times.
  • Most of the books and titles are written in English, Roman Urdu and urdu script, need to clean this.
  • Need to clean multiple and unwanted interlinking of words.

Kindly advice if any more corrections to be made. Then we shall proceed for editing, Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC) We cannot make layout according to our desires,please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout.Other editors may give suggestions.Justice007 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I read the First stage right, then you are suggesting creating separate articles for those four subjects? If so, then while I appreciate the thought, that's probably not the best idea. It's better to keep them in one place, instead of an unneeded split. As to your second stage, if you see redundant words, phrases or sentences, go ahead and remove them and just leave a note saying so in the edit summary. If another editor disagrees, then we can hash it out here on the talk page. There's also nothing wrong with having book titles in more then one language, although you are free to expand on your concerns here. Lastly, yes, other articles usually shouldn't be linked more then once, although there are obviously exceptions. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious sources

Are this sources reliable to use in this article??? plz someone advice.

As best I can tell, allamaiqbal.com is run by the Iqbal Institute, so should be treated like any other primary source; sunni-news.net is a mirror, and hence entirely unusable; ilmkidunya.com doesn't seem terrible (do you have more specific concerns about that one?); quranic.org and tolueislam.org are dead to me. This is after a two minute check though, so more eyes would be appreciated. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,Justice.

  • Work on Mohammad Iqbal is continued to expand and improve,other editors can assist in this regard but should aviod unnecessary editing.

To tag or templete is discouraged,but not forbidden. Expanding and improving the articles are considered constructive efforts,and taging is, though some time is necessary,gained and made edits score higher instead of constructive steps. I think there every line of the conten should be cited with references,because some editors don't like to spend some time to find or search the reliable sources to cite the content,but well they have much time to tagging and templeting the articles.Please silent and watch only,and make yourself pleasure and feel easy,that is also the way of life.Thanks and cheers.Justice007 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Justice007,
  • You had reverted this edit Please specify your edit. The stuff reads "and was thus officially entitled "Sir Muhammad"."" which was un-sourced, if you feels that any source specifies this plz apply the source to information do not leave it un-sourced or revert any citation tag unless you apply the source.
  • You had made this revert in which i removed his date of death which is repeating twice in lead. Kindly specify the reason of keeping date of death two times in one single section???
  • In this edit you applied this source which i will have to remove as its un-reliable/doubtful and promoting. Kindly discuss or apply the correct source.
  • In this and this edits of your's. you had copied the contents as what available in the source, and again applied unreliable source, which will lead to copyvio in future. Please stop applying unreliable sources, if you are confused discuss on talk page before applying.
Expanding is not necessary now, instead sourcing the contents that to authentic sourcing is most essential.
I would like to tell you that,
First: Remove the unreliable sources from the article.
Second: Apply the authentic and reliable sources.
Third: Correct the tone, grammar, punctuation of the sections.
Fourth: Shorten the article (by wiki-linking the bulk information).
Fifth: Submit for the re-consideration/re-store the feature status.

Well !! last but not least. I do not want to discourage you as you are still in learning stage, but want to warn you if you consistently keep reverting the edits without discussing on the talk page. Definitely I will have to take the case to Administration. Thus be patients while editing and try to understand what other editors are trying to do or if you dont understand, please ask for specification for there edits, (WP gives you the freedom to ask specifications for edits). I hope my words are clear to you and you will try not to revert the edits and keep your editing work with good faith. :)- Regards. --Omer123hussain (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes I am in learning position and I think I will remain in a learning postion in my whole life,I do not dare to claim that now I am master of wiki rules,or other rules of the writngs.I removed your edits as I know a bit wiki rules,I no need here to explain in wide scale,while I already have reasonable explain in the edit summary.About reliable sources,we have to discuss with other editors,may they notice this soon.What I must discuss here,when you asking a very simple thing to explain,that is already clear.And please be a just contributor of wikipedia and do not try to give me orders.We are not owner of any article,I did what in my opinion was right.I hope someone will notice that and explain to you in exact way and manner.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, as you admit you are still learning, keep learning do not disrupt other editors good faith work. As I told above every one is free to edit but have to answer for there edits with valid reason when ever asked.--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi guys...I'm not quite sure what the dispute is, and really don't have time to look, but Omer, there's absolutely no reason to go to administration. This is a content dispute, so nothing would come of that. Please don't suggest that. There are plenty of other editors involved in this article, so lets try to keep it to this talk page. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Dude, i am trying to explain Justice007 not to revert my edits with xyz reasons. Just tell me, how can we work blindly without planning. Unless first we point out the errors and then correct we cannot make it a quality FA article, Just tell me how can we improve its status when he(Justice007) is blindly reverting edits with xyz remarks (See this edit in which he deliberately reverted my work and added date of death two times in one single section, which is against WP MOS policy) and applying XYZ sources to article. He is creating his own consensus and spoiling the article. Well now i am applying citation needed tags and removing doubtful sources and repeating sentences.--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:BRD. When your edits are reverted, it is your responsibility to discuss before readding them. I'm sure you can come to a consensus here. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Omer, you were wrong there anyway. Having the date of death twice in the lead section is common (see Osama bin Laden for an example). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked through hundreds of edits...

