Talk:Rabwah

Comments / Issues
==Chanab Nagar== The name of the city, (that came in to existence after 1947 ) was changed to Chanab Nager some where in 1980s. I wonder why the article depicts this as rabwah? india has changed the name of various cities established centuries ago an no one can find article with old name like bombay. madras or banaras. why is there so much resistance to correcting the name of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savoychimp12 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed

 * The factual status of this article is seriously/criminally different from the facts. I do not know why? This article gives the wrong information about the city and the people living in it.

I have tried to improve it lots of time but I am blocked. Please help me and wikipedia correct this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admitaside2000 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As the above comment and user shows this article is only being disputed due to its religious significance and that they simply dont want the people living in the city to let the truth out about the living conditions and the restrictions posed and you can see from the above user who has been banned that there is no dispute apart from publishing the truth which is that the government and the people are in constant denial of the people living in the city due to their religious beliefs !--EhsanAhmad (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the city, and only the facts should be given in this article. Wikipeedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for false propoganda ike this. The fact is that nobody is being oppressed in Pakistan. All the minorities are living according to their beliefs, they are practicing their methods of worship. There was hardly any threat to any minority in Pakistan. If we see the number of attacks on the palces of worship in Pakistan, the mosques are the most attacked places of worship. In my knowledge there was hardly any attack on Qadiani's place of worship. Here in Pakistan I see all the Qadianis living happy life, they are wealthy, the are well settelled all around the country, they are free to preform their worship, they are however not allowed to preach their religion. Because their belifs are against Islam. I myselaf was preached by a Qadiani, and if I was not knowing the basic principles of Islam, I would not have guessed that he was trying to convert me to Qadiani. This is the reason that they are banned to call their places of worship as Mosque and call themselves as Muslim

I would again request the users/Admistrators to change the name of article to Chenabnager. --Oftenalert2000 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As no facts are listed here which are supposed to be disputed i think we should remove the factual status on one had you say they are free to do everything and all minorities have same rights how do you explain the killing of scores of Christians how can you explain people not allowed to preach their religion and not free to practice their religion according to ahmadis or qadianis they are muslims but the Govt denied them this right of calling them muslim so you have to get your facts right no single person can one handedly decide who is muslim and who is not ! so i therefore think there are no disputed facts here !--EhsanAhmad (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I really fail to understand what you are trying to say. Can you please write in english ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushturn2000 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Oftenalert2000 established that Brushturn2000 is Oftenalert2000

Change the name of article to Chnabnager
I suggest to the Adminstrators of the encyclopedia to change the name of the article to Chnabnager. There is no city of the name Rabwah in Pakistan. It is the thing of the past.
 * For the support of my point I want you all to search for Bombay on the wikipedia, you go to the page of Mumbai, For madras you have article on Chnnai, Why is this not true for this city? why are you supporting the people who are challenging the steps taken by the Govenoment of Pakistan?
 * To keep the wikipedia neutral change the name to Chnabnager, and do include the facts about the city and the true face of Qadianis(Amaddiyya Muslim Community as they wrongly call themselves)

--Checkgoats2010 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes
Dear All The article is having some great mistakes

1. Ahmadi is NOT a Muslim, in Islamic Shariat they are Murtid(a person who leaves Islam after accepting Islam). A murtid is worse than a kafir(a person who does not accept Islam) because he/she has left The True Path after finding it.

2. Ahmadi is a threat to Islam as they represent themselves as Muslim to the people that are ignorant of this conspiracy, thus damaging the true sense of Islam. We at Pakistan are lucky that our Government has declared in the 1973 constitution 2nd Amendment “A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.” Ref: [[Media:]

3. According to an ordinance issued in 1984, Ahmadis are forbidden to call themselves Muslims. This means that they are not allowed to profess the Islamic creed publicly or call their places of worship mosques. Trespassing the ban is considered blasphemy and charges drastic penalties. You are thus requested to please remove this article and add another one with the name of “Chanabnagr” that is the true name of the city.

I pray that all ahmadi leave this religion and accept the Islam.

thanks Idrees Barlas


 * Reply to Mistakes
 * *Dear Mr.Idress in quran the definition of islam is whoever reads Kalima is Muslim and as far as i have seen the Ahmadis have the same Kalima as other Muslims and no one in world can rule out whose muslim and whose note its something between you and god.as far as their muslim status they are Muslims in all countries except one ! so that's i think 99.9% of the world considers them Muslims ?
 * As far as your 2nd point is concerned first few Lines are your own opinions, then you state the paksitani law which ofcourse is true but we have to see is this is not a pakistani site and pakistani law is not an internationa law . according to my info this site is being operated from USA so in this case USA law will be in effct which like all other countires accepts Ahmadis as Muslims.
 * Again you talked about the ordinance passed by the Pakistani Govt which shouldnt effect this website as its not owned, run by or from Pakistan.

