Talk:Junaid Jamshed: Difference between revisions

Comments (2005-2006)

This article contains too much of his Islamic turnover, which played only the later part of Junaid's life. It should rather focus on his rise to music stardome more so that we can have a balanced view of this artist's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserthawks (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 August 2006

--

This needs some serious work. Perhaps the information about him could be in the following format:

First Paragraph: His claim to Fame

Second Paragraph: Biographical information, formal training

Third Paragraph: Vital Signs

Forth Paragraph: Solo Career

Fifth Paragraph: Fashion

Sixth Paragraph: His recent turn towards religion and his controversial status

Seventh Paragraph: Conclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.98.61 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 November 2005

Copyvio?

Aren't there Copyvio issues here? Large parts seem to be lifted from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-395/i.html?PHPSESSID=5869 or http://hammadin.blogspot.com/2005/11/junaid-jamshed-and-his-change.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.113.159.130 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 June 2006

sources

Jamshed has been accused by many inner circles in Pakistan ...

Please add sources for this (and the following sentences). Currently, it is nothing but a point of view. Who are the "inner circles", and where is a source for the claim of the criticism? Thanks for adding it, Ibn Battuta 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of page

Salaam, I added this article to the Islamic Scholar's group here. I am making the assumption that you are somewhat new to beginning articles in this Wikipedia. Please, if you have any questions, visit my talk page! I have been working on the Yusuf Islam article, as my interest is in the biographies of musicians. I wish to point out a few errors here:

• When you list hit SONGS, you only put quote marks like "this" on the songs. When you discuss a ALBUM (CD or DVD too), you use these two marks around the album. I tried to fix some at the introduction, but am not familiar with the songs.
• All statements of FACT must have a REFERENCE. You must prove it happened. You must state the source, date, and do it so it is clear and understandable. For example, if the person had a very popular hit song, you must prove it, saying what credible newspaper, website (not his), book, or magazine proved that it is true. I will show you how if you ask.
• Nothing may be listed, the way the music is listed on the site, telling people where they can buy it. This is an encyclopedia. It can not be used for commercial purposes, even to just let someone know. Later when you make pages for each album, you can provide the link to the website where people can find it, but not on the main page. Let me know if you wish some help, checking grammar, or whatever you need. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

I've undone the image removal edit. why was it removed? Muhammad Hamza (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mehboob-e-Yazdaan

The article Mehboob-e-Yazdaan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found LOTS of self promotation web pages, and no published (gBooks) references, no mention of notability in article fails WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of blasphemy

This blasphemy allegation is very emotionally charged and it will need calm and dispassionate handling by Wikipedia editors. It is still in progress; it's unfolding as we speak. So we should refrain from reaching conclusions not found in the sources or based on our own point of view. As editors we need to be objective. We also need to write in careful, neutral and correct English and provide reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources. Pleased discuss the changes you want to make on this talk page before you add them on the Jamshed bio page itself. A neutral point of view is absolutely essential. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: it cannot be stated or implied that Jamshed HAS committed blasphemy. It is just an ALLEGATION at this stage. Thus, the section can't be titled "Blasphemy". Please don't start an edit war on this issue. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Junaid Jamshed has himself admitted committing blasphemy, on his very official Facebook page. When the living person has himself admitted committing blasphemy, it can be well understood that the blasphemy has taken place and it is a fact, not an allegation. Even if it is an allegation, the mere title "Blasphemy" doesn't amount to the conviction of blasphemy, if it were so, the title would be "the conviction of blasphemy", hence mere the title "Blasphemy" will not lend any dent onto the neutrality in question. Further, the words saying that he apologized for it, however emotionally, doesn't absolve him of the fact that he committed the blasphemy (which he himself admitted) and hence the same shall be removed, because they suggest favorable inclination to the living person. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Facebook passess WP:IRS. Reports of what he did or said on Twitter/Facebook on secondary sources would be acceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Confession" of blasphemy?

I've carefully watched Jamshed's video and he apologises tearfully for unintentionally causing distress and controversy, and he begs forgiveness for making mistakes of interpretation, but he does NOT admit blasphemy. I'd like other editors' views on this please. The video can be seen here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bna68_junaid-jamshed-apologizes-for-his-remarks-about-hazrat-bibi-ayesha-r-a_people George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Within the first thirty-five seconds of the video, any Urdu speaker can interpret and affirm that Junaid Jamshed has accepted committing the blasphemy, owing to the self-admitted "ignorance" and then followed the emotional apology. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Blasphemy is "contemptuous or any act or speech 'against the honor of God or a sacred entity'", from 0:22 to 0:34 seconds of the video, Junaid Jamshed, the living person, clearly admits--written here in Roman Urdu, "Mai kuch aisi intehai na-munasib baatein keh gaya, jo iin hazraat ke shaan ke khilaaf hain" translated into English as, "I spoke such extremely inappropriate things that are 'blasphemous' towards these holy personages", the words "shaan ke khilaaf" is translated as "against the honor" meaning blasphemous. The aforementioned proves that the living person has made an admittance/confession of blasphemy, himself. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also a native Urdu speaker. I disagree entirely with your translation. But just in case you think I'm a liar or mistaken, please look at an alternative translation on this site: http://www.muftisays.com/blog/Muadh_Khan/3797_03-12-2014/junaid-jamshed-allegedblasphemy-amp-repentance.html You will see that Jamshed does NOT admit blasphemy. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "Daily Motion"? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Outside editor's view on the blasphemy allegation