...and Omer, your comments above are almost entirely unnecessary. Please don't keep making references to admins. Expanding is fine. Having the date of death twice is fine. You don't need a source for the "sir" part if you have one for the "knight" part - they're the same thing. Please don't be so condescending. You seem hardly more experienced than Ehsan, so that's completely unwarranted. Thanks, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well Nolelover: I or any editor dont need any certificate from your point of understanding, if any editor is right or wrong advice according to WP Policy. And So... Well you mean to say its fine to use date of death in one section ???? Can you provide proof for this or give in written so that i can confirm according to WP policy.--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Omer, it doesn't work that way. You have made a claim, and attempted to remove that line saying that policy backed you, so the burden of proof is on you to show that having the DoD twice in the lead is against the Manual of Style. I didn't say it's always done, but it certainly isn't forbidden - see WP:OPENPARA or MOS:DOB and tell me where it says that. Regardless, Justice has moved the relevant passage to the Biography section, so this is all moot. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
When you know that justice had already moved it to biography then why you raised the issue and commented now in the second last comment??? I dont understand y you commented though you was aware that justice had already moved it????--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well i am not insisting to keep it or remove it. but its better if we keep it in early life section, as it may be useful info for some researchers.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs advice.

Presently the lead opening reads as "Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Urdu: محمد اقبال), born Shaikh Mohammad Iqbal, (Urdu: شیخ محمد اقبال) on November 9, 1877 died April 21, 1938" Where as considering the encyclopedia standards i recommends it to be as : "Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Urdu: محمد اقبال), born as Shaikh Mohammad Iqbal (Urdu: شیخ محمد اقبال) on November 9, 1877 died April 21, 1938. Needs the advice from any expert in english grammar and tone.:)regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've copyedited the above passage. It looks much better now. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I've completely removed the "Shaikh Mohammad Iqbal" part since I don't think he can be born a Shaikh. If I'm wrong, please tell me. Without that title, the "Mohammad Iqbal" and the Urdu translation are unnecessary. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear unable to understand you, here you advice to keep the urdu names and now you removed, I want this article to be FA once again. that is my aim and all my edits are with in good faith. Please do not misunderstant me. The tone used in the article is like a essay or speech, believe me no admin will re consider it with this tone.
We shall move the name "Shaik Mohammad Iqbal" to his early life and says that he was first named as Shaik which he later changed it to as M Iqbal. Regards cheers and happy editing.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Omer, I simply said that it was okay to have titles in more then one language. I didn't say we hafta do it all the time, and I wasn't even talking about names in that discussion. Now, on to your FA/essay claim. You really don't need to worry about the tone of the article. There are huge problems far more fundamental then that. Lastly, are you telling me that he was born with the title "Shaik"? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
you please read the sources it is not me who is telling that. Why are you making your own opinion that i am asking to keep the name as shaik/shaikh. first check the source which was attached to it, you simply removed the text, without even bothering to confirm from the source or discuss it.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Which source? There aren't any right next to the Shaikh comma, and the book source at the end of the sentence only says that he was born on that date. It doesn't say that he was born with that name, which is a key distinction. Shaikh seems to be an honorary title, and I rather doubt he was born with it. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

