Talk:Muslim Rashtriya Manch

The only Muslim organisation which works for actual development of all the Muslims in India?
The statement "It is the only Muslim organisation which works for actual development of all the Muslims in India" is a very sweeping claim which either needs a good citation to back it up, or removal. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No there are many organizations like muslim personal law board, All india majlis e ittehadul muslimeen, jamiat ulama e hind, lajnat ul ulama and many more are working for Muslims in India Scholar Qasmi (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Restored referenced content that were purged earlier today.
I have restored three reference and accompanied content after minor copy-edit from the stable version of the article which were purged earlier today. I have also placed two "failed verification" tag for two assertions which were added when the three references where purged. Please discuss here if you want to purge relevant referenced content or believe the "failed verification" tag is unwarranted. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 00:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very little was "purged;" my internet connection was terrible, is what happened. If you would be a little more patient, I would appreciate it. As for the one reference I did remove, it is a book by an author about whom nothing is known, published by a non-academic publisher, and the language in it is remarkably POV. The other book can be added back, but it adds nothing, as the opposition to the Jamiat resolution is already covered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for self-removing the dubious addition that it is a political organization which I marked with "failed verification". Also, thanks for retaining the reference and content that you had deleted from the stable version. I disagree with your statement about the reference to backup one statement about the event "paigam-e-Aman yatra". You have removed it yet again before discussion. It was present in the stable version. Please take it to WP:RSN. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 04:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Superficially, it fits none of the RS criteria; what about it makes it seems like an RS to you? Also, the only extra information it added was about this yatra, which does not seem very significant. If it were, there should be other sources, right? The other points covered in the article are all backed up by multiple sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I might add that with the exception of this source, none of the removals were meant to be permanent; I was re-organizing this thing when me internet went kaput. You came to it only a few hours after I did. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, next time please tag the article or mention in talk page or in edit summary. And you continued to make edits on other articles during that time . I have added two more reference than mention the same event, that should satisfy you. (Aside: After your edit to this article when you lost internet connection I see ~10 evenly spaced edits elsewhere with the longest interval approaching 1.5h. There was no indication in talk page or edit summary that you intended to  work on deleted referenced content so I restored them without touching a single byte of your copy-edited text or reorganized content, with detailed edit summary and mentioned the change on this talk page also. Thank you.) --AmritasyaPutra T 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So then you should have no problem removing the bad source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly valid reference for the content it lends support. If you delete it sometime later someone (or you) can come back and start deleting references again and saying I want multiple reference. self-strik`ed unnecessary comment.--AmritasyaPutra T 05:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because I have not ever deleted something sourced to a reliable newspaper. False symmetry. You have still not explained why a source written by a non-academic, published by a non-academic publisher, fits the RS criteria. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What the bloody hell is your point? There was a period of several hours where I did not edit the 'pedia because of my internet. If you are going to dredge through my contributions to prove that that period was only two hours long, well, I have better ways to spend my time than argue with you. Good faith, it would appear, is as alien to you as good grammar. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent activity of MRM
This may be added to the article:

Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 15:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with these, you should add first then only we will decide if it suits more or less. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought animal sacrifice was illegal in India? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is allowed for some animals and it should be occasional. One cannot sacrifice a dog, or you sacrifice a cow during independence day(or any day except the islamic festival). Bladesmulti (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

POV sources
I have replaced the two POV books by a reliable source (Outlook article). It mentions that there were only 50 activists that marched. It is still impressive, but the numbers are important to get an idea of the level of participation. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The two" teaming up again! Fifth article? self-strik`ed unnecessary comment. Check your own argument here, it is used for a fact, not analysis. And the fact is backed up by multiple sources and multiple sources were explicitly requested and this was discussed in earlier section, it is unfair to ignore the discussion, delete it, and make a new section. I am not touching any of your changes but putting back the reference, it is a bad precedent that you are setting, if you think Context does not matter then discuss in that section and then make the deletion. I hope you will not take this personally. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 00:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe we are tag-teaming, go to ANI. The source is unreliable, and it adds no new content. Therefore it does not improve the article in the least. The fact that was sourced to it has not been removed, so your argument about context is irrelevant. There are also four editors, including your mentor, who have agreed that it is a POV source and not worth including. What is the reason to keep it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-adding it was a bad idea; that was your 4th revert at the very least. I would self-revert now if I were you. Also, the only reason you have provided for keeping the source is "please discuss!" which is not a reason. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to understand the disputes going on at this page, but there are too many. Maybe you should try to discuss each point separately here at the talkpage. Otherwise, some admin may come in and block the whole page for a while...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, the only remaining point of contention has to do with the two books that User:AmritasyaPutra wants to cite. User:Vanamonde93 and I think they are inappropriate sources for Wikipedia. One book (Sat D. Sharma) is published by an unknown publisher as an "eBook" and seems to contain just Sangh Parivar propaganda.  The second one (Narendra Sehgal) is published by Suruchi Prakashan, a member of the Sangh Parivar, and it documents their point of view.  These two sources are redundant because the same material has also been sourced from reliable news sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * JJ, speaking for myself, there is no other dispute than the one Kautilya mentioned. The source discussed on your talk is redundant because the information has another (better) source, but AP still wishes to keep it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, JJ and I have discussed only the Narendra Sehgal book. Vanamonde93 had said he has objection exclusively to the Narendra Sehgal book. About Sat D. Sharma, it is a new concern and I am okay if you want to delete it.

This discussion about Narendra Sehgal book has been broken over two sections on this talk page and taken to JJ's talk page too and there is an edit war over it. There is a good reason to keep multiple citations here to avoid perennial edit warring because at least one editor (Vanamonde93) explicitly asked for multiple citation. It may be asked by another editor in future. That is a fair, simple reason and abides by policy. It does not change the content and backs up a simple fact, and we have no dispute about the content. I think you should have no objection to let it be. --AmritasyaPutra T 02:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the argument. Blades, JJ, Kautilya and myself are making the argument that the source is not reliable, because the publisher is not academic, the author is not a scholar, and the language is POV. You have addressed none of these arguments. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AP can try RSN. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So, it's about this text:
 * "In August 2008, MRM organised a Paigham-e-Aman (message of peace) yatra from the Red Fort in Delhi to Kashmir in support of land allocation for the Amarnath pilgrimage. Led by the Jharkhand Shahee-Imam Moulana Hizb Rehman Merthi, the 50 activists of the yatra were initially stopped at the border of Jammu & Kashmir. They were later allowed to go to Jammu where they held meetings with the Shri Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti."

And there are four sources now? Does any of these sources meet the criteria of WP:RS? As for "The Victory of Faith", I am afraid I do agree with Van a.o.: it's a propaganda-book. It might be interesting to add to "Further reading", though, since it gives an impression of the way of thinking of this organisation. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that passage is fully supported by the Outlook source, which is WP:RS. All the other sources are redundant.  My preference would be to keep the Outlook source, and delete the others.  I am ok with retaining "Welcome to MRM" and the Hidustan Times if AP feels particular about them, but the Narendra Sehgal book is a POV source (propaganda book, as you have called it) that shouldn't be cited. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me we have consensus (not unanimity, but consensus as defined here) to remove this book on the grounds of redundancy and lack of reliability. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)