This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
founder of religions category
I have removed the category "founders of religions" as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a founder of a religion. He was an Islamic reformer. SaifullahKhalid
I disagree strongly with Saifullah Khalid on his describing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as an Islamic Reformer.Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a reformer of the Islamic faith. His proclamation was that he was a prophet of Allah, bearing messages from Allah (after the messengerhood of Muhammad, who as per the Quran is Allah's last messenger on this earth till the day of judgement. The Quran is the ultimate authority on Islam after Allah whose messages it carries. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani had transgressed that ultimate authority when he publicly proclaimed his false prophethood in Islam. Such instances of fallacity are not new to students of Islamic history. Even as Muhammad, Allah's last messenger lay on his death-bed at Medina, three arabs of nearby areas including a woman had proclaimed prophethood by showing arabic verses similar to those in the Quran, to the public claiming them to be from Allah. Those people are described in Islamic chronicles as Quzzaab (Liers). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was indeed one such liar. It will be absolute idiocy to describe a liar like him as reformer to the holy Islamic faith!Lutfullah (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah
This article is designed to mislead people... there should be something about the death of Mirza --Slayer00 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Its already there w/ its own article too linked as the section starts. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The present head of the Deobandi-Wahaabi-Tableeghi Jama'at, Janab Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, on page 55 of his book, Sawaanih Maulana Abdul Qaadir Raipuri, says: "In those days Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani's claim and invitations were much talked about, specially in the Punjab, where few Musalmaan localities were free of such talks and discussions would continue. Near the home-town (Dhudiyan) of Hazrat (Abdul Qaadir Raipuri) is a place called 'Bhera'. An aalim there, who was also a student of the family elders of the Hazrat (Raipuri), Hakeem Noorud-deen (Qadiani), was a close devotee and assistant of Mirza Sahib (Qadiani) and had permanently settled in Qadian to be of help to him (Mirza Qadiani) in achieving success for him and for the sake of his companionship. There was much talk in his circle of devotees and in his sphere of influence of the claim of Mirza Sahib to be a person favoured by Allah and for his being blessed with acceptance of his supplication. The Hazrat (Raipuri) had read it somewhere in Mirza Sahib's (Qadiani's) writings that Allah had inspired in him the saying, Ajeebu kulla duaa'ika illaf shurakaa'ika (I will grant all your supplications except those made for your partners), So The Hazrat (Raipuri) in a letter to Mirza Sahib (Qadiani) from 'Afzal Grah' referred to this very inspiration and promise and requested him that since he had no partnership with him (Qadiani) he should make supplication so that he may be given guidance and his breast be opened up. A letter from there written by one Maulvi Abdul Kareem Sahib informed him (Raipuri) that his letter had been received and much supplication had been made for him. So, he should keep reminding about it occasionally. The Hazrat (Raipuri) used to say that in those days a post card cost one Pisa and so he would occasionally post a card to Mirza Qadiani by way of a reminder for supplicating on his behalf."
More about the special disciple of Janab Shah Abdur Raheem Raipuri, Janab Abdul Qaadir Raipuri (whose real name was Ghulam Jeelaani). On page 62 of his book, Abul Hasan Nadvi Sahib writes: "Giving an account of the meetings held by Hakeem Sahib (Noorud-deen Qadiani), he (Abdul Qaadir Raipuri) said 'I used to watch him (Hakeem Sahib) recite every now and then the Qur'aanic verse La ilaaha illa anta Subhaanaka inni kuntu minaz zaalimeen with such compassion that one felt drawn towards it. Then, I would think how a person possessing such ecstasy and nearness to Allah can be so ignoramous? But at the same time I would think in my heart that if Allah is most compassionate and most merciful, and He is undoubtedly so, He cannot leave him in such ignominy". During this journey, he also met Mirza Sahib (Qadiani), and he (Abdul Qaadir Raipuri) used to say that he would sometimes say his prayers behind him (Mirza Qadian) and sometimes separately." Khokhar976
Use of abusive language section
I am removing the section entitled "use of abusive language" from the article for the following reasons.
a. The quotes are incomplete and out of context. If context and proper translations are provided, these will turn out to be poetic metaphors or figures of speech. And each one of them can be discussed, which will add a few hundred more words to this article.
b. The quotes are provided with the intent to malign Mirza Ghulam Ahmad rather then to present a true picture of his writings.
c. No historical background is provided to justify these quotations.
d. If the authors of this section think they are justified in their stance, they should start this as a new topic and link it in with this article. This way, we can expand on each quote and see if they are what the author is trying them to be.
If I use the words like "f***" "b**ch" and "A**hole" in my language. Do you need to know the context or will you go find a refence to check if these are abuses? Or does that language tell a lot about me? Well, that is called abuses, no matter spoken even you are dying or being tortured or whatever. Abuse is Abuse. Calling people
'dirty swine',
'their women are more wretched than bitches',
'offspring of prostitutes (bastards)',
'product of fornication',
'He is itching to become a bastard',
'you son of a harlot',
... these are the poetries of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Which poetry definition you are applying, can you please give a reference? Which preacher/prophet is allowed to call his nonbelivers as bastards and sons of harlots and dirty swines and bitches? Pretty rediculous for me that now you need an authentic resource to know that these are abuses.
And who told you that Mirza will be praised in the critic secion? Critic section is for the POV of critc, and this is not my personal POV but POV of nonAhmadi Muslims. What else you want despite the references to the books authored by Mirza? Not only I refered the books but page numbers also. Those books are not historical? What historical backgroud you need? Do you need his books carved in 5000 years old scrolls? Sorry for the direct questions but I feel it absured to 'praise' Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in critic section. Critic is a POV of the people who criticise and not for the praisers. VirtualEye 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In Quranic language swine and dogs are analogies given for rejectors of prophets and those who abuse them. The reference to swine and bitches is taken from a long argument where Mirza sahib mentioned the blasphemous christian clergy who were using filthy language about Holy Prophet (saw). Their behaviour was likened to swines and bitches and the very next verse which is not quoted which states "and they abused without any reason and I do not know why they did that".
The term offspring of Prostitutes is a blatant lie as the actual word used is Zurriyatul Baghaya. Which translates as the progeny of wicked.