  • Umer,please try to learn more and understand the exact concept of the WP:Policies and guidelines,only mentioning does not work.If you do not understand Nolelover,then please ask Sitush,he is good editor,he can may be make you understant in Hindi or Urdu.Please check properly and thoroughly references,I am not a editor to add content that not exist.And please do not take it personally,I am the main editor to expand and improve the article with the assistance of Nolelover,other editors with good faith can help in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
What ever i know it's far better then you knowledge, just stop degrading others, check your self rather than blaming others. Its encyclopedia not an essay, theses or story to use the promoting or unnecessary praising words.

Well i ask you to bring your research from any encyclopedia if you can??? which says.

"It is a fact that Iqbal's first recognition is a poet but he is also regarded by his admirers who call him the "Muslim philosophical thinker of mordern times". This sort of words are used in story telling to kids not to researchers. Is it clear justice???
He is also regarded as "Muslim philosophical thinker of mordern times". here the source URL you cited is not the exact url.(now who needs to learn, just keep learning boy as you admited)???

Dear Sitush any comment from you is appriciated in above issue, any way i am seeking help from admin, to stop this bias reverts of Justice, as i clearly observed he have some unnecessary problem with my edits where as he had not even spoked for any edit of Nolelover, who reverted lot of his (justice007's) work yesterday and vise verse he Nolelover had confusingly supported justice007 work like here he is supporting justice by saying to keep the urdu names were as yesterday he removed lot of urdu names from the lead, (thou i dont have any issue by keepin or removing urdu names but it proves Nolelover blind affection to justice.) Regards:)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting admin help

Dear admin, To avoid edit warring i seeks your help here and I corrected this edit which is reverted here, I made this edit which was reverted here : My query is to remove the content or give the exact URL as its a lead and after all the lead is a summary of entire article. Justice007 is consistently filling the lead section with xyz information and sources. (Please cehck all his edits since his first work) beyond he is not cooperating to understand or simply trying to dominate. He is Just filling the article with un-encyclopediac sentences and sources. Just look this when i try to correct it he is reverting all my work.

Beyond all my edits are consistently been reverted by either Justice009 or Nolelover without discussing on talk page just both are playing with un-related comments and edit summary. All my edits are in goodfaith. Kindly do the needful and take the proper action to avoid the edit warring and desruption of article.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)}} --Omer123hussain (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As to Justice's conduct: In regards to the first edit, the language was definitely flowery but that could have been trimmed instead of entirely cut. Furthermore, the source does back up this statement. I'm not going to even try to explain other stuff until someone else asks more specifically. But guys, I'm getting extremely tired of having to look through all your edits and revert, trim and explain. Please, stop it both of you. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Omar, I'm not seeing an admin issue here. It is not an administrator's place to referee content disputes. More discussion would definitely be helpful, but that is a common sense observation that any editor would be able to mention. I don't see the tag-teaming editing you mention. You may disagree with the edits that are being made and you may certainly raise those issues here. However, absent consensus that Justice's editing is unhelpful or unconstructive there is not much to be done. I would ask Justice to be more mindful of the "Show preview" button in future so that multiple edits may be consolidated into fewer actions. I will leave the Admin help template live so that other opinions may be solicited. Regards Tiderolls 04:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I likewise would agree that this appears to be a content dispute, mixed with inexperience. I've removed the admin help template, because while some administrators are active in dispute resolution, it is by no means one of their tasks. Feel free to continue discussing issues here, and work towards a consensus. If discussion gets gridlocked, you can always make a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Cheers. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Steven. We'll keep that in mind. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Iqbals first work

