Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 30 June 2014

Articles for creation Unassessed

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted on 4 April 2014 by reviewer The Herald (talk · contribs).

What is the use of this page

There is no need for creating wiki articles on current issues related to some religion. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.199.130 (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

nonsense there as valid and interesting as on any other subject.Just make sure that you have sufficient neutral sources, as NPOV is situations liek this can be hard go accomplish. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

user:anupmehra changes I have made is the proof that user:Summichum is biased. as you can see he quoted only his POV from the reference he himself has given. which I have added in full. you can also refer his link .Rukn950 (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have also removed user's own adjective (weasal words) cleverly inserted to divert the issue to his own POV. please refer history.Rukn950 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:- An another article on my "to-do" list. Not sure, it should exists or not. However there are multiple reliable sources on this subject that easily satisfies WP:GNG criteria. It'd be a tough job maintaining neutrality! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ommiting the established facts in favour of POV is not acceptable according to[REDACTED] policy.Rukn950 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruqn please dont disrupt correct formatting and dont indulge in irrelevant tag flooding

User:Anupmehra ,User:rukn is flooding tags and has undone by sincere formatting attempts. What to do in this case , you can see the diffs Summichum (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I not done any edit without reliable references.there were edits that stated half truth and omitted the other half of the matter from same references cited.

The tags are necessary to maintain NPOV,till the article is done on wiki standards. infact this article is fork of Dawoodi bohra and Mufaddal saifuddin and as principal it shoud not exist.Rukn950 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Summichum: I see, the article is now tagged with multiple maintenance tags. I've not analyzed the content of the articles and respective sources yet to determine whether it does really warrant these tags or not. These tags can be removed addressing those particular issues what these tags stand for, if there's nothing such issue, then consider talking/discussing with tagging editor Rukn950. If talk could not be proceed due to some differences, then request a WP:Third opinion on this issue. I'm little busy these days around, however, working on Mohammed Burhanuddin article, whenever online. Once finished with Burhanuddin article, I'll be onto this article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to maintain NPOV. I am available for discussion.Rukn950 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary source and forums

Fatemidawat.com is Primary source which solesly exist as pomotion of khuzaima qutbuddin and managed by his camp. has no readership, lot less than badremuneer. dawood bohra forum is not acceptable as forums cannot be cited. similarly youtube. so I have removed the sources which are against the[REDACTED] guidelines. Please discuss if anyone has any objection to my edit.Rukn950 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags

Please do not remove tags before discussion and consent from the concerned editor. In this case Anupmehra, DGG, ‎Markdrows and ‎Md iet Rukn950 (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tag Flooding by Rukn

User:Anupmehra User rukn has flooded this page with many irrelevant tags. Do verify each source is third party neutral NPOV source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That is unfair allegation of summichum. I have tagged that is relevent. This issue is highly volatile and we have to strive to achieve NPOV. I am preventing this article to become a personal blog. I request summichum not to remove tag before proper discussion. Rukn950 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

--Md iet (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)== Third party non aligned views on controversy are Important as per WP:NPOVIEW ==

Some users are trying to remove the section on views of respectable third parties , please discuss here.

They cant be removed as per WP:NPOVIEW and we are not stating it as fact but just quoting it without attesting to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As per WP:BLPFIGHTonly allows material which is 'relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced'. In the present case it is relevant and reliably sourced, but not at all properly weighted. The statement is just issued in isolation. The article topic is mainly on politics, “The Mad Hatter’s ball begins..”. The author discussing Kalmadi and Pawan Bansal, Reddy, Tejpal, Chavan, Sinde of their scandals, suddenly started talking of a prestigious religious community head, which is far away from any party politics and blatantly blames that:

‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.

The article claim:

‘self declared’: What proof this Mr. Nandy have. We forget about earlier Nass before 2011, Mufaddal was not present in London Hospital, his brothers informed him of incident, this is well proven and well reported fact, nobody can dispute. How can it be self declared, definitely his brothers are middleman involved. is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim, |quote= in June 2011, the late Syedna had reportedly said to have suffered a stroke and had made the same proclamation of nass in front of his sons.

‘asked follower to..declare their allegance’...: Is he called the hundreds of thousand DB in Mumbai on the day of late Syedna demise( Mufaddal was away Colombo). Is he asked all the DB to chant ‘Moula Moula” to him in the street of Mumbai when he was on the bridge near Raudat Tahera, at time of last rituals. Indian Express[http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/who-is-new-syedna-trouble-brews-as-half-brother-stakes-claim/2/, quote= Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq.”- Indian Express]

‘his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ : the claimaint himself says that anoinment was done in private and did not put any direct proof of incident. From where this Mr. Nandy got the proof and declared single headedly.. ‘had anointed’.Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.

