Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2014.

Inaccurate survey[edit]

The online survey in the article was posted to a site for the group known as the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra. Due to the majority of Bohras not visiting that site (since it caters to the reformers who do not believe in the Da'i's authority, it's unlikely that very many orthodox Bohra from either faction frequent it), the survey's results cannot be taken as accurate and should not be proclaimed as such in the article. In addition, much of the recently added information comes from the Mumbai Mirror, a tabloid newspaper that may or may not be accurate. 75.114.24.85 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Adding criticism section to the page , made it NPOV suggest any improvements[edit]

Owing to the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) It is alleged that Mufaddal Saifuddin is supported only by “a tiny, tiny section” of the community a coterie that derives some benefit from being close to Mufaddal.[1]. However There are various media reports where Mufaddal Saifuddin has been referred as 53rd Dā'ī and titled as Syedna by a faction of Dawoodi Bohras who support Mufaddal Saifuddin[2] An anonymised online survey among the Dawoodi Bohra community revealed that only one fifth of the Dawoodi Bohras support the succession of Mufaddal saifuddin and a little less than one fifth support the half brother Khuzaima as the rightful successor [1]. A cover story on the Bohra survey revealed that (46%) Bohras support Khuzaima over Mufaddal and many are in the community due to due to fear and force [2].There are various reports that Mufaddal Saifuddin and his representatives are resorting to threats and social pressure to maintain their control over the community.[3] Qutbuddin has alleged that Saifuddin and his family “took advantage of a severe debilitating stroke that affected Burhanuddin following his 100th birthday in London” to declare Saifuddin the successor. In a statement issued in February, Qutbuddin also said his objections said had earned him “abuse, intimidation and even violence” from Saifuddin’s family.[1] Saifuddin’s sermons have been disturbing, said a Mumbai-based Bohra woman in her mid-30s, who wished to remain anonymous because she did not want to be seen speaking publicly against her community’s leader. “If he had his way, he would want us to just stay at home and tend to our families, and nothing else,” she said. “And this is causing a real division within the community. Disagreeing with the Dai on such fundamental matters is regarded as some sort of betrayal.”.[1]

experienced editors please improve above and I will add it tomorrow

References

Summichum (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"A frog in a well cannot conceive of the ocean."Rukn950 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The content above seems not neutral. This had been deleted repeatedly. Please delete the matter and not to be added till it have consensus.--Ruksakba (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


@Black Kite: @Anupmehra: please discuss on the addition of above in criticism section.
Ruksaba and many socks of the user mdiet are to be ignored:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet/Archive
Summichum (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
the dispute and controversy is already given at other article specially addressing this issue. I see no point of repeating it at this article.Rukn950 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


The article is of living personality. Sanctity to be maintained. Controversial issue to be discussed at right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.156.136 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

News reports that officially there is no ex-communication by community as whole but only by mufaddal[edit]

However there is no official confirmation from Dawoodi Bohra community on the alleged ex-communication and progressive members have called a banned on this practice citing it as illegal[1]

References

Advice unheeded[edit]

Summichum has reverted the topic Without discussing immediately the other day (after editwar notices resuming his old behaviour)[3] to avoid 3RR. unheeding advice of the Admin Bjelleklang.[4]. Summichums conduct is very unethical. I can revert it back, but that would start editwar again and I want to avoid it. Pleasei advice.Rukn950 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed it on talk page as shown above , and you should not remove content from reputed news sources to conceal information and present a biased POV with COI.Summichum (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see section 3 above, where Rukn950 replied to you three days ago, arguing against the material as it's repeated. You have not responded to this, and simply starting a discussion doesn't give you permission to start reverting again. Let me ask a couple of key questions here; why do you insist on having a source about the controversy that was published before there even was a controversy? And why do you want the link under see also when it's already present earlier in the article?Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Summichum Why are you assuming me as biased with POV and COI at every discussion. can we not talk in mature manner?Rukn950 (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bjelleklang thanks for intervening , here are the answers:

Ans1: The sucession controversy existed even before the death of Burhanuddin and the source link substantiate it, I have many other links like [5]which also prove that succession controversy existed even before his death and the two factions existed in cold war fashion even before the death, Burhanuddin himself knew this but did not do anything.

Ans2: The see also link is a pointer to other related article , the notability of Mufaddal saifuddin is defined solely due to the succession controversy , before this he was not known and nothing was printed about him in news sources, even before the death of burhanuddin his name appeared only regarding the succession conflict[6] Summichum (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Summichum, that was not the question. Kindly explain why you want this to insert in the Mufaddal Saifuddin article when it is already given in the Article Specially created to address this issue53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)(though that article is not exactly neutral,that's another issue). why repeat? This only creates confusion. and the link of article you have given as reference is written way after the demise of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.Can we not treat Wikipedia as what it is, an encyclopedia? because in tying to prove our point we sometime forget that.Rukn950 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are purposely trying to focus on a strawman to deceptively hide your bias , I would request admits to see his case on the COI noticeboard.

Same can be said about you Summichum, but we are not here to argue about that, are we?Rukn950 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The link posted is dated Apr 30 2013 way before Burhanuddin died. Which proves that the controversy existed far before his death . and regarding ans 2 then it is sufficient justification for including the link as mufadal becomes notable solely due to the succession controversy. Summichum (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I misread the date.but as per the fact Mufaddal Saifuddin was appointed as successor two years before demise of Syedna Muhammed Burhanuddin.But that doesn't answer my question. and I am sick of your assuming that I have bias opinion. can you not simply answer my question?Rukn950 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Further I would Like to add that the notability of Mufaddal Saifuddin is NOT due to controversy issue. you can just type his name in google and verify the fact. why you want to stress this point again and again? What is Your Motive?Rukn950 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your criticism against Dawoodi Bohra and Mufaddal Saifuddin at every occasion cherry picking references and misrepresenting facts at every article doesn't seem to be Biased?Rukn950 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I have come to notice that you are undermining the references which are not against DB and related.not giving equal weight-age.Rukn950 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would request Summichum to read WP:AGF.Rukn950 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)