Talk:Pir-e-Kamil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correct name of the book[edit]

Is the name of the book pir-e-kamil. Or is it pir-e-kamil pbuh? 83.64.194.163 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English is Pir-e-Kamil pbuh while Urdu title is Pir-e-Kamil saww according to the front covers... and title with ISBN is not reliable because there are many other mistakes on the official ferozsons website... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unable to see either pbuh or saww on the image of the front cover that has been supplied for the page83.64.194.163 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely... pbuh is written... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nope just cloud above the title. Can you source a reference for what you claim the book is called, as so far all I can see is that you are claiming that the cited source is wrong and you are right. 83.64.194.163 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely, the front cover has "pbuh" written on the upper right corner of the "Pir-e-Kamil"... Like This: Pir-e-Kamilpbuh: The Perfect Mentor... Inside the book, there is another page stating that the same title is present... Further inside the book, the title with ISBN is written Pir-e-Kamil The Perfect Mentor (but this title will invalidate the Urdu version of the book)... ISBN is meant for books in general, but this is not only a book, it is a novel (a story), hence the name should follow a proper essence as highlighted in the book... If we are to strictly follow that the title should be that along the ISBN number, and not the front cover... then we should also remove Peer-e-Kamil and leave only Pir-e-Kamil... or at least we should mention in the other title with "pbuh" notion in brackets, like this: Pir-e-Kamil (or Pir-e-Kamilpbuh; also known as Peer-e-Kamil) (Urdu: پیر کاملصلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ و سلم), meaning The Perfect Mentor... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 17:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, the ferozsons website is wrong, the authors website is wrong, the isbn number links to the wrong book. And of course you are right. 83.64.194.163 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are over reacting. I said the author's book was right, not wrong. And also the idea that I gave is the best because it also goes with the name of ISBN and the book. Like this Pir-e-Kamil (or Pir-e-Kamilpbuh; also known as Peer-e-Kamil) (Urdu: پیر کاملصلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ و سلم), meaning The Perfect Mentor Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
over reacting, never. The if the cited sources are wrong, change them to fit your version of the fact. Can't let the facts stop editors changing what they want 83.64.194.163 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your English has many mistakes that it is becoming difficult to comprehend what you are trying to say. And there are no cited sources. Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so the isbn Is not a cited source, the web site of the publisher is not a cited source. An on the writers wikki entry their is her web page as a cited source. Oh and btw on the writers wikki page the book is listed without the pbuh 83.64.194.163 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are not exactly what we call citations on wikipedia, these are called external links. And as you can see, the problem has already been fixed. The name that you wanted is there, whereas the local nicknames or any other cultural variations follow the main name in brackets. Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A friend told me once "never have an argument with an idiot, since they drag you down to their level and beat you with it". Holding with that comment I will stop my protestations about including false fact on this page 83.64.194.163 (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, we did what you wanted never even reverted your edits... But it seems like you can't contribute to wikipedia with an uncooperative attitude like this... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference lists states that the book is called "Peer-e-Kamil by Umaira Ahmed (Author) 4.23 of 5 stars 4.23 · rating details · 108 ratings · 31 reviews It is a marvellous novel about a person who is extra ordinary intelligent but does not know the meaning and purpose of life..... The charm of the world does not apeals to him..... But God knows how to make him know this. " Where is the PBUH ?78.150.79.236 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • First you have to know that sometime translation from Urdu to English cause different spellings,and it is very common in urdu speaking countries.You are contributing wikipedia,you should have knowledge and common sense to understand the things.I have searched the reality of the said book,and it is obvious before me that Pir-e-Kamil or Peer-e-Kamil pbuh is very very correct according to original Urdu book title's version,there are many many references,which cite the both spellings and pbuh in English and S.A.W in Urdu/Arabi.It seem to me that probably

you have some your personal motives?,that's why you are busy with different IP Nos. from long time to vandal and reverting reality.I ask you ,please stop your vandal according to wikipedia policies and guidelines.Here are some websites from google search,in which you can find reality,and I hope now you will use your common sense.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.nl/#q=peer-e-kamil&hl=nl&pwst=1&rlz=1W1ADRA_enNL449&prmd=imvnsb&ei=9reKTurjM8PsOYajpc8F&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2d7e4d2c15d2fba0&biw=1366&bih=485

  • Now, and correct me if I'm wrong, its seems to me that the "pbuh" could be something purposely left out by websites, as it is "only" an honorific, just like "The Perfect Mentor" is "only" a subtitle. It seems rather obvious from the image and other sites that "pbuh" is part of the official title, and since we only have the "pbuh" in one small parenthetical, I'm not sure why the IP is still complaining. However, if he continues, I'm going to request semi-protection on this page and he will not be able to edit without an account. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I thought that in order to put facts in this page they need to be verifiable. I could be wrong and that just by saying that something is called that, that will make it fact. If you are going to change the name of the book then is it to much of a hardship to prove it. The reference cited does not prove the statment made. 78.150.79.236 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more verifying you need then an actual image of the English version of the book with the "pbuh" clearly visible. That said, the "pbuh" doesn't appear to be part of the main title, so its not in the article's title. Anything else? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have adde one more reference and cited to title name of book,and change the spelling according to website,what he wish to see.Now it should not be a problem or any complicated matter.I hope so,and he understands to follow wiki policies.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The page still lacks any indication of notability per WP:BK. Much of the discussion was on blogs and other user-generated content sources, which are self-published and therefore not reliable. There are no reviews, no considerable attention, I don't believe it's been made into a movie, I've seen no mention of awards, or its involvement in university courses and the like. I may try looking for more information, but if I can't find it, I will nominate it for deletion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) I personally find it quite offensive that someone 'whi has barely any knowledge of islam' writes a book about a fictional Ahmadi Muslim character and is using the degrading term 'qadiani' for the minority sect in islam. My humble request is that the wikipedia page should at least write the correct term for the sect: Ahmadi Muslim. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19SS94 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

There is no need to add citations to the contents of the book; the book itself acts as the source.

