Talk:Qawwali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

{{Archives|auto=yes|search=y

Qaul (Arabic)[edit]

Can we have the arabic script for qaul? قوٌل

'Qaul (Arabic: قَوْل) is an "utterance (of the prophet)"

'

Isn't قَوْل (qul) arabic for "say"? Faro0485 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Qawwali music of Pakistan[edit]

Hater wrote: Qawwali is hundreds of years old, Pakistan is only 60. Doesn't it suck to do something better than you Indians though? Qawaali and Sufism is directly connected to Islam, NOT HINDUISM. It could be because Muslim invaders occupied India for over 800 years and brought their cultures from different parts of the continent. India is nothing but a dump of different cultures.


, a child of hate and not love, like Israel was carved from the Palestinian lands. It lost half of its territory so far and it is only a matter of time before it is erased from the maps. India has been there from the time the history of human civilisation was recorded, it has no beginning and no end. Qawwali is NOT Indian heritage. Please make the appropriate changes in the infobox. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Leave the hate speech at home, please. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed UNDUE. You seem to have taken the Music infobox off. Such a pity. I am not playing the on - off game just yet. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Draw a line though the garbage you spouted, and it means you never spouted it at all? Current Indian music sucks just like their sick culture does. They are the biggest copycats of not only Pakistani but also Arabic, English and Latin music. It's not like it's still there for everyone to see, or anything. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not garbage, it is true but I do not have the energy to find verifiable sources to back it up. You have not understood the fundamentals of wikipedia, it is not truth but verifiability. I have checked the discussion above, where at many places you write I know. I know is at best a bad excuse. Every line that you write should be backed by a wp:rs, with no wp:or and no wp:undue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is hate speech, but not garbage? Understood! --Sarabseth (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wonder what the question mark is for? I will answer this if you are prepared to listen. But I need time. In the meanwhile I wish you read Jinnah, Savarkar, Ambedkar on partition, opposition or justification, to it. Ambedkar has justified partition for various reasons, but there was a rider, peaceful transfer of population, Pakistan played its part, there has been almost complete ethnic cleansing of Hindus, in both relative and absolute terms, on the other hand India has more Muslims than Pakistan. When Allama Iqbal wrote Hindi hai hum watan hai Hindusthan hamara, Hindi meant both Hindus and Muslims. Qawwali is a Hindi heritage, just as Khwaja Garib Nawaz is and Osama bin Aurangazeb is . India is to date a home to all Hindis, it has for many millennia Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand the fundamentals of either truth or verifiability.
Forget "many places"; feel free to point out one single place on this page where I have said "I know" with reference to any content I added to the article. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't take this too personally but I will give examples of wp:pov on your part. We all go overboard with enthusiasm, I have been more guilty of this than perhaps anybody else. I am learning the hard way. If you are interested in the spats I am involved in check this out: talk:Vithoba or Talk:Yazidi.
  1. Take the example of "Shahid Ali Khan" the best test to check notability is the Google test, I searched with the quotes on to exclude any other interpretation. It gave 14900 results. Quite notable is he not? Watch this place for more. Search result for "Shahid Ali Khan"
  2. I also suggest you should do (I do not claim to be any way near to being an expert on it) a study of wikipedia policy, well this advice is given in good faith we are after all editor brothers (gender neutral use of a masculine noun, we could as well be sisters, or bristers]] not adversaries. Every line that is written should be backed by a wp:rs, if not it can be certainly taken off. wp:pov or wp:or has no place here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What you said earlier was: "I have checked the discussion above, where at many places you write I know."

That's what I challenged you to substantiate. Let's note for the record that you didn't substantiate it at all. Because you couldn't. Because that statement is totally untrue. There is not one single point in the discussion at which I have said "I know" with reference to any content I added to the article.