The term "son of a harlot" again is a lie. The actual phrase here is Ibnul Bagha, meaning child of wickedness. Arabic language has many other words like this. Ibnul Waqt, Ibnul Sabeel etc etc.
The words "itching to be a bastard" are a crude and very devious mistranslation taken from a long sentence which does not imply any abuse but a fact regarding those who abandoned Islam to hide under the patronage of christian missionaries. They effectively were changing their parentage.172.142.232.211
I think what is clear from the arguments given above is that this issue is not as black and white as it initially may have seemed. Obviously the statements being quoted, being translations, can be presented in differant ways depending upon context and the translator's choice; especially as the transaltors / presenters in this case have a biased agenda to begin with. Hence, regardless of the section heading, the way it is being done does constitute a POV, which necessiates that it has to be balanced with the other POV to keep the encyclopedic quality of the article intact as per Wiki NPOV guidelines. The Criticism section cannot be there for the mere sake of having a critic section, unless it is presenting a universally accepted view; failing which it needs to be balanced with the other POV. Unfortunately doing that, given the polarised nature of the editors, is likely to make this into a debate forum; taking away from the encyclopedic quality of the article. Hence Khokhar 976 has proposed an ideal way out. We have already done this with the Muhammadi Begum issue and it worked out well. Both POV's were presented by being described (rather than "proven" in a controversial manner) and the full details given in a seperate page. The same should be done here.
Now it is proven that this claim that Mirza Sahib used Abusive language is based on wrong translations and out of context quotes, it is only proper to remove the whole section altogether. If someone wants to start a new topic it is upto them, but if the main article is to be manipulated with anti ahmadiyya bias, I will edit it to reflect my views and also to neutralize the hatred that is being expressed. 172.142.232.211
Looks like a complete band of Ahmadis is there to defy any fact against their religion. If those comments are not abuses then why dont you people let it stay? Just replace the word 'abusive' with 'harsh' then everything will be fine, right? because according to your own definition those are not abuses.
And dont ever dare compare that Mira with Quran. Who that person to be compared to the word to Creator? Just keep it sacred to yourself but wikipedia is not an Ahmadi portal.
This is neither an Ahmadi portal, nor an anti-Ahmadi one. Hence NPOV must be maintained. As Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a controversial figure, a criticism section must be present. However it has to be balanced as critcism is usually stemming from biased sources. Given this, the current state of the section is ideal as it gives both POVs without undue wieght to any side and without sounding like a debate forum. Hence the section should NOT be deleted as per IP users suggestion.
The works of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were not defined by 5 instances of harsh wording used in his books. I find it very distracting and very inappropriate that a biography article should contain such details. He wrote thousands of pages of religious literature and caused a storm in the world of religions. His life shoud not be reduced to idiotic controversies drummed up by bigots and mullahs. 172.142.232.211
I understand how you feel a bit and see where your comming from but just think of this, there is a lot more confusing things said on other Ahmadi articles like for example on controversial prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad page, many of the prophecies by a simple look back at history or reading of the rest of the prophecy or the whole of the incident will show the allegations (even more so than these ones) are baseless, neveretheless the page is still there because the allegations like these are sadly still there. Jedi Master MIK 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
>>"I find it very distracting and very inappropriate that a biography article should contain such details."
I find this a joke. If I agree to your above statement then what is the need of critic part? critic part is not to praise the biography of Mirza.
Despite the population of Ahmadis, remaining 1.5 billion Muslims consider him Shaytan, how will you accomodate their huge weight? By praising Mirza in critic also? Critic is Critic. If Mirza has done lot and lot of literature then be it, but the words which are cited in critic section are of his own and are considered abuse. Now if they are not considered abuse then why are you so uncomfortable of their mentioning?
Hence, No way for your to remove them. Come up with some good reason which can convince all of praising Mirza even in critic section. ok?
VirtualEye 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that Ahmadiyya jamaat welcomes criticism as it is good publicity. But it should have a point. Mirza Sahib was involved in many controversies throughout his life. His claims, his prophecies, the court cases against him, his opponents and their writings etc. Use of harsh language does not qualify for a criticism at his work or his views or his life. It is based on clear fabrications and lies and should not be included in this particular article. I have not seen much material on the main issues which were controversial during his lifetime. The matter of death of Jesus and his burial place, the matter of finality of Prophethood, his claims about himself and his world-view, his prominent opponents and supporters. There is no material presented in the criticism which was written during his lifetime. Most of the allegations raised against him are produced years after his death. This seems very strange that none of his opponents could write a book or a pamphlet to falsify his claims at that time. Khokhar976
If you are ahmadi then be it, but please dont dump your self imagination on others. Mirza was the highly controversial figure of his time and was criticized by many scholars to their utmost anger for him. Calling others bastards, bitches, pigs is harsh but not abuse? how about calling this to your relatives? will they be happy? Then it will be abuse , right? but when Mirza says that then it is just "harsh" language. Fair enough, huh?