Dear who ever u r ( i hope u r not qadiani)
 * The motive of my message was just to let the readers know that this article only gives prespectives of qadianis. The majority of the Muslima are offended by this text.


 * 1.I am not supposed to debate, talk or discuss Islam with any qadiani. But every muslim knows that there is no Prophet after Muhammad (PBUH).
 * *2.As chanabnager is in Pakistan so fortunately Pakistani Law is applied to its residence and the city.
 * 3.I wonder if you would call Indian cities of mumbai as bombay, chunai as madras and varansi as banaras. thus I would like to call Chanabnager.


 * Based on the Fact that city is in Pakistan, I understand that the city name is Chnabnager and the Ahmadis living in Pakistan are Qadiani and non muslim


 * I pray that all ahmadi leave this religion and accept the Islam.


 * thanks
 * Idrees Barlas

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonenone4000 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment1
Dear sir, In Rabwah article i noticed a mistake. Population of the city is written twice (contrary to each other), in the city box on right side of the page and in the begining of article. I want you to make it right. the exact figure is (as far as i know) 70,000 in the year 2003.

Thanking you, Navid Ahmad
 * *Thankyou for the update Navid but to update the info you need a legitimate source to confirm what you are saying !

The article has lots of mistakes, for example its name. The correct name of the city is Chenab nager. I hope this will be corrected, so that people can get the correct information. Shearsaved2000 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Navid,

Mistakes
Dear All The article is having some great mistakes

1. Ahmadi is NOT a Muslim, in Islamic Shariat they are Murtid(a person who leaves Islam after accepting Islam). A murtid is worse than a kafir(a person who does not accept Islam) because he/she has left The True Path after finding it.

2. Ahmadi is a threat to Islam as they represent themselves as Muslim to the people that are ignorant of this conspiracy, thus damaging the true sense of Islam. We at Pakistan are lucky that our Government has declared in the 1973 constitution 2nd Amendment “A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.” Ref: [[Media:]

3. According to an ordinance issued in 1984, Ahmadis are forbidden to call themselves Muslims. This means that they are not allowed to profess the Islamic creed publicly or call their places of worship mosques. Trespassing the ban is considered blasphemy and charges drastic penalties. You are thus requested to please remove this article and add another one with the name of “Chanabnagr” that is the true name of the city.

I pray that all ahmadi leave this religion and accept the Islam.

thanks Idrees Barlas


 * Reply to Mistakes
 * *Dear Mr.Idress in quran the definition of islam is whoever reads Kalima is Muslim and as far as i have seen the Ahmadis have the same Kalima as other Muslims and no one in world can rule out whose muslim and whose note its something between you and god.as far as their muslim status they are Muslims in all countries except one ! so that's i think 99.9% of the world considers them Muslims ?
 * As far as your 2nd point is concerned first few Lines are your own opinions, then you state the paksitani law which ofcourse is true but we have to see is this is not a pakistani site and pakistani law is not an internationa law . according to my info this site is being operated from USA so in this case USA law will be in effct which like all other countires accepts Ahmadis as Muslims.
 * Again you talked about the ordinance passed by the Pakistani Govt which shouldnt effect this website as its not owned, run by or from Pakistan.

Dear who ever u r ( i hope u r not qadiani)
 * The motive of my message was just to let the readers know that this article only gives prespectives of qadianis. The majority of the Muslims are offended by this text.


 * 1.I am not supposed to debate, talk or discuss Islam with any qadiani. But every muslim knows that there is no Prophet after Muhammad (PBUH), This is in Quran also (If you say that there is some new prophet(God forbid) then you say that the truth of Islam is no more).
 * *2.As chanabnager is in Pakistan so fortunately Pakistani Law is applied to its residence and the city.
 * 3.I wonder if you would call Indian cities of mumbai as bombay, chunai as madras and varansi as banaras. thus I would like to call Chanabnager.


 * Based on the Fact that city is in Pakistan, I understand that the city name is Chnabnager and the Ahmadis living in Pakistan are Qadiani and non muslim


 * I pray that all ahmadi leave this religion and accept the Islam.