The lead section say's "His first poetry book, Asrar-e-Khudi, appeared in the Persian language in 1915" where as Urdu section] in the same article says "Iqbal's first work published in Urdu, the Bang-e-Dara (The Call of the Marching Bell) of 1924". both the claims are sourced, Can any one specify which source is correct? what is his first work the Bang-e-Dara says that its a philosophical poetry and Asrar-i-Khudi also says its a philosophical poetry, Does this mean that his first work was in urdu Bang-e-Dara and his first published poetry book was in Persian.  :) regards. --Omer123hussain (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • What do you not understand??.It is very simple that Iqbal's first work in poetry was in Persian language as Asrar-e-Khudi ,and then his first work in Urdu language was as Bang-e-Dara, what is complicated here?.Please read first Iqbal's biography and his poetry thoroughly.Justice007 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Your reply above is very rude and unrelated to my question, Please maintain adequate in answering queries. Make sure that you understand the question before answering it. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the question either. Urdu and Persian are two different languages, so both statements are correct. Omer, could you clarify your concern? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The lead says "His first poetry book, Asrar-e-Khudi" where as Urdu section says "Iqbal's first work published in Urdu, the Bang-e-Dar ".
My query is if his first work is Persian "Asrar-e-Khudi" then Urdu section should read "Iqbal's first Urdu work is "Bang-e-Dar" published in the year ......

The opening phrase "Iqbal's first work published in Urdu" of Urdu section is giving wrong message that Iqbals first work was in urdu, but in reality it was Asrar-e-Khudi in persian. Hope you understood my question, and the differences of phrases.--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC) --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)~

Ahh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for fixing it Justice :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

  • You have not right to delete any images, take a look here.

I see you no any where editing other articles,you are coming to this article time to time with unconstructive editings.Please stop your own choices.Justice007 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy you are asking me to read is about "Image Deletion". rather I request you to read and understand [Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.
The article is about a person not about his Tomb, thus One Image of his tomb is more than enough to keep in the article.

Last but not least the entire article contains only 32 sources, Need to add sources with proper prose thus adding template is more reasonable. No article is limited to any editor, thus any editor can edit any article unless it is valid and according to WP standards and policy, so please stop harassing the editors.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Images of single object

Hey, lets discuss about the requirement of multiple images of one object. Kindly justify here why two images of his Tomb are required in the article. Where as when the article is about the Person.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure as soon as you self revert your forth removal of that image. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well Darkness Shines may you specify why are you insisting to add multiple images of object (tomb) in article related to person.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Two images are not a violation of policy. They are different shots showing the Tomb in the day and light up and night, the contrast is good and I see no reason to remove either of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If those images are added to related article (Tomb of Muhammad Iqbal) then its okay, this article is about the Person (Mohammed Iqbal).
Please go thru Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, If the image is about Sir Iqbal itself then there is no issue as article is for his personality, but here it is about the object (Tomb) and multiple times repeating of same image with different view is not correct in any sense.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Read that policy again, it is for an article which is entirely pictures, IE Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles I see plenty of text in the section and article. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
@Omer, You are quoting a wrong policy here. There is no such policy at WP:NOTREPOSITORY that justifies removal of different images of a single object from an article. You may quote WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE here but still it is a guideline and you must follow the consensus. --SMS Talk 23:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
@Smsarmad, Thanks for directing us to correct policy,
Any way my objection is, The article is about Mohammed Iqbal, then why should we have multiple images of (tomb) same object in the single section and article, It shall be added in the related article (Tomb of Muhammad Iqbal) but not here in the article about a person. How does multiple images are related to the persons life.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right in saying that the one of these images is redundant. These images are more related to only the death section and this section is not that lengthy to have two images of same tomb. If you people are working here to get it past FA then this may come as an objection. And its better to convince the opposite view party by discussion, as reversion only provokes the other editor. You may start an WP:RFC if other editors still disagree with you, to have a wider community consensus. --SMS Talk 09:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You said exactly what I could not able to express unfortunately, this issue will be definitely objected while peer review for FA, I will wait for another 24 hours for other editors comments, then I shall have to move to WP:RFC or may be here at WP:DRN. :) regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
While you are correct that two images of the same structure probably would be objected to at FA, we are so far from FA standards that I don't think it's right to bring those up as an reason right now. I personally don't care either way, but guys, let's not go to RfC or DRN over this. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