I think that even the word "harsh" is uncalled for. It is your insistance with this bundle of lies that the editors have allowed this addition to the article. My stance is to remove the section completely as it is not based on facts. Khokhar976
Nice jokes you have. Why in the world will an Ahmadi like to have critic part in the article of Mirza? Ofcourse I know you dont like this critic section and being Qadiyani you consider them lies. But sorry, wikipedia is not Ahmadi ad portal. It has to have all views and facts. VirtualEye 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Virtual Eye: Jokes aside, you are obviously not trying to understand what the other editors are pointing out. First of all no one is trying to “praise” Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the critic section. Niether has any one deleted the entire critic section or called for its deletion. What is repeatedly being said is that since Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL forum, any criticism must be based on facts. Clearly the abuse section does not match this criterion. It has been shown that the words you keep mentioning are either mistranslated or quoted out of context. Also some of the words which you have objected to have actually been used in the Quran (as pointed out earlier by an editor). Moreover, the statements are presented out of context and hence are misleading (Like some Islam bashers like to quote some Quranic verses word by word and claim that Islam promotes terrorism). Thus there is a valid case for not having such misleading information on a neutral site. However, as you rightly pointed out, as Ahmad is a controversial figure (like many Muslim Sufis and saints whom orthodox maulvis have traditionally disliked) a section, outlining reasons why he is controversial, is acceptable. If some ppl think his use of language is an issue and should be part of that section, then it can be put there but in a fair , factual and non-misleading way, and the other POV given as well. But misquoting Ahmad to prove a point should not be allowed on this neutral site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sufaid (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Well then, if you do insist on putting those cited references, I ask that you cite also or just the sites where they have tried translating these quotes from the actual text so as to know where the implications are comming from and who is translating; again we are showing the one POV of it so show the source of that POV, not just the sources the POV for its sources Jedi Master MIK 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Potentially Offensive Catoon Image
I have reverted addition of the image since it is likely to be offensive to a number of people. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died of diarrhea which may orthodox Muslims consider a sign of an accursed death. This fact is clearly stated in the article and does not require explanation with help of a "humorous" image . The addition of a cartoon using the nature of a person's demise as a source of amusement is in bad taste and definitely encyclopedic specially in the context of this particular article. Nazli 06:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In the different Prophets pages there are also pictures simingly offensive and not quite humrous to Muslims., I think in order to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia it should be there. Image:Mirza Death.jpg[1] Thanks --Babbarshair 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
please check adam and lot (Bible) articles and so on which are essentially biblical narrations and include quite offensive depictons. I don't see any reason why this image makes it controversal. Thanks --Babbarshair 07:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You have too see what purpose the image serves. In this case the image illustrated the depraved sense of humor of many orthodox sunni Muslims who like to find amusement in the suffering and death of those who they consider to be non-muslims. It does not help make this a better article. If you must include this image in wikipedia then I'll suggest that a separate page for humorous pictures of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death and suffering may be more appropriate (as per Depictions of Muhammad).Nazli 07:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not about who thinks what. Its a valid encylopedic piece and is not against wikipedia, as similar pitures which I have mentioned earlier are there in the main articles, and not in some hidden brach sections. Therefore, we should not feel offended here or make lot of speculations. Thanks --Babbarshair 07:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, (1)the cartoon image is primarily offensive to main stream Muslims because of the above stated reasons. (2)It is also offensive to Ahmadi's who revere Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. (3)Unless presented in its correct context (i.e. as a virulent form of humor arising out of hatred for a person) the image is offensive to Wikipedia philosophy (see WP:VAND under "Image vandalism"). Nazli 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I made my points quite clear above. (1) Similar dipictions (art works) showing different phases of prophets lives are there in the main articles. (2) I have added work with refferences given. So I see no point in exluding this image or any related work which I have seen you have deleted. (3) If you have some concerns regarding this you should address first the above mentioned issue on other pages. (4) You have already threatened me couple of times regarding Vandalism. I don't see this appropriate considering I am a new user and I made my self clear about things in writing. Thanks and I hope you understnad the point. And please (5) its not about what Muslims, Ahmadi muslims or anyone thinks. Its an encyclopedia and should have all point of views. Thanks again--Babbarshair 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the issues you have mentioned above:
(1) The depictions of other prophets given in wikipedia in the primary article do not use the manner of death of the person as a source of amusement (please do let me know if there are such images depicting the the person's dying moments)
(2) The reference you have given is from a highly biased anti-ahmadiyya site which calls itself the "Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam". Just giving a reference does not justify inclusion of material into wikipedia - the inclusion has to make sense in the context of wikipedia philosophy.
(3) I may or may not have concerns regarding other pages. Whether I chose to work on then or not has no bearing on my working on the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article.
(4) Regarding your claim that I have been "threatening" you, please review the following:
(a) My first extremely polite edit to you talk page [2]
(c) After your redirection of Hakeem Nooruddin to Impostor (another obviously biased edit) I added the first vandalism template used for new users where you are not sure of the user's intentions [4]
(5) An encyclopedia should have relevant information that supports the philosophy of the particular encyclopedia. Deliberate inclusion of an offensive image which does serve any meaningful purpose is not wikipedia policy as I have pointed out repeatedly.
The fact the Mira Ghulam died as a result of diarrhea is clearly stated in the article. The fact the many Muslims consider this an accursed death and a punishment from God is also clearly stated in the article. Anyone interested in more details has a wealth of links at his disposal to review all such images. Inclusion of this image in the article does not make sense.
Also please note that according to wikipedia policy if you know an edit is likely to prove to be controversial you are supposed to discuss it on the talk page before making the edit. Thank you.
I don't need to comment any further as I have presented all my points above and its clear that it is according to wikipedia standards. Please do not unnecessarily delete people's work, we should contribute rather destroy things. Thanks --Babbarshair 15:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleting deliberately provocative images which do not contribute to the quality of the article is certainly within wikipedia policy. Nazli 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
With reference to repeated inclusion of the cartoon image in the article please note that Wikipedia:Profanity states that:
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
The cartoon image in question depicts the dying moments of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It pokes fun at him suffering from diarrhea just prior to his death. This image is likely to be offensive to a large number of individuals belonging to various religious and non-religious groups:
(1) It is likely to be offensive to most middle of the road "main-stream" Muslims who do not believe in using images of another person's suffering as a source of amusement.
(2) It is likely to be offensive to most critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who despite their theological differences would not want to be associated with images such as this.
(3) It is likely to be offensive to Ahmadi Muslims who revere Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
(4) The majority of humanity would consider it to be in bad taste to seek amusement from the suffering from other.
Despite the fact that many orthodox Muslims may not subscribe to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's view only a very small segment of his critics would would exhibit their vehement hatred for him by using such images.
The image does not convey any information that cannot be conveyed verbally in the article. By all means a link to the image can be inserted into the article for those interested.
It does not hence make any sense to include this image in the article, the only purpose it will serve will be to offend and create needless conflict among editors.
