Talk:Qamaruzzaman Azmi

Clean up needed

This article suffers from a number of issues:

• It is not written from a neutral point of view,
• many of its statements are not supported by citations from reliable sources, and
• it is not written according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

I have started to remove some of the POV statements, clean up the formatting, and indicate where citations are needed, and will continue to do so as time permits. Statements that are not supported by citations from reliable sources may be removed at any time. Ground Zero | t 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting issues

• Per WP:BOLDFACE, boldfacing is not to be used to give emphasis. Boldafcing is to be used only sparingly as identified in WP:BOLDFACE. I have removed it again, and will revert future edits that restore it. Ground Zero | t 14:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have removed repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK. Ground Zero | t 00:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most poorly-written article I've seen in a very long time

It's quite difficult to describe just how bad this article is. It's incredibly long, yet consists almost entirely of links to organizations directly connected with the subject gushing about how great the subject is. It's a lot of material to be removed and may seem suspect, but I can assure concerned editors that upon review, they will find that what I am removing is, for lack of a better term, absolute rubbish. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits as of May 2013

Recently, I have put a lot of work into removing inappropriate material, peacock words, unreliable sources and excessive images bloating this article. Initially, I was accused of "vandalism" without further explanation, though most recently (today) all my edits were reverted in one sweep without further explanation. I would like to open the floor for discussion on what exactly is wrong with the removal of unsourced or inappropriately sourced content (I'm sure "vandalism" was only used in the heat of the moment). Wikipedia:Edit warring is also a good policy to keep in mind in such situations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo has not provided as claimed "a large number of policy compliant reasons for removing much of that material". He has used words like "crap", "rubbish" etc etc to justify his edits. This is simple vandalism and forbidden per WP:NPA. There is nothing wrong with "removing inappropriate material, peacock words, unreliable sources" as long as reliable/verifiable sources and justifications are given. But for MezzoMezzo to simply say this is "crap" or this is "rubbish" are not robust justifications. Please see MezzoMezzo's history of editing. He makes biased, sweeping statements and takes an authoritarian approach to editing. Anyone else's editing becomes unacceptable to him. This article has a long history and has been edited by numerous colleagues in the past. All contributions have been valuable and welcomed in strengthening the article. But MezzoMezzo has been simply deleting large chunks by calling the whole content "crap", "rubbish" and not providing any other reason. I invite everyone to please look at his histroy of editing this article and the justifications put forward by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drshabbir.khan (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My topic is not so much recent edits, more the article as it's been for a long time: an article on a person should have factual information, whether favourable or unfavourable, supported by material published by sources not affiliated with or universally in favour of the subject. The material, in addition to being sourced, should be both notable and relevant. This article has been written like the authorised "biography" of the "leader" of a dictatorship, packed with fulsome praise, no criticism whatsoever, and huge swathes of contentless text ("XXX says he is famous and a great leader renowned throughout the world, and it is always a pleasure to listen to him"). As an example of excessive detail, this article about a person had picture after picture of buildings its subject was said to have "built/supported" (lazily, this wording was used on all pictures; does it mean both, or either?). An article should not assert that its subject is prestigious, or learned, or heroic, or famous; nor should it quote people saying these things. Rather, it should state facts and let readers form their own conclusions. I repeat, keep text both notable and relevant. There will be those who disagree with the person who is the subject of the article; their views need as much prominence as those in favour. Rather than reinstating masses of text to which there are objections, small additions would be better so each can be considered. Pol098 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A recent edit deleted, without comment, the tag {{cleanup-bare URLs|date=March 2013}}. Tags shouldn't be deleted without justification; the tag is in fact correct. Pol098 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

__________________

I agree with Pol098. Edits need to be paragraph by paragraph and not deletion of whole article without robust justification. For example, in deleting the whole article MezzoMezzo adds that the subject is a scholar from the Barelvi movement. What verifiable source has been used for this? The original reference to the subject being a scholar from Ahle Sunnah is from the Times of India. My worry is that editors delete chunks of article without providing robust justification and add things without providing verifiable references. This is vandalism of the article.

Two or three heads are better than one. So let's work on this article but paragraph by paragraph providing robut justification for deleting materials and verifiable sources when adding things. Thank you. EcoMaster 00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. My name is Qwyrxian, and I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia. Mezzo Mezzo asked me to take a look at this article and the editing on it a few days ago. I've advised him to proceed more slowly here; what I suggested is that he make changes to just one section, explain why he made the changes here on talk, and then see if there is any discussion. Assuming that proceeds smoothly, he would then move on to the next section.

Having said that, I want to respond to some of the concerns above. First of all, everyone must stop using the word vandalism for good faith edits. The next person who does so is going to be blocked. It's a blatant personal attack, and simply not allowed as it makes it impossible to edit collaboratively. You may disagree with MM's removals, but that does not make the removals vandalism. Vandalism means adding something like "Azmi is my boyfriend! LOLOLOL!"