The statement is not at all properly weighted and a just allegation, never never suitable for inclusion in BLP cases as per Wiki guidelines.

User: Summichum is trying to add the statement again again to force his POV. The statement is to be removed immediately. Hope the above is justified, any value addition is welcome, else the para will be deleted.--Md iet (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Md iet the quote is stated as a quote NOT a fact , a quote can be true or false , as the title suggests it just states the view of respected third parties. He himself is a famous journalist and knows how to get into the truth of the matters. You can consider his quote as a third party expert opinion. Moreover Mufaddal is clearly self declared as its proven from the medical records and video of ceremony that he was not able to speak and had significant mental deficits on account of severe stroke. Mufaddal took advantage of this stroke to declare himself as successor. He did not even consult the deputy of the dai , the Mazoon. Nor was the Mazoon present at the place. You can yourself add quotes of independent third party on the succession controversy, I tried to find more quotes in favour of Mufaddal on this issue but was unable to find. Please update the section if you find one.— Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

Mr.Sumchum, a quote can be a blatant lie as proven above, but as per WP:BLPFIGHTit is to be properly weighted for inclusion in Wiki. Please don't try to find out quote in favour of Mufaddal, just restrain from doing edit war you are up to.--Md iet (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• • No you cant judge whether it is lie or not , now as the matter is in courts let the courts decide , his quote is important as he has never before quoted on religion , it has to be something important which is why he made that statement. Your personal opinions dont matter as you already have COI , hence biased whereas Pritish does not have a conflict of interest and he being a reputed journalist knows the difference between hearsay and statement of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If you 'can't judge it is lie or not' than there is ample possibility that it can be lie. How one can categorically declare that Mufaddal is ‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras' for a living person and that's why Wiki has made a precondition of 'properly weighted' to ensure that Wiki do not involve in the matter directly or indirectly. Hence inclusion of this blatant statement of any damn big person/source is not acceptable in Wiki, I have personally objected to Mr. Nandy on Twitter and expect explanation from him.--Md iet (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote from pritish Nandi

I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Misplaced Pages, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally.

Similar edit was done by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No Rukn950 you changed before discussing here and above, anyways WP:BLPGOSSIP applies to BLP articles and this is not a BLP article , this article's main topic itself is succession controversy which requires that the views of third parties whether pro or against should be quoted if avaialible in reputed media outlets, remember we are not stating it as fact but as quote.Summichum (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

whether the article is about living person or not but the quote is hence it is violation. you reverted my edit without discussion. that has become your habitual consistency. I would request user:Qwertyus and user:Anupmehra to look into this matter and also about Azad suplimentary.Rukn950 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• please see WP:CRYBLP and WP:BLPFIGHT this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles WP:BLPFIGHT, it has valid source and reference from a leading news paper User:Anupmehra and admins do see this violationSummichum (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • as discussed in length at , as per WP:BLPFIGHTonly allows material which is 'relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced'. In the present case it is relevant and reliably sourced, but not at all properly weighted. The statement is just issued in isolation. The article topic is mainly on politics, “The Mad Hatter’s ball begins..”. The author discussing Kalmadi and Pawan Bansal, Reddy, Tejpal, Chavan, Sinde of their scandals, suddenly started talking of a prestigious religious community head, which is far away from any party politics and blatantly blames that:

‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.

The matter was deleted by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin(I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Misplaced Pages, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC),), and edit war complain was negated by another admin on the same issue. Sumichum is reinstated the material on his will, admin to notice.--Md iet (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:SOURCES, 'material challenged or likely to be challenged,..whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.', also this inclusion is not at all justified.--Md iet (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In case there is no further comments on the above justification, we may proceed.--Md iet (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• • firstly you have quoted BLP policy please see WP:BLPFIGHT this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles as this article itself describes the controversy from various reliable sources WP:BLPFIGHT, secondly the section title itself is opinion of various third parties on the issue hence the quote are not stated as fact but only as quote of noteworthy intellectual persons who are influential, Pritish Nandy is himself a seasoned journalist and he knows the rules of Journalism and hence it is more likely that he has researched and presented his opinion as a quote. So dont worry whether it is a fact or not it does not matter as we are just collecting opinions of influential people on the succession controversy. You yourself may add quotes of other influential partiesSummichum (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If anybody else is against removal of this not properly weighted statement where, 'the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect' as per one of the admin, may please put his view.--Md iet (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) As there is no other editor who is against removing this material, and

