Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 9 April 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Gujarat Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2012.

Consensus regarding name

I have seen in this article there is an issue of consensus regarding the name. Let me shed some light on the same:

• 1) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin was the religious leader of Dawoodi Bohra sect, just like Pope is to Christanity. Since calling the Pope, Pope John Paul is allowed in Misplaced Pages, the name Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin should also be allowed. Here Syedna is the word used instead of Pope. Furthermore just like the Pope, Syedna is also placed before only one person in the world in Dawoodi Bohra community. Just like Pope it indicates leadership. So by not allowing to use it would amount to discrimination on the part of Misplaced Pages and its editors and administrators and other authorities towards a minority sect.

• 2) All the verifications in Misplaced Pages is done on the basis of media references and in the entire media Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is refered to as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.

I would like to request the editors to please do not confuse yourselves by the issues raised by people with less knowledge regarding this article and resolving the issue of name move ahead and concentrate on improving the content of the article.

I apologise if i have been short and to the point in the explaination, it really isn't worth elaborating, it is so simple to understand. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Early Comments

If we're dropping the Dr. in the name for the actual article, shouldn't we add a "Mohammad" as his middle name? —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 00:53, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

agreed... he is usually referred to as Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin (in sermons at the mosque etc.) and only in more formal contexts is he referred to as Dr. Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin (usually in written form, on legal documentation etc...) Hulleye 10:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been moved to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Mohammed is the way that Bohras spell the name.

-Aebrahim 26 June, 2005

I believe that instead of just Mohammed Burhanuddin, the article title and names in the article should be SYEDNA Mohammed Burhanuddin. Just like Dr. is an honorary title, so is Syedna (not to mention it is important as to who Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is.

-Murtaza 18 Feb, 2006

His Holiness Syedna Dr Mohammad Burhanuddin (TUS) is the right way. -Murtuza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.215.108 (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles don't go by honorifics/title, if the person is still identifiable by their basic given name. I don't see any reason why Mohammedd Burhanuddin is not an identifiable name, or not a name associated with the figure. And can I assume "(TUS)" is akin to "R.A." or "S.W.A."? If so, per WP:MOSISLAM we don't use them at all unless just discussing them in an academic context. Though, if you have verifiable, third-party mention of the (TUS) honorific, and that's something used specifically for Dais, that might be worth putting the Dai article. 18:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support "Murtaza", "Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin" is technically correct name, its how he was publicly recognized and also this is how he used to write his name himself. Mustafasr (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Table on Islam

I have removed the table on Islam. It does not represent Dawoodi Bohra POV on Islam and hence is misleading. Dawoodi Bohras dont think too highly of Abu Bakr (who is listed as a major figure in the table) Sbohra 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Attention

This article is not well structured. It has major details of the Syedna's life missing. This article should be rewritten as a biographic article. Sbohra 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps someone should be contacted at Malumaat.com to provide this article with the relevant information. They are the official website of the Dawoodi Bohras, they are sure to have someone who can devote some time to this.

Respecting public sentiments (majority or minority doesn't matter)

Yes it is highly recommended that where ever his holiness is being referred to on any part of the website or the world wide web his name should be preceded by his title.

It should be noted that in order to maintain peace throughout the world, it is necessary to first respect each others thoughts and opinions irrespective of the differences. This rule should be applied by one and all.

I agree Mustafasr (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article lacks a summary at the beginning. Kindly remove the tag only after writing a summary. Sbohra 09:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A little tweaking

I tweaked a few things to clean up the article a little: Taher Saifuddin is not a link in Wiki, but Syedna Taher Saifuddin is. So, I added the word "Syedna" before the name at one place. The link is now seen clearly. There were a few grammatical errors and a bit of unnecessary verbosity, so I have "precised" the material a little. I changed the title of the third section to "Awards and Accomplishments" as this section pertains to His Holiness' accomplishments.

Please let me know if these changes look good.

