Talk:Madurai Maqbara

Huge problems with tone of the article and sources
This article inherits most of the criticism appearing on Talk:Maqbara, since the content of this article used to comprise the bulk of the content of Maqbara.

For example, "This article needs to be completely changed. The article is not written in proper English. The tone of the article is neither neutral or encyclopedic."

All the sources cited in the article are religious sources; virtually all are affiliated in one form or another with the Madurai Maqbaras. The article has no neutral verifiable sources at all.

Despite extensive discussion of the problems with tone and sources on Talk:Maqbara, the material has not been revised to address these concerns.

The tone of the article remains embarrassingly worshipful. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kindly go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maqbara#What_should_i_do.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maqbara#Sure._i.27ll_follow.

Before you raise an issue regarding the tone and sources of the article.

The contents are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator. -- Wasifwasif


 * I contest your assertion that the "contents are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator". One,  Wacko  Jack O   seems to have given up in frustration rather than verified or approved anything.  (There isn't a single statement from him anywhere to the effect that the article is fine now.) Two, it's not clear that he is an administrator rather than an editor.


 * Despite your statements at the above-quoted Talk:Maqbara links that you would address the concerns raised by many editors who tried to help improve the article, you do not seem to have actually done so in most cases.


 * This was true of honorifics, which  Wacko Jack O   brought up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maqbara#Article_in_poor_state and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maqbara#What_should_i_do.3F.  The article was chock-a-block full of honorifics till I pruned them in the last couple of days.


 * This is still true of the tone (which still remains embarrassingly worshipful rather than objective and neutral) and the sources (which still fail to meet the standard of objective neutrality or verifiability).


 * To spell out the sources issue once again, the reference list for this article now reads:


 * 1. ^ Qazi Tajuddin Qasidah and History of Madurai Hazrats authored by Moulavi. Hafiz.S.M.Mueenuddeen Ibrahim M.A., Chief Imam Kazimar Big mosque,published by Kaziyar publications,Madurai


 * 2. ^ Soofiyar Thilagam Shadhuli Nayagam, written by Moulvi.A.Syed Abdus salaam Ibrahim, B.A., Govt.Kazi of Madurai, published by Shadhuliyya tariqa welfare association.


 * 3. ^ History of Madurai Hazrats Vol(II) pg.33 published by Kaziyar publications authored by Moulavi. Hafiz.S.M.Mueenuddeen Ibrahim M.A., Chief Imam Kazimar Big mosque


 * 4. ^ http://www.yahussain.info


 * 5. ^ Edition 2 of Shajra, written by Syed Ziauddeen sahab published by kazimar periya pallivasal.


 * 6. ^ Failul Majid, Fi Manaaqibish Shaheedh, authored by Haji.Syed Ibrahim, co authored by Haji.Ameer batcha levvai and Syed Ruknuddeen levvai and published by Sarvare Alam publications, Erwadi durgah, Ramanathapuram District


 * 7. ^ Shahul hameedhu nayagam moulid, edition 1, authored by Haji.S.T.M.Imam Hussain Saabu and published by Periya Hajiyar Publications,Nagore dargah, Nagappattinam District


 * In Talk:Maqbara, Rob explained to you:
 * "So, for instance, for a book, you want the ISBN, publisher, author, page, etc... The key, is that it's published widely enough that anybody else could easily find the source, and double check it."


 * Clearly, not one single book above meets this criterion. They are all obscure books, which appear to be religious tracts rather than objective, respected neutral sources.


 * The website, too, is a religious website, and not a neutral source.


 * As such, this article has no neutral verifiable sources at all.


 * I suggest you respond to the substance of my comments, instead of trying to dismiss them by invoking  Wacko Jack O  .  --Sarabseth (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noting for the record that, after reading the previous comment,Wasifwasif's only response was to apparently accuse me yesterday of making a personal attack on him.


 * He chose not to defend his claim that the "contents are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator".


 * He chose not to respond to the specific criticisms of the tone of the article and the sources. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The quoted books are common, but i am not sure if they have ISBN. Publishers, Author and other details are given already. You are always welcome to verify that.
 * Who should decide whether a referred website is Neutral or not? Are you authorised to verify? If so i'll be happy to take you through the websites which i am referring.

And again a keen request, please avoid personal attacks like, X din't do this. Y is frustrated of X. Also i request you not to come to a conclusion in certain matters based on your own knowledge and assumption like ABC has chosen not to respond etc.,

This doesn't look good and these are all basic etiquettes to be followed while addressing others in a vast arena like Wikipedia. -Wasifwasif


 * Do you really not understand this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maqbara#What_should_i_do.3F which you were quoting to me?


 * "If you have paper sources, you can use them, if they are reliable, and they're widely published. ... The key, is that it's published widely enough that anybody else could easily find the source, and double check it." Books that cannot be obtained outside India, and only with difficulty outside Madurai, do not qualify as "widely published".


 * Can you understand that books or pamphlets or websites published by or affiliated with the management of the Madurai Maqbara religious complex or the Shadhuliyya tariqa do not qualify as neutral, independent sources?


 * I don't see how "X didn't do this" becomes a personal attack. It's a statement of fact, or maybe a statement of opinion.  A personal attack is when you call someone names, or question their motives or integrity.  If X did in fact do it, he can easily point to that.