The questions given above have already been answered in detail. Similar art works are presnent on Prophets' pages like Adam, Noah, Lot, Joseph, Job, David and so on, which might not only be offensive to many but in many case are pornographic. As a matter of wikipedia standards I don't see any reason why this art work to be excluded. This image is representing an important phase of his life and perfectly fits into the given section named 'Controversial Death'. Its certainly not humorous or offensive to large no. of people. --Babbarshair 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As has been discussed above - similar images are NOT present on any of the prophets' pages. That is: images poking fun at the person's suffering before death. Also please not that this information can be conveyed in writing with a link to the cartoon. There is no additional information that the image can convey except for being offensive to a number of people. There is no need to include the image - this is exactly as per wikipedia policy! Nazli 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A prophet is honorable even in his suffering. It is merely showing that he has been tasted like all prophets before. So how its representation is considered as hummrous? What is your opinion of pictures of Jesus on cross. Don't tell me you have never seen them didn't you? So what is the problem. And from where did you get that the picutres in someones final moments are offensive. It is almost universal. --Babbarshair 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You say: "where did you get that the picutres in someones final moments are offensive". It is not that pictures of someone's final moments are offensive - pictures depicting someone's distress prior to death in an attempted humorous fashion are offensive. Picture of Jesus on the cross are most certainly not trying to evoke a humorous reaction while the cartoon of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that you included in the article is trying to do so. Whether someone will find it humorous or not is up their psyche.
The second point: Any function that that cartoon serves can be fulfilled by text in that article. There is not need to include the cartoon.
First of all I didn't write that section and said that his opponents make fun of his death by Cholera (or what ever). I contributed to some of the references in the section. Secondly, I don't think that the picture is humrous. Why are you continously trying to prove that it is humrous? It is an art work and presenting the suffering and test of a Prophet. So why are you making speculations? Finally, a picture is worth thousand words. I hope its clear from the quote how important and relevent that picture is for the article. --Babbarshair 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note, I am not trying to "prove" that the picture is humorous. What I am trying to saying is that the picture is potentially offensive. Images of Jesus on a cross can be taken to be representing a "test" of prophets. This particular cartoon image does not in anyway convey this sentiment. Please also check the page on which the picture originally appears - it is a anti-ahmadiyya site with no references to the picture being "art work and presenting the suffering and test of a Prophet".
Second point: a picture may or may not be worth a thousand words what matters here is wikipedia policy: the image is offensive - its inclusion does not make this a better article - there is no need to include it.
Its quite disturbing to see someone claiming to be prophet and threating someone's father to get his daughter. I am totally shocked to learn this and am wondering how could people follow someone like this? --Pearll 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Dont jump on the conclusion so quickly the most of the new Information put on this artical is taken from Biased Anti Ahmadiyya web site, and source of this information in contoversial. phippi46 12:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please present anything which says that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has never made such claims. In fact he has and its lack of integrity on the part of Ahmadi websites that they have not put his works bearing these claims online (In origional Urdu and its translation). If someone is a prophet all of his writings should be public. --Babbarshair 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please present anything which says that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has never made such claims. In fact he has - Oh yeah he "threatened" him alright, told him that if you don't do what God wills, He will smite you if you don't repent. Funny thing is, he still didn't listen after being "threatened".
its lack of integrity on the part of Ahmadi websites that they have not put his works bearing these claims online (In origional Urdu and its translation). - Really, who wrote these then:
It is not our job to present any thing for anyone! you are using all of ur body mussles, except one that matter most, Wikipedia is not place whr u published ur faith or discourage or disgrace other faith, no matter how much u think they are wrong, it is not the plate form. Wikipedia does not care Mirza Ghulam was right or wrong, it present just simple plain information specially on Biographical Articals, on wikipedia we can present Officials point of views of a community which is accepted by that Community, regardless u accept it or not. So pls do not put ur personal faith belief that he was right or wrong, it is not the place, there may be other places where u can try it. phippi46 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you harrasing our cute 'Babbarshair' the mighty lion. Afterall he is from cat family. --Mastiboy 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal comments. Contribute if you have anything. Thanks --Babbarshair 15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Claiming neutralty on Ahmadi Pages
User:Nazli I thought you were neutral as you claimed on your user page but it seems that you have no regard for your own contribution, needless to mention for others. You clearly saw a person deleting whole passages having days of work, but not only did you see it as a spectator but also endorsed it by starting sections on new pages. I don't think its a wise way to contribute to wikipedia. --Babbarshair 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Babbarshair, if you check the timings of the two edits you will realize why this happened. I was already working on the page after having previewed it while a 2nd edit took place! Since I had only added new material only it was just tacked on to the edit.
I also see that you have chosen to delete my contributions. In the interest of a neutral point of view, prophecies that have been claimed to be fulfilled need to be mentioned also. I will be re adding the section. Best regards Nazli 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with this new section provided we be fair here and don't try to swallow things. In fact, why would I have, its perfectly fine to contrbute any new information within an article. I strictly disagree with your change of 'conspiring' to 'supporting'. It would only jeoperdise the whole section and is simply false. Finally, removing image over and over again would not work in the light of our long previous discussions. We still have time to rap things up otherwise it can explode and would get out of control. It would result in not only the loss of time but could also have huge damage to the article. --Babbarshair 05:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I could not agree more: we should discuss issues throughly before making changes to the article. In this regard given wikipedia norm:
(1) Since the offending image has been introduced into a long standing article without prior discussion it should be deleted until a consensus is reached.
(2) A thorough discussion regarding the purpose the image serves and what it means in the context of the article should be carried out.
(3) Other respected wikipedians should offer their views.
Please delete the image to get the "ball rolling"! Best regards, Nazli 06:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed what I wrote. I said, "its perfectly fine to contrbute any new information within an article." I added the art work and have justified it in the discussion page. So I see no reason why it should be removed on the first place. I think after its next deletion, I might ask for the semi-protection of the page. Because it is contnously vandalised. --Babbarshair 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Babbarshair, I am sorry you feel that way. Asking protection for the page is ofcourse your prerogative. I tried to summarize may opinion below. Best regards, Nazli 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Why the "Art Work" depicting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death should NOT be included in the Article Mirza Death.jpg
Analysis of the image:
The image shows a caricature of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in obvious distress apparently just before his death.
There is a fluid dripping from the bed onto the floor. Since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died as a result of diarrhea it does not take much imagination to understand what the fluid is supposed to represent.
A bed pan is lying under the bed.
The bed is positioned right next to the steps leading up to the bathroom.
Inside that bathroom a watering can type utensil is visible used to wash ones' private parts.
Summary of issues related to this image:
(1) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died as a result of diarrhea. This issue is clearly stated in the text of the article.
