Talk:Qadiyani Problem

Qadiani Problem
Author	Abul Ala Maududi
Original title	Qadiani Problem
Language	Urdu
Publisher	Islamic Publications
Publication date	1953
Publication place	Pakistan

This article was nominated for deletion on June 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Fair use rationale for Image:Ahmad.png

Image:Ahmad.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article, Make it Neutral

This is a biased article. Citations are needed. The writer is propogating his own view. It is unecyclopedic. Suhayli (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Suhayli (talk) possibly thinks that that the improvement made by me is biased. Please discuss before reverting. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Issue

Peaceworld111 is constantly chagning this artcle which damages its neutrality. This page must be neutral, expressing views of both mainstream Muslims and Ahmadia religion. Then it should be made protected. What Peaceworld111 is doing is nothing but vendalism. He must be stopped to use Wikipedia to express beliefs of only one community.Suhayli (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to discuss what is not neutral, by pointing out specfic points which you do not find neutral. You ignored many times. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way of acheiving neutrality is to devide article in at least two sections, one showing the view of Ahmadiyyah religion, and the othe showing the view of mainstream Muslims. As the book is written by a scholar among mainstream Muslims, so their view point should appear first.Suhayli (talk)

Lets discuss:

You said This book incited hatred against Ahmadis and caused wide spread violence as an opinion of ahmadis, which is not true. It is a fact. So it's best for it to go with iew of mainstream Muslims is that there is nothing in the book which could be labelled as hatred inciting and violence causing. because the two sentences are related.
You said. It is an Anti-Ahmadiyya book as a view of ahmadis. It is evident from the heading that it is an anti ahmadiyya book - i.e. it discuss ideas against ahmadiyya beliefs.
You mentioned It is simply a history of Ahmadis, and a critique of the views of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. No need for repetition, as discussed in synopsis.
You must have realised that two headings for different views are therefore not needed as discussed above. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace be upon you, Yes, let us discuss:

You said that "this book incited hatred against Ahmadis and caused wide spread violence" is fact. I disagree. It is blamed by Ahmadis. Can you prove historically that this book caused these consequences? There exists no such historical evidence. So, this allegation must be a part of Ahmadis view.
This book is not anti-Ahmadiyya, it is a critique on the views of Ahmadiayyah. If someone writes a critique on the views of Muslims, for example, he cannot be labelled as anti-Muslim. If one shows hostile behaviour against Muslims, then he will be called anti-Muslim. Writing scholistic critiques is not being anti-Ahmadiyyah. So calling this book anti Ahmadiyyah is not established by logic. It's a part of Ahmadiyyah belief system.
Synopsis is a summary of contents. It is not mainstream Muslim view.

Though the article now you placed, is now in a form which is much better than the previous ones, on which you previously insisted, but on some sentences, I still have objections. I hope, we will soon arrive at a solution, provided we both focused on positivity.
Following are the sentences which are objectionable:

"It is an Anti-Ahmadiyya book, as proposed by the heading."
"...although this book incited hatred against Ahmadis and caused wide spread violence against them, see Persecution of Ahmadiyya."

Regards,Suhayli (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Honestly, folks, both versions of this page suck, but the current one sucks less. Above all, this article suffers from a lack of reliable sourcing. Text like "The official name of the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is Ahmadiyya rather than Qadiani. Qadiani is a term used by many mainstream Muslims which many Ahmadis find it derogatory and disrespectful." is entirely POV and breaks neutrality. I'm going to work on this page a bit and clean up text that's inappropriate or otherwise unacceptable. Both of you should really find some reliable sources about the book and include them, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really thank you very much for giving third opinion. You have reshped the page and I have no objection on it. I wonder why did you removed the link to the book, which realy works. I am giving the link here, please try it agian. http://www.scribd.com/doc/5548878/The-Qadiani-Problem

You have asked for the reliable sources. The above link is a reliable source for the synopsis of the book.

The book was not first printed in 1979, it was first printed in 1953. (Source: Publisher's note in the beginning of the book).

"Maududi was given death sentence by a military court": The later editions of the book contain a copy of the letter written to Maududi, by the military court, in which it was asked from Maududi to submit appeal against his death sentence. If a put a photo of that letter, it will be a good source to confirm that maududi was given death sentence. What is your opinion about it?

For other citations, I'll try to search.

I want to request you to give your 3O on the following article also:

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Please read its Talk page. I will be obliged if you could help.

