Talk:Qamaruzzaman Azmi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Clean up needed[edit]

This article suffers from a number of issues:

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs)

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.[edit]

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:

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: 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, 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 (talkcontribs)

The latest edition available, 2012, includes Azmi but does not mention Georgetown U as publisher. This edition is now linked in the article. The 2009 edition was linked in the article before it was updated; if Georgetown University was listed as publisher of the 2009 edition, the article was not incorrect when written, which indeed invalidates much of what I said; the article was out of date, but not incorrect as such. Pol098 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

First round of trimming - removal of copy paste and fansite citation[edit]

A great deal of the material in this article has been copy pasted, word for word, from the About page on the subject's official fansite. This is a violation of both Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Copy-paste, hence I will be removing any and all material cited with this. There is no denying that the subject is highly notable and visible within Britain's Muslim community; it can serve well as an external link per Wikipedia:External links but actual sources for material should be reliably secondary sources. I await community response. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This page was created once before and then speedily deleted[edit]

According to this redlink, an article for the subject was created previously and then speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Spam. Personally I think the subject is notable but I thought it should be mentioned here that an article on the subject was speedily deleted at 08:14, 28 March 2011 and then created again at 21:29, 14 April 2011. Both articles were created by Drshabbir.khan, as the speedy deletion notice on that user's talk page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of institutions builts or supported section[edit]

The entire section seems to be a major fail of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Upon inspection of the sited sources, the majority of them are simply links to the main pages of these various institutions; they are essentially meaningless and not really citations at all by the standard of Wikipedia:Citing sources. Furthermore, while it is common knowledge among the Muslim community that the sheikh has participated in the establishment of these institutions, there needs to be mainstream coverage to assert the notability of his contribution to each per Wikipedia:Notability. If we simply link to mosque websites, then a strong argument could be made that even half the Muslim editors on Wikipedia who live in Western nations are notable per some sort of involvement in establishment of mosques, many of which in the UK and US are only a decade old or so. Some of the supposed citations are even links to photographs. I mean, come on. We can write better article material than this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Improper citations[edit]

A number of the claims within the article are sourced via the home pages for different organizations - the Royal Stretegic Islamic Studies Centre and World Islamic Mission, for example. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, as the source does not verify the text. If the information provided is true - and I know that most of it is - then it can be added when the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources have been met. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of excessive and seemingly random images[edit]

It should be very clear that by viewing the version of the article as it stood as of yesterday that the aesthetic quality is quite poor due to the excessive images. There are so many images that even spreading them across both sides of the article simply will not work. This is in contradiction to WP:NOTREPOSITORY, as Wikipedia is not an image repository; there's no reason for that many images being placed in the article.
Furthermore, we're also looking at a violation of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE; all the images in question are of buildings, not the person who is the subject of the article. Now, articles on non-Christian houses of worship are lacking on English Wikipedia. If someone really likes these images and would like to search for sources to see if these mosques pass WP:GNG, I am willing to help facilitate that; the images could then be used there. But they really aren't relevant here as they don't help the reader understand the subject via visual media. The subject is a man, not a building. I don't expect there to be any opposition to removal of the images. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced portions[edit]

Both the "Migration to UK" and "His mentees and students" sections are unsourced. There is also an unsourced sentence in the lead. This material has sat unsourced for long enough, and I will now remove it per WP:UNSOURCED. Once we get closer to completion of the cleanup, I plan on starting a more thorough search for actual reliable sources with which to build this article. Hopefully, that plan will be undertaken soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality when using the first given source[edit]

It's clear that the first given source, a TOI article by Mohammed Wajihuddin, isn't neutral - his statement, for example, that "There are two kinds of Sunni Muslims in the world: those who have met or heard Allama Qamruzzaman Khan Azmi and those who haven’t" is telling. Regardless, that's still ok - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies to editors, not sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources applies to sources and TOI is a reliable source - what is left is simply to write neutral material for this article. Relevant policies here would be WP:INTEXT and WP:SUBSTANTIATE.
We are also faced with the author's term "Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah," a highly POV-charged term the Barelvi movement likes to use for itself; this is apparent by the authors' reference to the latter as one sect within Sunni Islam and Wahhabism is a second sect within Sunni Islam. In traditional Sunni Islam, Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah is simply the long form of the name while Sunni is a short, almost slang term for the same thing; only Barelvis designate their own movement as the longer term at the exclusion of others and literally every single Muslim movement on the planet other than them opposes them in this and finds their claim offensive and exclusive. Hence, not only is attribution required, but qualification of the intended term is also needed - not in regard to Sheikh Azmi himself but to attempted exclusiveness of a disputed term. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I am confused by this mass reversion of the past month's work on this article. Firstly, of course,'s a mass reversion of a month's worth of work. Secondly, the edit summary just doesn't seem clear - "Latest edits do not provide reference to "Barelvi" link to source." I provided another reference to the Barelvi link in the source and more can be brought from the actual Barelvi article if that is indeed the problem, but the language doesn't make the exact intent clear. It would really be better to discuss matters here first before performing mass reverts, but when I've already been posting long explanations of my edits here, thus making it easy for other editors to respond and a brand new account instead performs a mass revert without any response to my policy-based comments here at all...well, it's wildly inappropriate to say the least. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I've asked the user who made the edit to discuss the matter, because I think the edit summary was a mistake. Or a "mistake". The response will determine the matter. Perhaps the user meant to revert only your last edit (which did seem, to me, to have added a new source), and rolled-back by mistake. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I see that the reference to what the movement actually is removed with no discussion here. The reasoning was provided above and a terse edit summary isn't sufficient to explain what exactly is wrong. The reasoning is very clear: the Barelvi movement's usage of the term "Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah" is highly contentious, as explained here on talk. If User:Burntsword would just respond here on talk there would be no need to revert his edits as unconstructive but unfortunately in the absence of any sort of dialogue, I don't see any other option. If this continues, WP:DR may have to be sought. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
@User:Burntsword, you really need to check out Wikipedia:Edit warring. You have accused both myself and Qwyrxian of edit warring and this shows that you haven't fully understood what edit warring means, or you're simply haven't read the policy yet. I know you're new here but you must understand that your behavior is disruptive. You've already been reverted several times now and you have been asked both here and on your own user talk page to come discuss the issue before reverting. You may very well have a good point to make, but that won't be expressed in a simple edit summary. Please discuss the clearly disputed edits before reverting again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)