Talk:The Sufis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Sufis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India: Literature Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Thanks

Thanks for the time, patience and energy you've taken to create this and other articles. Shah's works have been a huge influence in my life (hopefully for the better :)). EricT (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed away vs. died

User:ScribbleStick seems to have a thing about the phrase "passed away": [1] and recently changed "passed away" to "died".

Although encyclopedically correct, I actually think "passed away" is more fitting for an article on The Sufis, who represent and follow a spiritual path, than "died", where repeated changes of this kind may be rightly or wrongly construed as pursuing and imposing an a-theist agenda.

Certainly if one were to religiously adhere to the letter of the law, then that would favour use of the word "died". But there is also the spirit of the law or equity to consider.

"Passed away" is the more inclusive, since it would satisfy atheists and agnostics reading it as a euphemism for the word "died", yet leave open other possibilities, such as life after death, for those so inclined. It does this without walking roughshod over those with spiritual or religious sensitivities or in close relationship to the subject, Idries Shah. If you can present evidence to the contrary, please do. ;) Esowteric (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I gave ScribbleStick the idea to replace the phrase "passed away" with "died" on all articles he can, so I'm going to wright a bit here (I'm not speaking on behalf of him though, his opinion could be different). It is a guideline included in WP:Words to avoid not to use euphemisms such as passed away, and we (me and Scribbles) are in the process of replacing lots of "passed away"s with died. If you feel exceptions should be made to specific articles, such as spiritually themed articles, I have no problem with this, it makes sense, but it should not really be extended to all articles. I'm not an atheist, if it makes any difference. Thanks for reading this, and sorry if I sound rude. Spongefrog (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and for the link, Spongefrog, will revert my own reversion in accordance with the guidelines. Esowteric (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying thanks. Spongefrog (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I would just add to the debate, even though its resolved thus nobody cares about my opinion, but I don't really mind which way it is (making this posting even more useless), but there just needs to be a clear rule. I'll keep changing 'passed on' to 'died' on every page I see, but if the rule does change, could sombody tell me so that I don't embaress myself too much.

--ScribbleStick (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiftieth anniversary (1964–2014)

To coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of The Sufis (and the launch of a new paperback edition in 2014), there's an article in Al Jazeera by John Bell and John Zada that has some useful things to say about the book, the Sufis, and its present-day applicability in the face of rising extremism. Esowteric+Talk 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Sufism: ‘a natural antidote to fanaticism’ by Jason Webster in The Guardian. Esowteric+Talk 13:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]