Talk:Idries Shah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleIdries Shah has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 16, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Caveat Lector![edit]

"The scholarly consensus today is that the person allegedly called Idries Shah was a hoax..." This little ludibrium, which one hopes Shah would have enjoyed, represents a light-hearted attempt to point up the deplorable standards of scholarship, axe-grinding partisanship and self-appointed custodianship that bring discredit to this and other 'Shah family' entries. Must everything the man did be "alleged" or "supposed"? Can't the writer get off his arse and do some primary research of his own, finding out whether it actually was or wasn't? Innuendo, based solely on what google turns up, has turned what should have been a serious, balanced account of a considerable life into a caricature of P.C. Plod's testimony in the Magistrate's Court: "The suspect peregrinated down Brighton Road and into the Middle East, where the crime of hoodwinking readers and passing off forged manuscripts took place..." Even in the Magistrate's Court, though, the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty - and those who make accusations are cross-examined in the witness box. Lamentably, the same standards don't seem to apply to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.96.251 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 17 August 2010‎

G'day. Here's some info to get you started: Wikipedia: Five pillars. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

laughable article[edit]

This article shows Shah as other than a writer of fiction. As such it is laughable. And a dscredit to WP. 124.148.164.7 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Then fix it if it's quality offends you so much. IrishStephen (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
G'day. Here's some info to get you started: Wikipedia: Five pillars. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he wrote about witchcraft shows his limited understanding on Islam since witchcraft is a forbidden knowledge in Islam. We need to redo this artice, anybody have any good sources for criticism of this man. I mainlygotmy information from Reliance of the Traveler translated by Sheikh Keller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.97.190 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest / Autobiography / NPOV, 27 March 2016[edit]

Hi, I notice that Rms125a@hotmail.com has just added a COI tag to Idries Shah (now changed to "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject."). It would be helpful if the editor would name the suspect editor, and give their reasoning, rather than the current, unexplained "hit and run". Regards, Esowteric+Talk 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I got your message. I have decided that {{autobiography}} is a better tag and have retagged accordingly. Quis separabit? 15:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Shah died in 1996, so it would be difficult for him to write an autobiography. From what I know, the editor who has done most of the work on this article is Jayen466 who, I understand, spent many years studying Shah's works. He has included a good balance of material on Shah, including controversy / criticism. More recent edits have been made by Jlburton who has also, I understand, spent many years studying the works of Shah and other Sufis. His contributions have also been useful and scholarly. Neither of these editors, nor do I, have a connection to Idries Shah, to the Shah family or to The Idries Shah Foundation. As for my own edits: these have been few and far between, and generally technical rather than content. Hope this helps. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 15:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Jayen466 was the one chiefly responsible for taking the article to Good Article status. Esowteric+Talk 15:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
If the editor/s are guilty of anything, it would be that "This article ... has been principally edited by people with extensive knowledge of the subject." :) Esowteric+Talk 15:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Responding to ping: I don't understand this either. --Andreas JN466 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It could be that the editor's actions were influenced by Shah's anonymous IP detractors using this talk page as a soap box? Esowteric+Talk 10:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See {{Autobiography}}: "This message should only be used when autobiographical content has been confirmed" ... "This template will add pages to the monthly subcategory of Category:Autobiographical articles." Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that it's been 48 hours without any response from Rms and without any substance to back up the impossible label of "autobiography" or even to give an example of "extensive editing" by someone "connected" with the subject, is it possible now to remove the misleading banner and label from the top of this article?Jlburton (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm in two minds, because Rms125 has still not specified who the offending editor/s are (I mean their wiki handles, not their real world identities), and he could mistakenly mean me, which would make me an involved party. I think I'll be bold and remove the tag, on the grounds that the accusation is unfounded and not (as yet) backed by any evidence. Then Rms125 will be free to revert me or take the matter further and, since I may be an involved party, I won't engage in en edit war with him. I'm not sure what happens then: perhaps open up a request for comment, obtain the help of uninvolved editors or, as a final option, seek arbitration. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I had left a message on Rms125's user talk page, but that went unanswered and the editor has since removed it. Esowteric+Talk 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that, considering the amount of work, documentation, citations and references by multiple contributors over the years to produce the article, combined with the fact that the subject of the article has been dead for almost 20 years, labeling it an autobiography is certainly inaccurate, and the question of a "connected" party should at least require some evidence to back it up before being so prominently displayed at the top of the page.Jlburton (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Streetlight Effect[edit]

I'm new at editing and have been translating Idries Shah article from English to Hebrew. I am puzzled by the recent edit by Dridgray. The Streetlight Effect link is relevant, but what can he mean by saying that the story was present in the West before Shah's birth? After all, the great majority of the Sufi teaching stories collected by Shah (including the one in question) are from oral literature of unknown age but certainly before Shah's birth. Suggest adding the link in another way. (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC) JohnBuuseue (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dridgray has not responded and he has no user page, so I suggest the following text in place of "Although Shah claimed this story as a Sufi teaching story, in fact its presence in the West predates his birth (see Streetlight Effect)":
Versions of this story have been known for many years in the West (see Streetlight Effect). This is an example of the long-noted phenomenon of similar tales existing in many different cultures, which was a central idea in Shah's folktale collection World Tales.
I wait for responses from Dridgray or others before doing the edit.JohnBuuseue (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems fine by me, John. Why not go ahead, as edits can always be undone. Esowteric+Talk 14:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. JohnBuuseue (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Idries Shah. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Idries Shah. 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:

Fixed (public folder in free dropbox a/cs have now been made private). Public link to pdf provided. Esowteric+Talk 13:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)