(2) Some critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believe that he had Cholera. This fact is clearly stated in the text of the article.
(3) Some critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believe that the manner of his death was a sign of "wrath of God". This issue is clearly stated in the text of the article.
(4) The image above has the potential to be offensive to number of people:
It is likely to be offensive to most middle of the road "main-stream" Muslims who do not believe in using images of another person's suffering as a source of amusement.
It is likely to be offensive to most critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who despite their theological differences would not want to be associated with images such as this.
It is likely to be offensive to Ahmadi Muslims who revere Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
The majority of humanity would consider it to be in bad taste to seek amusement from the suffering from other.
(5) The image is almost exclusively promoted by a website which is known for its anti-ahmadiyya stance (irshad.org)
The image does not improve the article in any way and acts as a source of needless offense and conflict.
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
Despite the fact that the image had obvious potential to be offensive it was added without prior discussion. The user who added this image (Babbarshair) has a history of having redirected a number of pages related to the Ahmadiyya movement to Imposter. Since then he has concentrated on adding only information critical of the Ahmadiyya Movment almost exclusively referenced to a single anti-ahmadiyya website (irshad.org)
Babbarshair has advanced a few reasons for why he feels that the image should be included in the article. These have been discussed above. Some salient points:
According to Babbarshair "Similar art works are presnent on Prophets' pages".
None of the images on the other prophets' pages show suffering and misery at the time of death of the prophet in a potentially humorous light.
According to Babbarshair "It is an art work and presenting the suffering and test of a Prophet.".
You need to only have a look at the image to see that this is not the case!
Final Summary
The image does not present any information that cannot be conveyed equally well in the text of the article. It does not improve the quality of the article. It serves only to act as potential source of offense and conflict. It would hence be prudent not to include it in the article.
Response by Babbarshair to Why the "Art Work" depicting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death should NOT be included in the Article
Analysis of the image:
The image shows a caricature of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in obvious distress apparently just before his death.
There is a fluid dripping from the bed onto the floor. Since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died as a result of diarrhea it does not take much imagination to understand what the fluid is supposed to represent.
A bed pan is lying under the bed.
The bed is positioned right next to the steps leading up to the bathroom.
Inside that bathroom a watering can type utensil is visible used to wash ones' private parts.
Comments: Please make a similar analysis on the picture mentioned on other prophet's pages. I am sure you can't. I even don't want to give example here, becuase it would make this page pornographic. So why the details in this picture are so disturbing? These are just speculations. --Babbarshair 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary of issues related to this image:
(1) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died as a result of diarrhea. This issue is clearly stated in the text of the article.
(2) Some critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believe that he had Cholera. This fact is clearly stated in the text of the article.
(3) Some critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believe that the manner of his death was a sign of "wrath of God". This issue is clearly stated in the text of the article.
(4) The image above has the potential to be offensive to number of people:
It is likely to be offensive to most middle of the road "main-stream" Muslims who do not believe in using images of another person's suffering as a source of amusement.
It is likely to be offensive to most critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who despite their theological differences would not want to be associated with images such as this.
It is likely to be offensive to Ahmadi Muslims who revere Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
The majority of humanity would consider it to be in bad taste to seek amusement from the suffering from other.
(5) The image is almost exclusively promoted by a website which is known for its anti-ahmadiyya stance (irshad.org)
The image does not improve the article in any way and acts as a source of needless offense and conflict.
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
Despite the fact that the image had obvious potential to be offensive it was added without prior discussion. The user who added this image (Babbarshair) has a history of having redirected a number of pages related to the Ahmadiyya movement to Imposter. Since then he has concentrated on adding only information critical of the Ahmadiyya Movment almost exclusively referenced to a single anti-ahmadiyya website (irshad.org)
Comments: Regarding User:Nazli's accusations on me I have already talked about them couple of times. Anyway, being a new commer I was harrased and threatened. This was my first response (see my talk page User:Babbarshair):
The links were inactive or missing therefore I added the general redirect link which is the position of Muslims in general. You can certainly disagree with that. I admitt my mistake about Hakim noor uddin's article. He is an important figure in the Ahmadi community and it was happened in haste. Regading the seemingly offensive picture, I don't see how it could be taken in wrong context. As the article suggests, Mirza sb. is a controversal figure, and the picture was just the depiction of this notion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it presents how different view points are held about a person. I wanted to contribute but its unfortunate as how my things can be taken as offensive. I still belive that picture would not compromise the article and its up to you if you want it there or not. I think I remeer similar pictures or other articles. --Babbarshair 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
For more comments see relevent talk pages and discussion on this page. I thaught that the matter was over but User:Nazli over and over again brings it up. Finally I would say that long statments and comments are deliberately made in order to hide the above on going discussion. I would expect breif comments so that we can acutally read them properly. Thanks. --Babbarshair 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Babbarshair has advanced a few reasons for why he feels that the image should be included in the article. These have been discussed above. Some salient points:
According to Babbarshair "Similar art works are presnent on Prophets' pages".
None of the images on the other prophets' pages show suffering and misery at the time of death of the prophet in a potentially humorous light.
According to Babbarshair "It is an art work and presenting the suffering and test of a Prophet.".
You need to only have a look at the image to see that this is not the case!
Comments: Either it was a test or curse. I took the position of Ahmadiyya that it was a test, unlike his critics as mentioned in the article. So what the problem? --Babbarshair 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Final Summary
The image does not present any information that cannot be conveyed equally well in the text of the article. It does not improve the quality of the article. It serves only to act as potential source of offense and conflict. It would hence be prudent not to include it in the article.
Although I have repeatedily discussed this issue earlier, I find it important to present my views in points:
Similar artworks are present on the main articles of different prophets. See Adam, Noah, Lot, Joseph, Job, David and so on
Many of these can not only be considered offensive but also pornographic by many people.
The depiction of final moments and suffering, like Prophet Jesus hanging on cross and similar scenes are also present.
'A picture is worth thousand words', as from the quote this picture is important to improve the quality of the article. It mentions how such an important figure in the history of Islam is presented in paintings.