An honest person would have acknowledged that. You didn't. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. There is not a single instance of I know from you related to what is written, there are 3 I knows, one from you but as you have written not in the context of the content it does not count. The others are by somebody else. I do not wish to stretch the point and give excuses where I have clearly erred. I am sorry, I jumped the gun. (Actually I used the Find function to find out after I had written about SAK, I found out that I was wrong, but I had to close because of real world commitments. I was thinking of explanations to why I made the (now proved false) accusation, but since you have written that I am dishonest, before I could clarify, for me that is the end of round one.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

...the best test to check notability is the Google test

That's your opinion. I certainly don't agree.
How many google search hits a given qawwal produces is a function of many factors. One of these would be: how many other slightly well known people have the exact same name. Shahid Ali Khan is a common enough name. I'm willing to bet that your 14,900 search results include a significant number that have nothing to do with the qawwal.
Thus, such allegedly objective criteria of notability can be quite misleading. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right that Shahid Ali Khan would also be other SAKs, but there are many links about SAK the qawwal, why do you not click and check for yourself. Also the google test is not my opinion it is standard wikipedia practice, see Uses of search engine tests. Please check the links I have given here so that we can move forward, It goes without saying that, "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Qawwali in not related to HINDUISM in any way. Check here for a qawwali on Lord Krishna, also there the legendary Lal meri pat Jhulelala, sung by Raziuddin, Fareed Ayaz, qawwal al-Hussaini. Vithal Umap and Anand/Milind Shinde have popularised Marathi qawwalis which are sung on occassions of Ambedkar Jayanti and Buddha Pournima. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Qawwali is a Sufi concept. In the spirit of inclusiveness, qawwals have sometimes performed bhajans in the qawwali style (Nusrat's Sanson Ki Mala Pe, for example). Several qawwalis have lyrics that refer to the Krishna legends. That doesn't change the fact that Qawwali is an Islamic genre of music. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Islamic Music an oxymoron? Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says so, Taliban the ultimate interpreters of the fundamentals of Islam those who ran the purest Islamic state seems to tnink so, it insists that there is a hadith (a record of the Prophet's (pbuh) sayings) warning people not to listen to music lest molten lead be poured into their ears on Judgment Day. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another place where the term Islamic Music an Oxymoron, is used. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, all sensible people with no fundamentalist axe to grind of their own regard the Taliban as the ultimate interpreters of the fundamentals of Islam. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So you too agree that the Taliban is true interpreter of the fundamentals of Islam. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sar.'s edit summary: BTW, I don't read Urdu; I've just a Hindu, not a fundamentalist[edit]

I have taught myself to read Urdu, though I am no where near profecient in it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you are so fond of citing wikipedia policies left, right and center, you are presumably aware that this totally violates Talk page policy:

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

--Sarabseth (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
True. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

'Well known' redux[edit]

Lists like this need some sort of evidence, and anyone who is in such a list should be notable enough for an article. I removed some because they didn't have an article, and they were put back immediately. Sorry but that is just not good enough, that would allow people to add names just to get them publicity, and this is an encyclopedia - you know, like the Britannica, that says anything in it should be verifiable and from a reliable source, terms described at WP:Verifiable and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be condescending. I know perfectly well this is an encyclopedia.
I'm sure you too know perfectly well that Wikipedia guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not intended to be applied as inflexible rules.
Perhaps you don't know too much about qawwali, and the difficulty of finding published material that can be cited for every little fact? Over time, many people knowledgeable about qawwali have added material and pruned material, both to make the article more informative and to keep it honest. Editors knowledgeable about qawwali have served as checks-and-balances on the quality of the article.
Several times in the past, people have tried to add names to this list "just to get them publicity", and qawwals who didn't really deserve to be on the list have been pruned from it.
Some of the names you removed do indeed deserve to have an article. In fact, Mehr Ali Sher Ali are arguably the finest living qawwals today. As time permits, I will put together articles for them, and for others.
I personally think this list is longer than it should be, and some names could be profitably pruned from it. But rather than impose my personal preferences on the article, I have left it to other editors -- and there are enough people who edit this article on an ongoing basis -- to decide what names should be left in. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:People says "Several articles contain or stand alone as lists of people - for instance, usually an article on a college includes or links to a list of notable alumni. Such lists are not intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the notability criteria above. Because only notable people should be included in such lists, the use of the words "famous," "notable", "noted," "prominent," etc. should be avoided in their descriptions, and should not be included in the title of the list section or article." I know guidelines are guidelines, not rules, but what concerns me is that it is easy for that argument to be made inappropriately. Here you appear to be saying we should not have to follow our notability criteria in cases where it is hard to show notability, if I understand you correctly. With the Yahoo group, I would love to add Yahoo groups to several articles and could make the same argument you did, but I don't because I think the guideline is correct. By the way, I came across this article simply by folowing the activities of an editor removing the word 'Indian' from articles - here [1]. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that we should not have to follow our notability criteria. I'm saying notability cannot be defined just by whether someone has a wikipedia article or not.