-drtaher

Burhanuddin article merge tag

I have placed a merge tag on the Burhanuddin article, suggesting it be merged into this article. Perhaps a simple redirect would be better, but I thought it would be a good idea if someone had a look at the Burhanuddin article first, in case there is anything that should be included here Flowerpotman -_{wot I've done} 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just turn into a redirect. It was difficult enough removing the POV from this article. Cheers, CP 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am changing it from Burhannudin to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Calling his holiness by name, without his title would be kind of disrespectful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.172.158 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people worship satan, should we add "his holiness" in that article too just to make sure we're not being disrespectful? The best way to not be disrespectful is to equalize all across Misplaced Pages, hence the reason that the Pope and others don't have "his holiness" in them either. I could continue to argue against it spiritually, but I could also just as easily site that it's against Misplaced Pages policy. It's early, so I think I'll do the latter. Cheers, CP 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

- but it says "THE POPE John Paul..."

Some important dates

were added to this article ,which were removed on pretext of requiring authentic source.

Pl. find below the information in other form.May be acceptable for the article, as these are hard facts of his life and nothing objectionable in it,would benefit readers as whole. If at all ,A request in the begining can be made for any correction on facts/dates/period if required,

"Some memorable events of his life:

Sayedna Mohd. Burhanuddin has Completed recitation of Holy Quran at age of 6 years in 1338 AH. There was a motor accident at Colombo, bridge got damaged, car got hanged on one wheel,and he escaped unhurt by mercy of god( 1345 AH). He got designation of hadiyath (Sheikh) from 51st Dai at age of 17 years (1349 AH). designated as "maajun" on 27th Rajab ,1352 AH. He became "hafezul Quran' ( can recite full Quran w/o any visual/audial help) at age of 21 Years. (1353 H) and Married to Madam Amatullah in 1354 AH. . He made trip To Yemen for visit to Earlier Dai's of Yemen in 1381 AH and consequently designated as "Mansural-Yaman". In year 1385 AH he became 52nd Dai on death of 51 st Dai His Father Taher Saifiddin. He organised Ashura(Imam Husain's) function at various location as below , all over the world, and addresed the gathering of Dawoodi Bohra’s from all over world for Imam Husain’s cause : 1969 AD ---Mecca 1980,1981---Qahera(Cairo) 1977,83,87,96--Karachi 1984,1998--Nairobi 1990--Darussalam 2008-09--Mombasa 2001---Houston 1970,91,99,2007,2008--Colombo 2004---Dubai

Request comment --Md iet (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're operating on a misunderstanding of how information is added to Misplaced Pages. The threshold is not truth, but verifiability. If you can't verify your information, it doesn't matter if it's true or not and it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. To avoid an edit war, however, I have cleaned up the information so that it falls closer to Misplaced Pages's manual of style guidelines and tagged it for citation. If citations are not provided by the end of the month, I will remove this information because, particularly on a living person, uncited material may be removed at any time. Canadian Paul 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is he the Dai of the Dawoodi Bohra alone, or all Mustaali?

If he's the head of all Mustaali, which is my impression, that should be clear in the lede. There seems to be a tendency on Misplaced Pages to conflate Mustaali and Dawoodi Bohra, to the point where it's hard to tell if the terms are equivalent, or what aspects/persons/issues belong to which. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mustaali and Dawoodi Bohra are different in the sense Mustaali is a branch from which Dowoodi Bohra originated. Just for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/Mustaali Mustafasr (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Full name or birth-name?

Is Abul-Qaid Johar Mohammed Burhanuddin his full name even now, or is it his birth name and no longer his current name (such as done for Catholic popes?). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Abul Qaid Johar" is his "Kuniyat" it is an arab tradition to name a man by his son, so as the first son of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is "Qaid Johar" so he is "Abu"(father) "al Qaid Johar" so when read togeather its "Abul Qaid Johar" Mustafasr (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Major clean up

Thanks for a major clean up action done. Misplaced Pages is known for collection of material which is acceptable and time tested by majority of readers as it has beautiful facility of self edition/correction. The cleaned up material was sustained for very long period and it has got acceptability from a large chunk of readers in the period. Although clean up action has improved the article in its look but in the process some important information which reader generally search for got deleted.