  • Omer123hussain,You have placed a multiple issues tag on the main space of the article Muhammad Iqbal without explaining and clarifying your concerns about the issues.Your other several edits also fall under Copyvio.You must know Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for Disruptive editing without consensus. Would you please explain and clarify that which section of the article you consider Original research and why do you think and which section needs additional citations for verification?, or you think whole article is original research?.While you have multiple templates citation needed placed in several sections.We have to be Bold but not foolish. Please discuss here before tagging the tags on the main space of the article while there is no objection by other involved editors. Justice007 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that those tags need to be better explained. While Omer is right that our sources aren't great (the main problem is that we use Iqbal's website many times instead of more independent sources), we do have about 15 links at the bottom that anyone could use for just that purpose. We don't need more sources, we need someone to go through the sources that are already there and use them instead of http://www.allamaiqbal.com/person/biography/biotxtread.html. This is on my to-do list, but I'm pretty busy right now (with school, and Doon School whenever I'm on Wikipedia). Justice, if you ever do see copyvio please link it on the talk page so that everyone can see it, and we can take action if need be. Thanks! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@ Justice007, this copy edit by Anupam of your edits, explains that whose work is Copyvio. As you said above "We have to be Bold but not foolish". There is lot more to correct from your edits.
@ Well, I humbly and kindly request Justice007, As you are blaming, please If you can link here any of my Copyvio work, so that I can also see what was my Copyvio work.
I agree with Nolelover, we don't need much sources (if more reliable those are welcome) but we need to develop the context with proper punctuation, grammar, tone (as the present status of this article is like a news report or essay). It should be really like a encyclopedia, for guidance editors may look into William Shakespeare (though he was a great writer but the article contains only 1-2 phrases from his work), any way two images of M. Iqbal tomb will be removed, if not now while PR otherwise it will not be a FA again.
@ Nolelover, As you said, the entire article contains only 30-33 sources from which almost 1/3 of the article is sourced from "One single Site".--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple use of single source and Doubtful sources

Multible use of www.allamaiqbal.com :

Source 4) this Not sure may b considered as promotional source. Used in 10 places.
Source 5) this Doubtful promotional source. Used in 21 places
Source 7) this Doubtful promotional source. Used in 8 places
Source 17) this Doubtful promotional source. Used in 20 places
Source 24) this Doubtful promotional source. Used in 3 places
Source 25) this Doubtful promotional source. Used in 2 places
Source 32) this Doubtful promotional source. Used in 5 places

Doubtful sources:--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Source 1) this Not sure may be considered as promotional source
Source 3) this (It’s a commentary of event/ by different personalities)
Source 8) GROUNDREPORT Probably unreliable source
Source 11) this doubtful looks like a blog.
Source 14) it’s an portal doubtful.
Source 15) self published thesis.
Source 18) other language source not sure of reliability.
Source 23) portal doubtful.
Source 29) other language source not sure of reliability.

Someone may take initiative and confirms the reliability.

The article has a collection of 22 External Links, probably against WP:EL.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this. I told you that those external links are the ones we should be using instead of www.allamaiqbal.com and the like. We should not be removing the 22 links per EL, because they are not external links; they're references. Now, www.allamaiqbal.com is primary, which does not mean automatically promotional. I haven't looked through your second group of sources, but I'm sure that they are some bad ones in there. The first group is ok as a temporary measure. If you would like to replace them, please go ahead. Right now, it's all we have. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@ Nolelover, Hope you know that, Primary sources, shall be accompanied with third party sources, other wise the article shall be tagedd as:
I am not asking to remove all 22 External Links, but need to reducing the size of External link list
Well, If I replace the sources of portal and UNR, we will have to go for lot of copy editing.
Any idea where we can confirm about reliable sources on WP.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Omer, of course I know that (about the tag). However, if you would like to fix it please do so. As I have said multiple times, I am aware of the issue and adding a tag like that when the article has active users who know about the problem is totally useless. Reducing the external links would do nothing. However, to conform to EL I have just moved all the links to the references section, where they belong. I hope that takes care of that. Now, the first place where the reliability of sources should be discussed is here, on the talk page. You were right to bring them up. I just don't have the time at this second to go through them all. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal and the West, Image

@ Nolelover, Use common sense to understand the CN template purpose, before involving into Edit warring by reverting, plz ask for the specification if you of don't understand the purpose of edit].