 * My statement that " Wacko Jack O   seems to have given up in frustration rather than verified or approved anything" can hardly be construed as a personal attack either.  You made a statement that did not appear to be accurate.  I'm explaining why I disagree with it.  It's clear from my comment what I'm claiming as a fact (there isn't a single statement from him anywhere verifying or approving the article) and what I'm expressing as an opinion (that he gave up in frustration).  And the fact remains that you have still not said anything to support your contention that "The contents are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator". --Sarabseth (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Verified, i mean to say, he/she went thorugh the article. Din't find it suitable to wikipedia, so came up with some suggestions regarding adding referenes etc. I did that way and so, the contents are verified, i meant. Also i couldn't find any where wackojacko saying, " I am frustrated of wasifwasif". Kindly help me to find out the exact statement.wasifwasif

That's just absurd. If someone makes suggestions for improvement, that does not mean that person has verified or approved anything. Especially since the suggestions weren't exactly followed through on.

Please don't be deliberately obtuse. As I have stated clearly above, it is my personal opinion that he gave up in frustration. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestions are followed to some extent and still needs to be worked on.

Why do you want to make personal opinions regarding X & Y? How does it helps in improving the articles in wikipedia.?

Synonyms for obtuse. As Sarabseth has commented me.

dim, dull, dumb,In sensitive, Stupid, Thick headed. Dull witted.

I don't know why people make such indecent comments (obtuse) on co-editors in wikipedia.? Is that because of their thinking that no body is here to question and track --wasifwasif

I did give up in frustration. Also, I am not an administrator. Nothing against Wasiwasif, the article(s) just has a lot of problems. It was not neutral and is not backed up by reputable sources.The article had a definite religious tone. Wacko Jack O   11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for mis understanding you as a wikipedia administrator. --Wasifwasif (talk)

The word obtuse may have many synonyms, but the statement "don't be deliberately obtuse" is generally understood to have only one meaning, namely "don't deliberately pretend not to understand something that's perfectly clear".

I had already said: "It's clear from my comment what I'm claiming as a fact (there isn't a single statement from him anywhere verifying or approving the article) and what I'm expressing as an opinion (that he gave up in frustration)."

To which Wasifwasif had responded: "Also i couldn't find any where wackojacko saying, " I am frustrated of wasifwasif". Kindly help me to find out the exact statement." --Sarabseth (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacks while discussing about an article.
A person who reads your lines will get a clear picture of your intentions. Its not a good habit in wikipedia to target an editor personally instead of an article. I have seen many cases were such people were barred. While discussing, avoid personal attacks. -wasifwasif


 * It would be helpful if you could explain what you see as a personal attack. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "............who tried to help improve the article, you do not seem to have actually done so in most cases.....". How come do you come to this conclusion? And why do you want to blame me? Wikipedia is not a place to blame instead of working.- wasifwasif


 * I come to this conclusion based on the fact that the article was still full of honorifics and titles, that the tone was still worshipful rather than neutral, and that the article continued to lack objective neutral widely available sources. Several editors pointed out the problems to you. You said you would address them. But the problems remained. Under the circumstances, it seems to be a reasonable summary of the facts that you failed to actually address the problems that were pointed out.


 * This is not to blame you. It is just to state the facts of the situation. --Sarabseth (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact should be fact alone. not tied with with one's own assumptions and personal opinions. That too blaming others is not at all acceptable. --wasifwasif


 * Please, editor Wasifwasif, may I make a suggestion? You might want to step back for a few days, and this might be helpful for all involved editors. Sometimes when an editor brings up a problem, it sounds like a personal attack, but it isn't. That's why it helps to take a little time off from the article. You can get a new and better perspective that includes only your obviously sincere desire to improve this article and also improve WP. This is just a suggestion; it's always better to discuss TOPICS, and to NOT discuss ACTIONS.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WW, I have gone over the discussions on both Talk pages, Talk:Maqbara and Talk:Madurai Maqbara, and I think I see the reason you feel there has been a personal attack. It seems to come from editor Sarabseth's usage of the word "obtuse". This might not have been the best way to express that editor's opinion, since "obtuse" has several negative meanings, however "obtuse" also means "undescerning" and "skirting around the issues", which if you were to decide to assume good faith on the part of Sarabseth, there is a good possibility that this is what Sarabseth actually meant.

Now, you should first be commended for your command of written English. I have taught students who learned English as an additional language by TESL techniques (now called TEFL), and you appear to have a very good handle on reading and writing in English. This is no small feat, since English is the third most difficult language to learn as a second language following German and Russian. So I guess that I'm saying that editor Sarabseth might want to take into consideration that your appearance of skirting around the issues might have to do more with your struggle with English than with any malicious intent on your part.