user:Mr. Stradivarius has already removed this from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on basis of ‘author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect', and

user:Kuru has already accepted removal as no violation, hence

The statement is being removed. It may please not be added without further consensus, else would be treated as edit warring.--Md iet (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dont try to repeat the same arguments , the user stradivarus has not commented here that article is a different one, and this section itself says "statement of third parties " hence it cant be removed as per WP:BLPFIGHT this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles as this article itself describes the controversy from various reliable sources WP:BLPFIGHT, secondly the section title itself is opinion of various third parties on the issue hence the quote are not stated as fact but only as quote of noteworthy intellectual persons who are influential, Pritish Nandy is himself a seasoned journalist and he knows the rules of Journalism and hence it is more likely that he has researched and presented his opinion as a quote. So dont worry whether it is a fact or not it does not matter as we are just collecting opinions of influential people on the succession controversy. You yourself may add quotes of other influential partiesSummichum (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Request user:Mr. Stradivarius & user:Kuru to intervene in the matter. Summichum is adamant in his behavior, and trying to reinstate material which is not ' properly weighted' (), because 'the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect' and material is not 'verifiable'(WP:SOURCES).--Md iet (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to express support for removing the quote as WP:QUOTE says "where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Misplaced Pages's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Furthermore, this source does not present a neutral point-of-view because it almost certainly satirical. Also, Summicham says that but "BLP policy does not apply to controversy-related articles", but at the start of the section Where BLP does and does not apply, it says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages" (emphasis mine), and I think we can all agree the subjects of this controversy are very much alive and well (excluding the late Syedna, of course).

However, a palatable and preferable approach that could avoid undue weight would be to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and integrate it with the rest of the article, like what has been done with the note on the note on AM Ahmadi's support for Qutbuddin.

Also, could I be a pain and remind you to indent your replies? EdwardH (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• talk I agree with the solution offered by you in the second para WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV , and that was my intention too as pritish quote was written as a quote and not a fact, anyways I request you to integerate it as you did with Ahmadi, but note that Pritish is a reputed journalist who also has been editor of famous news papers in India and is not aligned to any of the conflicting parties and this should come out in the integrated article.Summichum (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

azad suplimentary

This citation as being referenced in the article is primary source. it is a self published supplementary. I request my fellow editors to look into this matter.Referene No 16 and No 17 in the article:

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> This reference does not comply with[REDACTED] source policy.Rukn950 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• • It is a primary source of progressive faction stating their views , its just their own demands and not fact\truth added for sake of completeness.- not signed( may be from Sumchum)

• Primary source that too of a minority group making propaganda, not having any public acceptance, mouthpiece of a breakaway group publishing just their demand of their will, not fact/truth even cannot be taken as good faith edit. In any case ,how can a demand charter of independent faction who declared himself out for more than 30 years can be a part of article related with present DB succession. Mr. Sumchum is restoring/adding the material as per his will. If any body wants to put some another idea, may discuss.--Md iet (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Material from source described as: 'It is a primary source of progressive faction stating their views , its just their own demands and not fact\truth added for sake of completeness' added, when removed; reinstated complaining edit war is something strange. Material is demands of a independent breakaway group, separated more then 30 years before; how can it be relevant to present succession and require for 'sake of completion'.--Md iet (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Demands of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras in wake of succession controversy

Lots of peacock terms are added in this sections. and undue weightage is given to progressive dawoodi bohra.Reference given are also self publish primary source, no independent third party reference are given except in few places where the matter is blown out of proportion of prove user summichum's POV .Rukn950 (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As India is secular country no one can, and has stopped Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, to form their own group along with their believers, elect their own Nizam and follow their own doctrines. Rukn950 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The absurd demand of progressive dawoodi bohra has no real meaning. it is like Scientology cult advising Pope the tenants of religion.This group is taking advantage of the controversy giving sugarcoated pills,misleading the readers. And I feel summichum is promoting their cause.Rukn950 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Nevertheless it is related to controversy and should be reported as per WP:NPOVVIEW IT IS A primary source and is verifiable unlike sloppy badre munir which is a unverifiable self published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no way anyone can reason with user:summichum. he will maintain his POV and revert all others good faith edits.Rukn950 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Primary source that too of a minority group making propaganda, not having any public acceptance, mouthpiece of a breakaway group publishing just their demand of their will, not fact/truth even cannot be taken as good faith edit. In any case ,how can a demand charter of independent faction who declared himself out for more than 30 years can be a part of article related with present DB succession. Mr. Sumchum is restoring/adding the material as per his will. If any body wants to put some another idea, may discuss.--Md iet (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If the source <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> is acceptable here, and Mr. Sumchum claims that "IT IS A primary source and is verifiable unlike sloppy badre munir which is a unverifiable self published work " Let me give details of "Badre Muneer" magazine:

1. Badre Muneer is independent publication of Dawoodi Bohra and not "another self published source of one of the claimants". This magazine has vide circulation all over the countries where Dawoodi Bohra lives and act as mouthpiece for Dawoodi Bohra;

Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community BADRE MUNEER, Regn. no. RAJKOT/378/2012/14, Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252 Follow them from wherever you are: On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages This is not a primary source of claimaint, but a private publication, you can follow from wherever you are on all public network like facebook, google, orkut etc. on web ID given above. How come this secondary source become sloppy. We agree that this magazine is specifically meant for Dawoodi Bohra, but it has world vide circulation amongst Bohra and material available in it is treated as news material worldvide for Bohra , how it can be non encyclopedic in the matter of Dawoodi Bohra.

If publication like www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf, publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad (which are not at all as per wiki std.) are sustained, 'Badre Muneer' are 100 times genuine as a majority news service of DB. --Md iet (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Custody battle

The innocent children were kidnapped by daughters of khuzaima qutbuddin against the permission of their fathers, as per law this is a crime

Parental Kidnapping occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A )

Rukn950 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) It is sad that innocent children were dragged into this controversy.

Non free material

There is some material in this article which breach copyright:

1. http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/2045/52/A-Manifesto-on-behalf-of-the-Dawoodi-Bohra-Community/d,pdb_detail_article_comment/

2. http://scroll.in/article/as-bohra-succession-battle-heads-to-court-support-for-syednas-uncle-gathers-steam/?id=660414

I haven't checked the whole article but I suspect there are other areas that are either copy vio or excessive use of non free material in terms of the amount that is directly quoted. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some of the copyrighted information, however the excessive quoting is still an issue in terms of excessive non-free use. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• thanks for the edit Flat Out , I also had this concern but due to the various NPOV policies it is better to just quote as writing in own words might introduce bias in the matters.

No, you can't just fill an article with quotes. Read and understand WP:QUOTE and WP:COPYVIO. Also, please sign your posts Flat Out let's discuss it 09:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pritish Nandi

Violation WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.

WP:Gossip

Removed the quoation as per the above mentioned violation Rukn950 (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy

User:Mr. Stradivarius This article is about succession controversy and not about what foreign ministers of India offering condolence to Mufaddal, . From the reports Mufaddal had deceived his own people and staged a succession ceremony using the debilitated stroke ridden body of burhanuddin as a prop. While the people believed what was told to them , the fact is a succession deed was not pronounced although it was made to appear as if it was pronounced and people were made to believe that which was what reported in Media , untill his brother came up with evidences and videos which showed that succession did not take place. Hence you cannot say that a political foriegn minister accorded it. the user md_iet is having a COI and wants to add completely irrelevant details to loose the focus of the article. User:Anupmehra please look into this matter. Also he is accusing in COI board of "poking nose in others matters". Which is completely bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mr.Summichum, I am not claiming that 'a political foreign minister accorded it'. In the support Para , it is just mentioned the media report exactly quoted, without adding any original research. This is important as this statement of media is related with subject 'support'. This is same as news of Pritish Nandi or Ahmadi being quoted here. For keeping NPOV, this is important.--Md iet (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding complain that 'he is accusing in COI board of "poking nose in others matters". ‘Which is completely bad faith.' Let me make further clear that Mr Summichum seems to be a learned person and it is not expected of him to quote about a community that “ fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims” without giving any proof or inline citation of wiki reliable sources. This is direct allegation and this person seems to have extreme negative POV for the community as whole. This is not just an original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline, this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. This blatant interference without any proper basis cannot be defined less than ‘poking nose’ and it seems completely in good faith of community as well as of Wiki policies. As per WP:BLPFIGHT, More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.--Md iet (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Mr.User:Anupmehra, may please analyse Mr Summichum carefully. He doesn't seems to be a third party NPOV editor as he claims. He has clearly doubted about the succession of Ali. , which is core point related with origination of Shia community as whole. He seems to en cash this succession crisis, toward his goal of harassment of Shia community as whole, of which Bohra community is a part. Anyway thanks again for constructive modification suggested and being implemented by you as true third party editor for making Bohra articles to Wiki standards.--Md iet (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Please dont goto offtopic issues this is not a place of personal attacks and judging users intentions, what you always do is never engage in the topic of discussion but fill your replies with false allegations. Dont bring discussion of other articles here what I had quoted in that article which was published in reliable milligazzete article. Reg Salman then the topic is about succession controversy and condolence related topic are completely irrelevant as many people offered condolences on death of his father. And Mufaddal himself presented himself as the daee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: - Hello Summichum, I'll request you to not allege some person "COI affiliation" until you have got some solid evidence to prove your claim. It'd otherwise, be considered a personal attack. I'll make a humble request to Md iet too, to comment on the contents not on the contributor. If there's some evidence that suggests, disruptive editing from an editor, then it is a case to bring to administrator attention, at ANI or AIV. Coming back to point, whether some stuffs should be included or not into this article, would be better if resolved with discussing the editor in conflict, if it doesn't happen, let me know. I'd chose to open a RFC to invite comments from people regular to WikiProject India and WikiProject Islam. Whatever, consensus would be thereafter, should be acceptable by everyone. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ThanksUser:Anupmehra for your Wiki friendly advice to coeditors. My first comment was on clarification about the content only. I also don't believe in making any personal allegations and always in favour of having humble relations with coeditor. Here is a unique different case of making false personal/community allegations, giving notices everywhere, making every stone get turned to stick to his POV and raising the case of COI again here out of the context, which I was suppose to answer and I was rather forced to comment on the contributor, hope Summichum, will take it supportingly, and other coeditor will excuse me.--Md iet (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Summichum I dont seem to understand, you gave too much weightage to passing statement of Pritish Nandy . yet you object the report of Salman Khurshid, who is foreign minister. Dont you think you have objection of every good faith edits that does not confirm your POV and Yet you blow out of proportion any minor info which does?Rukn950 (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've just finished reading the present version of the article, and it does not read neutral to me, and seems to me biased towards one side and some coverage ignored of the other side, indicating partial "point of view" editing by some editor. I'm tagging the present article with {{overcoverage}} and {{POV}} maintenance tags, and the same should not be removed, until concerns resolved, either by discussion or editing the contents of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to leave a note here, It'd only take around 1-2 hours to me, to address the tone and format the article accordingly wiki standards, but I assume, It'd most probably not acceptable by the people who wants to see, arguments in favor of their leader or against their disliked leader and I'd soon be reverted by some person. This is why, I'm not editing any of the bohra articles because obviously, it'd be a waste of my time.

Editors here, I'd say, ALL, does not seem constructive to me, towards Misplaced Pages. I do not really wish to answer any {{ping}} by them. They are free to smash their POV on each other, and do edit-war, I'm not going to interfere, till either one does not get blocked for his disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages is definitively not a place to push their POV. What can I do here? To persuade and let them know, What Misplaced Pages is and What Misplaced Pages is not. Well, I've given it a try much earlier on other bohra article. Yes, a set of editors are editing all bohra related articles.

So, what is the solution here? Editors engaged and edit-warring and pushing their point of view, should refrain editing all bohra related articles themselves. There are millions of other articles, they do not have an idea about, to edit and learn a new subject daily. It seems less-plausible to me. What appears working for me, at this instance, is a topic-ban or full-protection, if some admin wishes to copy-edit to correct the article himself or semi-pending-changes protection, for non-involved editors to do the same. What can I do here? Nothing, wait and watch! I do not have access to tools, but essay and guidelines, what doesn't seem to be working here. Bring editors to admin's attention? They already are reporting each other all around noticeboards. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Anup(pl. don't mind, I am calling you by your first name, considering age difference and knowing your work and POV about Wiki , which I appreciate), Frankly speaking Wiki has so much articles and its treasure is increasing day by day due to its way of working. Please don't get dishearten by editors behavior. This is human tendency and as you correctly pointed out that every human has its own POV, his choice and he works around them. Important thing is what is his intentions, what moral value he have, how he wants to live in community, whether he is considerate about other's concern, whether he wants to live and let live together and so on. Wiki is a platform and I vision it just more than any thing in world you cannot just define. People are defining it just a encyclopedia, informing the world what reliable sources reporting whether wrong or right. But it has much more in it, we should not limit this platform criteria. There are good faith editors who knows much more then what actually available in reliable resources, which are real facts and true and hidden. People can get all the material from anywhere( all reliable sources), but cannot get material which is some thing extra available in Wiki. Here the difference is, because this platform is open to all and free to edit, self correcting and wrong or false thing would not sustain much. This thing is very difficult to justify and Wiki principles are made in such a fashion that it restrict reader to misuse it. Here comes individual intentions, and that's why COI tool is kept here, but it is very difficult to operate it and really judge who is real culprit. There is provision for good faith edit and so on, but it works only when every body's intention are so good as of Wiki. That's why good faith edit gets fail when there is some miscreant, and he never wants to bring out the thing clear and all wiki rules are to be applied strictly, and similar situation just as on 'Bohra' articles get arisen, as now involve human grid etc.