I think my previous comment made it perfectly clear that a notability criterion is in fact being applied by editors. Qawwals who are not particularly well-known have been regularly pruned from the list.

...what concerns me is that it is easy for that argument to be made inappropriately.

I addressed that too. It is indeed easy, but this article has enough knowledgeable editors to guard against that. We've done a fairly good job so far, and that should trump hypothetical fears. (Isn't that part of the guiding philosophy of wikipedia, even the whole raison d'être: the collective wisdom of multiple editors, coupled with the ability of wikipedia to attract enough knowledgeable editors for each article?)

I would love to add Yahoo groups to several articles and could make the same argument you did

I'm not sure if you understand my point. The newsgroup (in its "Files" area) genuinely contains a wealth of information, compiled by qawwali fans as a labor of love, which is simply not available anywhere else. That's not hyperbole. It's not that it's hard to find it anywhere else. It simply doesn't exist anywhere else. Examples include: a virtually complete list of the qawwalis recorded by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and the names of the poets who wrote the lyrics for those songs. --Sarabseth (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been cooking and eating and forgot - I've raised the EL issue here [2]. I think you meant Yahoo Group, not newsgroup. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that an editor called DreamGuy (who does not seem to have ever edited this page before, and perhaps does not have much knowledge of qawwali) has removed the yahoo newsgroup link again, saying "removing links taht fail WP:EL rules --- those dsiputing should actually read them instead of just adding bad links and insisting they stay".
Perhaps those removing links because they "fail WP:EL rules" should:
a) ponder why these "rules" are guidelines rather than inflexible rules
b) allow the matter to be resolved through Talk page discussion instead of jumping the gun
Also, an editor called TheRedPenOfDoom (who does not seem to have ever edited this page before, and perhaps does not have much knowledge of qawwali) has gone in and removed the 8 names I had added back. He has also stuck in an information note reading:

per Wikipedia guidelines of WP:LIST, WP:BLP, WP:PROMOTION, all additions to this list must be notable WP:N - having been covered by third party sources. Those not meeting our guidelines will be removed.

Once again, it's not constructive to make this edit while the matter is still under active discussion on the Talk page. And perhaps all deletions to the list should be made only after first trying to actually verify whether the qawwals in question are notable? There is enough third party material available online to verify the notability of some if not all the deleted names.
Both these editors seem to be very fond of quoting WP documents. Isn't there some kind of document too about the recommended etiquette that editors should follow when the material in question is under active discussion on the Talk page?--Sarabseth (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant Yahoo Group, not newsgroup.

Sorry, my bad! --Sarabseth (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I edit a lot of articles for the first time. Lots of editors do that, some just working on punctuation, spelling, etc., others on guidelines. And I think keeping contentious material in is what has to be justified here, not the removal of names which you agree have not been shown here to have notability, even if you and others think they do. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Our guidelines are all based on "Does it improve the quality of the encyclopedia". Unsourced personal commentary and opinions will rarely if ever improve the encyclopedic quality of an article. The guidelines have developed as a community consensus of what should be done to ensure and improve the encyclopedic content of our articles. If you dont think the guidelines and policies are currently shaped to improve the quality, then the best answer is to go to the policy pages and suggest changes that you think will improve the quality and try to gain consensus that things should be changed.
And I quote the policies and guidelines to show the reasoning and ocmmunity consensus for the edits that I make.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(This comment refers both to the discussion here and at the page Dougweller pointed to before, [3].)

