Talk:Younus AlGohar

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Notability

Hi. I was wondering why this article is not considered notable. Should we add more sources? Suggestions anyone? (Omirocksthisworld (talk))

Absolutely sources would establish notability. But they need to be wp:Reliable Sources showing others such as newspapers discussing the subject. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the reply. I will look for some more then. :) (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that notability of this article has been established. Does anyone have any objections? (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hi. Could someone please explain how there is a conflict of interest about this article? I thought conflict of interest means trying to promote yourself/someone you are associated with. Please let me know how it seems to be biased and how we can improve it? Thanks.(Omirocksthisworld (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protected

Due to the ongoing edit war, I've semi-protected the article for a period of time. If anyone believes that the article is not neutral, please state why on this talk page and give other editors a chance to address any concerns raised. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but I saw this at ANI and decided to see what all the fuss was about. Could someone please tell me what is missing that makes this not a nuetral article? If not, then there is nothing to get all bent out of shape about.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if there is anything that should be changed to keep the article as neutral as possible, all suggestions are welcome. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Younus is a Harami & Rundi ka Bacha!!!

Younus is a Kutte ka bacha.
Younus is a Harami.
Younus is a kunjer.
Younus is a Asteen ka sanp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.36.164 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use this kind of language in the discussion. If you want to contribute constructively, it is much appreciated. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Younus is Harami & son of dirty pig no doubt in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.11.220 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please attempt to express your opinions in a civilized manner. If you have anything to contribute that you believe will help the article, you are encouraged to discuss the contributions you want to make here with reputable references for controversial topics. However Wikipedia is not a place to throw random insults, it is a place where knowledge is presented in a neutral manner. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

wikipedia is like a dust bin and it is proved by having articles of mental psychopath younus a dirty soul, wikipedia is a garbage box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.167 (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like Wikipedia, no one is forcing you to use it. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A lot of work has to be done to make this article as a healthy article. If you less their own links/references and take only 3rd party reference, this article will go for a line or so. It seems that this article was a part of self-promoting campaign!--119.160.19.13 (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific: what is self-promoting? If there is anything that seems biased please let me know, as the ultimate goal is to make the article as well-rounded and neutral as possible. I have tried to use 3rd-party references, but for the information that has not been mentioned in third party sources, I have cited Younus AlGohar's own web page. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edit Warring

There seems to be a lot of random vandalism (i.e overuse of ^{[citation needed]} tags and the addition of NPOV tags) going on these days. If someone wishes to discuss what can be done to improve this article, they are welcome to do so here. However, please remember that the objective of this is the work for neutrality and overall coverage of the article, not for the benefit of anyone's personal agenda regarding Younus AlGohar. Before discussing changes please read this article on how Biographies of living persons are handled, and please remember to keep your language civilized and maintain an objective perspective. Please make constructive comments on how to improve this article, providing reputable sources that may possibly be used in the article. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. I hope something can be done about it, as I personally am put off the use of Wikipedia, which I think is not fair, if such things continue to happen. Abusive comments are passed, about which I can't really find any reason. I am not associated or affiliated with MFI in anyway, but comments (which I believe are from the same person, but different ID addresses) claim that I am, which is disturbing. I just want to do some happy-editing to various articles on Wikipedia, as it is both, educating and interesting.

Just to mention, every time someone connects to the internet in Pakistan, they're automatically given a new IP address, due to which, maybe the guy behind this vandalism is using different IP addresses, so as to not be tracked down and blocked. Thanks - Nasiryounus (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting to note, and would explain a lot, as the various IP addresses seem to have similar edit summaries. Anyway, I really do urge the IP editor(s) to express their concerns in a civilized way and attempt to contribute constructively using reputable sources to support their claims. Otherwise, please do stop the constant vandalism done to this article, and please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Full protection

The article is fully protected for a week. Please use this time to make a good faith attempt to air your views on the talk page otherwise the article may be fully protected if edit wars continue.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. While I agree that this article could always be improved upon and expanded, I did not find it constructive when the IP's would edit the article by adding ^{[citation needed]} tags even where there were citations, adding a NPOV tag when there was no dispute going on between editors, and removing a whole section including references. All the while, their only edit summary was "Its not vandalism at all if you are true then you should provide the 3rd party references", which was frustrating to continuously read. I am, of course, willing to work with IP's to improve this article if they discuss things in a civil way and respect the policies stated on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and refrain from personal attacks on editors or the subject of this article. Thanks, and I hope to work out a solution soon. I also apologize for any hard feelings that may have come out of this dispute. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Poor Article!