Second, someone talked above about MM's editing across Wikipedia. In fact, not only I, but also many other editors, consider MezzoMezzo to be one of the best editors working on Islamic topics. He's not perfect (for example, my suggestion that the work here be done in slower chunks than at a single stroke), but he's quite good at transforming problematic articles. Many articles in this field are like this one: filled with non-neutral information, either unsourced or "supported" by sources that don't even come close to meeting our reliable sources guideline. I haven't looked in detail at the text or sources here (and I won't, as I want to remain an "admin" on this page, not an "editor"), but a quick glance shows that this article needs a lot of work, and the end result will almost certianly look more like MM's version than the current one. How exactly that will work out will be a matter of discussion and collaboration, but any "final" decisions must be compatible with our policies and guidelines. So lets get ready to work together; I'm expecting that in the next few days MM will make a major edit to a single section, and provide an explanation here. If you disagree, please do so, but keep the discussion civil and focused on our policies and guidelines. If you can't agree amongst yourselves, we have a whole bunch of dispute resolution procedures you can follow to get the help of uninvolved editors, which I would be glad to advise on. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you've given advice to MezzoMezzo. I'm not so sure about your point about blocking people - this goes against both the spirit and rule of Wikipedia. Editors are not Gods, nor have final authority or are the only experts in the world. Otherwise, you'll end of blocking until there are no contributors left! I fully appreciate your close working links to MM but Wikipedia is not "an old boys" network. It is thousands of contributors that volunteer their time with sincerety and integrity. I'm, therefore, a little concerned about your absolute endorsement of MM - what criteria do you use to give such "honorific title" to be one of the best editors. Where's the verifiable reference/source? Do you take into account their expertise (if so in what field as Islam is a huge topic area); do you consider their impartiality, their ability to provide alternative sources/references to justify their edits? I could go on but I do sincerely hope you appreciate my point. But if this is how you'd like things to happen then perhaps we should widen and elevate this debate because there is something fundamentally wrong here! EcoMaster 11:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecomaster (talk • contribs)

In my experience, MezzoMezzo goes to articles that are full of unsourced or poorly sourced material, much of which is often non-neutral. He then goes in and removes all of the bad material, leaving an article which actually meets our policies. Many editors don't like that, because they want to keep things that they "know" are true, even if they can't source them. They also want to praise article subjects, because they believe they are good/important/whatever. MezzoMezzo has had to deal with a lot of personal attacks, coordinated bad faith editing, and generally poor behavior in his attempts to get articles in this field to conform to policy. As to whether or not he is an expert, you're actually asking an irrelevant question. Wikipedia invites the involvement of experts, but no one is required to be one, and experts are not exempt from our rules on sourcing, neutrality, etc. Someone can't come here and say, "I know what should be in the article because I'm an expert in this field." Expert or not, editors must say, "This should be in the article because it is verified by a reliable source and of due weight." In any event, none of this is really important. The important thing is to start working step by step through this article, to significantly improve it's quality because, right now, it's really not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything needs checking.

Everything in this article, even if apparently sourced and apparently encyclopaedic, needs checking. There was a statement and source in the first paragraph that didn't get looked at in recent disputes, perhaps because it seemed to be from an impeccable source. On closer examination, the statement sourced from a document said to be from impartial and prestigious US Georgetown University turns out to be published by a Jordanian Islamic center, with the rider that it doesn't necessarily express their views. The text could still possibly be encyclopaedic and the source reliable, but this needs checking and discussion, it certainly is not what it purported to be. Again in the first paragraph, views attributed in the article to its subject were stated by other people at a conference he attended according to the source cited, but the source does not verify that those opinions were his (it seems likely that they were, but this is not supported by the source cited).Pol098 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

_______________

I agree but an editor should also have knowledge of the subject. For example, the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre is a research centre of Georgtown University which publishes the 500 List every year in December. Please see: http://themuslim500.com/profile/h-e-hazrat-allama-maulana-qamaruzzaman-azmi

Please also google Georgetown University and visit the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre directly from their website. EcoMaster 00:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

On the particular point of Georgetown University: an editor needs knowledge of the subject to write an article, but the point of Wikipedia is that everything is sourced, not on the authority of the editor. The Web site cited doesn't have any obvious mention of Georgetown University; the Georgetown University site doesn't have anything immediately obvious; the site of the Centre itself says "The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre is an independent research entity affiliated with the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought is an international Islamic non-governmental, independent institute headquartered in Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan." If this document is really associated with Georgetown University, the association must be made clear in the article in a way which a reader can verify (either in the article text, or in text in the footnote citing the source). Possibly the connection will require too much detail to include in the introduction, in which case details in the body can support a brief reference in the introduction. Note that I'm not trying to dispute anything here (as said, I do not know the underlying facts, and have never claimed to), but the article must cite sources that can be verified, it must not rely upon the reader trusting the writer. Similarly, I'm inclined to believe that, as the article says, Azmi supports women and is against terrorism, but neither the writer's knowledge nor my opinion are relevant: the facts must be documented (unsourced material should be deleted, the "citation needed" is a temporary warning measure). I've gone on at some length because careful consideration of this point, and getting it right, will help to establish the way to write an article. Pol098 (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The link: http://www.yale.edu/worldfellows/fellows/documents/500MostInfluentialMuslims.pdf shows that publisher of the Muslim 500 is The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Georgetown University, cmcu.georgetown.edu. Academic references require the mention of the publishing organisation which overall is not the Centre but Georgetown University. EcoMaster 11:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecomaster (talk • contribs)