It is very right that matter requiring proper citation is to be marked for improvement but total deletion will not leave scope of improvement. We may find some way in between such that facts are depicted without becoming excessive and undue.--Md iet (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, glad to work with you on these improvements. If you get a chance to look through the "invisible" comments I added in the edits, I've given clear justification. for the material I've hidden/removed. Primary concerns:

• Far too many photos of buildings; the subject is not an architect, so while it may be significant that he has funded building restoration, such does not justify having a dozen photos of buildings, per WP:UNDUE.
• The lengthy description of architectual renovations, again, is excessive. While it's apparent restoration has been a priority of his, the basics of his priorities, and a few key examples, should suffice. Again, the trick is to keep the article properly weighted between the various important aspects of his career. Unless architecture is four times more important than his preaching, it shouldn't be four times as long.
• The list of places he's supervised Ashura seem a bit excessively detailed. I'm open to contradiction on that one, and technically it is cited to something, but the format took up a lot of space, and I'm not convinced that reading that list is fundamental to the average reader understanding Burhanuddin.
• It's preferred not to use the same format for both reference footnotes and explanatory footnotes (like the ones footnoting the CE dates to explain the AH dates). Largely because this makes info look cited when it's not actually referenced to anything, but just explained. Instead I've moved them up to parentheses, "(1943 CE)" for clarity, and removed the "at the age of" since we don't need three different way to explain every date (age, AH, CE).
• Big thing: there are a bunch of technical terms in the "Early life" section that are not at all clear to a layman. They should either be wikilinked to a definining page (like mithaq properly is), or else a parentheses explaining what a "mazoon" or whatever else is.
• The article has some good use of media articles, which helps improve the neutrality, but still is a bit heavy on DB-based sources. Try checking out GoogleBooks, and look for books that appear to be neutral/academic (not with flowery words like "vibrant" or "rare qualities") which give details about MB's life and career.

Just a few suggestions; the page is heading in a positive direction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Burhanuddin and Female genital mutilation : FGM within Dawoodi Bohra Community

“We claim to be modern and different from other Muslim sects. We are different but not modern,” Bano, a 21-year-old law graduate who is angry about what was done to her, told AFP in New Delhi.

She vividly remembers the moment in the party when the aunt pounced with a razor blade and a pack of cotton wool. … For generations, few women in the tightly-knit community have spoken out in opposition, fearing that to air their grievances would be seen as an act of revolt frowned upon by their elders.

But an online campaign is now encouraging them to join hands to bury the custom.

The anti-Khatna movement gained momentum after Tasneem, a Bohra woman who goes by one name, posted an online petition at the social action platform Change.org in November last year.

She requested their religious leader, the 101-year-old Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, ban female genital mutilation, the consequences of which afflict 140 million women worldwide according to the World Health Organisation. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is the 52nd Dai-al Mutalaq (absolute missionary) of the community and has sole authority to decide on all spiritual and temporal matters.

Every member of the sect takes an oath of allegiance to the leader, who lives in western city of Mumbai. When contacted by AFP, Burhanuddin’s spokesman, Qureshi Raghib, ruled out any change and said he had no interest in talking about the issue.

“I have heard about the online campaign but Bohra women should understand that our religion advocates the procedure and they should follow it without any argument,” he said.

But over 1,600 Bohra Muslim women have since signed the online petition. …

“The main motive behind Khatna is that women should never enjoy sexual intercourse. We are supposed to be like dolls for men,” 34-year-old Tabassum Murtaza, who lives in the western city of Surat, told AFP by telephone. … see: Female circumcision anger aired in India AFP 23.04.2012

http://dawn.com/2012/04/23/female-circumcision-anger-aired-in-india-fm/

A Sydney sheikh has appeared in court in relation to the alleged genital mutilation of two children.

Sheikh Shabbir Vaziri, 56, who police sources say is part of a lesser-known branch of Islam, has been charged with two counts of accessory after the fact of female genital mutilation and hindering investigation of a serious indictable offence. Police will allege the two girls had the procedure, which is also known as female circumcision, performed on them in NSW when they were aged six and seven within the past 18 months.

Police allege one mutilation was performed in Sydney; the other in another metropolitan area.

Mr Vaziri, who was arrested today, appeared in Burwood Local Court this afternoon and was granted bail.

see: Paul Bibby: Sydney sheikh in court over 'female genital mutilation' SMH - The Sydney Morning Herald 13.09.2012

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-sheikh-in-court-over-female-genital-mutilation-20120913-25ubq.html

Police claim Sheik Shabbir Mohammed Bhai Vaziri told members of the Dawoodi Bohra community at Auburn to lie to police when they questioned them over the mutilations.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_print_link.cfm/blog_id/43892

79.251.101.104 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change aged 108 to 102 Bagwalamurtaza (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: There is no "aged 108" in the article to change to 102... Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mohammed Burhanuddin died on 17 January 2014 at the age of 102 due to heart attack in Mumbai. Rahulnaphade (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done (not by me). Dwpaul 04:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

41.59.29.202 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I request that instead of the name being just "Burhanuddin", please edit it to "Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin" because that is what his name is. And that's is the name he is internationally known by, as that was the title given to him.

