Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
Similar edit was done by admin [[user:Mr. Stradivarius]] in article [[Mufaddal Saifuddin]].[[User:Rukn950|Rukn950]] ([[User talk:Rukn950|talk]]) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
Similar edit was done by admin [[user:Mr. Stradivarius]] in article [[Mufaddal Saifuddin]].[[User:Rukn950|Rukn950]] ([[User talk:Rukn950|talk]]) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
*No [[User:Rukn950|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.[[User:Summichum|Summichum]] ([[User talk:Summichum|talk]]) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
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: |
Revision as of 16:23, 13 April 2014
Articles for creation Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
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)
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 [1].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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
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 wikipedia source policy.Rukn950 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)