Talk:Khatme Nubuwwat Academy

Merge discussion
Since the merge discussion should have been taking place here, a copy of the merge discussion has been placed below:


 * This article is little focused on the individual and more on the 'Hate Campign' and so deserves to be merged with the Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Academy article, maybe in the form of a subheading.Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Akber Choudhry discussed the person very little, and mostly discusses the "hate campagin". --Muhandes (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no-one has replied should we go-ahead with the merge? --Peace world  12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So now I'm no one? Go ahead. --Muhandes (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * no, no, my friend, you know what I mean. :) --Peace world  23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Discussion
The page has been marked as disputed. Starting this section to see what is disputed. Since the merge of my (unauthorized) page, I have tried to bring in all the links and timeline, so this page should now reflect NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akberc (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear akberc, here I point out some of the things that do not, in my opinion comply with NPOV. I have made the following changes:
 * I have added at the beginning that it is an Anti-Ahmadiyya organization. When I google around the official site, there is little doubt in my mind that its main purpose is to counter Ahmadis and therefore by definition is an Anti-Ahmadiyya organization. I have however, added a source to confirm the change.
 * I have also added the sentence "It is loosely affiliated with similar organizations around the world, particularly with those in Pakistan". How an organization relates to other organizations around the world, I think is very relevant for encyclopaedic purposes.
 * I have removed the following "Create awareness about the Qadiani (Ahmadiyya). Provide answers to the numerous requests we receive from the worldwide Muslim community for information" as it seems like an attempt towards promotion of the organization. I have worded it a little better in my opinion.
 * I have removed a reference from the website http://irshad.org/exposed.php because for purposes of wikipedia, sites such as these clearly are not acceptable. The website describes its mission as countering " fraudulent man-made cults -- Bahais in Iran and Qadianis (Ahmadis) in India". They are comparable to Anti-Islamic hate sites.
 * I have removed the following nonsense "Although the news report did not mention the academy by name, Ahmadiyya media tried to link the academy to the event". First of all Ahmadiyya Times is not associated with the Ahmadiyya community on an official level. Second of all, the original source comes from a Pakistani online news site called Express Tribune. http://tribune.com.pk/story/324943/aasia-bibis-case-weighed-down-by-guilt-blasphemy-accuser-mulls-pulling-back/ This was picked up by Ahmadiyya Times.
 * I have also removed "something that the academy had insisted on throughout the controversy.". I do not see the purpose of this statement and adds nothing relevant.
 * Please review my changes and see for yourself whether they are NPOV. If you do disagree please point them out. The page is needs huge improvements. I should add the accusations that you have levelled against me are false. I'd rather not waste my time over that, however. Thank You  --Peace world  16:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have discussed with akberc and based on his first-hand information, these changes may finally rest this article that has seen so many edits from you over the years.
 * The Express Tribune article is not related to this Academy at all. No one from the academy traveled to Nankana Sahib, and the 'son' - Sohail Bawa - has not visited Pakistan in years.
 * Ahmadiyya awareness and dawah activities only account for a fraction of the Academy's activities. Also, Ahmadiyya awareness is not the same as anti-Ahmadiyya, so to label is as anti-Ahmadiyya is not correct.  Anti-Ahmadiyya is an internal term of your community that has little meaning outside the community, like 'non-Ahmadi'.  As the Academy is a registered charity in the UK, this characterization is not substantiated by its charter.
 * Qadiani is not a derogatory term for Ahmadiyya, it is a sub-classification. The Lahori group gets annoyed when 'Ahmadis' are mentioned.  A NPOV suggestion would be 'Qadiani Ahmadiyya'.  The issue that Muslims have with the finality of prophethood is primarily with the Qadiani branch of the Ahmadiyya.  With about six new branches, this distinction is becoming ever more important.
 * I would request you to make the edits. It would save another round. Thank you. AliJaana (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how "Anti-Ahmadiyya" has no meaning outside of Ahmadiyya. I have no part of that community but it's clear to me what it means. And sadly there are registered charities that are anti various religious ideas. Our article Qadiani calls it a derogatory term. If Peacworld111 made those edits I'd probably revert him. One other point - one thing we do not base edits on is "first-hand information", see WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)