So my proposal is for both you and Sarabseth to assume good faith on the part of each other by realizing that you, Wasifwasif, had no intention of skirting around the issues, and that Sarabseth did not mean "obtuse" in the way you first understood it. If both of you can get past this, and if both of you realize that the two of you are interested mainly in improving this article, then I'm hoping that you will be able to start fresh and to focus upon the needs of this article and not upon each other's actions. &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  12:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion to improve the lede
Please allow also a suggestion: I see a definite need to update the lede. This article really should begin with Madurai Maqbara in bold letters. To me, it looks like the paragraph that is now after the Table of Contents should actually be the lede paragraph. And the words that are now in the lede should be somewhere else in the article. Thank you very much for listening! &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  12:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said. I would also like to make a note to User Sarabseth here that, ACTIONS should be in a way that doesn't invoke a discussion. It should be specific to TOPICS alone. --wasifwasif

Paine, I do appreciate that you're trying to be diplomatic here, and soothe ruffled feelings. But it probably doesn't help to gloss over the facts.

You said: "Okay, WW, I have gone over the discussions on both Talk pages, Talk:Maqbara and Talk:Madurai Maqbara, and I think I see the reason you feel there has been a personal attack. It seems to come from editor Sarabseth's usage of the word "obtuse"."

However, the fact is that Wasifwasif was accusing me of making personal attacks long before I used the word obtuse.

This section ("Avoid personal attacks...") was created by him on 14:18, 9 February 2010, 8 days before I used the word obtuse on 15:25, 17 February 2010.

Again, on 06:05, 11 February 2010, he wrote "And again a keen request, please avoid personal attacks like, X din't do this. Y is frustrated of X."

If my use of the word obtuse (which I have clarified above) is the only possible reason you could find for Wasifwasif feeling attacked, it would appear that he is being too quick to take offense. If he could come to appreciate this, it might make it easier to have a constructive dialog about the article.

To summarize: 1) I had stated that there are huge problems with the tone and the sources for the article.

2) Wasifwasif's response was that I was out of line raising the issue because "The contents are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator."

3) I pointed out that he had done no such thing, that he seemed to have given up in frustration rather than verified or approved anything.

4) WacoJacko has now verified this to be true, saying "the article(s) just has a lot of problems. It was not neutral and is not backed up by reputable sources.The article had a definite religious tone."

Is Wasifwasif now willing to accept that there are problems with the tone and the sources that need to be addressed? --Sarabseth (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Very sorry, Sarabseth, as I didn't look at the dates closely enough. I'm hoping that Wasifwasif is still willing to learn all the things needed to make an article encyclopedic, to make it a Good Article, maybe even a Featured Article. When I last helped out with the Maqbara article, Wasifwasif seemed very willing to learn. Sometimes the task may seem overwhelming, but that's where editors like yourself come in. Wasifwasif just needs to accept and believe that we're here to help, to improve the article as much as possible.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to waste time by arguing about the words of sarabseth. Users going through this page will get a clear picture of everything.I would request user Sarbseth to stay away of this article, and i will also Unwatch and will not make any edits if he accepts. I hope if this works out, the article will be more encylopedic.

---wasifwasif (talk)

Wasifwasif, I'm not sure why you find it necessary to include some kind of jibe aimed at me in every comment you make here. I think Paine tried to get you to understand that there has been nothing in my conduct on Maqbara or Madurai Maqbara, or the associated Talk pages, for any reasonable person to take exception to.

I'm going to take one last stab at this.

Just to be clear, the article has huge problems with the tone and the sources. To use your own language, this was "verified" by WacoJacko. Your suggestion is that you and I stay away from the article, which would mean the problems with the article are simply not addressed. Is this really what you regard as addressing the problems with the article? --Sarabseth (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing jibe aimed at user Sarabseth. There are lot of differences in the style between sarabseth and other users like Paine while editing articles and discussing with others. I have never seen users using words like OBTUSE while refering co-editors. And the neutrality of sarabseth is highly disputed in the same page by a different user. As a user who created this article i personally felt that since i wish this article to be encylopedic. And there are millions of undisputed users in wikipedia to address the so called problems and paine has started with a constructive job rather than personally attacking other users like sarabseth.--wasifwasif (talk)


 * I'm going to try this one last time, as a courtesy.


 * Just to be clear, the article has huge problems with the tone and the sources. To use your own language, this was explicitly "verified" by WacoJacko. It is also implicitly supported by Paine Ellsworth's comment: "I'm hoping that Wasifwasif is still willing to learn all the things needed to make an article encyclopedic".


 * When you suggest that you and I should agree to stay away from the article, you are essentially suggesting that the problems with the article should simply remain unaddressed. Is this really what you think should happen? --Sarabseth (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No where i meant that the Article should remain unaddressed. There are users like paine, beunknown who have already started. Hope they will work on. better for the article if you and i stay away.--wasifwasif

It's not clear to me what you are saying, sir, but here's what it sounds like:

1) Yes, you agree that there are huge problems with the tone of the article and the sources.

2) But you propose that neither you nor I should do anything to address them.

Unfortunately, neither Paine nor beunknown has done anything to address either of these problems. So essentially, you seem to be saying that the article should be left as it is, with all its problems, in the hope that someone at some point will come along and fix it.

It's not clear, though, from where Paine or beunknown or anyone else will come up with neutral, verifiable sources if you are not able to do so. You seem to know more about the Madurai Maqbara than any other editor who has shown up to work on the page. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I never agreed with your point that there are problems with the tone.

If someone feels that this should be worked on, then i said you and me shall stay away. I'll request any of the above two users who started to work on this to continue with their work. That will avoid many conflicts and deviations from the topic which had happened earlier. ---wasifwasif (talk)


 * Does that mean you agree there are problems with the sources?