Therefore, in the light of above mentioned points and to be fair to wikipedia statndards this image is important contribution to current article and is to be protected from Vandalism. --Babbarshair 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The first thing you need to do is source the image. Secondly, even if it is well sourced you'd need to show that it's an important tradition and not a satirical cartoon. grenグレン 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Response by Nazli to "Why the Artwork about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is relevent?"
Comment by Babbarshair: "Similar artworks are present on the main articles of different prophets. See Adam, Noah, Lot, Joseph, Job, David and so on"
Artworks depecting the prophet's suffering before death in a potentially humorous light are not present on any of the pages.
Comment by Babbarshair: "Many of these can not only be considered offensive but also pornographic by many people."
That may be the case, however in some cultures pornography may be considered acceptable art form. In no civilized culture will potentially humorous images of a person soiling their beds before death be considered to be in good taste or to be not offensive in some way.
Comment by Babbarshair: "The depiction of final moments and suffering, like Prophet Jesus hanging on cross and similar scenes are also present."
The image of Jesus on a cross is a widely accepted symbol of Christianity while this image does not symbolize any thing. Also you cannot equate Jesus on a cross to someone soiling their bed.
Comment by Babbarshair: "'A picture is worth thousand words', as from the quote this picture is important to improve the quality of the article. It mentions how such an important figure in the history of Islam is presented in paintings"
A picture may (or may not) be worth a thousand words - which words is this particular picture protraying? This particular picture is a representation of one particularly anti-Ahmadiyya point of view.
No doubt that all points of view should have representation in wikipedia, but using an offensive image where the text of the article sufficiently conveys the information is against wikipedia guidelines.
Dear Nazli I have removed the picture temporarily to have peace for some time. These discussion are only wasting time. I hope it would be fine with you. Please continue your contribution and try to be neutral. I would expect that you would make sure no one vandalise the sections of 'death', 'criticism', and 'external links'. Best regards and I hope we don't have any hard feelings. --Babbarshair 00:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were through, but I can smell breaches in mutual understanding. --Babbarshair 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Babbarshair, it is only fair that I have an opportunity to respond to your view of the image. (you have had the opportunity to respond to my view). We can leave it at that if that's ok with you.
Also I am sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I took Temporary cease fire to mean that the discussion was to continue on the talk page without multiple reversions of the main article. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Best regards. Nazli 06:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I meant that, I want to take leave becuase of the harsh realities of life. So I would no longer be avilable for this exchange of ideas. Need some rest. Best regards. --Babbarshair 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Weasel wording
I have added Weasel wording tag back on this section, it is clearly to see these wording and it is important to mentioned to warn the readers not to jump on conclusion about these sections. If you have any problem to understand Weasel wording policy, I suggest to read it. phippi46 13:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the rare occasions in which I have seen comments from you before deletion of passages and adding unqualified tags. I don't have problem with that and I expect User:Nazli to format them in such a way that to avoid making it a POV issue. --Babbarshair 14:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read the weasel wording policy and can see that many opinionated statements are being made BUT the majority are cited from referenced sources. Can you be more specific User:phippi46 as to which particular statement you deem to be weasel worded. Sufaid 18:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement u r refering are weasel because almost all of them sources to one web site, which is known for its Anti Ahmadiyya campaign, and it is highly biased, if you read Weasel word policy u will notice that statment which made here in this Artical do come under this Policy. It is not that because they were referenced but what they referenced and the general impression a reader will get that these statements are true, although the neutrality of these statements are highly controversial. It is important to inform the reader that they should not make any conclusion and to aware them of weasel words used in this Artical. phippi46 10:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing your tag as it doesn't qualify for Weasel words (see WP:WEASEL), Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Its a crticism section and include opnion of his crtics and is higly referrenced. I hope you respect each other's time and don't unnessarily try to compromise the article. --Babbarshair 15:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The other section is also highly referrenced and origionaly created and referrenced by User:Nazli.
In order to referesh ur memory, I would like to present some of the lines, from this Policy to clear the Weasel Word Policy for you and for readers it say and I quote "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view. Without any sources, it is also unverifiable. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." It is clear from this Policy and when these Weasel Words found on any Artical, should removed immediately, Also the sourced of your statements are highly contraversial, and can not be presented as Authenticated, so I request you to remove these statement from the Artical, as you put them there in order to maintain the neutrality of the Artical phippi46 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This statement which you have given is speaking for itself. The sections are thorougly referenced, and it is per wikipedia policy. --Babbarshair 16:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Contraversial references do not fall in this case, and the your "Thoroughly referenced" links are highly contraversial phippi46 16:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please state here that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has not made those statements, as all statements are from his own books? Based on Mirza Gulams's conroversial claims, critcal resources exist to provide the critique on his writings. Anyway, I don't have to argue this anymore with you. --Babbarshair 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont see any reason to Judge Mirza Ghulam Ahmad eiher he made these statements or not, nor Wikipedia has any intrest in it, I am intresting to keep the Artical Neutral, try to understand this phippi46 16:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I nominate this Artical for possible POV Check from a Third Party
I made an request for checking POV in the Artical from a third party, as we can see from the Talk Page, that there is still a dispute over possible POV statement among the editors. It will be nice if a POV check can be made and then settle down on some resultion. phippi46 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Some comments on current state of the article
Since this an an encyclopedia article, it should read like one and not like an Ahmadi vs Anti-Ahmadi "forum battle".
The recently added "Criticism" section has resulted in much conflict. Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad forms an integral part of his life. It would be unfair not to give due importance to this aspect of his legacy.
No doubt that some of the sentences in the "Criticism" section could be rephrased to improve their POV bias, however the issues raised are referenced and in my opinion should be included in the article.
There does however appear to be an undue bias towards including direct quotations into the text in support of the criticism. In fact the only direct quotations used, are in support of the criticism directed against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. These quotations form about 16% of the actual substance of the article.
To be compliant with WP:NPOV#Undue weight there are two options: (1) Remove or trim down these direct quotations or (2) Include even more direct quotations in support of refutation of the criticism.
In my opinion resorting to option (2) will result in the article being even less encyclopedic and reading even more like an Anti-Ahmadi - Ahmadi forum battle. Also the majority of individuals reading this article are unlikely to be interested in the fine details.
