This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 hate speech, but not garbage? Understood! --Sarabseth (talk) 14:18, 11 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)
...the best test to check notability is the Google test
==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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
I think you meant Yahoo Group, not newsgroup.
(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)
I don't appreciate your comment about 'distortion of the guidelines' either.
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.
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.
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?
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)
Erm, it IS devotional music. Your opinion doesn't really matter that much, if the point of sufi music is to transport the listener to spiritual ecstasy, it's a legitimate trait of the art form. 176.143.124.36 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<PLEASE ADD INDIAN QAWWAL AZIZ NAZAN>
116.203.95.49 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
--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)
--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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
124.123.77.187 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Please Add Current Qawwal List Ateeq Hussain Khan Thank You.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Add Current Qawwals List Name Ateeq Hussain Khan 124.123.77.187 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Big Qawwals Of India Add To Current Qawwals List 124.123.106.189 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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))
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, can someone please add a note in the lead about the pronunciation? I believe it's /kəˈvɑːlɪ/ ([8], [9]), but a few other sources (perhaps less reliable) have a more English-sounding /w/. Thanks 2A02:C7D:DA2C:7400:94EE:7537:96AF:963A (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm wondering if the "definition" section could be combined with the introductory portion of the article. The information in the definition section itself is important and helpful (especially the explanations of terminology), but I'm not sure it warrants an entire section since it's just a few lines. I would love to hear others' opinions before I make any changes. Violetstork (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Violetstork (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! I see that someone has listed Kafi as a category of Qawwali (see Qawwali repertory section). All of the sources I've found (including the wikipedia page for Kafi) seem to frame it as a genre of its own that is closely related to Qawwali, but can't really be called a subcategory. I'd like to suggest removing it from the Qawwali repertory section and instead adding a link to the Kafi wiki page in the "See Also" section. I woudl be grateful for feedback before I make any changes! Violetstork (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I've added a new section with the header "Historical Practice and Training" to discuss historical practices around qawwali and qawwals themselves since the page had more on the formal structure and its entry into more mainstream practices. I'm wondering if it makes sense to move this below the section on "Origins" or somehow combine them. Open to suggestions. Acousmat (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)