 * But you reject Wackojacko's opinion that the article has a definite religious tone? --Sarabseth (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Matter regarding sources has been discussed already above and you din't reply properly to my question. And again after some 2 weeks you are coming back and raising the same question of sources. Why is this? Please go through this discussion page before adding any comment. If the tone needs to be changed, let the other editors of this article verify it.---wasifwasif (talk)

I am afraid I do not understand what you are referring to when you say "Matter regarding sources has been discussed already above" or "you din't reply properly to my question".

Can you please clarify what you are referring to, in both cases?

Can you also please clarify what your position is about both the sources and the tone of the article?

a)Do you or do you not accept that there are huge problems with the sources, that the article is not backed up by neutral, verifiable, reputable sources?

b) Is it your position that the article does not have a definite religious tone? --Sarabseth (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I raised this question earlier, "Are you authorised to verify? If so i'll be happy to take you through the websites which i am referring.".

For which you replied as, "Can you understand that books or pamphlets or websites published by or affiliated with the management of the Madurai Maqbara religious complex or the Shadhuliyya tariqa do not qualify as neutral, independent sources?".
 * Why they don't qualfy? Please explain?

I don't see any bias with the source. And an article dealing with a religion would be in a religious tone. Read User:BeUnknown's reply below. Please don't come back again with a question,"What do you mean................"

Repeated discussion on the same thing again and agian is of no use. I have a lot to work.--wasifwasif


 * How can material about the Madurai Maqbara published or sponsored by the management of the Madurai Maqbara complex or the Sufi order that these three Sufi saints belong to be called neutral or independent? To be neutral and independent, it has to come from a source that is unaffiliated with the Madurai Maqbara authorities or the Shadhuliyya Sufi order. An article in a reputable academic journals would be one example. Or material from a book about the history of Sufism in India. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the references quoted above is published by the so called "Management of the Madurai Maqbara complex". It might not be widely accesible. But how can one blindly say that it is not neutral since it is not widely published? --Wasifwasif (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, the lack of neutrality of the sources is a totally independent point from the fact that they are not widely available. I have never equated the two, and yet you are claiming that I did.


 * Moreover, I didn't just say "published by". Perhaps you overlooked the phrases "published or sponsored" and "unaffiliated with"?


 * I'll be happy to spell out my concerns for each reference:


 * 1. ^ Qazi Tajuddin Qasidah and History of Madurai Hazrats authored by Moulavi. Hafiz.S.M.Mueenuddeen Ibrahim M.A., Chief Imam Kazimar Big mosque,published by Kaziyar publications,Madurai


 * The Chief Imam of the Kazimar Big mosque in the Madurai Maqbara complex is obviously part of management of the Madurai Maqbara religious complex.


 * 2. ^ Soofiyar Thilagam Shadhuli Nayagam, written by Moulvi.A.Syed Abdus salaam Ibrahim, B.A., Govt.Kazi of Madurai, published by Shadhuliyya tariqa welfare association.


 * This is published by the welfare association of the Sufi order the three Sufi saints belong to.


 * 3. ^ History of Madurai Hazrats Vol(II) pg.33 published by Kaziyar publications authored by Moulavi. Hafiz.S.M.Mueenuddeen Ibrahim M.A., Chief Imam Kazimar Big mosque


 * Once again, authored by the Chief Imam of the Kazimar Big mosque in the Madurai Maqbara complex.


 * 4. ^ http://www.yahussain.info


 * Religious website.


 * 5. ^ Edition 2 of Shajra, written by Syed Ziauddeen sahab published by kazimar periya pallivasal.


 * Since "kazimar periya pallivasal" means Kazimar Big Mosque, this is published by the Madurai Maqbara complex according to your own citation, and yet you have just stated that "None of the references quoted above is published by the so called "Management of the Madurai Maqbara complex"". This kind of unfortunate contradiction tends to raise questions about your credibility, if not your honesty.


 * 6. ^ Failul Majid, Fi Manaaqibish Shaheedh, authored by Haji.Syed Ibrahim, co authored by Haji.Ameer batcha levvai and Syed Ruknuddeen levvai and published by Sarvare Alam publications, Erwadi durgah, Ramanathapuram District


 * 7. ^ Shahul hameedhu nayagam moulid, edition 1, authored by Haji.S.T.M.Imam Hussain Saabu and published by Periya Hajiyar Publications,Nagore dargah, Nagappattinam District


 * These last two references are the only ones which, on the face of it, are not affiliated with the Madurai Maqbara management or the Sufi order. That is why I had originally said about the sources that "virtually all are affiliated in one form or another with the Madurai Maqbaras". However, both publishers seem to be associated with dargahs, and these may well be religious tracts rather than objective sources.


 * More importantly, they fail the criterion explained to you more than one year ago by Rob in Talk:Maqbara:
 * "So, for instance, for a book, you want the ISBN, publisher, author, page, etc... The key, is that it's published widely enough that anybody else could easily find the source, and double check it."


 * Unfortunately, since these two publications are not widely available, no one can verify whether they are religious tracts or objective sources.