Per WP:SURNAME, after the lead or first mention, any non-characters discussed in the page (i.e. Umaira Ahmad, the author) should be referred to by surname, not by first name. In other words, please don't change this edit without a good reason.

The page still lacks evidence of notability. If it's so popular, it should be possible to provide favourable reviews, presence on a best-sellers list, or something else indicating it has received attention, praise or is otherwise worth including. Personal views or blogs are inadequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking it personally that the first name is included in the page. I'm just saying it's wrong per WP:SURNAME. So I've removed it yet again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments for especialized editors review[edit]

(cur | prev) 19:30, 20 October 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (6,217 bytes) (don't think this is supposed to be here) (undo) ,

and was reverted by User:Nolelover as,

(cur | prev) 19:41, 20 October 2011‎ Nolelover (talk | contribs)‎ (6,222 bytes) (Undid revision 456563047 by WLU (talk) see talk page. apparently it is) (undo) .

The first edit,I considered as a "proposed editing", without explaining,when contents obviously shows the references,there was not any legitimation nor accurated to remove the content or part of content.When you are experienced,and aware of the policies and guidelines of the wikipedia,you will not be the cause of this kind of blunder.But it's happened.It was in my opinion a kind of WP:VANDALISM and bad faith editing,so I left a message to the editor's talk page,in the reaction,I saw deletion tag on the article Pir-e-Kamil.

(cur | prev) 00:14, 21 October 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (6,280 bytes) (goodreads is user generated content, not reliable; no indication of notability) (undo) .

In reply I search google,and added some references and cited,

(cur | prev) 06:50, 21 October 2011‎ Ehsan Sehgal (talk | contribs)‎ (6,893 bytes) (New reference s added and cited for notability,there are many,I am busy,tag removed,I consider it is based on bad faith) (undo) ,

which were removed,

(cur | prev) 10:58, 21 October 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (6,446 bytes) (removed selfpublished sources (blogs and other user-generated content are not reliable sources) and embedded the one link with any meaning to it) (undo) .

And then has been changed the author name Umaira Ahmad to Ahmad, I corrected,

(cur | prev) 15:25, 21 October 2011‎ Ehsan Sehgal (talk | contribs)‎ (6,599 bytes) (Please don't take personal,in reference no anywhere,she is called Ahmad,Umaira Ahmad sound good to ear,and how do you know Ahmad is her family name.?.I am done Umaira Ahmad,instead.) (undo) .

In this regard discussion see above.

WP:SURNAME,policy states,

"However, where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic (like some Russians and most Icelanders) then the proper form of reference is usually the given name. For example:

The Icelandic prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, should not be referred to as Sigurðardóttir but as Jóhanna; "Jóhanna was elected to the Althing in 1978.": The person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince John", "Princess Jane", "The Duke," "The Earl," "The Duchess," "The Countess," etc. For other subjects, it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.

A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester may become "the Earl of Leicester" or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions. Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use "Robert Dudley" or "Dudley" when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564.

People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally (e.g. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; doctor/broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky), use the legal surname.

For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth".

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH ,Maiden names, state

"A woman should be referred to by her most common name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname."

See Patronymic, Asia,Indian.

As I know Umaira is known with here given name,and is as a pseudonym too.

Here I would like to say that this article is about a book not about her biograpghy,where may be applied WP:SURNAME.

Using here"Ahmad" creating confusion,here should be quoted full name Umaira Ahmad,or Umaira,instead of Ahmad.

Regarding to WP:SURNAME,what will someone say, examples,

1. Faiz Ahmad Faiz,Faiz is his given name and pseudonym,nobody will claim Ahmad is surname,or will use.

2.Zia-ul-Haq,in whole article,his given name is used,but not last name" Haq" according to WP:surname,because it does not apply here , Zia name is know to everywhere,though it is given name.If we follow in wrong direction and concept of theWP:surname and other policies,it will be blunder to change names from hundreds of thousand articles with not accurate names.There should be wide scale discussion about it.I ask especialized editors to take part in this discussion,and give their opinion and review.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learn what vandalism is before bringing it up on a page.
Guidelines regarding surnames are the same for all pages. Multiple other editors have said so to you on the many talk pages you have canvassed. Please stop forum shopping.
"It just sounds better" is not a reason to ignore guidelines. Individual editor preference does not matter, what matters is a standard formatting throughout the wiki. Pakistani practices do not apply on English wikipedia.
Finally, you should be concentrating on finding sources indicating notability because if there aren't any in a couple days I will nominate this page for deletion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015[edit]

182.183.250.25 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022[edit]

"Change Ahmidiya Muslim family to only Ahmidiya Family" 206.84.140.102 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, I don't see the problem with " Ahmadiyya Muslim". --Mvqr (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024[edit]

AqsaIH (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AqsaIH (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT TO ADD MORE DETAIL ON THE JOURNEY OF SALAR AND IMAMA.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 13:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pir-e-Kamil&oldid=1222180357"