Street named in Iqbal's honour in Heidelberg, Germany.

This image not only gives the name of street: but also claims that there is a street in Heidelberg, Germany which was Honored in the name of M. Iqbal. and if you understand that for every claim, we need to provide the source, either provide the reliable source for this claim or place back the CN template Or give the valid reason why there should not be any source for this claim.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not also claim that there is a street in Heidelberg, it is the street in Heidelberg. Now, if you want to completely remove the image, that's one thing. Go ahead. However, saying that you need a citation for what is completely obvious on the image itself is unnecessary. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are misunderstanding my work, same as Justice007, I do not have any bias with Allama Iqbal,(I had grown up reading his written poems every morning, It shall be my tribute to him and Muhammad Hamidullah), if I contribute to make this articles upto FA status.
Honestly answer to your self, will this claim at image will not be questioned while Peer review, my purpose of adding CN is not to point errors but to notify the editors, that this part needs the source. While If you want I will wait lets add the source later. If you can understand, First we shall name the sections appropriately, lot of data is splited in to unrelated sections, we should gather that to related sections.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you and I don't think you are biased at all. :) If you can find a source, that great. However, I think that adding a source is a little odd when it ust describes what is in the picture. If that is objected to, we should just remove the image completely. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, any way I applied a source to that image.
Mean while i removed
See also: Muhammad Ali Jinnah
from Iqbal and jinnah relations section see also, as this page is already linked many time, If it is much Important, I will create A page with the name Iqbal and Jinnah relations and add it as see also page below the section title. :) regards,--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the source, and I apologize if I came off as dismissive; you were right to add it. I don't know that a separate article is needed, but you were right to remove the link. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Higher education in Europe

The section Higher Education in Europe says:

Confusion:

  • The above phrases says: In 1907 he studied in Trinity college Cambridge.
  • Iqbal went to Heidelberg Germany in 1907.
  • As well as it says: 1907 continued studying PhD in Ludwig Maximilian University (in Munich).
We need to correct the dates with proper reliable sources. As one of the source "studysols.com"" is not reliable also in the section. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Justice is traveling.

  • Of course there are numbers of issues in the article,I think those are from old version,and I am surprised,how was then this article a feature article?,the deleted article was restored on our request,since then,most of I and Nolelover edit the article, there are still sections which we never edited nore checked. I appreciate Umar's concerns,with that we will be able to improve and expand the article,but there are my concerns too,I do realy not agree with Umar's on many points. As Nolelover is very busy in these days,I too,because I am traving,will be not able to log in my account of wikipedia till 25th May 2012. I want to tell this thing that Allama Iqbal academy is a government of Pakistan's official website about Iqbal,there is absolutely not promotional or bias contents,when someone is realy serious to work on it, then there should be in proper way rather than spoiling the article and creating difficulties for other editors for nothing, it is wasting of time all of us. May be I will be here off and on. Thanks all of you.Justice007 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am back,and trying to normalise the work on wikipoedia.Justice007 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal's secondary and graduation education

Summarized and organized Iqbals, education in Sialkote and Lahore with year's of completion. cited source. Please advice for further corrections if required.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Organized "Higher education in Europe" and cited sources.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have not much time to discuss now in detail,but I would like to ask you how you figure out words great affection,while there is no any reference which states that?.I rquest you to avoid bias and edit as references.Justice007 (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I wish if you could discuss something constructive, rather than discussing your schedule.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Propose a bot based archiving setup on this page as it is reasonably active. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Iqbals first marriage

The article says:

In 1895, while studying Bachelor of Arts Iqbal had his first marriage with Karim Bibi, the daughter of a Gujrati physician Khan Bahadur Ata Muhammad Khan,[7][14]

The issue is: source [7] say's while studying graduation in 1893 Iqbal had first marriage. The source [14] says he completed graduation in 1892, and married (it does not mention the year of marriage). The source [7] is a primary source and the source [14] is a URS, Thus we need find a secondary or third party source to confirm the year of marriage, as well as need to correct in the article from 1895 to 1892/1893. regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have struck through some particularly bad ones. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You have to learn more about--

  • * You are warning me instead of your obvious bad faith editings to the article Muhammad Iqbal, you seem to appear time to time for tagging and templating the sections and content without any legitimate reasons. I worked hard to search sources and you removed those to talk page,I do not understand your motives and behaviour that what you want to achieve from that?.I will be happy if you bring the case at Wikipedia:RFC or WP:DRN.Surely I will be discussing there with some reasonable and well aware of the wiki rules and language editors. You removed section title Struggles and placed yours,Influence. Please read and look at the use of that word and decide yourself.