 * It is for all these reasons that I have pointed out before that there are huge problems with the sources. --Sarabseth (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Though the Maqbara is inside the capmus of Kazimar Big mosque, the managements are different because this is a mosque managed by a committee and that is a dargah managed by the heirs of the saints. So, the Books published by the Management committee of the mosque authored by the Chief Imam or anyone else associated with the mosque has no connection with the management of the dargah since both are independent bodies.
 * When discussing about a dargah or monument, first try to gather all info about that place and then give your suggestions. That would help to improve the article. If you are ignorant of the facts please ask who knows. If you are unwilling then better stay away from that article, and concentrate on articles on which you have better picture of the facts.Without knowing the fact, Don't assume anything by yourself and make comments on others.

And coming to your comment This kind of unfortunate contradiction tends to raise questions about your credibility, if not your honesty.

Don't assume by yourself that, you are the only wikipedian in the universe who has knowledge about everything and who disagrees with you are all incredible and dishonest. I could see various discussions where your neutrality is questioned. Byut still i don't want to make a mention. Repeatedly i am saying, concentrate on the article alone rather than commenting on co-editors as in credible if not dishonest as you meant above.Wasifwasif (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Though the Maqbara is inside the capmus of Kazimar Big mosque, the managements are different because this is a mosque managed by a committee and that is a dargah managed by the heirs of the saints"


 * When it comes to the issue of neutral, objective sources, that doesn't seem to be a meaningful distinction. Technically, the two managements may be separate.  But the Madurai Maqbara and the Kazimar Big Mosque are inextricably linked, both formally and informally.  The Chief Imam of the Kazimar Big Mosque cannot be said to be an objective, neutral source about the Madurai Maqbara.


 * "Don't assume by yourself that, you are the only wikipedian in the universe who has knowledge about everything and who disagrees with you are all incredible and dishonest."


 * Actually, I don't assume anything of the kind. But this is not the first time you have made statements that turned out to be misleading or just plain untrue.  One example is your statement "The contents are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator".  Another example is your statement "I abide strictly by the well established policies of Wikipedia. I too never add the honorifics like PBUH, LABSWH etc., while doing edits in wikipedia".  When I produced an example from an older version of the article to show that this was flatly untrue, you didn't even respond.  --Sarabseth (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Telling the same thing again and again doesn't make any sense. Where do we draw a line for meaningful distinction?. Where does this went meaningless? Who should decide whether the distinctions are meaningful or meaningless? --Wasifwasif (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I could say "Where do we draw a line for what makes sense and what doesn't make any sense? Who should decide whether what I wrote makes sense or not?", but that would be childish.

Perhaps I have as much right to make these judgements as you do?

As for who ultimately decides what sources are reliable, and what tone in an article is unacceptable, what distinctions are meaningful, and who or what makes sense, one possible answer would be: wikipedia administrators. --Sarabseth (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again a taunt even after repeated advices from various editors. I don't know why people choose to directly crack the co editors rather than discussing the article as pointed out earlier. This will help wikipedia in no way.Wasifwasif (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're a fine one to talk about ignoring repeated advice from various editors. You're the guy who flatly rejected a third party opinion.  And then first you held out Wackojacko as an authority to be cited.  When he agreed with me that there are problems with both the tone and the sources of the article, you disowned him and rejected his opinion.


 * And you persist in seeing taunts where there are none. Paine has already tried to point that out to you before, but once again you reject his opinion too because he isn't saying what you want to hear.


 * What do you consider a taunt, anyway? And what are these "repeated advices from various editors" that you are referring to?  --Sarabseth (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did i reject Paine's and wackojacko's comments? Instead, Many a time i have pointed out "let users like Paine edit this article. Let you and i stay away".
 * And, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madurai_Maqbara#Maqbara_-_A_more_correct_meaning.21 by user Beunknown. You will get an idea as what i was mentioning as  "repeated advices from various editors".  Wasifwasif (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To repeat, what was the taunt you accused me of when you said "Again a taunt even after repeated advices from various editors"?


 * Like I said very clearly in my last comment, this is where you rejected Paine's opinion:
 * "And you persist in seeing taunts where there are none. Paine has already tried to point that out to you before, but once again you reject his opinion too because he isn't saying what you want to hear."


 * He told you very clearly that he didn't find anything in my previous comments that could be said to constitute a personal attack on you.


 * As far as it's possible for anyone to tell from your somewhat evasive responses, you seem to reject Wackojacko's opinion that there are problems with both the tone and the sources of this article.


 * Since my mind-reading skills are somewhat poor, I am unable to figure out what part of Beunknown's long comment you think constitutes "repeated advices from various editors".


 * It's funny how you say cryptic things, and then refuse to explain what they are actually supposed to mean. You have done this both for the "taunt" and for the "repeated advices from various editors". Doesn't exactly demonstrate good faith. This is like a nudge-nudge wink-wink whisper campaign. You keep insinuating things, but refuse to spell them out. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But this is not the first time you have made statements that turned out to be misleading or just plain untrue.

why you always choose the way of taunting users rather than working for the betterment of the articles? And why do you want me every time to copy paste the statements by asking this way? Its you who make comments and if i don't copy paste that, you replies will be in the style of "It's funny how you say cryptic things, and then refuse to explain what they are actually supposed to mean."