 Not done Misplaced Pages's policies on this are WP:CREDENTIAL - do not use academic titles - (Dr, Prof etc} and WP:LASTNAME - use last name not forename or initials.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

His name should be Syedna Abdul Qadir Johar Mohammed Burhanuddin(TUS. Please do not use his first name as this shows disrespect. Thank you. 122.179.138.242 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This contradicts the request above, which wanted his first name included. Misplaced Pages's policies remain the same WP:LASTNAME - use last name not forename or initials. and WP:CREDENTIAL - do not use titles such as Dr, Prof etc. We will not use his full name, other than in the introduction and any info-box, so which one-word name should we be using, if it is not Burhanuddin? - Arjayay (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the biographpy, when it says he escaped an acciedent when brige railing collasped, you need to put an "a" before bridge.

69.203.217.92 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

stampedes comment

"since it is mentioned highly enough to warrant it's inclusion in the article. Whether or not other similar stampedes are mentioned regarding other figures is of no relevance" argued the editor.

Just mentioning of the report in news is not enough to warrant its inclusion. In the biography article whether these type of side incidents to be covered or not are matter of discussion. The incident took place before start of last riot ceremony, and covered else in the Wiki, hence its inclusion here is not justified whether it is related with fame or not.

This may please not be included again till it has consensus here.--Md iet (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Something is extensively reported doesn't mean that it has to be included everywhere; the editor is insisting on its inclusion, if anybody else have similar opinion, may please discuss here.--Md iet (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I think we may go ahead further as above.--Md iet (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the stampede in a logical, easy to follow format:

• It occurred at the funeral of the person in question. Hence it is relevant to be included in the section in the article on his death.
• A not insignificant number of people were killed or wounded. Hence it is newsworthy. I have seen whole new Wiki articles created about specific attacks that killed far less people.
• It was extensively reported in the media. Hence it is noteworthy and deserves inclusion in the article.

We mustn't allow our sensitivities to prevent us from editing in an objective manner. I understand you are a follower of this man and perhaps you may have found the stampede deaths embarrassing for your faith, but i am definitely looking at this with zero subjectivity and zero harm intended. ThanksFotoriety (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am follower or not is immaterial when I am an editor for a platform like Misplaced Pages which I respect for its neutrality, free and fare self tested, a Sea of information. I respect your point of view, our POV may differ, let the NPOV/consensus prevail.--Md iet (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. Sorry if i caused any offense.Fotoriety (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your understanding, there is no need of being sorry.--Md iet (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mate, we talked about consensus & then you have gone along a reverted your edit without any consensus at all!!! Please explain.Fotoriety (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the language above carefully. Myself and one another editor is not in favour of inclusion of this information as it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography. You have insisted for its inclusion, I have specifically asked to readers that 'if anybody else have similar opinion (for inclusion), may please discuss here' and the response was nil.

This clearly indicate consensus in favour of 'not inclusion' (+2:1). After your reply accepting the discussion I further waited for some time for any further response from any other, as there were none, I deleted the information.

You have reverted the information again, please don't include it again till we have consensus here in your favour.--Md iet (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two editors who are followers of this man and his religion are not very helpful in establishing NPOV. To establish consensus we need neutral editors - which i have contacted & am awaiting a response from. You must also set-out clearly, as i have, why you object to it's inclusion.Fotoriety (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, I object to this inclusion 'as Myself and one another editor is not in favour of inclusion of this information as it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography.'

Please get the consensus and then revert.--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Request some administrator to help in. I have taken general consent, there were nobody else against my simple argument. This editor is adament and trying to force opinion and disrupting normal process.--Md iet (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography" is not a valid reason because, 1) Just because something is covered somewhere else that doesn't invalidate it's inclusion in the Wiki article. 2) A biography includes the notable events related to a person. A stampede at his funeral that killed quite a few people is notable. In fact i believe the stampede could even be created into a whole new article of it's own - much as other deadly religious stampedes have their own articles. I think it may be my only option if you persistently reject it's inclusion in this article, or until the other editors i have contacted helped arbitrate our differences.Fotoriety (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read this thread and start off confused:- User:Md iet Says "my self and one other user" and claims consensus on a 2:1 basis - but I only see 2 editors, User:Md iet and User:Fotoriety. Furthermore, WP:Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and decisions are made based on policy and consensus, not on a simple vote, which can easily be manipulated, especially with a claimed majority of one.

