User talk:Anupmehra/Saifuddin

"Wikipedia is not everything, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and last but not least, Wikipedia is not a battleground."


 * . Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The link from huffington post presents a clear picture of the turn of events I request the controversy section be written taking news from highly authoritative sources like reuters, huffington post etc. And also the stance of former CJI should be put as also the central dawoodi bohra committe which has dismissed both citing dispute over control of wealth.

Also a reliable journalist and former editor Pritish Nandy in Bangalore Mirror reported that "Meanwhile, the self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back."[24]
 * The present article is a biography of a living person and controversy section should be limited as much less as it could be. Controversy actually belongs to "Dawoodi Bohra" article not this.
 * WP:BLPFIGHT says, Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to engage in or continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other feuds and disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to the other parties to the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.
 * WP:DUE, Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.
 * It is also required to maintain the WP:STRUCTURE of the article.


 * Bottom line: The present article is about "Mufaddal Saifuddin" not "Controversy of Syedna". We should concentrate on the same. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Anupmehra. Mufaddal Saifuddin is characterized by the controversy and is also popular in the media because of this controversy, he was not well known before the succession controversy. You wont find any mention of him before this controversy in any authoritative media outlets. Hence the controversy section demands great attention. WP:BLPFIGHT here is misplaced as we are just reporting about the person from media, e.g: Snowden is also characterized by controversy only, nobody knew him before that controversy. And most of the article talks about controversies surrounded by him. There are many such articles.Even WP:DUE does not fit as Khuzaima has also claimed support of large numbers, so the division is not about majority\minority. Also another major reformist group in dawoodi bohra rejects both. And Even I was the first to request long back that this article needs to be re-written by a third party. You should see how Qutbi bohra article was made a hoax article by these same people. Qutbi Bohra still is no sect and does not exist. Khuazaima has persisted with his claim as leader of dawoodi bohra and claimed support of 40-50 thousand people and does not want to create split group which he has officially declared. WP:NPOVFACT WP:NPOVVIEW is also violated if we dont sufficiently describe the controversy, we cannot create a seprate article for this, quoting: """ All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article  """ Also WP:BALANCE is at stake, the two authors had made direct claims that Nass was given to mufadddal by syedna , while we know that syedna was not even in the condition to speak or move at that time.

Also I conclude by saying that its is the succession controversy which characterizes and even go on to say, that it defines both of them. Very little was known about them before this controversy (including the stroke ceremony) like Snowden's controversy Summichum (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a biography of living person not "succession controversy" article. However, as it is somewhat related to the subject, therefore it is covered to the extent, it should be. We've enough sources to establish notability of the subject beside controversy thing. WP:BLP and WP:DUE always works! Your argument is related to "Dawoodi Bohra" article, present the same there. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Also WP:BALANCE is at stake, the two authors had made direct claims that Nass was given to mufadddal by syedna , while we know that syedna was not even in the condition to speak or move at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Thanks User:Anupmehra do check out WP:NPOVFACT  WP:NPOVVIEW as this is also violated if we dont sufficiently describe the controversy, we  cannot fork a separate article for succession isssue, quoting: """ All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article  """.POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. And we know the entire media spoke of Mufaddal regarding only this issue of succession hence its a significant section . I already gave you examples of people, from religious domain see the article on zakir naik  entire section is devoted to criticism , reporting various sources. Dawoodi Bohra is about the  sect and not individual people, leaders in them specially if they themselves are controversial.
 * . This is a talk page of an article under improvement in my user space, to invite suggestions related to further improvements in accordance with policy and guidelines. Human beings have biases. Probably most editors have biases that lead them to select which articles to work on and what to add or delete. Those personal biases are fine with us, as long as the result is an article that's neutral. See, WP:POVEDITOR. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  07:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Anupmehra I am not asking to push a POV, what I am asking is to mention all the significant details regarding the person as printed in the media , this is not pushing a POV , but faithful representation of the ground media reports. By selectively ignoring significant information about the subject , then it violates WP:NPOVFACT  WP:NPOVVIEW . Moreover you see the current article statement quoting ref#7 , the author has written a clear white lie , that burhanuddin said "so and so" but if you see that reference nothing of that sort was said by Burhanuddin in that article. You should see how they had made a hoax article "Qutbi bohra" to alienate a group.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We simply can not flood a biography of living person over-detailing controversy section. If controversy is really such important thing and have significant coverage, we can created a standalone article on the topic itself. Review general notability guideline and consider creating one if you want to. I'm not supporting you to create a separate article, but proving you a option, you may consider to implement. I reserve my right to support or oppose, after reviewing newly created article against wiki standards. Hope, it does help. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  16:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Anupmehra for your efforts in improving the article of mufaddal saifuddin. I would request you to further trim down the controversy issue. even though there are reliable reference as per both POV the issue itself is highly volatile and it would do no good to this article. so to avoid that, mentioning that there is controversy and it is being addressed by the media would suffice.thanks againMufaddalqn (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was perfect earlier until "Summichum" didn't edited and expanded the unwanted section(diff link). I'd revert his edits. 3 out 4 editors are agree on previous version. And, I've all reasons to believe that, edits by Summichum are not in good faith. I'd recommend this version to replace the present article. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra I agree with your editing. it seems to be precise and neutral. without any confusing disputed matter. I Thank you for your efforts.Mufaddalqn (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking forward for your inputs at "edit-protected request" suggested on the present [[Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin

article's talk page]]. Cheers! Anupmehra - Let's talk!  16:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for efforts being taken, I propose following addition with clear cut quote from national news, which will make the all incidents clear to viewer and all editors:

"It is said that, late Syedna Burhanuddin had declared his "nass" (investiture) on his son Mufaddal Saifuddin in London on June 4, 2011 (while surviving a stroke), which was well received by dawoodi Bohra at home..


 * 1. It is not reported by the news agency, A representative of the community who did not wish to be named said that[..]. A conflict of interest and biased opinion. Well, if we have to include it, we've to include both sides, It is reported the same in the case of "Qutbuddin". Succession controversy original belonging to the "Dawoodi Bohra" article would be overwhelming again. It's never gonna ending, we continue to add each group's opinion!!

In Jan, 2014 late Syedna passed away, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin led the last rituals of the late Syedna. . It is reported that Mufaddal Saifuddin took charge officially as 53rd Dai and him to be their Dai. --Md iet (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2. Not most Bohras, It is, Even as a section of Bohras (re-read source please). It is true in both case, a section of the group follows either one. Is it really worth including? Like, "A section of the group follow Saifuddin and a section follows Qutbuddin."


 * Please add sources on talk page without tag. It'd be easy to analyze thereafter. *checking sources* Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  06:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)--


 * - I've posted my opinion above starting with, 1, 2. If necessary, include these claims in "Dawoodi Bohra" article, not in this BLP. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  06:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)