As I have pointed out earlier, the guidelines themselves are not phrased as inflexible laws. Somehow Dougweller, DreamGuy and TheRedPenOfDoom (to different degrees) are invoking the guidelines as if they are inflexible laws. Only Dougweller has made any attempt at all to address the issues I raised. I don't see how DreamGuy's and TheRedPenOfDoom's stance is consistent with the wording of the guidelines.

If the community consensus was that there should be an absolute prohibition on links to Yahoo groups, then that's what the guidelines would say. But they don't. They say that links to Yahoo groups should normally be avoided. The plain English meaning of this is that links to Yahoo groups can be perfectly acceptable, depending on the merits of the case. This, then, is what the community consensus specifically provides for. Yet DreamGuy comments at [4] that links to yahoo Groups must never be allowed as "otherwise we might as well not ever have any such rules for how often people will ignore them."

For TheRedPenOfDoom to lecture me by saying

If you dont think the guidelines and policies are currently shaped to improve the quality, then the best answer is to go to the policy pages and suggest changes that you think will improve the quality and try to gain consensus that things should be changed.

is not just patently absurd, it's intellectually dishonest. I've already made it abundantly clear that I'm not asking for any change in the guidelines and policies. I'm simply asking for the actual guidelines to be applied, instead of the "yes-we-know-they-are-not-inflexible-rules-but-we're-still-going-to-apply-them-as-if-they-are" distortion of the guidelines and policies that Dougweller, DreamGuy and TheRedPenOfDoom seem to be imposing.

I have also raised before this question, which neither Dougweller, DreamGuy and TheRedPenOfDoom have addressed: why is it not best to leave the question of whether someone is a notable qawwal to the collective wisdom of the editors who are knowledgeable and passionate about qawwali? Why is it not best to let the editors who are knowledgeable and passionate about qawwali adjudicate whether the Yahoo group in question constitutes a unique resource that should be linked to (by virtue of the unique informational databases it provides)? Isn't the collective wisdom of the editors who are knowledgeable and passionate about the subject supposed to be the bedrock of Wikipedia?

How is the "encyclopedic content" of this article improved when someone who knows nothing about qawwali removes from the "Current Qawwals" list the name of the group that many regard as the finest living qawwals?

Perhaps whether some material is contentious should be left to the judgment of those who are knowledgeable about the topic? If editors like Dougweller, DreamGuy and TheRedPenOfDoom are inspired to declare some material contentious, and moved to delete it based on guidelines about notability and links to yahoo groups, perhaps they could extend editors who have worked on this article for years the courtesy of not deleting the material till the discussion has been resolved on the Talk page? What is gained by this preemptive high-handedness?

I made it clear I was prepared to back up the claim of notability using third-party sources. The guidelines do not say anywhere that notability is defined by whether a wikipedia article exists. Yet that is the criterion that Dougweller and TheRedPenOfDoom have invoked, without even giving me a chance to demonstrate the notability of the deleted qawwals. And then Dougweller writes: "And I think keeping contentious material in is what has to be justified here, not the removal of names which you agree have not been shown here to have notability".

Also, for the record, Dougweller claims at [5] that I have insisted "that no articles and evidentally (sic) no evidence is required to add someone to a list of 'well-known qawwals'". That, as can be seen from the discussion here, is totally untrue. Here's what I did say:

I am certainly not saying that we should not have to follow our notability criteria. I'm saying notability cannot be defined just by whether someone has a wikipedia article or not.