Once again this article has came up with own refernces. What are the wikipedia administors doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.26.48 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what do you mean 'once again'? Secondly, you aren't even an established editor, and haven't even bothered to sign your artcile, which the 'SineBot' kindly did. I assume that you're the same user that has been harassing this article before and now after the protection has been lifted. Kindly, speak out, what is it that you are here for(?), bringing forth the true facts (which Wikipedia is all about) or being biased and prejudice towards this group, which seems to be against your agenda (as you've depicted).-- NY7 ☆ 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm tired of seeing this article constantly vandalized. To the IP address, I'd like to point them towards Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to see how articles like this one are supposed to be handled. --Omi(☺) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is what are you doing your are defending above users, instead of improving this article and asking for reliable sources? Am I wrong if I am asking for 3rd party or reliable source? I know my approach is wrong but my point is what wikipedia rules & regulation is. Please try to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to see where you are coming from...but to me it looks like right now there are third party references (newspaper articles on the persecution he faces for his beliefs, interviews with newspapers, video clips from television interviews, and reports by reputable sources on MFI and Younus AlGohar). Wherever the information was only provided by websites belonging to/pertaining to Younus AlGohar, I used those sources. In addition when I talked about his beliefs in detail (as this is something that has made him Wikipedia:Notable), I cited his published material, which I think serves the purpose well. --Omi(☺) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many of reliable source references provided? DELETE rest of the matterial immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is really frustrating that you seemed to not have read a single word I typed. --Omi(☺) 07:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fact and you have to face this fact that MFI is a paper movement, which believes on table stories with easy to count members. MFI and Younus the soor are nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your concerns on Talk:Messiah Foundation International. Thanks. Omi(☺) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of References

Okay this is getting annoying- since the article is littered with fact tags, I thought I would take the liberty to find appropriate sources so that those concerned would be satisfied and edit warring could stop on this article. However, when I tried adding references, Falconke reverted my edits, stating in his edit summary, "why you are playing Carousel with wikipedia?" Honestly, what is the problem here? Should I or should I not add references? Omi(☺) 07:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references you are providing are not reliable, they are your own websites, blogs and youtube, which are not reliable to refer.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I linked interviews as well. For the rest- well, they were claims and/or opinions of Younus AlGohar, so I felt that it would be best to just use his own websites to support claims made about him. I don't recall recently adding YouTube videos or blogs as references. Please stop removing my references, or at least provide a good explanation: your last edit summary "If you are true provide reference to your claim" makes no sense, as I was trying to add references while you were removing them.Omi(☺) 09:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple is that remove those statements/claims, which are not supported with reliable resources.--Falconkhe (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot justify your accusation of these sources and references as not being reliable, as they are solid references, from things that either AlGohar has claimed or what the MFI claims. It's ridiculous how you're removing what others are editing and attempt to vandalize the article with ^{[citation needed]} tags that are totally inappropriate. It's ridiculous, constant and has really, really got to stop! Stop accusing the editors of this article to be part of the MFI, as they've already told you they aren't, and if you continue to do that, it'll obviously come under harassment and vandalism. Respect other editors, as they are your associates in making this article and Wikipedia (in a whole) a better source of information, facts and also rumours (all packed with reliable sources and references).-- NY7 ☆ 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just look at this clearly: Falconkhe, I know you have issues with the organization as a whole. But you put fact tags where there were already citations, or you put them where the article was talking about AlGohar's claims/beliefs, etc. Since it was talking about his claims, I thought it was justifiable to put links to his own websites to support the fact that he actually did make such claims. Please, if you have problems with the organization, it won't help us at all unless you provide references we can use. Until then, please refrain from personally attacking the subject or other editors because this really helps no one. Omi(☺) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of you both is getting worsen than wrose day by day and you (might be a single member) are delibrately working against wikipedia. You need to read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources as soon as possible. In order to avoid any mess up.--Falconkhe (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is obviously going nowhere. I think its time to get other people's opinions in. Omi(☺) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC:Is this article too biased?