 * thanks
 * Idrees Barlas


 * Wikipedia does not follow, just because it's the mainstream muslim's view that Ahmadis are non-muslims. It is your opinion and please keep it to yourself. ThankYou Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment2
S. G. A shah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.19 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

dear sir,i want to inform you with some more information.it is the city with largest per person use of bicycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.252.137 (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment3
I want to inform you that no city named as Rabwah exists. The new name is "Chenab Naqar" so please change it. Secondly all the religious places of a non-muslim community are added in mosques section. Kindly remove them all from mosques section as according to the law of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the religious place of any non-muslim community cannot be called as a mosque. Erfaan —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again Mr.Erfaan i think the Pakistan Law doesn't come into effect on a US Based site if they want they can change or modify that information in Pakistan but they certainly cant try to apply their "LAW" on a website that is being operated from USA!
 * Again Mr.Ehsan and all others
 * The city of Chanabnager is in Pakistan and only Pakistani Law is applied here. If You live in USA, I don,t care, You can open a shop or what ever you like by this name, but the city name is Chanabnager

Comment5
The "official" name of the town this article refers to is "Chenab Nagar". It is however still widely referred to as "Rabwa". Any encyclopedic article on "Rabwa" has to mention this alternative name. The reference to the name change is supported by a citation - hence I am restoring this information. Please discuss your concerns regarding this issue before making more changes. Thank you. Nazli 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the official name is "Chenab Nagar", the article should be named so. However, "Rabwah" should redirect here. Regards. Yasirniazkhan (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections to my argument for about two years, I should rename the article to Chenab Nagar and redirect Rabwah to it. yasirniazkhan (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protection
I have requested page protection c/o repeated deletion of the reference to Chenab Nagar.

History of vandalism:

                   

Nazli (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Article should not be locked as this only gives the prepective of Qadianis and is very much offending to Muslims. I would rather suggest to delete this article and publish new article by the name of Chanab Nager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonenone4000 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy (Rabwah vs Chenab Nagar) within broader context of anti-Qadianism
It's clear from the comments above, that the name of this place touches on an extremely divisive issue (Ahmadis versus mainstream Muslims who consider them heretical). I suggest hoisting this dispute from the Talk page into the article itself.

This page needs broader coverage of this issue, and somebody needs to determine the correctness of the article name: the vast majority of the inhabitants are Ahmadis who overwhelmingly consider the town's name to be "Rabwah", while the government gazetted the town's name as "Chenab Nagar". I seem to recall that officially gazetted names for towns should be used primarily, but I may be wrong!

The article should place this disagreement in the broader context of the mullah's extreme hostility to the Ahmadis in Pakistan, anti-Ahmadiyya policies of the Pakistani government (which, in itself, deserves an entire article in its own right) and the consequent political and religious persecution resulting.

Article should mention the occasional pogroms carried out, by various extremist religious activists against the townsfolk in Rabwah/Chenab Nagar.

Commenters are reminded to behave themselves, and stick to the Talk page guidelines governing unacceptable behaviour.

MrUpsetter (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I find following words used in your message very much offending to Pakistn and Islam:
 * Mr upsetter
 * mullah's extreme hostility
 * anti-Ahmadiyya policies of the Pakistani government
 * extremist religious activists

from what you have written it seems that we are killing, beating, arresting Qadianis by dozens on daily basis. Beating them to convert back to Islam.

But I am living in Pakistan. I do not see anything like this. The are freely working in all parts of country. They are living happy life. thea are allowed to worship. A gather in great number at their worship place (at Banazeer Bhutto road(old Murree road) here in center Rawalpindi) on friday.Same type of gathering are done in all cities of Pakistan.If I meet a Christian I know by his/her name that he/she is Christian, or otherwise he will tell me.But Qadianis always hide their identity, their names are also same as we Muslims have.

We are having bomb blasts and firing 3-4 times a week here, but not one incedent has yet happened at any of Qadiani worship place.

Many people have died in terrorist attacks on mosques, schools, offices universities, but not a single Qadiani worship place, Qadiani residence, Qadiani Bussiness or Qadiani Asset has been targeted.

Then I wonder why are you using these kind of words. I think you must have gone though some of qadiani websits and literature.Unfortunately there is no counter propoganda againts these on internet.

On the other hand the qadianis are well organised group of people, who are slowly expanding there religion. The now reside in all prts of our country. the go to the area where they can propogate their religion easily, The people of the area usually do not know about their religion. They think that the newcommers are some very educated muslims and thus get inspired by them and convert to Qadiani.