Examples of INFLUENCE Recent years have seen a decline in the company's influence within the industry. His ideas have gradually gained influence in the company. He used his influence to reform the company's policies. He has remained under the influence of his parents. He claims that his personal problems played no influence upon his decision to resign. His health problems may have had some influence on his decision. Her parents still have a great deal of influence over her. The chairman wields considerable influence over the board's decisions. Her parents are concerned that her new friends may have a bad influence on her. Emily Dickinson has had a major influence on his poetry. May be you are the perfact person in every subject,but I do not claim that, because I have to learn whole of my life.Justice007 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To do List

Please some one may prepare the "To do List" here, for this article, so that we shall work on it and once again make it a FA. :) Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I closed out the above {{help me}} request, as it's asking for content contribution versus asking a question about using/editing Wikipedia. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is not needed any help regarding FA yet,because there is still a lot of work to do and first improving and expanding the article is required.Please stop adding for further study, a kind of stub, unsourced, and yourself created article.Your are busy to remove many things illegitimately from the article, you are wasting my time, and disruptive editings hinder me to improve and expand the article in proper way. I hope Nolelover will be soon active again to assist me in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to understand the question what I asked above, before replying :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No one owns any article on WP, every editors is free to edit any article. just Read and understand the policy, before you reply. :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Thanks Dori for directing me to appropriate location to seek advices, and User:Nolelover really your participation is highly awaited and appricated hope we can make the article FA once again, untill then I will take care of the article from editors who are making it worst with silly sources and ugly grammatical errors. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Main page template

One editor User:Justice007 had removed the template {tmp|{main|Muhammad Iqbal Urdu work}} from the article through this edit, with some unrelated edit summary: Copy edit, and main article mentioning as reference for further study is itself stub article unsourced ,not clear notability,and just newly created by Omer123hussain.

  • Earlier to removal it was not discussed by User:Justice007, To avoid edit warring I started this discussion and added the template once again. Thus after the consensus it shall continue or removed. If any person have any issue discuss here. :))--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not understand your understanding of wiki rules, you are spoiling the article,with your FA making English. You are teaching me the rules,while you, youself violating the policies. You are removing the content without discussing, and preaching me to discuss, what kind of you,editor?.Look at your removing, the act of boldness,this, and tell me where, in the article,it has been used multiple??.Please hide your decorated sillness under the curtain.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @ Justice, do not abuse others work, first see your edits, by applying dugg.pk you want to make this an FA article, stop applying URS, and what ever I may be I am better than you.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of work to copy edit for avoiding copyvio.see.Justice007 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Justice here. I don't see how the new article is really necessary...Omer, can you explain? Right now there's nothing new in the new article, and I don't see any reasons to split this one. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong to have a new article about Iqbal work, Iqbal is mostly known for his poetry, and thus it should contain seprate article. Otherwise it is not possible to discuss his entire work in one single article. any way, when we can keep a page about his Muhammad Iqbal bibliography, whats wrong to have a page about his work.
For example Please see other articles who keep:
* article Shakespeare linked with Shakespeare's sonnets, Shakespeare Apocrypha, Shakespeare's style, Shakespeare's influence
* article Rabindranath Tagore linked with Works of Rabindranath Tagore, Rabindranath Tagore's political views. etc..
Any way Justice objection is only because I (Omer) had created this page and nothing other than that.--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Iqbal is an important writer and we should have an article on his work. The coverage of South Asian writers is poor on Wikipedia and this is a step in the right direction. I'd suggest, though, that the sub-article be titled Works of Muhammad Iqbal rather than Muhammad Iqbal Urdu Works, and that it address all his work rather than focusing solely on the ones in Urdu. It also makes sense to add some meat to the subarticle before adding the main article template to this article. Generally, a main article link should be to an article that gives more information on the topic (not less). In other words, all of you are right! --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, its good suggestion, and thanks for prompt response. :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea, a section can be left in this article per WP:SUMMARY and all the works listed or expanded on in a dedicated article as they will make this article lengthy. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Make it to Work of Muhammad Iqbal as also suggested by other established users above, so that it may contain all Academic lectures, philosophical and poetic work.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes it is good title,if the creator and editors address only the topic of Iqbal's poetry (poems and ghazals) in Urdu and Persian,rather than his biography.Justice007 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
@ Justice007, keep balance in your stand.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:BATTLE and avoid such behaviour. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The police applies to every editor, including you also, "No one can clap with one hand" :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure they can. :) --regentspark (comment) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
good joke!!! I think he have only hand :) but still he says its a sound but not a clap :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarana-e-Milli