Clearly, I have not argued (much less, insisted) that no evidence of notability is or should be required. I believe an apology and a correction are in order. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

'Collective wisdom' as I understand you to be describing it is not evidence, it is opinion. I don't appreciate your comment about 'distortion of the guidelines' either. I said 'some sort of evidence', and all you would need is the sort of evidence you would need to provide notability for an article. I would think you could have made a start by now. Also, 'for the record', what I wrote was not 'totally untrue' as I wrote it before your comment saying you weren't saying we should not have to follow our notability criteria. I suggest that you don't accuse people of saying something 'totally untrue' (a euphemism for lying?) without checking your facts first.
In any case, your request "why is it not best to leave the question of whether someone is a notable qawwal to the collective wisdom of the editors who are knowledgeable and passionate about qawwali?" seems to contradict your other statements. No, we are not likely to allow editors to decide who is notable and who is not simply because they know a lot about something and are passionate about it. The same goes for deciding whether the guidelines can be ignored about a Yahoo group. In any case, I think that is settled, I hope, at Talk:EL.
I humbly apologise for the gender confusion. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your comment about 'distortion of the guidelines' either.

I'm sorry to have offended you, but when a guideline is applied in practice as if it were an absolute prohibition, and when that is defended by statements like links to yahoo Groups must never be allowed as "otherwise we might as well not ever have any such rules for how often people will ignore them", that is indeed a distortion of the guidelines. Feel free to respond substantively, instead of just declaring yourself to be offended. I would like to stress, though, that I didn't just cherry-pick one comment from the discussion at [6]. This is very much the tenor of the entire discussion there.
Speaking of cherry-picking, you didn't just say "Lists like this need some sort of evidence", you went on to assert that "anyone who is in such a list should be notable enough for an article". In practice, that was the criterion you applied: the lack of a wikipedia article.
As for "I would think you could have made a start by now", I do unfortunately have a life to lead, and I'm already juggling all the different things I can handle at this time.

Also, 'for the record', what I wrote was not 'totally untrue' as I wrote it before your comment saying you weren't saying we should not have to follow our notability criteria. I suggest that you don't accuse people of saying something 'totally untrue' (a euphemism for lying?) without checking your facts first.

My bad! I didn't check timestamps. --Sarabseth (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR but I will comment on this "I made it clear I was prepared to back up the claim of notability using third-party sources. The guidelines do not say anywhere that notability is defined by whether a wikipedia article exists. Yet that is the criterion that Dougweller and TheRedPenOfDoom have invoked, without even giving me a chance to demonstrate the notability of the deleted qawwals. " First: "The guidelines do not say anywhere that notability is defined by whether a wikipedia article exists. " A stand alone Wikipedia article is not allowed unless the subject of the article has notatiblity; which is defined as having non-trivial third party coverage in a reliable source. Therefore IF something has a legitimate Wikipedia article, it is by Wikipedia definition, notable. And while not all notable topics do have articles yet, it is a reasonable enough basis to start on until other sources can be provided to back other claims. (although I must note that some of the articles in the current list are not legitimate articles as they lack the required third party sourcing- and may be eliminated soon unless that sourcing is provided) Second: "I made it clear I was prepared to back up the claim of notability using third-party sources.... without even giving me a chance to demonstrate the notability of the deleted qawwals." Wikipedia is not going anywhere. You have all the chance you want if at any time you are able to provide these reliable third party sources, feel free to add the supported content to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going anywhere. You have all the chance you want if at any time you are able to provide these reliable third party sources, feel free to add the supported content to the article.