Kindly see both aspects before using

Shearsaved2000 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Change of name of the city has nothing to do with religion, as neither Rabwah nor Chenab Nagar are religious names. So change of name doesn't depict any religious hatred, as names of many cities have been changed in India and Pakistan after independence. Was the change of name of Lyallpur to Faisalabad also religious presecution? Could we have references for the above statements? yasirniazkhan (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment6
I want to say many name of mosque to Write heir you are forget .For exempel 1 Noor Mosque 2 masroor Mosque  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.92.204 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Qadianis are not allowed to call their worship house mosque

Comment7
There is no city of name rabwah in Pakistan, the coordinates given leads to the location that is called Chanabnagar. If somebody in Pakistan differs with this he is challenging the Authority of the State, the same state that feeds him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.134.114 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google-maps link for the coordinates given lead to a position marked "Rabwah" and there is no mention of "Chanabnagar" anywhere near there. Same for ArcWeb and ACME Mapper. I don't see evidence of Chanabnagar being a widely-used name in English to identify this place. Without that evidence, WP:PLACE is pretty clear that Rabwah is the name we use. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear DMack it is not necessary that Google Earth or other map sites give the correct information, you should look for some of Pakistan Governoment site

1. Pakistan Post click "Complete List of Post Codes of All Post Offices"

2.Pakistan Railways See if you can find any station by the name of rabwah but there sure is a station named Chenab Nager

Both of these links are from the official sites of Governoment of Pakistan and gives the name as Chenab Nager. I hope the article name will be changed and its contents will also be revised to depict the true face of qadianis(or ahmadis, as they wrongly call themselves.)

I will also lauch a complaint against the wrong information on google earth and other map sites you mentioned, thanks for bringing their faults to my notice --Oftenalert2000 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatred material
Hi All,

I am not going to tolerated any hate materials by:

1. Muslims against Qadyanis. 2. Qadyanis against Muslims.

Please do not begin your edit-wars here. Keep wikipedia netural and as facts. I am watching this page permanently.

Thanks YawarSid (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Administrative final warning to all: I will be handing out blocks to anyone who adds or restores abusive comments, insults, or other forms of incivility. You are welcome to discuss in a calm, factual way, ideas for improving the page. You are not welcome to post rants, emotional tirades, or claims of what is or is not allowed to be stated based on a religious/cultural point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: a great place to learn about differing viewpoints and use reliable sources to support them. DMacks (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DearMack It is good that abusive materaial is deleted from the article and the discussion.But you are giving the wrong name, the city name is Chnabnager. As I searched for "Bombay" I was redirected to "Mumbai", I searched for "Madras", I was redirected to "Channai", I searched for "Banaras" I was redirected to "Varansi" Why?, because these are the official and guzetted names of the cities, thus these articles are having the correct names. Now when I search for Chanabnager, I am redirected to Rabwah. Why?? Now I and the muslims are offended by this. I feel that this is vandalism. Why is Wikipedia not using the official name of the city? Why is Wikipedia supporting the group of people that are naming the city against the Govenoment of Pakistan(which some of the users are taunting against)? Now I hope that you will change the Name of the article to Chnabnager. If this is not done I will be forced to boubt about the neutral stance of Wikipedia. Nonenone4000 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)noneNonenone4000 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose to merge this article into the article Chenab Nagar. Rabwah will then redirect to Chenab Nagar. Reason is that this city lies in Pakistan and Pakistan Government changed its name to Chenab Nagar in 1998. yasirniazkhan (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote above in Comment7 regarding finding the common English name for this place. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However, all these mapper websites show Faisalabad as Lyallpur, but the wikipedia article is still named Faisalabad. Additionally, if you search for Chenab Nagar on these mappers, you land on Rabwah. So why this contradiction? Also note, that the name of Faisalabad was changed back in 1977, still google etc donot have updated records. Rabwah's name was changed in 1998. How can we expect this change to take place sooner than that? Similarly, the first paragraph of explanation of Mumbai's name also states that many of its residents still call it Bombay, but the name of article has the official changed name (which was changed only in 1995). yasirniazkhan (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you yasir. Basically we can make Chenab Nagar as primary article and make Rabwah as a permanent redirect to it. My vote for it. YawarSid (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I support merger since it sounds like the two are about the same topic. However, "official name" is one of the least important reasons to pick the ultimate location of that merged article. However, assuming the merger is done carefully (i.e., retaining all information from both), I do not care which target is chosen at this time as I will start a formal request for move to gain wider consensus and others' input regardless of the place the merger is done. DMacks (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote For Chenab Nagar
I also vote for naming this article as Chenab Nagar and redirecting the Rabwah to it.Abulfazl 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in favour that the name of the article be changed to Chenab Nager.