I am not sure who makes fun here. Wasifwasif (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "why you always choose the way of taunting users rather than working for the betterment of the articles?"
 * I made a factual statement (only because you said "Don't assume by yourself that, you are the only wikipedian in the universe who has knowledge about everything and who disagrees with you are all incredible and dishonest."), and I backed it up with specific examples. As usual, you don't respond to the substance of what I said, but hide behind complaints that I shouldn't say it.


 * (And, incidentally, your statement that I asked you to back up, "Again a taunt even after repeated advices from various editors.", was made in response to my next comment, not the one you are now citing.)


 * I will note for the record that you have still not even attempted to substantiate your insinuation that I ignored "repeated advices from various editors"


 * I have finally reached the point where I'm not willing to waste any more time trying to get you to actually respond to the substance of the issues I have raised, so that the problems with the article could be addressed.


 * If you choose to respond to this or any previous comment, I will not be responding any more. But I will take the necessary steps to address the huge problems with the tone and the sources of this article, especially in light of the fact that there simply do not seem to be any reliable, neutral sources that can be produced. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what i was expecting. You go ahead. I will go in my way. Wasifwasif (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Qazi, Qadi, Imam, etc
This refers to the edits by Wasifwasif early on the morning of 11 February, and the associated edit summaries.

You say: "Syed is name, and not honorific". In fact, although Syed can be part of someone's given name, in the context of the Genealogy, Syed is not part of the given name of the people listed, but a title to denote they are descendants of Mohammed.

To justify using "Imam Moosa Kazem" for Moosa Kazem, you point to the wikilink Imam Moosa Kazem and say "if you intend to delte this saying honorific, Delete those pages first and then delete this." What you ignore is the fact that Imam Moosa Kazem redirects to Musa al-Kadhim, and his name is given there as Mūsá ibn Ja‘far al-Kāżim / al-Kādhim. The text says he "was the seventh of the Twelve Imams", but the title Imam is not used as part of his name.

Similarly, Imam Ali redirects to Ali and his name is given there as Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

You say "Qazi, Khalifa are all designations. no honorifics" and "Qadi, Islamic jury is a designation and not honorific as you wrongly deleted". My edit summaries had said I was removing titles and honorifics. For some reason, you have totally ignored the word titles. Qazi, Khalifa and Qadi are titles. So is Imam. That's why they need to be removed.

You need to understand that there are well-established Wikipedia policies for these things, and I am just following the policies. For you to reverse these edits and restore titles is pointless, and unconstructive. --Sarabseth (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I abide strictly by the well established policies of Wikipedia. I too never add the honorifics like PBUH, LABSWH etc., while doing edits in wikipedia. But Syed, Qadi, Imam all are designations i feel. If you can prove that its purely honorific like PBUH, I will surely remove. make changes once the discussion is over -wasifwasif


 * Can you please understand the difference between honorific and title? As I have clearly indicated already, the issue is not only honorifics but titles also.  Why do you keep ignoring that and talking only about honorifics?


 * To make it perfectly clear once again, it is not only honorifics that violate Wikipedia policies, but titles too.


 * What you are calling "designations" is what Wikipedia calls titles. If you click on Muhammad, Imam Ali, Imam Hussain, Imam Zain-ul-Abideen, Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq or Imam Moosa Kazem, in every case you will see that neither the title of the article nor the name of the person includes titles like Imam or Rasulullah.  --Sarabseth (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I could see many places in the linked articles with the title Imam. Also, In the first few places in the genealogy, i have just linked the titles. I am not writing anything. SO it would not be fair for you to delete, since it contains a title. However its a page available in wikipedia. If those pages gets deleted, i shall remove the titles. -- Wasifwasif


 * Since you said "I abide strictly by the well established policies of Wikipedia. I too never add the honorifics like PBUH, LABSWH etc., while doing edits in wikipedia", I would like to remind you that these were section headings in the article as of 15:00, 5 February 2010:

Al waliyyul kaamil Kaziyul Khullat Khalifatush Shadhili sheikhuna seyyidi Meer Ahmadh Ibrahim Raziyallah Ta'la anhu (Periya Hazrat)

Al waliyyul Kaamil Khalifatush Shadhili Saahibul Karaamaat Seyyidi Meer Amjad Ibrahim Radiyallah Taala Anhu (Chinna Hazrat)

Al Arifbillah Qutbuz zaman Seyyidi Syed Abdus Salaam Ibrahim Raziyallahu Ta'aala Anhu (Saalim Hazrat)


 * And this was the version of Genealogy as of [07:46, 6 February 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madurai_Maqbara&oldid=342255851]:


 * Hazrat Muhammad mustafa Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam
 * Hazrat Imam 'Ali (Karramallah wajhahu) and Sayyida Hazrat fatimah (Razi...)
 * Hazrat Imam Husain Razi..
 * Hazrat Imam Zaynul Aabideen Razi..
 * Hazrat Imam Muhammad Baqir Razi..
 * Hazrat Imam Jafar Sadiq Razi..
 * Hazrat Imam Moosa Kazem Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Muhammad Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Moosa Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Hussain Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Ali Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Thabit Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Ali Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Uthman Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Shamsuddin Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Muhammad Shamsuddin Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Nooruddin Razi..
 * Hazrat Syed Jamaluddin Mufti Al ma'abari Razi..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Tajuddin Razi.. (Father of all Syeds in Kazimar street, Madurai)
 * Hazrat Syed Jamaluddin Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Alauddin I Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Fakhruddin Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Muhammad Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Alauddin II Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Makhdoom Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Tajuddin Thaani (II Kazi Tajuddin) Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Hussain Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Uthman Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Abdul Qadir Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Baba Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Syed Uthman Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Fakhruddin Rah..
 * Hazrat Meer Niamatullah Rah..
 * Hazrat Qadi Meer Ahamad Ibrahim Ash Shadhili Periya Hazrat Rah.. and his brother Hazrat Meer Amjad Ibrahim Ash Shadhili Chinna Hazrat Rah..
 * Hazrat Syed Abdus Salaam Ibrahim Ash Shadhili Saalim Hazrat Rah.. (Chinna Hazrat's son)


 * Every single name on the list is followed by a complete or abbreviated honorific. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maqbara - A more correct meaning!
The Arabic word "Maqbara", which means mausoleum, is derived from the word "qabr", which means grave.

This definition comes from someone who either took a translation from someone who was attempting to convey to a Western audience a general meaning of the word that they could relate to, or someone who does not have the least bit of understanding about where these holy masters rest and the significance in visiting their "home". (This statement has been taken as an attack, it is not intended as such only atttempting to point out that without an understanding of the Arabic language or an authorized source, mistakes are easily made, even amongst people who are native Arabic speakers).

Sufism is not an intellectual subject open for mind production discussions, it is a subject pertaining to the heart, not the mind. To understand the meanings of these words one must know and to know means someone must have seen – experienced the truth. The only way to see is with the senses of the heart, not the physical being. If you physically can not see, smell, taste, touch or speak how are you a witness to the world around you.

I really wish people would have a little more humility when addressing these matters and leave them to people who have the spent the required time in developing the heart senses which authorizes them to speak on Sufism. Sufism is a matter for people who have activated the senses of their heart, everyone else speaking on the subject is engaging in the same kind of conjecture a blind man from birth has when asked about what an elephant looks like. A man who never even touched an let alone seen an elephant is informing others what an elephant looks like. Again, this not intended as an attack. I am sure the editors intentions were good. But it does need to be mentioned and understood.

Amongst most western people a grave is a tomb is hole six feet under. All places where dead people are buried. Not so with a Maqbara or more correctly a Maqam which is best translated as "Residence". Even Maqam is not definmed well and has been highjacked by the music biz. It can be translated as station, but carries a much higher meaning. There are heavenly Maqams that corespond to earthly Maqams. A big subject.

Sufi's flock to these holy sites to visit the saint living in that Maqam either because they believe what they have been told, were ordered by a Sheikh or actually know. Khalwas, or seclusions, still performed today, are normally spent in a Maqam in the presence of a Saint who has full awareness of the presence of the seeker. If an opening comes, the seeker will become acutely aware of the Saint.

You go to a Maqam to visit and pay respects to a Saint. There is no need to go visit someone who is dead. You can make your prayers and remember the person anywhere. So a Maqam is different from a common grave with a common person - it is a residence, a power station where the focal point of the saint’s blessings is strongest. The respect paid by visiting the Maqam comes with much reward – no matter what path you follow. In reality, you must have had an invitation to enter. An invitation from the Saint to enter his/her home. This is why you will find, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and others converging on Maqams. Many Maqams have reputations for healing and spiritual advancement. Saints are not exclusive to one religious group. They transcend man’s foolish ideas about religion.

So next time you go to a Maqam, if you ever go to a Maqam, enter with full respect and know that you are a guest of that Saint. Be still, listen to your heart, and see if a message comes. This is not easy; many Sufi’s try their entire lives and only reach seconds before they pass from this world.

It is good to see interest in topics on Sufism, but the subject is for those who know, not those who think they know. Humility is the only path to real knowledge.

Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeUnknown (talk • contribs) 06:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What a fine example of humility! I imagine it is going to come as a very rude shock to Wasifwasif that:


 * 1) he does not have the least bit of understanding about where these holy masters rest and the significance in visiting their "home"


 * 2) he needs to have a little more humility when addressing these matters and leave them to people who have the senses to speak


 * Dear Wasifwasif, this is what a personal attack looks like. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sarabseth, perhaps these constructive comments were directed at you more than anyone else. Do you even follow a Sufi path or have any real "book" knowledge on this subject. Instead of being so defensive, why not reflect on what is being said and try not to be so heavy handed with your contributions – contributions that seem more confrontational than conciliatory or constructive. It would appear to me, and I imagine others, your goal is not the pursuit of truth rather the pursuit of becoming an administrator and elevating your own opinion about yourself. If you feel these observations are arrogant, so be it. Your only counters to these assertions are that you and everyone else who wishes to speak have a RIGHT to speak on Wikipedia. It’s called reason and self restraint dear - as well as a consideration for other peoples work and time and yes, real experience. Instead you attempt to deflsect the spotlight away from you and create conflict with someone else. You should be advising the White House, not wasting your time here.

If you do not wish to reflect and grow, then we are stuck with your disruptive behavior and God willing you will find us patient.