• Disclaimer: George Custer's Sabre asked me to comment, and I don't have any real experience of this subject area; I'm simply here as a neutral editor. To me, "who, of late, has been declared a blasphemer," should absolutely not be at the start of the lead; even if it is accurate and even if it were neutral, it is absolutely not in line with the regular Wikipedia procedure of writing a lead. It is so out of place that I have removed it - the only thing I intend to remove myself at this point.
• Secondly, there are a hell of a lot of references being used for this claim, and yet, are any of them reliable? There's a Facebook video there from what I assume is his official Facebook page; if it is, fine. There is no need, however, for Daily Motion, ZemTV (which is user-submitted) or UrduWire videos, neither of which I believe is a reliable source, to be linked in as well; they also may well be copyright violations if they contain footage from the Facebook video on their server. I can't provide any analysis on the "confession", because I don't speak the language.
• Thirdly, let's get to the information about the police investigation. Now, those sources look a lot better, and actually appear to verify the claim that he has confessed/apologized. The Pakistan Today source that is from their satire section absolutely needs to go, and I would personally say that the only source needed to verify this is the Business Insider one, which does not have a comment's section and is also better organized than the other two, which appear to have exactly the same information.
• Fourthly, let's get to the specific text used for the blasphemy section, which I agree should be titled something like "Allegations of blasphemy". This section is based on those video refs again, which also means that the vast majority of it needs some references. Sentences such as "Jamshed is currently incommunicado and his whereabouts are unclear." and "However, in most cases when the government failed to take action in this respect, blasphemers have been shot or killed." do not belong in an encyclopedia, much less in a BLP, and they should be removed altogether in my opinion.
• Finally, I've got another note to make, and that is the line "Jamshed got into a controversy when he endorsed Lays Chips in Pakistan. Several religious scholars criticized his statements saying Lays are halal" should not be present in the lead; it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the text, and it is sourced to a "current affairs and politics blog". Now, obviously I have no idea if this is one of those rare, respectable blogs... but it is my opinion that this is just a non-notable event that shouldn't be anywhere in the article. Long-winded analysis over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lukeno94, thank you for your judicious assessment. So where do we go from here? It seems outrageous to leave the Jamshed bio page as it is, with a clear accusation (in the article but also in the lead) of blasphemy, an allegation that has not been proven and for which he has not confessed (see above on this talk page). I'm scared to edit more right now in case I violate the 3RR or find myself accused of edit warring. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• The most important thing, in my opinion, is to get a third opinion on what the English translation of what Jamshed said is from another, neutral, Urdu speaker. I think this is vital given that a large amount of the current evidence centers around his Facebook apology/confession - and exactly which of those two it was. Secondly, we need more reliable sources on this, and to see exactly what they say; presenting some Urdu ones would be a good idea as well, since the original confession is in Urdu, and I would assume that this would reduce any chance of things being lost in translation prior to the reliable analysis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am Mbcap and also a very new editor. I hope I can help, especially since I have no interest in the subject and I do not hold an opinion on this issue. I shall translate his facebook video if that would help. It is as follows:

Begin translation:

In the name of Allah the most merciful, most beneficient.

We praise Him and we send salutations upon his noble Messenge

Dear respected brothers, friends, elders, sisters. Some time ago in a talk, due to lack of knowledge and ignorance, I said something innapriate about Aisha (wife of Prophet Mohammad.saw) which was in contrast to her. This is my mistake and that mistake is due to my ignorance, my lack of knowledge. I am not an Alim (a scholar) or mufti. I want to admit to this mistake to the entire ummah (muslim collective). I sincerely from my heart repent to Allah, that Allah forgives me. In front of you I put together my hands and ask (maybe beg) you to forgive me. This has been my mistake and I regret my mistake. I did not do this with intention or ......(can't translate word) because the one who mocks the Prophet, the Sahaba or wives of the prophet, he has (cries here) left his religion. For this reason I once again for forgiveness and ask you to forgieve me. I hope you can forgive your brother. And I would like to say from my heart, I am thankful to those brothers who pointed out my indescretion. I request that you make dua to Allah to provide reconciliation. I have been for 17 years doing dawah and I give 3 talks a day. I have made just one mistake, the prophets are infallible, the rest of us are all capable of mistakes. What I did was not intentional, it happened due to my mistake. The mistake is not at all associated with Tablighi Jamaat. Once again, please forgive this brother of yours.

End translation

The brackets are there to expalin, it is not part of the text. I am not a native speaker, just seen a lot of pakistani TV. I think the translation is about 95% accurate. The mistakes would be in syntax and there is one word I did not know the meaning of. I can not comment on this information being in the article because I have no clue what the mistake he is referring to is, he does not elaborate on this in the video. Hope this helps. Mbcap (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Facebook videos pass WP:IRS. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• If they're verifiable as a primary source, then they can be, assuming they're used carefully. Same goes for YouTube. Thanks Mbcap for giving us what your take on the translation is :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)