Oftenalert2000 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote for Chenab Nagar. Rabwah is not a religious name and has nothing to do with the Ahmadi faith. The government has changed names of many cities and still changes them just like other governments (India, etc.). I have already given multiple examples supporting this move. yasirniazkhan (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose to merge this article into the article Chenab Nagar. Rabwah will then redirect to Chenab Nagar. Reason is that this city lies in Pakistan and Pakistan Government changed its name to Chenab Nagar in 1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.130.166 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @182.186.130.166 This has been previously discussed and debated with the consensus being that since the city is popularly known as Rabwah, it is the legitimate title of the page. It is not the Wiki policy to use the official name as the title! To give you an example, the official name of "Germany" is Bundesrepublik Deutschland but the Wiki article does not go by this official name rather it goes by the more popular name in English i.e "Germany". You can review the Naming conventions for geographical articles at WP:Place. Thank you. Sohebbasharat (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Vote For Rabwah
As suggested by DMacs the widely known and used name for the city is "Rabwah" and the widely used name by its residents and the local area ! So i would vote for the article name and title to remain Rabwah ! and chenabanagar should be redirected here --EhsanAhmad (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for the article name and title to remain Rabwah. Actually the change of city name to Chenab Nagar was against the wish of its residents and was actually to hurt Ahmadies residing in the city. -- User: IjazAhmad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.125.145 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed ! the name change has its political reasons and to make the residents who are mostly ahmadis feel like they don't actually own or live in the city and the name change actually represents that the government doesn't recognize ahmadis as residents of the city and they dont have any right to vote or express their wishes or feelings upon the decisions takes by the government ! --EhsanAhmad (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article should be Chenab Nagar. As far as I know the qadianis keep themselve away from the acts done by Pakistan Governoment. They usualy have their own plans. By the way Chenab nager remaind a fortress for qadianis for quite some time and a state within the state is unacceptable to any country. I again request the name change of the article and revision of its contents as per the facts. --Oftenalert2000 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I love rabwah Fafaahmad (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not done. I do not see consensus here for a move, but feel free to relist this request if further discussion would be beneficial. Skomorokh  08:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rabwah → ??? — Formalizing a long-term talk-page dispute over the correct name for this article. DMacks (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the recent WP:BOLD renaming, given that it was not even the correct spelling as claimed in the explanation for that action and was only rarely mentioned as one of the possible alternates in previous discussions. I have also locked the article against moves and edits to prevent further disruptive edits of this type during the REQMOVE discussion. I am doing this per process, other admins are welcome to override me if they think I am not impartial here. My position on the issue is to keep at Rabwah, as I explained above . DMacks (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with DMACS i support that the article remains titlesd as Rabwah as it is in all the maps and resources and in news titles, but if you want to redirect Chenab Nagar here that's aright !--86.179.154.122 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason these people want it moved or name changed is the reason that according to their personal opinion they deny the faith of the people living in the city and to show this denial they want to have it moved or renamed and i think this should not change isntead we should work on improving the content in the rabwah article and if you look at the recent edit history there is a history of vandalism so its not about that its about denying the freedom of expressing their faith even on the internet and even the discussion pages show remarks like "i hope you are not ahmadi or qadiani" i hope you get my point and like as DMACS suggested let this article remain titled as Rabwah and lock it there so we can start working on the information in the article!--EhsanAhmad (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear the dinial is only for the Lie and the wrong information being provided inthis article. The name of the city is Chenabnagar and the same name must be displayed in the article, this is a matter of national affiliation. the city is in Pakistan and its name was changed by the Pakistan government. The Qadianis have very much freedom for dispessing their faith against Islam. I myself was preached by one of Qadianis. They are worshiping in every city of Pakistan, They are running their bussiness with full freedom. Not a single Qadiani worship hose has been targettd inthe recent trrorist attack. I wonder why Qadianis are so much against the Country where they are living so happily.