BeUnknown (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Once again a hilarious comment, especially in terms of the insight it affords into your personality and character, but I am in no way responsible for the content that you criticized so roundly. I have nothing at all to do with that content.  As usual (other readers, please see Talk:Sufism for context), you jump in half cocked, without any idea of the facts, so much so that you don't even know who you are even attacking.


 * I don't know how you come up with the random things you spout, but I have not the least interest in becoming an administrator. You're just cooking up stuff totally out of the blue.  You are seriously delusional, in addition to being arrogant beyond all belief.


 * It seems from your comment that you had somehow managed to convince yourself that I was responsible for the content you criticized, and you thought you were attacking me. In fact, the creator of this article, and the person responsible for putting it together in what appears to be a real labor of love, is poor Wasifwasif.  I didn't deflect anything.  The barbs you thought you were aiming at me are in fact actually aimed at him.  I'm not the one creating conflict with someone else; you're the one who has no idea who he's actually attacking.


 * In the short time you have been active on Wikipedia, you have managed to establish a consistent record of jumping in half-cocked, and getting your facts hopelessly and hilariously wrong.


 * First, you added the Spiritual Circle link to Sufism without having any idea what it really represented. (Talk:Sufism, your comment of 19:58, 8 February 2010)


 * Then, you declared that "Sufi Films has a film called Spiritual Circles”, when it’s just a proposed project, not a completed film. (Talk:Sufism, your comment of 21.57, 8 February 2010, and mine of 00:35, 9 February 2010)


 * Then, you decided that “Sufi Films” is a non-profit organization, without any factual basis whatsoever. (Talk:Sufism, your comment of 22:00, 8 February 2010, and mine of 00:27, 9 February 2010)


 * Then, you accused me of having “modified these talk pages” and removing statements I had made earlier, which is absolutely untrue. (Talk:Sufism, your comment of 07:50, 15 February 2010, and mine of 12:29, 15 February 2010)


 * Then, you claimed to have reported me to an administrator (Talk:Sufism, your comment of 20:02, 15 February 2010). Actually, the person you reported me to is not an administrator at all (see User_talk:Madhero88 and the outcome of the nomination at Requests_for_adminship/Madhero88).


 * Now you come in here to attack me and end up attacking Wasifwasif instead. (By the way, there is a term on Wikipedia for the behavior you are exhibiting: “stalking”.  Administrators take a very dim view of such behavior if it is reported to them.  You might want to cease and desist before I lose my patience and file a report.)


 * That adds up to 6 separate howlers in just 12 days. Haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough yet?  --Sarabseth (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Let the admin do their job. I see you have been warned about these sorts of attacks before. This is what happenes when you wipe out someones contribution with no consideration and present idiotic arguments that Sufi FIlms is not Sufi. How does an rational busy person respond to such behavior? You are proving to be a real test. BeUnknown (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The " real test " of editors of Wikipedia is whether or not they can produce encyclopedic articles without becoming embroiled in heated controversy. The real test is if an editor can stick to the topic and stay away from judging the actions of other editors.  If you have something to contribute that might improve this article, then by all means, let's see it.  Other than that it might be best if we can leave our "let's judge other editors" hats off when we discuss the topic of Madurai Maqbara!  Can we possibly discuss this topic only?  Can we please begin to assume good faith on each other's part?  Please?  Pretty please?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I challenge you to back up your statement "I see you have been warned about these sorts of attacks before." I have never received any warnings from any administrators for anything.


 * Please also note that it is not considered kosher on wikipedia talk pages to go back and substantively revise an earlier statement, especially after someone has commented on it. The accepted procedure is to make any new contributions at the bottom, after the last existing contribution on the thread.  If you wish to revise or re-state any past statement, that's the proper way to do it. --Sarabseth (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to waste time by arguing about the words of sarabseth. Users going through this page will get a clear picture of how User: sarabseth has behaved in this open arena. I would request user Sarbseth to stay away of this article, and i will also Unwatch and will not make any edits if he accepts. I hope if this works out, the article will be more encylopedic.

---wasifwasif (talk)

Honorifics
Copying here a discussion initiated by Wasifwasif on my Talk page:

Hi,

Already we have discussed! a lot regarding this and my intention is not to repeat this. Before you delete the honorific honorific kindly go through the following.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Vivekananda#Moving_to_original_page_.27Vivekananda.27
 * Swami Vivekananda, Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, Saint Matthew etc., cross check with any of the wikipedia administrators and then come to a conclusion and remove the honorifics in those pages. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have said this to you before: discussions relating to the editing of Madurai Maqbara should be carried out on Talk:Madurai Maqbara and not here.


 * From the Manual of Style:
 * Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).


 * Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.


 * That's the explanation for all the four examples you cited. These people are universally known by those names. Not so the Sufi saints that Madurai Maqbara focuses on.  For them, "Hazrat" is just a term of veneration used by devotees, and Wikipedia policy is to maintain a neutral POV by avoiding terms of veneration.


 * And I'm not sure what justification you are even offering for "Rali"


 * Once again, I will copy your comment and my response to Talk:Madurai Maqbara. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

then why Prophet Muhammad is just Muhammad. Is He not known universally known? Wasifwasif (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madurai Maqbara. 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/20090925122149/http://www.yahussain.info/ to http://www.yahussain.info/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925122149/http://www.yahussain.info/ to http://www.yahussain.info/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)