Talk:Shamsur Rahman Faruqi

Nishan-e-Pakistan
Hasn't he also received the Nishan-e-Pakistan? --iFaqeer (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The "citation needed" tag on almost every bit of information in this article seems rather maliciously motivated and is, to say the least, stupid. If citations were demanded for every (and even the most non-controversial) statement (as here), it would be impossible to write an article for Wikipedia. It would be something like this: "T.S.Eliot, a well-known poet (citation needed) and critic (citation needed)...." This is not an attempt to edit the present article but to point out to the people responsible for the credibility of Wikipedia to make independent enquiries of their own in order to prevent such frivolous display of personal rivalry and jealousy. [Probably I need not create a fresh account as I already have one: last year I added bits of information to the articles on the 16th century thinker and magician Agrippa (his presence in Nashe's Unfortunate Traveller) and on Ben Jonson (about the "neck verse" and how he escaped hanging). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.199.9 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear sir or ma’am, I hope you are well. Actually, the statement that this particular poet “is an eminent Urdu critic, poet and theorist” contains a value; that is, a claim of comparative worth. It might of course be true, but given that most people are not sufficient versed (no pun intended) in Urdu poetic and literary theory to be able to judge the accuracy of this statement, a citation to a reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party source would strengthen the trustworthiness of this point considerably. Likewise, it may or may not be true that this poet is “regarded as the founder of the new movement in Urdu poetry”, especially given that other commentators give this honor to various different poets. So a reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party source would also strengthen the usefulness and dependability of the unattributed claim. The claim that he is an “expert in classical prosody and … poetic discourse” and that he has “a profundity rarely seen” is likewise a value-based opinion (Whose? We don’t know.) that might, or might not, be just an exaggerated claim that has little basis in fact. On the other hand, if a reliable source from, say, a scholar of Urdu literature were to make a statement somewhere saying much the same thing, we could place a greater weight of trust upon it. It goes without saying that this applies to the claim that the poet has a “refreshingly eclectic approach and a variety of insightful critical tools”. For example, do you agree that his approach is eclectic? I don’t know if it is or not, just as I don’t know if he is as insightful as the unknown Wikipedia author has written. If it could be substantiated by someone more knowledgeable than me, in a reliable third-party source, I’d certainly trust the statement a lot more.


 * Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE.


 * I hope this helps. Thanks for your observations. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Eminent" is only "noteworthy". Why grudge him that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.205.7 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the point of too many tags of "citation needed".


 * There should not be any problem, I am going to add reliable sources, later I will cite those and improve and expand the article. We must remember that we can not violate the policies. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)