Funny how that applies to me but not to you. (The issue, since you don't seem to get it, is one of high-handedness and editorial etiquette, which is exactly how I had phrased it before.)
As for the first half of your comment, my point was that a wikipedia article was being treated as a necessary condition (rather than sufficient, which nobody is disputing). --Sarabseth (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

random section break[edit]

I responded to what I percieved as your stonewalling and playing deaf in a manner that was not conducive to the work of improving the article in a consensus building. I am sorry for the way I came off and hope that we can put that in the past and work together in improving the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the gracious apology! Certainly, let's bury the past. Improving the article is my only objective here.
I too am sorry if there was anything remiss in my tone or the substance of my comments. It was extremely frustrating to ask a question, and to have it repeatedly dismissed instead of addressed, and then be accused (in the other discussion at [7]) of disruptive behavior, and to be threatened with Consequences. I consciously tried to adopt a moderate tone every time I wrote a comment, but I may not always have succeeded.
I would love it if you could respond to my question from the other discussion, reproduced here again:

The suggestion of an open-ended poll is constructive, but I'm wary of investing time and effort figuring out how to conduct one, and then actually doing it, if the editors who have been opposed to this specific link (given all the circumstances) would just come along and remove it again. Anyone care to comment on whether an open-ended poll, conducted as Milo suggests, would be accepted as justifying an exception?

--Sarabseth (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they may have been talking about Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be the way to do it probably, but even if there was agreement there, that wouldn't stop it from being removed again in my experience. With apologies for any tone I took which was unhelpful, I remain unhappy about using Yahoo groups as links and think there should be more clarification on this at WP:EL. Two issues here - the mailing list component, with the concerns about that which include the difficulties in being sure who is posting to a mailing list, and the files component, where I have serious concerns about possible copyvio, something Wikipedia takes very seriously as I'm sure we all know. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Preachy stuff in intro[edit]

Often listeners, and even artists themselves, are transported to a state of wajad, a trance-like state where they feel at one with Allah, generally considered to be the height of spiritual ecstasy in Sufism, and the ultimate goal of the practice.

That is POV and unencyclopedic. I have removed it from the intro as such. GSMR (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Origins[edit]

Qawwali = Qual (recitations of Mohammad) of Ali.

Started from Man Kunto Mawla by Amir Khusro.

I don't have any references though.

WikiOn ( t | c ) 09:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ateeq Hussain Khan Bandanawazi qawwal is a famous Sufi Qawwal from Hyderabad[edit]

sir, I am a great fan of qawwali since my childhood. I have been throughly involved in few wikipedia articles and have been greatly influenced by the way the work is done.I was wrongly qouted as close associate of ateeq hussain khan yes i am closely associate but just as a true fan of qawwali. This message is particularly about one such great qawwal Ateeq hussain khan bandanawazi whose name was listed in current qawwal list and some people are objecting it with a view of that he is not famous enough plz dont mind but the list of qawwals is predominantly from pakistan and only one or two indian qawwals are mentioned in the list. one such qawwals is warsi brothers who are ateeq hussain qawwal's cousins. They both have same amount of fan fallowing in india. they come from same school of qawwali. Bandanawazi qawwals are hugely popular in various parts of India. It is evident that as many news papers has praised them over the years which are neutral . I presebt my case as the article on ateeq hussain khan was subjected to many objections and when those challenges were handled many new objections were raised. I finally want to convey that he rightly deserve to be in the list of famous qawwal's as he is in reality famous in india. some of bandanawazi qawwal's achivement is Sangeet Prabhakar Award, central zone Award . Bandanawazi qawwal also stood second in all india qawwal competition held at Ajmer. Reasons can be many to include him or not to include him but the criteria should be only notability and its a fact that he truely is notable Qawwal.

                               Recently this year after his participation at Jashn-e-Delhi Festival he was Interviewed by some famous American magzine's . I urge justice for this great qawwal and to get his name included in the list of cURRENT QAWWAL LIST.
                   if any body has any queries I will welcome it on my email:ssabdulhaq@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.121.199 (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 
You have already gone on and on about this in Talk:Ateeq Hussain Khan, under many different aliases, without once responding to the substantive issued I raised. Just because you keep insisting he is famous doesn't make him so. Rehashing the issue here doesn't serve any useful purpose.
As I said in that discussion, on April 28, 2011:
The references which purport to attest to notability actually do little more than record public performances. The fact that a musical group has performed in public (usually in festivals, together with many other performers) is hardly evidence of notability. In fact, five of the seven references are essentially just program announcements (three of them being identical announcements of the same program); and one is a review of a CD that consists merely of the playlist, and the CD is a live group recording from one of these festivals.
--Sarabseth (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012[edit]