I concur with User:Fotoriety, that there is no merit whatsoever in the claim "it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography" this defies normal logic, and I know of no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that supports this. Indeed, if it is covered elsewhere, this coverage should be linked to in this article, to improve the inter-connectivity of related articles; so, if a separate article is written, that would require a reasonable explanation in this article, as well as a link to the separate article.

The death and injury of over 50 people, in a stampede at his funeral, is directly relevant to his biography - it gives a measure of the numbers and enthusiasm of his supporters, and, as a historical event directly linked to Mohammed Burhanuddin, should be mentioned here.

If the stampede became the major part of the article, this would contravene either WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK, but 18 words, supported by 2 references, in the middle of a paragraph, is clearly minimal, and it would not be disproportionate if this were expanded to twice this length.

In brief, I know of no policy or guideline supporting the removal of this text, which is brief, relevant and properly referenced, so IMHO it should remain. Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Arjayay for your response and the strong arguments backed by Wiki policy that you have mentioned. Directly after my last comment i actually found the article 2014 Mumbai stampede which i will now link to in the article under discussion. Thanks again.Fotoriety (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the death section with some more info from zee news, http://zeenews.india.com/news/maharashtra/syedna-mohammed-burhanuddin-laid-to-rest-in-mumbai-70-000-mourners-attend-funeral_904988.html Mustafasr (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

hi I am new to the editors goup and am not apt. So would like to know why my edit was rejected by User:Cyphoidbomb Is it due to the citation was not included on in the article? I have provided the source news link in the comment above. If so do let me know if I can redo the edit with proper citation. And if my edition was not completing the article then pleas do let me know the reason. The edit undone was at 17:58, 11 February 2014 in the history. Thanks Mustafasr (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mustafasr, welcome to Misplaced Pages! I rejected your edit because the sources that followed the crowd total you submitted didn't indicate there were 70,000 people. One source said "tens of thousands" but that's not 70,000. I believe I also checked the article about the stampede but there was no total there either. For the future, at the top of the page is a link marked "View history". If you click that, you'll see my edit along with my explanation. Take care! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Cyphoidbomb for the explanation. I appreciate it. The new article that I referred is on Zee news, which is a renowned source in India. The count is stated there in the second paragraph, and also in there link, I am mentioning it here again for your reference. zee news article I will check the stampede page and see if its complete or may be needing any updates. Thanks. Mustafasr (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mustafasr, I have added the # of attendees to the article and updated the injury count. The article says that 70,000 people attended his funeral, but it doesn't explicitly say that 70,000 people were involved in the stampede. It just says "thousands". Anyway, something to think about. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of the picture "appointed successor"

1275px|" Appointed successor Dai syedi Muffadal BS saifuddin along side Dai Burhanuddin "

As the succession is disputed, the caption under the picture is not relevant. I'm not against keeping the picture, just put a more neutral legend as "Mufaddal Saifuddin alongside Mohammad Burhanuddin" for example. Thanks. --Ftutocdg (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The caption is added in the image by the creator User:Md iet. I'm editing the image and re-uploading it, so it could be used here without dispute. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There's some error coming while uploading a newer version file possibly because of the wrong extension of the file (.pdf). I've requested a {{rename media}} to the file to correct the file name and the file extension. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems it can't be moved to another extension. You could just upload a new image and replace the current one. Widr (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One simply can not upload an image and release it under Creative commons licence citing "Misplaced Pages/Commons" as a source. Try renaming file name as a whole including ".pdf to .jpeg" change. It should be working this way. I could only guess by the way, as I've no "file mover" user right, I didn't perform this job ever. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Uploading newer version" doesn't work. "File extension ".pdf" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/jpeg)". It requires renaming file name. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How about asking the original uploader to upload a new version? They seem to be active. File movers can't change the extension here. Widr (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. He/she was earlier tagged somewhere above. I would chose to leave him a {{talkback}} template to draw his/her attention to this conversation. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Md iet Can you please re-upload an image you earlier uploaded fixing the file extension from ".pdf to .jpeg"? The existing file extension prevents uploading a newer version of the file with pre-embedded caption removed. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