I you want, you can name any store(of any kind) Rabwah outside Pakistan, But thereis no city by this name in Pakistan. I wonder if the admin cares about the correctness of info on this web site or they are just enjoying the discussion. and please do not delete myrequest for move.Let the people know the true name of the city. --Oftenalert2000 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "Chenab Nagar (Rabwah)"? This is assuming the 1998 resolution is recognized elsewhere in Pakistan (and further abroad). The article doesn't indicate why this name change seems so controversial. Also, perhaps the "Politics" section should be commented-out until there's more to say -- hopefully positive -- as well as until there's a source for the one sentence it currently has. 212.84.106.199 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Rabwah → Chenabnagar — The city name is chenabnager now for the last 11 years and the article should show the right name of the city. Oftenalert2000 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move the article to Chenabnager
As it has already been noticed that the city name is no more rabwah but it is Chanabnagar, I request the admins to change the name of city to Chenabnager ASAP. --Brushturn2000 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Oftenalert2000 established that Brushturn2000 is Oftenalert2000
 * As you can read, this move was proposed and the proposal rejected recently. Without strong new evidence, you're wasting everyone's time requesting it again now. DMacks (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, though the issue does not require any evidence at all, many evidences were give, including the Pak Post and Pak Railways websites.But you don't seem to understand them.

There is no city by the name rabwah in Pakistan, the given coordinates clearly refers to Chenabnager. this is just political movement of qadianis against Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Muslims of the world. This is further clear from the following websites in the so called refence section of the artile.


 * propoganda sites by qadianis


 * grabbing the chenabnager title for their propoganda also

I really wonder if wikipedia is helping qadianis to propogate their religon against Islam????? --Brushturn2000 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Oftenalert2000 established that Brushturn2000 is Oftenalert2000

Other Issues
All other religious malarkey aside, there are significant issues in this article that need to be addressed.

1- The majority of the article is written like a list which need to be converted to prose. If sufficient information is not available then those sections need to be removed. Case in point I am really not sure that we need to list every single one of the mosques located in the city. Instead we should have more detail on Mubarik and Aqsa mosque and just note that the city has an unusually high number of mosques per person.

2- Things to do section should be removed

3- Bazaars should be removed or changed into Commerce with removal of unwanted information and additional mention of main commercial throughfares in lieu of just listing two markets and adding a library and a mosque into the mix.

thanks Jim Logan Howlett (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rabwah Times
I had removed "Rabwah Times" from infobox as well as from the "publications" section before because IT IS NOT an official website of Rabwah/or Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. As it says itself on its twitter account: "Rabwah Times is an Independent publication and is not affilaited with #Ahmadiyya Muslim Community" It is an independent online website and has no purpose to be mentioned on this page. I am removing it from both sites once again. If you have any argument please discuss here before adding it back. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Either way it is associated with the city nonetheless, it does need to be the official representative of AMC or Rabwah.--35.50.52.104 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a private website and has no need to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. If i make a website about lets say Washington, can it be added on the Washington page? I dont think so. And the webiste is neither a newspaper nor a publication. To give another example, there is a blog named "Rabwah Amateur Astronomy Club" on blogspot. It says that it is an amateur astronomy club from Rabwah. Do you think that it should be mentioned in the Rabwah page just because it says so? I dont think so. Similarly "Rabwah TImes" has no purpose of being on wiki. It seems like advertisement. Sohebbasharat (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a media/news outlet based in Rabwah. Its like the Toronto Star, Chicago tribune, New York Times, Washington Post all of which are private media outlets and donnot necessarily represent the people of their respective city. It claim to be a news outlet and and it definetlely is. It has 9,000 subscribers  on social media and over 400,000 readers  per month. It has has been used as a source of information by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) etc. Now a lot news sources are only online and are not available in print at all a very good example of this is the The Huffington Post.