<PLEASE ADD INDIAN QAWWAL AZIZ NAZAN>


116.203.95.49 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your request is unclear. You will need to provide more information, including a specific content wording and a source.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.77.187 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Dont; Edit Another Qawwal In Current Qawwal List?[edit]

Bandanawazi Qawwal The World Fame Qawwal Please Add Current Qawwal List Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.77.187 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been addressed at least twice before on this talk page, most recently in the section above this one. Unless those issues are addressed, the individual does not belong in this article. - SudoGhost 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

why people are removing ateeq hussain khan's name from list after 2 years and already his name was acccepted and acclaimed by many plz dont bring politics in Art.[edit]

--Ssnoorulhaq (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) This message is particularly about one such great qawwal Ateeq hussain khan bandanawazi whose name was listed in current qawwal list and some people are removing it with a view of prejudice towards him. His name was there since last plz dont mind but the list of qawwals is predominantly from pakistan and only one or two indian qawwals are mentioned 18 months in the list. one such qawwals is warsi brothers who are ateeq hussain qawwal's cousins. They both have same amount of fan fallowing in india. they come from same school of qawwali. Bandanawazi qawwals are hugely popular in various parts of India. It is evident that as many news papers has praised them over the years which are neutral . I present my case as the article on ateeq hussain khan was subjected to many objections and when those challenges were handled many new objections were raised. I finally want to convey that he rightly deserve to be in the list of famous qawwal's as he is in reality famous in india. some of bandanawazi qawwal's achivement is Sangeet Prabhakar Award, central zone Award . Bandanawazi qawwal also stood second in all india qawwal competition held at Ajmer. Reasons can be many to include him or not to include him but the criteria should be only notability and its a fact that he truely is notable Qawwal.--Ssnoorulhaq (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

current list of qawwal's list should be reverred back to 6 month back list[edit]

--Adil-naqshbandi (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)current qawwal list should be reverred back to the old list of prominent qawwal which was a year back but somebody changed it by removing some famous names--Adil-naqshbandi (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2013[edit]

124.123.77.187 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Please Add Current Qawwal List Ateeq Hussain Khan Thank You.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013[edit]

Please Add Current Qawwals List Name Ateeq Hussain Khan 124.123.77.187 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done - This has been suggested several times in the past, and there are several discussions on this talk page about this individual. Do you have any reliable sources that would warrant adding the name to this article? - SudoGhost 01:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This person obviously has no interest in responding constructively. Suggest all further repetitions of this request just be ignored. --Sarabseth (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Add Another Qawwals In Current Qawwal List[edit]

Add Two Big Qawwals Of India Add Current Qawwal List Nizami Brothers Ateeq Hussain Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.106.189 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2013[edit]

Add Big Qawwals Of India Add To Current Qawwals List 124.123.106.189 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- TOW  11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Song Content" section[edit]

Who made this up: "Those from the classical period are in dialects of north India like Brajbhasha and Awadhi. These dialects continue to have huge influence on qawwali in other languages."

What is this so-called classical period? There are only a smattering of songs in Brajbhasha and Awadhi. The bulk of the qawwali repertoire is in Urdu and Punjabi.

Please do not revert without proper references! --Sarabseth (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Another Qawwals In Current Qawwal List[edit]

Please Add Master Ayaz ali Qawwal Bio to Wikipedia and his name to qawwal list Master Ayaz Ali His Qawalli videos can be seen on youtube by searching his name [1] I am not able to find any info on this great singer. May be some one who knows Qawalli history will have info on him and add to Wikipedia page on him and his name to Qawwal names list on this page. Thanks 202.3.120.4 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Shahab

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qawwali. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)