oh, definitely Yes, may take some time please.--Md iet (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Firstly i would like to suggest that since there is a dispute regarding the seccessor, all the matters regarding the succession should be added only under the succession issue tab. All references from the article regarding succession be removed and added under succession issue tab till the time the issue is resolved. The succession tab should be just above 'see also'. This way the article will remain protected from regular edit changes and edit war. Editors should also be encouraged to add any information regarding succession only under the succession tab.

I also request that i have gathered a lot of information regarding this article while i was researching for another article of mine. If you permit i can recreate the whole article with the removal of all succession issues and also add relavant citations. Araz5152 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. This page only has pending changes - level 1 protection on it which should allow you to make edits to the article. However, based on the content of your request, I suggest that you have a discussion and gain a consensus for the changes that you want to make since they seem to be potentially controversial. Using this "edit protected" template is not the way to attract attention to gain consensus to make any changes. Just leave this section here and if no-one responds in seven days or so, then go with the bold, revert, discuss process to discuss making this change. Good luck and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} 13:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Self Published sources like Badre Muneer

• • BADREMUNEER is a sloppy work and not even journalistic and is self published souvenir by Mufaddal Saifuddin group. I acquired some copies of it and it is sloppy piece of work full of advertisements everywhere like an ad souvenir. You can see their desperation that they have duplicated another sloppy blog into their own website domain as explained above to promote a person as a dai. Hence this is why the admins have disqualified its use as a reference

User:Anupmehra An application at WP:RSN was also made. Moreover it is privately circulated and is not available for public. Hence it violates even the verifiablity principle of Wiki. Summichum (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Summichum: I know "badremuneer" is a publication of some die-hard follower of Saifuddin. I've this article on my "to-do" list to make it in compliance wiki standards. I'll be working on it, tomorrow or a day after tomorrow. In the meanwhile, taking into consideration page-protection-level, you are able to make changes to this article. Be bold and make changes you find appropriate. However, once reverted, do no re-instate but discuss it here, on talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra The reverts of User:Summichum is not acceptable. he has not disscussed the issue. even you know this article is highly volatile. any changes without discussion will be considered editwar. Kindly revert back all the changes and first discuss the article point by point and only then the changes should be made.Rukn950 06:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukn950 (talk • contribs)

User:Anupmehra The user rukn is reporting me for edit war , as I just removed claims which come from their own highly sloppy piece of ad souvenirs called Mohinodin, badre munir etc. Now the user has added individual links from india tv news all of which could have been summarized in 3-4 lines. Dear Anup Do visit those link and please clarify whether it is authoritative and reliable. Summichum (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

as I just removed claims which come from their own highly sloppy piece of ad souvenirs called Mohinodin, badre munir etc ?. you should not add your own adjective to any reference because it doesn't comply to your view. It may or may not comply to wiki standards is another matter. what would you say to self published fatemidawat.com? and your mundane efforts to impose POV?Rukn950 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello people, Reverting one-another edits is considered WP:EDITWAR. You must discuss it on article's talk page! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Anupmehra Please not that I have removed citations of badre munir\mohidin etc, which another COI user is reverting my edit. The WP:RSN also accepted it as self published source and removed it. Moreover badre munir is not even verifiable as its a privately circulated souvenir.

Re-edited and cleaned the article

Some of the edits lacked clarity as to succession controversy which looked like promotion statement. the line " 18 were killed and 50 injured were repeated 3 times in the article so I removed repetition. I have also added some information with valid references acceptable to wiki standards. I hope concerned editors would agree to my edits. if there is any difference please discuss in this talk page before doing any changes.Rukn950 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

it was known for two years that Nass has been performed to mufaddal saifuddin until khuzaima qutbuddin claimed after the demise of syedna muhammed burhanuudin. I am not disputing but stating the fact as represented in media. there is no POV here. my reference is reliable.khuzaima qutbuddin himself on his web fatemidawat.com states that he did not reveal the Nass; even when nass was declared on mufaddal saifuddin,two years back because syedna mohammed burhanuddin asked him not to reveal. he waited for the right time.Rukn950 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Still tobe fair I have changed the word Known to Reported.