My self and Mr.Rukn has already declared ourselves Dawoodi Bohra, and from above discussion and the way I edit , my intentions are also well clear. As you said there are so many article available to edit, put frankly speaking I don't have so much time and my age/health also restrict me. Bohra topics, I use to develop, as I believe in Fatimid tradition and faith and try to correct the information to extent possible best of my knowledge as I am involved in it and have basic knowledge. Other third party editor don't have much knowledge about this tradition and request them to help me in getting proper citation etc. to improve them further. Wiki is platform where I want to present the real facts. If it is clashing with some others interest then we have to be more careful about wiki rules and honors them completely and present them considering all POV together and keep it true as per facts as much as possible, and never oppose matter which is presented in Wiki manners. If in dispute taking help of third parties and finally with consensus.

We know that in today's world people can go up to any extent. All the means are available and media/people get advantage out of it. I don't want to see and can not see that any such people take advantage of Wiki at least. That is only my intention. I request everybody's cooperation in this mission. I am a Wiki fan and soldier, and believe in cooperation with all, thanks.--Md iet (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a real pleasure to be called by the first name, rather than the last name (what makes me feel old). Coming back to the point, your lengthy comment above, gives me an idea what may be the possible trouble here, that has given arise to edit-dispute over a set of articles related to a common subject. (And, I'm going to write a lengthy comment as well being jeal of you, Ha!).

Misplaced Pages may be more than anything for you, but in fact, it is just an encyclopedia (WP:ENC). We here do not represent truth or fact but a summary of information already available in multiple reliable sources. Accept it or not, but this is what Misplaced Pages is all about. If you take a look at the five-pillars of Misplaced Pages, it is limited around the same concept. Whatever policy and guidelines, Misplaced Pages does have, also revolve around the same. We won't have verifiability or notability or some other as such original research policy, if we have to undermine "informations present in reliable sources".

What you know may be true, a real fact yet unknown to peoples out there. But, as it is not published in some reliable or neutral sources, it simply does not qualify for inclusion on Misplaced Pages.

Few lines from your above comment,

There are good faith editors who knows much more then what actually available in reliable resources, which are real facts and true and hidden. People can get all the material from anywhere( all reliable sources), but cannot get material which is some thing extra available in Wiki. Here the difference is, because this platform is open to all and free to edit, self correcting and wrong or false thing would not sustain much.

Yes, Be bold, always. But, Misplaced Pages really does not publish information, not present, in reliable sources. It is against spirit of Misplaced Pages, as such that we have a policy here called, "no original research".

I'd say, if you have pretty much misconception about Misplaced Pages, as such it provides information not present any where else. No, it is not really like that. Misplaced Pages have hard-working editors from all around the globe, who dig-up sources, do online-offline research to find information and they present the same, and attribute to those sources, they retrieved the information from. And, Misplaced Pages is different from other sites, not that way, but another way. Misplaced Pages presents information in a "neutral tone" as such it reads good to both, promoters and criticizers and all information finds their roots to some reliable source. This way, Misplaced Pages is different, not any other way.

You have a little misconception over WP:AGF policy as well. Yes, we assume good faith, but it is just that, some editors did not knew some policy and guideline, and acted accordingly. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary to any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

Let me know, where do we go from here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Anup, for making me more aware about what wiki is. It is good to hear that there are hard working editors, let me add that they are increasing day by day and ,they are such committed that if you stop them editing even for 24 hrs, they feel offensive and want to do and die for it.

I totally agree with you and I don't have any further reservation or personal ego or anything else to not to follow Wiki guidelines as it is designed keeping overall interest and further it's rules are open to all for further improvements.

You can take it granted my full cooperation, and I wouldn't take otherwise of your any comment and you are free to edit my inputs in whatever way you want in Wikiepedian manner.