It may be a good idea to resort to option (1). This will help improve the quality of the article (for an encyclopedic point of view) while at the same time highlighting all the issues with ready references for those interested in pursuing their study further.
The article is extremely small comparing to other major bio articles, so I don't see how adding new info would complicate things.
The idea of criticism section is to be critical, if neo-Ahmadi opinion is available present it. The only reason why the info was presented in this way was becuase this was the tone set earlier in the whole article.
If the article has stong anti bias this is becuase the counter arguments are not present. Present info if you have.
I would suggest that the info from criticism sec can be spreaded into multiple sections without compromising the integrity of the content, which require that it remain critical.
Its not about making it a Ahmadi Vs Others debate, its about presenting facts in the light of all opinons. And I don't see how it would be avoided considering the highly controversial nature of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. --Babbarshair 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to respect others contribution and try to accomodate it rather in the cloak of trimming kill it. I hope we avoid edit war here and make it a good article without raising too many questions. Create and organize, rahter cut and kill. --Babbarshair 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article does currently read more like a debate forum rather than an encyclopedia article. At the same time it is quite obvious that the Anti Ahmadi stance has undue wieght. My opnion is that if a POV is to be presented it should be "described" succintly and not "proven" by including quotations and all, as the readers can easily avail the referenced sources to get details. If there is a consensus on this then we can try to follow Nazli's suggestion (I personally think to do away with the quotations in totality). If there is no consensus then Babbarshair's suggestion to present all available "pro" Ahmadi information on each item (referenced obviously) should be followed. Although Babbashair's logic of "present if you have" seems to imply that undue wieghtage is not to be strictly adhered to, which will probably lead to making this article less encyclopedic and lengthy. Sufaid 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nazli also, the current status of this artical is like a forum, a reader can not decide either the information presented is athenticated or not, it is also in my openion correct that when reading Critism section, the impression of this section is that that this section try to prove that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has failed in his so called mission and that is the sign of God etc. For a reader it will be difficult to make a judgement as he will be forced to accept the critism may be correct, although its neutrality is disputed. The babbarshair argument, that it look as it is anti ahmadi, as counter argument are not presented, will not help at all, as this will result in where we will see more pov statement been included by other side. It may end up like that in worst case that there will be seprate sections in which both parties claiming something according to their belief, that for example, his prophcies were fullfilled and the other may say no, his prophecies failed...it will be a mess, we must remove POVs from the artical first and try to make it neutral, how much and which info should be included is other question and for that we can talk. I personally agree with Nazli's suggestions if they presented neutral.
--
Nazli, I hope you would be reasonable as you see crtical section is highly referrenced. The ahmadis can't claim copyrights on this article, whether they like it or not. Its better to contribute constructively and build things. I have seen people here who can only either delete things or make them ambigus. --Babbarshair 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Babbarshair that the idea should be to contribute constructively and create a better encyclopedic article in keeping with the primary goal of wikipedia.
However contributing constructively does not necessarily mean adding additional material to the article only. The page should be balanced and readable as an encyclopedic article rather than inundating the reader with details that would really be of interest to a minority and which could be easily be made accessible via references.
In my opinion your contribution of the criticism section is a valuable addition to the article and deserves inclusion. However the addition of lengthy tracts of quoted material only detracts for the actual message of the section and makes the article more difficult to read for most wikipedia surfers.
I am not suggesting that the criticism section be removed. Your suggestion to categorize and organize the section should be implemented. My suggestion is to trim down the lengthy direct quotations.
Sufaid's suggestion that "that if a POV is to be presented it should be "described" succintly and not "proven" by including quotations and all, as the readers can easily avail the referenced sources to get details" is appealing and is consistent with WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, which states: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
You have brought up some issues:
"The article is extremely small comparing to other major bio articles, so I don't see how adding new info would complicate things."
It is not the size of the article that is the issue here. The issues here are (1) that the relative amount of text of the article that constitutes direct quotations is a significant proportion of the overall size. (2) direct quotations used are all biased towards "proving" points of views critical of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and (3) the direct quotations detract form the overall readability and quality of the article (as an encyclopedia article of course)
"The idea of criticism section is to be critical, if neo-Ahmadi opinion is available present it. The only reason why the info was presented in this way was becuase this was the tone set earlier in the whole article."
The tone of the article is not set in stone. Wikipedia is dynamic. If you feel that the tone of the article is too "confrontational" then it may be a good idea to change it to a more "congenial" tone - I am all for it. Regarding your use the term "neo-Ahmadi" I am not sure what you mean.
"If the article has stong anti bias this is becuase the counter arguments are not present. Present info if you have."
As I have been trying to say earlier, this article should not turn into a forum battle. Including counter quotations to "prove" the opposing point of view would just litter the article and would be against the spirit of wikipedia.
"Its not about making it a Ahmadi Vs Others debate, its about presenting facts in the light of all opinons. And I don't see how it would be avoided considering the highly controversial nature of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed."
I could not agree more. This is exactly what we should do. State the facts (critical and otherwise) with detailed references.
"We need to respect others contribution and try to accomodate it rather in the cloak of trimming kill it. I hope we avoid edit war here and make it a good article without raising too many questions. Create and organize, rahter cut and kill."
I not am suggesting that we "cut and kill" or anything of the sort. Also no one is interested in an edit war or a "cloak trimming kill". The only issue here are the extensive quotations. The article should be written from an neutral point of view and be "encyclopedic".