 Comment:- I just noticed, there's a "Succession controversy" section, here too. Really?? How this thing belongs to this article? "Succession controversy" arose only after the demise of Burhanuddin. I've earlier been saying, It belongs to "Dawoodi Bohra" article and a little to related peoples, not anyone else! Well, I'm deleting it. Anyone, thinks, it is wrong doing so, let me know here, why?! (I do not care for your personal opinion, cite some wiki policy and guidelines). Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. you are right. succession controversy do not belong here.Rukn950 (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Burhanuddin

Hello again, everyone! I've the re-written this article as well, from a new end as a whole to comply with wiki standards and in order to address multiple maintenance tags. I must have missing something on this subject, some people might have objection over some content, well, let me know your concerns, suggest your changes. You're encouraged to be bold while updating encyclopedia, however, once reverted, do-not-reinstate but discuss the matter over here, on article's talk page. I'm little busy these days, I may reply late to your questions. Feel free to ask it to some other person. Your changes and patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:56, 7 April 2014

User:Anupmehra you have done a commendable job rewriting this article. thanks.Rukn950 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What's this with calendars

He was longest living Da'i of the Dawoodi Bohra community (as per Islamic calender).

I don't get this. According to Islamic calendar, the Islamic year has 354 or 355 days, so it's length is hardly variable (only slightly more so than the Gregorian calendar). Besides, if this is a potential point of dispute, then why is his reign not just measured in days? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How can a date be a matter of dispute? Dawoodi Bohra follow Tabular Islamic calendar hence both the dates can be mentioned.Rukn950 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, here we got some confusion over the span he was head of the community. The source, I've got says, he was the head for 100 years (longest living Da'i), but technically it is not possible as he was born on March 6, 1915 and died on January 17, 2014 (99 years 10 months and XX days). So, in order to remove confusion over the total span period he was the Da'i of the community, "as per islamic calender" as added by me in parenthesis after the claim. Following {{clarification needed}} template, I've changed it to, "100 years as per Islamic calender". However, it can totally be removed, if consensus established over this. In my opinion, living for 100 years, a century, marks respect, and should be shown in the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:45, 8 April

2014 (UTC)

Respect is not the criterion for inclusion, notability as established by reliable sources is. I'm not too fond of that indiatvnews source as it lists random facts without any context.

That aside, I don't mind paying some attention to the man's age, but I'm still confused, as some of the sources cited in this article actually give 102 years. Also Rukn950 mentions a tabular Islamic calender, so there's still potential ambiguity (I must add that I'm a complete outsider to all of this; the recent edit war just got me curious). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, forget above! Mohammed Burhanuddin was the head (Da'i) of a thousands years old religious sect called Dawoodi Bohra, and he was 52nd Da'i, and among all Da'is the community ever had, he was longest living one. It is encyclopedic and should be included. I do-not-care for this "100 years" thing. And, in reply to your bottom note, may I let you know, I was an outsider, sometime ago. Firstly, I was randomly involved in a Bohra related article, then was invited to resolve dispute on some other Bohra related article. I'm moving one to other related article, since a month, perhaps. It'd be much helpful, if you hover over Mufaddal Saifuddin article, still under dispute. It is a fully-protected article, that's a real thing actually causing me more trouble. I simply can not have consensus in between POV editors. Hope, you could add something there. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think both the date should be mention like March 6, 1915 CE ( 20 Raby` al-THaany 1333 A.H.)to January 17, 2014 ( 15 Raby` al-Awwal 1435 A.H.) both are valid. as one is gregorian and other is Hijri. According to islamic tabular calendar his age would be 102 yrs. and according to gregorian 99 years 10 months.Rukn950 (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC). user:Anupmehra user:summichum is adding highly libelious edit both on this article and Syedna Tahers aifuddin article.I am really fed up with this guys vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies:

BLP Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

As violated in this article.Rukn950 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

For reference

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.

BLP policy applies to biographies of living persons. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Thomas, Melvyn. "Dr Sayedna Burhanuddin no more, pal of gloom descends on Dawoodi Bohras in Surat".

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Gujarat articles
• Mid-importance Gujarat articles
• C-Class Gujarat articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Gujarat articles
• WikiProject India articles