I added two major soures now! Suhayli (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that link because it violates Wiki's policies on acceptable external links. I know it sounds kinda silly, but there's no way to tell if the text on that page is really what was in the book or whatever. As to that other page, a 3O has already been given on there and it seems like the battles have stopped. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to 2nd

I cannot provide reference to "this book incited hatred against Ahmadis and caused wide spread violence", well not at least yet, so Ill leave this aside.
Anti means against the views of... For example, Ahmadis believe in continuation of prophethood, whereas mostly muslims don't. The book speaks against Ahmadis distinct doctorines and thus it is not only a critique, but also an anti. You mentioned that if a person writes a book against Islam, the person is not anti-muslim. I agree, but you see that the book is. Also by definition, the word critique refers to the evaluation of good and bad things within the book. The book however, does not seem to discuss any of the good points, in my opinion. So it is less of a critique, and more of an anti...if you get what I mean.
You mentioned "The official name of the comminty is Ahmadiyyah. Normally mainstream Muslims do not use this name. They use Qadiani instead. This controversy must be a part of article Ahmadiyya religion." I agree that this controversy should be part of the other article. But should not a clarification be made about the book? That is...there is no community or ideology as such that calls itself a Qadiani. In this article clarification is a necessity. Secondly, putting this will not lose neutrality, as it is no way a bias view.

Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree with the second part, but that's not a reason to completely throw out all the edits I made to the article. Making claims about viewpoints in the book - that is, calling the book "anti" or whatever - can't be done without verifiable sources. And if you can't provide sources, well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't get in the article. Wikipedia is not a source of original content, so whatever you think the book says doesn't matter. We can only describe what reliable sources say - that's WP:V. And if you can't find sources, then it doesn't get added. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best source is the primary source, and that is the book itself and that is the most reliable. If you do think that by checking the book that it is more of a critique than an anti, then I would kindly ask you to provide any sentence or phrase from the book... I may be wrong! Also is there any source which says that it is a critique?
Why did you delete the changes I made? I just improved the English. Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the best source is not the primary source. Read WP:PSTS - it states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

See the part I bolded? Any claims you make about the primary source must be backed up by a secondary source. Without secondary sources, it doesn't get in. As to the improvement of that text, I'll work on that a bit more. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I accept the necessity of a secondary source, but i think you forgot the second part of my first bullet point... What about the reference that states that it is a critque?
What about making of the clarification, regarding Ahmadiyya and Qadiani words. Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you list a reference? I see no references listed in this edit, this one or this one. If you mean the link to Persecution of Ahmadiyya, well, Wikipedia articles aren't actually considered reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I listed a reference. Now that you you told me that a reference is needed, I would like to ask you to provide a reference. If not, then anti would be more suitable, as a primary source is better than no source. I added Persecution of Ahmadiyya only for extra related information. Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? You wrote "What about the reference that states that it is a critque?" above. What did you mean by a reference?

And no, a primary source is not better than no source. Saying that the book is anti is making a judgment on the book based on your own set of experiences, and as such, cannot be added. You yourself may say that the book is anti, but another person could say that the book is not anti. It's an entirely subjective thing, so we can't put that in the article. That's why we need to use secondary sources to make judgments about the contents of the book. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a secondary source that backs up that it is a critique, i.e. a reference. Secondly, the judgement is not based upon my own set of experiences which you have wrongly bought up. The person who says that is not anti, he/she should back it up if possible, by picking up points that back up their view. If that is not possible, where are the secondary sources that state that it is a critique. Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Oh I see, you're questioning the line "Issues discussed in the book consist of a critique of the interpretation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarding finality of prophethood, his claim about being a prophet and its consequences in Muslim Society of Subcontinent." Okay, I just rewrote that section so it's neutral. How is it now? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Thanks. But what about the clarification bit I mentioned earlier. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What clarification? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification that there is no community referred as Qadiani as such exists that names itself Qadiani officially. The actual name is Ahmadiyya religion(as I put earlier, but was removed). Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. uh, sure. I just added a neutral line to the header. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is my modification ok Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; I think it's POV, and I've removed it as such. I only put that line there for clarification, as someone coming to the article may not directly make the connection that "Qadiani" and "Ahmadiyya" refer to the same people. The term is clarified at Ahmadiyya Muslim Community#Persecution, and I think that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So no information, even in summary, can be repeated in more than one articles, even if it is relevant to more than one articles? Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realy thank you HelloAnnyong for your efforts. On most of the issues I agree with you. But your opinion on one issue is not comprihesible for me. Why do you not want to give link to online book in external links? Okay, do not give it as source, but give it just as a link to the book. I quote here examples of other articles on books. In the artice on the famous novel Hard Times, external links to the online books are provided. So why can't we provide external link to this book in this article?Suhayli (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. First, just because there are things on other articles doesn't mean that they apply here. Having said that, the difference between the links there and the link here is that those links are to reputable sources - Project Gutenberg is very well known, whereas a Scribd link is not reliable. The copy of Hard Times shown at Gutenberg isn't going to change anytime soon, whereas anyone could change the Scribd file. Do you see what I'm getting at? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Now I got your point. As this article is a stub and Wikipedia needs help to expand it, so can I add the following infobox:

Suhayli (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Go ahead and add it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Suhayli (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]