Contents

1 User page in main namespace 2 Usernames are Case-Sensitive?!! 3 Thakhallus 4 British India 5 Urdu literature 6 Musharraf 7 Salafi explanation 8 Tiranga 9 Thanks for the updates and edits 10 First Urdu text open for proofreading

User page in main namespace

Hi IFaqeer! I noticed that your user page redirects to the article IFaqeer , which is in the main article namespace. Since the main article namespace is for encyclopedia articles, your user page shouldn't be there (that's not a jab against you -- nearly all Wikipedians are unencyclopedic ;-) I'm going to list the IFaqeer page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, where others will chime in. (Please don't take offense to what some folks might say -- they're often harsh when it comes to vanity pages.) The IFaqeer page will probably be deleted in about a week; to preserve its contents, you might want to do a cut & paste job over to your real user page at User:IFaqeer. Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 18:16, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Usernames are Case-Sensitive?!!

For some reason, my username is set to User:IFaqeer--not User:iFaqeer, not , not , but User:IFaqeer! That is frustrating.

I agree! I would rather have been benc myself. It may be possible to fix this internally by submitting a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Alternately, you can just use a nickname as explained at (which is what you're doing already, I think?) • Benc • 03:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I am doing. Thanks for the help.--iFaqeer 03:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thakhallus

Hi iFaqeer — please let me offer a belated welcome to the Wikipedia. :-) It's good to have you here: looking over your contributions, I see you've edited many India-related articles, which is excellent. The Wikipedia is a little on the U.S.-centric side, though we aspire not to be.

Anyway, about the Thakhallus article that you wrote. I agree with you that it doesn't have much potential to grow. To be honest, I added the {{substub}} tag (which is a request to other editors for article expansion) with reservations. I initially considered listing it on Votes for deletion, because it's technically a dicdef. As the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy says, dicdefs don't have the potential to grow. So rather than having millions of dictionary definitions, we have a sister project for these entries, the Wiktionary.

My suggestion? First, redirect the Thakhallus article to Urdu poetry. Then, add a thakhallus entry to the Wiktionary. In the future, avoid creating articles that don't have the potential to grow into a full-fledged encyclopedia article. Does this sound like a good solution to you? • Benc • 03:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just looked it up and saw that the Wiktionary is multi-lingual. I will look into that. One point is that I see there being a difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedia entry. And this term is an important piece of figuring out the structures and formats of Urdu poetry in general and the ghazal form in particular. I will be working on that further. See Talk:Ghazal.

Just looked at the Wiktionary again. Wow! You mean I will have to work on two projects now? Seriously, that is actually exciting. Being a "communication major" I might actually end up more involved in the Wiktionary...--iFaqeer 03:59, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

British India

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. British only fully exercized control over most of India after the 1860's, when the East India Company gave way to the monarchy. In that sense, while the British exerted powerful control in India for upto 100 years, India was not "British India" for more than 90 years. When we're talking about movements, like literature, or histories of peoples, that extend across kingship and political and historical period boundaries, India is the safest and, beyond all, most accurate term to use. The usage can, of course, be qualified by mentioning the particular state or region in which the person or event in question is situated.--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:05, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but now you're saying what I was saying, that limiting a poet or artist to one, rather limited geography doesn't do them justice. Like saying that the Buddha was an Indian religious leader.

You didn't address the issue of India being specifically a link to something describing the Republic of India--iFaqeer 18:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not really. It is accepted that there's been an idea of India, under the names Bharat, Hindustan and India in different eras, referring to the same larger geographic and morphing cultural entity. No one means anything different when these names are mentioned. As for the India article going to Republic of India, the article in question clearly discusses India's history and states that the nation-state was only created but 58 years ago. The general lay of the land, the bulk of ancient, medieval and British India, however, is still located on the modern Republic of India. There is a clear connection running through the histories and for this reason a "History of India" would go from the early Harappans and Mohenjodarans (now located in Pakistan) to the Aryan migration to the development of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism to the Mughals to the British to the present state of India. Pakistan and Bangladesh were carved from a greater India; it was not the other way round. Iqbal, in spite of his desire for a Muslim state, also spoke not of his "British India" but Hindustan... "Sare jahaan se acchha, hindustan humara / Hum bulbulein hain iski, is gulsitaan humara." Can you now argue that even Urdu poets of the British era considered themselves to be part of India? No. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:51, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to deal with it this way, but unless we create India (disambiguation or something of the nature of Hindustan, I don't buy it. I understand that "Al-Hind"/"Hindustan"/Bharat/etc. has existed over the millenia and been seen to. But I am not satisfied with a link going from, say Faiz to a page that starts out with an intro to the Republic of India. Over 300 million people live in what you want to describe as India, but who do not see themselves as Indian in any way, shape or form. I am not saying we drop the use of the term. I am just saying that we find a better way of characterising this. Ghalib saw himself as Hindustani, yes. But I doubt he considered himself Indian.

I sincerely wish we could use Hindustan as a way to describe the Subcontinent; but that's not something that will happen any time soon, since even most Pakistanis see that as a counter-point to Pakistan.