Now come to the Fatimid topics, as far as I know, this faith is always in tremendous pressure even from the time of it's root the Fatima and Ali, and that pressure still sustains in this modern era (as you must have read in Dawoodi Bohra article). After death of Mohammad, Ali was dragged out from his house by men of Abu bakr and threat was given that if they doesn't open the door of their house they will burn their house where little Hasan and Husain was also present. Imam Husain was brutally killed along with his 6 months old son Ali Asgar in Karbala, whose complete family was kept without water for three consecutive days. Heavy taxation was imposed on pilgrimage going to Karbala for Husain. Fatimid Imam 9th to 11th was to hide themselves with nicknames and world don't have their proper names known even in this Wikepedia, which I as Fatimid Bohra declared with 100% confidence. Imam Husain's head was digged and transferred three times by Abbasid caliph and was kept hidden for years together near sea shore at Ashklan , philistine(now under control of Israel), such that people do not come to Sham Damascuss)to pay homage. It was Fatimid Imam Mustansir who got tracked the place and build again a worship place their for Shia people. Israeli force again destroyed complete place , made it plain ground and build a hospital over it. In this modern era nobody knew that this was place where Imam Husain head was kept hidden for many years together. Fatimid Bohra 51st/52nd Dai got location identified, Israeli authority was approached to dig the place, old proof of the place was found underneath, and small monument was built where Dawoodi Bohra only visit the place. Fatimid Dai were 'gheraoed'(captivated) in Yemen at Zimarmar fort by Zaidian rulers, and they faught very hard to survive fatimid tradition. Finally they couldn't survive in Yemen and they shifted to India. In India also Mughal ruler didn't like Shia principles and they were put into hardship, Dai Qutbuddin was to sacrifice himself, his head was cut by Aurangjeb.

Now you could understand , to keep their faith alive even up to today many facts are hidden in Fatimid literature which is not available to common public. Only rough information are available and it is very easy to manipulate the things by others. My self has corrected many article related with Fatimid, which do not have proper citation and things are written contradicting to each other article and nobody knows. Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi article and his mother article Asma bint Shihab was intermixed, nobody was clear what matter should be where. Both article were having material intermixed. Same thing with Imam Husain daughter Sakina. There were three daughters of Imam Husain one 11years ,one 7 years and one 4 years old, they are called somewhere or other with name similar to Sakina: fatema Sugra/fatema kubra/Rukayya /sukayna. There were only two article on Sukayna/Rukayya amongst three daughter and nobody was clear what is where. I introduced third article and made all three sister clearly defined in each article. Similarly there were contradictory statements in different articles without citation on who/how the Fatimid first caliph origination begin in north Africa. I tried tocorelate them and harmonise the material.

You might be getting bored, but my emphasis is that after doing all hard work all around by Wiki editors, there are some thing get hidden, and many information are still hidden, which is to be completed by help of good faith editors. And to be make them further encyclopedic should be common efforts. Wiki do not take guarantee to provide each and every thing available on earth, but if it is made as far as clear and true to viewer, it will be a another plus point for Wiki.

I will further remember and emphasize that : "Editors is not to continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary to any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." Md iet (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brotalk again you are delving into offtopic discussions , what you have said is highly debatable and you are just presenting you own personal opinions without any evidence . Firstly According to Valerie Hoffman, Western historians largely reject Shi'ite claims of Muhammad having appointed Ali as his successor as fabrications. Most of what you have written is personal views of a sect, against which there is a large body of evidence from third party orientalist sources. I hope you will take this opportunity to read the views and evidences of other mainstream groups and third party academic sources.It is nice that you also want the truth to prevail. And let me tell you I did belong to an Ismaili sect which was also part of a succession dispute like many others and have done extensive research and study on these subjects for the past many years.

Thanks Sumichum, for getting cordial. Please do sign to honour Wiki. It is interesting that you are from Ismaili sect and done extensive research. Let me make you further clear that Valayat (faith) is not dependent for any proof or third party verification from western or damn anything in the world. Valayat is important pillar of Iman and if you don't have Iman you are not a mumeen you may be a muslim. Aiklavya had cut his right hand finger for Dronacharya just for nothing but his valayat of Dron. You may call everything presented above as my personal opinion without any evidences, but they don't need any evidences as they are self proven facts and truth is going to prevail. Bohra's are true Mumeen(hence definitely a Muslim), but they categorise them separate or see them in separate group from other Muslim as they find that they feel that there is something missing for a perfect Mumeen, although very much a strict Muslim follower of Islam. Evidences are physical requirement for Wiki to defend its process or for any judicial process to justify, but they are always present somewhere, only thing is we have to search hard for it. All the above are not off topic discussion, but hard facts about shia/Fatimid/Bohra faith, which you declared as a new innovation, not a Islam. This facts are core heart of articles we are dealing and a nonbeliever cannot judge what is personal or community humiliation, which Wiki cares for its editor over and above all rules it have. --Md iet (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum - Thanks for joining in the conversation. Please place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts and comments. It'd generate your signature with date and time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI It seems you have not read and understood others perspective , please see Summichum (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To all good faith editors, This never ending argument between sunni and shia has been going on for 1400 years, this arguments are covered on other places please dont drag it here. just state here what is relevant to the topic.Rukn950 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Start over

