Talk:Dawat-e-Islami

i can see that this topic has seem to cause quite a bit of controversy, i have done alot of research over the last couple of weeks and found that dawat e islami wouldnt really need advertising as they have spread across 63 countries so far without wikipidea. from the research i have done i felt that dawat e islami is a very peaceful movement. I will hopefully edit this article over the next couple of weeks, and you will be able to see for yourselves the amount of work dawat e islami has done. not only have they spread knowledge and educated people they have also done great amounts of charity work in earthquake struck areas. once i have finished editing this article i hope everyones views will become positive, and i hope that all will learn something from it. thank you for reading my comment masalaama take care. servantofallah786 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.252.74 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why Wikipedia is serving as a mouthpiece of a certain organisation.I live in a muslim dominated area and myself have been a practising Muslim but Iam sorry to say that I have never heard of this organisation. The point of view expressed in the article is biased.

---

I differ from the opinion what MezzoMezzo said, the article may not suite him, but i think that it is perfectly OK for an encyclopedia. I agree that it may seem as an advertisement but it has most comprehensive description and introduction of Dawateislami.

Muhammad Asad Attari

According to latest news (dec. 2006) Dawateislami now has orgnizational structure in 55 countries around the world. Its last annual meeting (in year 2006)in multan had the gathering of about 1 million according to The news (pakistani newspaper) website. The rapid expansion of this relegious group is really amazing.

Laique Ahmed from Kuwait

While I respect your opinion, I would highly recommend you review the official policy about using articles to advertise, as the article looks as though it was almost lifted directly out of a Da'wat-e-Islami advertising pamphlet. In addition - and this is my main concern - the article is a poorly formatted mess with little to no structure and is overly long. In the case of this article Wikipedia's Manual of Style is absolutely essential, as this article needs a tune-up badly whether the current version is acceptable or not. MezzoMezzo 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just checked some of the external links, and much of this article appears to be copied and pasted directly from some of the Da'wat-e-Islami official sites. This is one of them, and in addition I was actually correct about my passing remakr about advertising pamphlet; here is an image of one. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a copyright violation but in the near future we need to go through other official material from the group as the rest of the article reads like an advertisement and considering my suspicions were correct about the portions we can find in the above links, it's not a stretch to say that the rest of the article could be directly copy-pasted as well. MezzoMezzo 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

Man, this article isn't anywhere close to objective. On top of that, it's overly long, contains dtails not necesarily relevant or appropriat to an encyclopedia, and is horribly formatted. Normally I would try to help myself but given the poor nature of this article, it's quite a daunting task and will most likely need to be a community effort. I'm going to tag it for now, for anyone else reading this, please see what you can do to fix it. MezzoMezzo 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No Objectivity

We don't Create Pages for Wahabis . If it Suits WIKI policy then it is Ok Msoamu 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who "We" is, nor am I sure whom you are calling a "Wahhabi". Be very careful and please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Also, just because one editor happens to like an article as is doesn't justify removing cleanup and/or dispute tags if the content is indeed disputed. MezzoMezzo 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Informative Article

This article provides sound information about a good organizatonal work carried out in many countries across the world. This organization is also active in my country and i have found many people inhibiting better way of life after coming in contact with this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhm61192 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is written as a blatant advertisement for an organization. It is a candidate for removal via the db-spam tag. Please do not revert candidature for deletion unless you have good reason to and clean up the article appropriately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.104.226 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertisement

Please do not revert tags until discussion or clean up happens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheniandemocracy (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As the reviewing admin, I have removed the speedy tag. The article is still unbalanced, but it is not incapable of improvement, so the tag is not appropriate. The bulk of the public-relations style talk has now been removed, and what is needed in the article is some sourced criticism. Good work so far. DGG (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Petty vandalism

As of late, an anonymous user has been inserting grammatically incorrect sentences into the Critics section. You have been warned on your talk page repeatedly. I am asking you here to stop as well. Please review the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whist another has been removing the section completely and threatening us. I've semiprotected the article for a week to give the regular wikipedians a chance to write the section correctly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving this Article

Hi, it is clear that this article is way below par in terms of quality and some of the claims being made (the critics section appears to be little more than legitimised vandalism whearas some of the other claims are clearly unencylopedic fawning), and needs a real clean up. I would be prepared to undertake a large part of this work but would appreciate some feedback on the following points:

- when information is known to be common knowledge within a particular field (sub-continental Sunni Muslims in this case), or when the information on a matter will largely be in foreign languages (mainly Urdu in this case), how does one cite sources?

- the critics section appears to be a personal dig, little more than vandalism. If the sentence read coherently then I could understand it being tagged awaiting citation, but is this really justified in this case?

- what controls exist with regards Wikipedia being used as a platform for petty slandering? Awaiting sources to be cited is one matter, allowing untruthful content to remain accessible to the entire English speaking world indefinitely is altogether irresponsible?

I hope that the immature individuals who have been previously involved in the editing of this article can be held accountable and prevented from doing any further damage, and that experienced Wikipedia users can work together with people like myself - who possess a long association with the field and the issues and facts surrounding it - to produce a high quality ENCYLOPEDIC reference.

Dawat e Islami is not in need of publicity material, our literature is translated into 20 different languages and distributing in 66 countries worldwide through a non-profit making, volunatary workforce, what we are interested in doing here is to produce a well-referenced, factual article - and to protect this resource from vandalism - from all sides.

Thanking you in advance of your support.