 * Although I see no similarity between a club and a media outlet, if the club blog was a Website and mentioned by various sources you could definitely add it to this page aswell. Now if you feel it is like a advertise reword it!--Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. The examples you mentioned (i.e Toronto star, Chicago tribune, New york times, washington post) are all printed newspapers and thus can be mentioned in their respective city's articles. Rabwah Times is not a newspaper based/printed in Rabwah, if it would have been i would have no worries about mentioning it in rabwah article. You can see that all the other "Publications" mentioned are printed and distributed in Rabwah. As you said rightly it is somewhat similar to Huffinton post, so you can make a separate article about Rabwah times like there is one for huffington post. But surely it does not need any mention in the rabwah page exactly like Huffington post has no mention in the new york page (and huffington post being a world renowned news aggregator!). Also, can you give any reference of where it has been used as a source of information by UNHCR? Sohebbasharat (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post is mentioned numerous times in the article Media in New York City, The Media an Entertainment Section of the New York city page is the general summary of the Media in New York City page. I think you are defining being based in a city on the criteria that the Newspaper be printed in that particular city; which is incorrect. The newspaper is based in the city where it operates from and Rabwah Times is operated from Rabwah and most of its staff are from Rabwah. This was my reference for Rabwah Times being used as a source of information by the UNHCR:--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right regarding huffington post and media in nyc. I guess online media if based in a city can be mentioned. But the next question is surely how influential a particular website is. I dont know if 4000 social media subscribers is a lot or not. Certainly it wouldnt have been enough if it were a big city we were talking about. I guess as regards Rabwah it might be enough. Secondly, The reference you gave is a leaflet by that very organization saying that it has been recognized by UNHCR and australia. I could find no link on google search. I would be happy to concede if you can provide some such reference. Thank you very much. And if it should be mentioned, i guess it can be shortened a bit so as not to give undue weight.


 * Soheb by removing the whole section about rabwah times you also removed the references of the paper being used as a credible source by various international organization here are the few links and as for the website wikipedia does not ask for "the official" website it asks for a website that about the city and as far as i know there is no other website that has more detailed history information news or any first hand knowledge that's available elsewhere online.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/RRTA/2011/250.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=rabwah.net http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/RRTA/2011/402.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=rabwah.net http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/RRTA/2010/689.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=rabwah.net http://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1997_1297690248_pak36722.pdf LAST PAGE References http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/resources/Pakistan%20Factsheet%20July%202013%20FINAL.pdf#page=32 PAGE 32 LINE # 4

Meanwhile the social media reach is now 10,000 (8,000 facebook + 2,000 twitter). FYI everything thats in Rabwah or related to Rabwah is not under the control of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Al-Fazal is not even a newspaper its a religious periodical. I believe a lot of the users are upset on the use of the word rabwah in the website. Why it needs to be mention because its a local rabwah based startup sameway. A newspaper does not just represent views of a one community or organization. So please stop venting out your personal feelings on wikipedia. EhsanAhmad (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ehsan. First of all please watch your tone, sir. It is a serious, respectful discussion going on here. I dont know where you are coming from, but this is no way to talk here on wikipedia. Thank you very much.