Lets start over! Previous discussion seems to have been diluted with irrelevant contexts and personal attacks and policy and guidelines. Why are we here talking on this talk page? We are here to establish a consensus, to write a summary of already available information in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources about ongoing succession controversy in the Dawoodi Bohra community. We are not here to present the truth/fact to the world. Just a summary of information present in multiple reliable sources from a neutral point of view.

What's the problem here? Sources do contradict each other. The same source, who does mention Saifuddin as 53rd Da'i, in his later publication mentions him, a claimant. We should to mention the events chronologically. We've to write a simple, clean, and complete summary of information available to this date. It should be divided into few sections as, "What the actual controversy is", "Why did it happen", "Claims of the people involved", and "Developments after the controversy, as such court cases, comments by other notable peoples, etc.". That's it.

If you people insists on introducing your personal knowledge into this, we would be leading to no where. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have edited your subpage draft for this article, correcting the things as per facts/citation and rearranging them. I expect your further comment there. Your above suggestion is perfect and we may work further accordingly. You may study the present revision and deletion done on this article page and incorporate further material accordingly in your draft.--Md iet (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why the edits I last made were reversed. This article needs significant cleanup for grammar, readability and tone. On the one hand some contextual information is missing which could puzzle an uninitiated reader, and on the other there are instances of repetition within the article and between several related ones. There is no need to exclude any reliable references, or any points of view, we just need to organize it less chaotically. I propose that since there seem to be two clear invested points of view in this debate, we should restructure the page with a minimalist introduction, and then organize two main sections with each point of view. Hopefully, it should be far easier to reach consensus within one camp, and respectfully leave the counterparty to represent their own point of view. Lurente (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks (User :Lurente) for helping out , I had inadvertently undone your edits as I was adding some past content , please redo the changes you made Summichum (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (User:Summichum). If other editors would give their feedback we can work out a non-contentious way forward. Lurente (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lurente, for your constructive and correct approach, and most of all making User:Summichum)agree to add legitimate material which he has deleted 'inadvertently' 3-4 times till now. Chief justice disclosure before late Syednas demise was shifted to 'dispute' para, as that was important there. Support part with exact quote of CJI added at 'Support' para, balancing the both the topics.

Court case part shifted from lead para to 'court case' para, as this was repetition, as it was not so important as stay order is already withdrawn.--Md iet (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of important Nass document

Earlier a important nass document detail was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on the plea that reliable secondary source is not available. This document is very very important, as this is a written proof ,of which photocopies are made public in three different sources ,

1. Dawoodi Bohra official web site : http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/

2. A personal website http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/02/01/reason-34-doubt-cannot-undermine-conviction/

3. A international dawoodi bohra magazine ‘Badre muneer’ web site http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm ( same material as of 2,requoted).

As per WP:WPNOTRS, Wiki mention that

a. ‘Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.’, and

b. ‘while specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.’

Hence

1.As per b) above , Wiki permit primary source to use it for ‘specific facts’ on second preference.

2.As per a) above, primary source can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid OR.

These both points are applicable in the present situation. As the photo copy of a important dairy is a document having a ‘specific fact’. and we are considering all media source available as primary and no secondary source is available , hence we have tried all option available at present and we are compelled to use primary source. Hence these sources can be used as per Wiki for presenting this information.

Facts as depicted in the report are presented without adding any OR , and part of dairy material is quoted, please.

Hope all the editors would agree to my above justification.--Md iet (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Source number 2 is right out because it's a blog, so I removed it. The other two sources are very clearly partisan and cannot be trusted at face value; if they carry authority within the Dawoodi Bohra community they can be cited, but in this case "the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

1. http://afternoondc.in/city-news/50k-dawoodi-bohras-gather-at-azad-maidan/article_102015
2. Valerie Jon Hoffman, The Essentials of Ibadi Islam, pp. 6-7. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2012. ISBN 9780815650843]

• Unassessed AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/04 April 2014
• Accepted AfC submissions