Tarana-e-Milli written by Iqbal is under a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarana-e-Milli. I'm of the opinion that it is definitely notable... leaving a link here so that others interested or knowledgeable about the topic can give their input at the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeating same source in two line paragraph.

In my this edit, I had cleaned the paragraph by removing the same primary source repeated multiple times for the same topic in two line paragraph. Which was reverted by some editor here.

  • I seek other active editors opinion, how can it be justify that one particular source can be used multiple times for same topic in a paragraph of two lines. What is the logic of using it multiple times in a two line paragraph ? and what is disruptive here if we keep the source in the end of the two line paragraph? :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If the content is likely to be challenged, sources are often cited right were the phrase is, that often makes the source repeat at the end of the paragraph to account for rest of the text. There's nothing wrong with doing this unless it is being done at too many instances. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What is good/logical in repeating the source for 3 times in 2 line paragraph, that too when topic is for one single instance only. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You reverted from three passages reliable source citation without discussion, and posting me edit warring only on single undid, which is not legitimate, and other hand imposing on me first discuss before undid, why the policy applies on me and not on you, while I am the main contributer of this article, and you are spoiling my work coming time to time with disruptive edits, you are wasting my time which I can use improving and expanding other articles, you are keeping me in one circle, talk pages are proof of your wrong referring policies. You misguide and mislead me. You removed citation referring WP:mos, that was not supporting your illegitimate revertion, so I undid that.How you support your revertion ,the three lang sentences have three events, the source is lang list of the years, when you do not cite the source, there can be raised the question of verification, so in my opinion there is need for citation, and that does not harm any thing. I consider this only your bad faith to come to especialy my subject of edits area to disrupt me or giving vote against me, I do not see you any where to edit any thing except article Hyderabad, India. To say disruptive edit is not personal attack nor incivility. Please discuss the despute on related talk page, not on my user talk page. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @Justice007: I clearly mention in my edit summary "c/e" which includes source arrangement. As I said above; "What is good/logical in repeating the same source for 3 times in 2 line paragraph, that too when topic is for one single instance only". And I think you should read once more what you wrote in your edit summary, for which even "Lionelt" asked you to avoid personal attack. Most of all what I understand from your above comment is; you are saying/demanding that I should not edit here and just keep my editing work limited unto my main contribution article? :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Knighted

Didn't he decline the Knighthood... shouldn't that be covered? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not, please go ahead. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well I don't have that source.. if some one has it, go ahead with adding that. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this book gives some info on his knighthood;
Iqbal and Tagore : new avenues for their comparative study
Author: M. Ikram Chaghatai.
Publisher: Sang-e-Meel Publications
Date: March 5, 2003
ISBN-13: 978-9693514-49-0

Unfortunately could not find any online addition/source. Will try to find some other soon. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

if you can cite the page number, print is almost as good as online. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Sir Muhammad Iqbal's 1930 Presidential Address". Speeches, Writings, and Statements of Iqbal. Retrieved 2006-12-19.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference pktoday73 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Iqbal/Archive_2&oldid=1137025091"