 * Can you please provide a link that wikipedia asks for a any website, not just official one?
 * You said "Rabwah Times" has more detailed information about Rabwah of any site? It is not an information site about Rabwah. By its own admission, it is a news publication. I dont see it to be used in the infobox. Similarly as "New york times" website should not be mentioned in the infobox of the new york article. (It is not, its an official government site in the infobox).
 * The links you sent are long pages and 40 page long documents. In two of them, i couldnt find any information about rabwah times. Some of the others are case reports of people's asylum cases. I dont really think this is some good source. But nonetheless, this can be discussed further.
 * Are you saying "Alfazal" should be removed? I guess you can start a separate discussion for that.
 * And i have to ask, are you somehow related to "Rabwah times"?
 * I am not removing the information you added, so that we can discuss it here before. But i do believe it is giving undue weight to this website. We can discuss it further.Sohebbasharat (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @Sohebbasharat this has gone on long enough:
 * We have defined newspaper is based in the city where it operates from and Rabwah Times is operated from Rabwah and most of its staff are from Rabwah
 * The various links EhsanAhmad has clearly shown it is a credible and reliable source Rabwah.net is interchangeable with the Rabwah Times.)
 * All of your questions have been answered and you donnot have any consensus to remove the material
 * If you have a problem with the wording, reword it!
 * Concerning the city website I think it has to be the official city Website and until someone can prove otherwise
 * I am undoing you edit and the discussion is over
 * Thank you and have a nice day Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. we can have it. But we have to edit it. Let me propose some changes. *It says that it is an internet only newspaper. but i dont think it is a newspaper. A newspaper has daily (or weekly or whatever) issues (whether printed or online). It is probably a "a news aggregator and blog" like the huffington post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post *It says that it was,in 2011, relaunched as weekly newspaper. But the reference given is not right. Either give correct reference (because i cant seem to find any of its weekly issues) or remove the line.*Is the picture of its office really necessary? its not a particularly informing thing to be in the rabwah article. Or perhaps they can start a new article for their website and include all the details.Sohebbasharat (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, i dont think that consensus is achieved. We are three people discussing it. And one is not completely satisfied. And according to wikipedia policy: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus . Sorry, but i dont need consensus to REMOVE this info. But you do need consensus to ADD this info. Sohebbasharat (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So, although i can agree that website can be included. I do sincerely think that some people are trying to give it undue-weight (or advertisement) by regularly editing it as the website of the city in the infobox. By a more detailed information of this website (even more than the primary publication of the city, Alfazal!) and by adding a picture and adding the address in the "external links" section. I cannot certainly agree to this "undue weight". Sohebbasharat (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my tone but i feel some here want this source to be removed to give more weight to the anti-ahmadiyya elements and dont want to see anything related to the AMC. As for wikipedia policy on official links please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links #2 The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. And if the purpose of the link was advertising the website the website would be making money off the wikipedia link but i dont see any ads of any sort on the website.EhsanAhmad (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to give more weight to the anti-ahmadiyya elements. And i dont think there are anti-ahmadiyya elements on the rabwah page currently. What im worried about is undue weight to one particular website on an article on a town "Rabwah", particularly if the information is not upto encyclopedic standard. The link you have sent is only part of the whole. You didnt mention the first point. An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. And no, rabwahtimes is not controlled by the town, rabwah. So, if noone minds i will be removing the link from external links. Also i think only two links are worthy of being in the "External Links" Section. The flickr gallery and the alislam gallery. The rest do not have significant content to be mentioned as external links. As regards the "Rabwah times" in media section. First of all the references are not appropriate to the information in the paragraph. (few links are broken too, try to correct them if you can). And secondly, i propose that the information be corrected, as i said in the previous post, rabwah times does not have any daily/weekly issues, so it is not an online newspaper. Either correction should be made to the paragraph or it should be removed. Also, i think there is no need for the image of the office of this website. THank youSohebbasharat (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As rabwah town does not have an official government website the first point will be ignored because its not an organization and even after that if you still think thats not enough. we can read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." As we have already agreed that the website is a reliable source and does contain information about the subject that is Rabwah should be enough to add the link. EhsanAhmad (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first point is not ignorable. It includes a detailed note that "No official link exists for many articles", so even the main newspaper of a place would "not considered official websites because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented". I do not object to including a link to it as a local news site. But it fails to be the official link for the locale, whether you call it rabwahtimes or rabwah.net. DMacks (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All three of the links for historical details are dead. Both pages at www.mrt-rrt.gov.au return 404/page-not-found. And www.itexaminer.com seems to either be down or no longer existing at that hostname at all. Given the contentious nature of inclusion for this section, it really needs available sources. DMacks (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The links are still dead for Rabwah times section. Currently the section stands as " Rabwah Times is an internet only newspaper founded in 2008. It started off as Rabwah.NET in 2008[35] but was later on relaunched as a weekly newspaper by the name of Rabwah Times in 2011.[36] The paper was started to give the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Pakistan a voice on the internet as the mainstream media of Pakistan has been reluctant to highlight the plight of the minority community and in some cases has encouraged the persecution of Ahmadis.[37] The website records cases of discrimination and persecution against Ahmadis. " *First of all, there really needs to be a link that confirms that it is a "newspaper". As far as i have seen the website, there are no daily, weekly or monthly issues. It is a blog or, at best, a news aggregator. So,if noone provides any confirmation for this, i will remove the mention as "newspaper". *Secondly, the history of this Rabwah Times is not pertinent to this article. Also the links for this history are dead. So, if anyone does not clarify why the history of "Rabwah Times" is necessary in this article and provides references, i will remove this too. * I propose the following to remain from this section: "Rabwah times is an online news aggregator and blog that started in 2008. It has its offices located in Rabwah. The website records cases of discrimination and persecution against Ahmadis." I think this is sort of an appropriate mention. If someone doesn't contest this in a week, i will change the subsection. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Montage for Rabwah
I see that the flickr gallery in the "external links" section has some nice pictures of rabwah. If the owners can release their rights, i can make a montage of those pictures and place it in the infobox. Like for example in the Lahore article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LahoreSohebbasharat (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rawah
Love for all Fafaahmad (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rabwah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222175007/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/pop_major_cities/pop_major_cities.html to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/pop_major_cities/pop_major_cities.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911223432/http://www.foh-rabwah.org/aboutus.html to http://www.foh-rabwah.org/aboutus.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160530225357/http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/ResRec/RirRdi/Pages/index.aspx?doc=456309&pls=1 to http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/ResRec/RirRdi/Pages/index.aspx?doc=456309&pls=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019
for minor changes Myedit1 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you want to do. Requests must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Pepper Beast    (talk)  13:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)