User talk:Kundawala

Edits to Dawoodi Bohra
Greetings, I noted your edits to Dawoodi Bohra expressing possible negative aspects of the denomination, including treatment of women and lack of democracy. I'd like to emphasise that adding such information is completely legitimate, but only if it can be footnoted to a reliable source. I emphasise that even editors neutral on Bohra issues would be inclined to remove your edits, simply because they are not footnoted to a source, so there is no reputable authority given to verify these facts. I urge you, if you wish this information to remain on the page, to find a reputable footnote for each stated claim, and add it in using Wikipedia's footnoting format. Note that blogs, organisation homepages, sectarian sites, etc. do not qualify as authoritative. However, if you find, say, a mention in the Delhi Times which explicity says "members of the ulema have criticised then Dai for undemocratic practices", then by all means add that info and add a footnote. However, given that the page is watched by many Bohra, I doubt your current additions will stay long since, since they are not footnoted they are not defensible. If you do provide clearly footnoted criticism and it is removed without explanation by pro-Bohra editors, then the neutral editors and the admins will support you and prevent its deletion. However, since you currently have no footnotes, nobody will be able to defend your edits.

Please think carefully on this, and realise that if you want to make a lasting contribution, you will positively need reputable footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, diatribes, and particularly fundraising efforts, are not appropriate on an encyclopedia. It is completely legitimate to want to tell both sides of the Dawoodi Bohra story, both good and bad, but assertions absolutely must be backed up by footnotes to neutral, reputable, third-party sources.  Please ensure that your additions are so footnoted; not to blogs or sectarian sites, but to academic works, published books, and major newspaper/magazine articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet again: provide sources or references for your assertions, or they will be reverted.  Criticism in articles is perfectly fine, but it must be sourced to some sort of reputable publication. Failing documentation, all we have is one man's opinion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)