Last point; I just saw that you have introduced the concept of a "greater India" in there. While this might have its technical merits, please, please, please take a minute to consider the implications and baggage that phrase might have in people's minds in terms of being associated with the chauvinistic dream of nationalistic fanatics of creating a Greater India.--iFaqeer 19:03, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with paranoid fanatics. I'm concerned with writing things as they are. In spite of your weasling with the term, people born in 'British India' were Indians, considered themselves Indians, though some felt religious pressures, and for this reason the major organizations under the Raj were often called, gee, yes, Indian. Indian Administrative Services, etc. It's the term that's used and the India page explains the situation clearly. In addition, it's clearly written on this Faiz page that he was born in a Sialkot still a part of undivided India (That's a common term! See? It's not an invention of nationalists) and subsequently a part of a new Pakistan; it's mentioned that he then stayed in Pakistan and was hence a Pakistani. Lastly, it's called the Partition of India, not the Partition of British India; there's a reason for that. We can't go changing names willy-nilly in retrospect in an effort to revise history to accord with some people's hyper-sensitive national leanings. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:16, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is not "some people"; it's 300 million normal people, 5% of humanity. And you had put in "greater India" (a term with lots of other baggage), not "undivided India", which I might be okay with.--iFaqeer 19:17, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Though what do you think of "pre-independence India"--better/less good than "undivided India"?--iFaqeer 19:19, Sep 15, ]]

No, we're not talking about 300 million people. For one thing, most sane individuals in Pakistan and Bangladesh will understand what one says when one says India in reference to pre-1947 history. Secondly, most Bangladeshis don't see eye-to-eye with Pakistanis and would probably laugh to the heavens were they to be asked to say "Indo-pak subcontinent." Even my Pakistani friends think it's stupid. Remember how much flak Indians got when they tried to retroactively change Bombay to Mumbai? The whole idea about these names is that they be understood in context. Greater, undivided, pre-independence, etc. all describe the same thing, India. As for your edit, I've mentioned on the Faiz page that it looks fine.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Pray, have you been to Pakistan? Bangladesh? You are predicting what they will think? Or mandating it? And names matter; as the Bombay/Mumbai thing shows. Or the "War of Independence"/"Mutiny" thing does. Though on the whole, especially in an encyclopedia, as I said on the 1857 issue, I am for providing explicit information on the name issue; IMHO, the picture is incomplete if we just pick a one characterization, since it gives the impression that it is undisputed.--iFaqeer 19:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is nothing to dispute. It's India. The Bombay/Mumbai issue is not relevant here because no one's calling historical Bombay "Mumbai". When one speaks, say, of a film in that city in the 60's one will call it Bombay. As for Pakistan, I've never been but my family's closest friends are Pakistanis (who grew up there); I also, individually, have two close Pakistani friends who were raised in Lahore and Karachi. As for Bangladesh, being half-Bengali (of the West) and half-Rajasthani, I speak Bengali and interact with Bangladeshis all the time in my city of New York, where, if you didn't know, there are huge populations of them all over. I also happen to have a good friend who's Bangladeshi (the girlfriend of my Pakistani friend). So, yes, I do happen to know something first-hand, if not nothing. Anyway, even someone living there cannot claim some sense of authority since he/she is but one of many millions.

But beyond all this nonsense, we're not writing articles to cater to a minority population (this is international academic writing, not nationalist propaganda); we're using objective and accurate fact-telling English to describe various items of interest.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Urdu literature

While I foresee a windstorm of edits and exchanges, I look forward to having you work with me on a new page I've begun, one on Urdu literature. Urdu poetry is obviously about 90% of the tradition, but that is the very reason we should represent it fully, and not unilaterally. A side-project, preferably done afterwards, would involve writing about Urdu prose , which might focus on such works of the best prose-writers, like Premchand's and Ismat Chughtai. I'll be working on it slowly over the next few weeks.--LordSuryaofShropshire 22:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful. And necessary. Thank you for initiating and taking up the project.--iFaqeer 22:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Musharraf

You wikified MMA, but the link goes to a disambiguation page that has nothing to do with the MMA you wikified. Can you create an entry for the MMA that is discussed, otherwise those initials should be de-wikified in this article. - Thanks Nv8200p 19:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please look again. I have added a line to the MMA disambiguation page. Even without a Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal page, it be useful in descring what MMA is in that context.--iFaqeer 19:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Salafi explanation

Thank you very much for your reward however I must inform you that I wasn't the one who wrote the most there. I believe some one else did. I'm planning to make it bigger, insha'allah. Again thank you A. 20:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know what you put in last wasn't too large; but I think it clarified an important point--and saved me some effort :D. You deserve the Award. Shukran/Tashakkur/Shukriya again.--iFaqeer 21:23, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Tiranga

Thanks Faqeer for the compliment (hope you don't mind me calling you by your Thakallus). Am a newbie to Wikipedia, but hope to be involved more closely in the future.

--Mahesh

Actually, the nick is iFaqeer. But you're welcome. And please drop by once in a while. Wikipedia needs some objective voices on South Asian issues.--iFaqeer 03:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates and edits

Newbie at wiki, but I do agree with your idea of introducing more south East Asia to the wiki reader and to the world. Thanks for wikifying it isnabeel

See User talk:Isnabeel for further conversation.67.118.240.18 02:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First Urdu text open for proofreading

Dear IFaqeer,

I spend MOST of my time working for Distributed Proofreaders, which prepares e-books for distribution by Project Gutenberg (and anyone else that wants to distribute them -- they're FREE!) We have an experimental site in Europe, [1], which uses Unicode. DP-EU is now working on their first project in Urdu, an edition of the poems of Iqbal. So far as I know, they have only the one Urdu-speaking proofreader. If you could help with the project, and even recruit some more Urdu speakers to the fray, that would be wonderful! DP should be preserving the whole human literary heritage, not just the books that can be written in Latin-1.

It's not necessarily a big commitment, though it can be just as addictive as Wikipedia. You can do just one page whenever the mood strikes you. Zora 20:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would be honoured to help. I am regular user of Gutenberg's English texts.

My written Urdu is a little weak, but I have a copy of the Kulliyat-e-Iqbal (by Ferozsons ) and access to friends that should be wonderful resources. Please feel free to give my e-mail address to team members.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 21:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Registered at the page.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 21:09, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)