Nazli, please tell me how to read your statements? Its an ocean, and I don't want to get drowned in it. --Babbarshair 09:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the reply above this debate seems to be at a deadend as all issues have been quite clealry presented. I would personally like to edit down certain sections as discussed above but that is likely to lead to an edit-revert-edit war so leave that to the original authors, failing which I suppose the only option is to start filling up counter POV's to all one sided POV's. Although this would compromise the quality of the article in my opinion.Sufaid 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
We can't acheive quality in one day. First we should have reasonable amount of data then we can always 'trim' it down for beautification. Patience wins. --Babbarshair 10:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Babbarshair tell us pls that in ur view the information you presented in critism section is not POV Statements and not present a certain impression of this section ? And do you also belief that the informatoin presented in these sections are authenticated, as if I remember correctly you said earlier that these are all the original writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written in Urdu and allegeldy been removed from the official website of Ahmadiyya community. phippi46 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear, I have added a link to your Ahmadi site comprising of more than 80 books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I didn't know till today that there were books available. All the references can be verified. Check in the 'External links' section. --Babbarshair 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{NPOV}}
To my Ahmadi site ? what you mean by that and second is this all in english or in urdu phippi46 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
'To your Ahmadi site' means 'your Ahmadi site'. The link to books is [6]. And they are fortunately in Urdu. --Babbarshair 11:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is strange that u are claiming about my faith also.. I will consider it ur POV, 2nd I dont know why you are so happy writing that "fortunately in Urdu" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phippi46 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I forgot to sign my comments it happend some time .. nothing special phippi46 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The nature of this Artical is still "Disputed" so please do not removed or change the status of the artical untill it resolved finally phippi46 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{NPOV}}
Please don't make speculations about others. Obviously I was happy to find the resource in Urdu becuase now we can verify each and every statement. Secondly, your Ahmadi site doesn't necessarily mean your Ahmadi site. 'You' can be 'we', and its how English is spoken. --Babbarshair 12:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Great what about this nopv tag is talk page ? I dont think you want to say that the comments you just made are disputed ?phippi46 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously this is why I have added this tag to warn users so they don't go astray. --Babbarshair 12:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I say great you are very Intelligent phippi46 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
_______________
As can be seen from the article and nature of the recently added "Claims" section, it is obviously turning into a debate like forum. What is worse is that a follow up to referenced sources at times reveals that some of the sections are blatant copy paste jobs. As it is easy to do this for any editor for the sake of having more text for any particular POV, this approach will further weaken the quality of the article. I think Babbarsahir may have found a way out by having seperate pages on certain issues. For the purpose of this page I will repeat my self: If a POV is to be presented it should be "described" succintly and not "proven" by including quotations and all, as the readers can easily avail the referenced sources to get details. At the same time the See Also template poinitng to the seperate articles can be included for those who want to view various POV's presented in a debate like manner. Although Wikipedia as a resource is not meant for such articles where two sides are dumping thier respective POV's in demarkated sections, and hence, in my humble opinion, given Wikipedia's free nature, should not be used as such for reasons of moral honesty alone. -- Sufaid 09:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
His Claim
The new section added by phippi sounds like: (1) Sun will rise in the east, (2) Winter will be cold and come in December, (3) There will be global warming and so on ... Can anyone please enlighten me what he is claiming about? I hope I am not intruding. --Davidleig 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Phippi46, for your kind information this section is not making the article neutral by eliminating its so called anti-Ahmadi bias, it seems like an argument in favor of critics. :-) Please do read the article before copy/pasting it on main page. --Babbarshair 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well first of all this is just start and it is not finished yet, I am looking forward to put more information in this section and 2nd I am also not trying to balance anything here. The thing is there is alot of info, which I want to present in a lets say "short form" so artical should not look to big. about the comments made user Davidleig, I think he is not aware alot of thing may be when he read later when this section finished or other related Items settle, he will have a good Idea about it. phippi46 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Babbarshair and Co. do not start Reverting Informaiton
I think the artical was settled on a position where "all" the necessary information included in different related links and most them was created by Babbarshair himself. So I dont know why he wanted to add samd information again on the main artical page ? Dont mind Mr. Babbarshair but this is not a place where you satisfied religious quest, it is a neutral plateform and let it be like that. thanx phippi46 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Death
I would appreciate it if you do not put that he died of cholera. He actually didn't.
Good day
Intro.
Nazli: I'm not overly familiar with Ahmad, and I understand not wanting to imply that all Ahmadiyya believe he was a literal prophet as well, but the lead still reads badly to an outside viewer right now (and is currently ungrammatical - should be "accepted by the majority"). Why is "Imposter" capitalized? Why is it wikilinked to nothing in particular? If he was an imposter, who was he really, or who was he pretending to be? Lots of questions, there. I mean, Googling him + imposter certainly returns plenty of mainstream Muslim sites saying he's evil and splitting the faith, etc., but what exactly is going on here either requires more explanation or is not appropriate for the lead. SnowFire 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi SnowFire, I agree with you; all these issues need to be addressed. Some of these questions are answered later on in the article however the intro could certainly be better. The subject of his 'prophethood' is a source of such intense controversy that it may to be inappropriate to use this term without qualifications and explanations in the intro. Perhaps best left for later parts of the article? What do you suggest? Nazli 05:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
How's this for now? It just says most Muslims don't agree. The word "imposter" without any kind of qualification or mention of what is meant by such a claim was the problem I had with the original passage. SnowFire 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that should do. Nazli 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Except apparently not. Look, the reason I stuck the population statistics in there was precisely as a cite to get rid of the fact tag in the intro. 10 million Ahmadiyya compared to 1 billion + vanilla Muslims implies that his teachings don't have wide acceptance, and some of the controversies are already mentioned in the article. By WP:LEAD, this doesn't need to be cited if it's in the article anyway... but removing the supporting fact then sticking a cite needed tag on is going in circles. Moreover, fact tags are only supposed to be used when a fact could be reasonably challenged. Again... does anyone actually think Ahmad is accepted by most Muslims? SnowFire 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One, information given below and on other Ahmadi pages already explains directly and indirectly that most don't accept him so I don't even know why it needs to be cited. Second, the other problem with putting population in is that it is also controversial and the numbers given by the organization, "biased" or not, are significant. Jedi Master MIK 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing citation tag as per argument given above. Replacing majority with most. Majority seems to imply a numerical verification of this information...which could be misleading as out side of the Indian Sub-continent it is not known if the majority are even aware of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. On the flip side, given the relative number of his followers to the Muslim population, "most" is more appropriate. Sufaid 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Ahmad.png
Image:Ahmad.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I understand that when a big new topic is started in the article, he should be called by his full name. However, when referring to him in subtopics and quick passing, why don't we just say Ahmad instead of Ghulam Ahmad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why not. While on this topic - the whole article is in need of a thorough review/rewrite! Nazli (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well of course (to the last part), new information keeps being added but it needs to be properly organized and of course, if not so, NPOV'd. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