Does the ~~current~~ content in this article seem too pro or against the subject? If so, what can be done to make the article more neutral? edit: Actually, Please check this version of the article, as this is the version that is getting reverted. Omi(☺) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like advertising someone either you provide proper/reliable references.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let me check.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconkhe, you have already expressed your opinion. We need a neutral editor to comment now. Omi(☺) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the linked version and I agree with Falconkhe. Sole Soul (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your input. I'm going to have a look-through of the article and tweak wording to make it more neutral for now. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report on this article

Unbiased links:
http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk /news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49997ae7d.pdf
This is wikipedia and I strongly recommend all administors of wikipedia to take immediate notice and action on this article.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to add that the report by Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury is not published by MFI and shouldn't be considered "biased" as you have indicated, and the "Messiah Herald" included interviews and transcripts from television interviews. I thought it was justifiable to use the self-published sources when talking about claims by AlGohar or information that was only provided by him. Also, even though there are many self-published links, if you look at how much each link is referred to, you'll find that the third party sources are linked to more frequently. Omi(☺) 08:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though, now that I think about it, the video clips don't really need to be referenced, as I am pretty sure the transcripts of speeches by AlGohar will be on the website. Omi(☺) 08:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that, rather than picking on Omi's links, you should research either the MFI or AlGohar and bring about unbiased links and references, keep in mind, that they must be reputable. Thanks, and it'd be honest effort towards this article. Best of luck x -- NY7 ☆ 01:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not my job to do a useless thing like research on MFI, you are the follower of younas, you should provide the reliable references else DELETE all biased matterial from the article. Dont change the TAG untill reliable sources are not provided and all biased is not DELETED from the article.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, so far it looks like you are the one who has issues with the references. Would you be willing to actually help with the article instead of accusing those who are working on it to be "followers of younus"? So far you have been making claims on Talk: Messiah Foundation International and here that AlGohar is a terrorist, and an IP address (who at least seems similarly opinionated) made inappropriate comments about AlGohar in Urdu (see section "Younus is a harami and rundi ka bacha"). Instead of simply complaining about why AlGohar and MFI have articles about them on Wikipedia, why don't you consider helping out? It'd be very much appreciated, and hopefully bring this article more towards the middle. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omi I am already helping you by telling you the loophole of your article and I am helping you as WP rules & regulation. Don't consider me as your enemy and I request you to not him AlGohar as HE & MFI doesn't belong to Gohar Shahi, call him Younas, which is his original name.--Falconkhe (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not/have not considered you an enemy (though I do not agree with the way you have been handling disagreements on Gohar Shahi-related articles). Now that this has been cleared up, I'd like to request you to please not make POV comments like "AlGohar and MFI don't belong to Gohar Shahi". This article doesn't indicate who belongs to Gohar Shahi anyway. As this is a biography of a person currently living, we have to be extra careful in claims made about him. You keep saying the references aren't good enough (e.g. " Dont change the TAG untill reliable sources are not provided and all biased is not DELETED from the article.") however I have explained my reasoning for using the self-published sources as per WP:BLP. I do not know how much of this article you object to due to personal biases and how much is actually for the improvement of the article- but I'm sure reputable sources you provide will be helpful in improving the article and making it as neutral as possible. Keep in mind though that as this is a BLP we cannot be too critical, as biographies of living person on Wikipedia can directly affect a person's life. We need to respect Wikipedia's policies on BLP (See WP:BLP). Omirocksthisworld(☺) 06:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fact that younas and MFI don't belong to Gohar Shahi. Anyhow, I am writing down how to make a good article. WP:BLP doesn't mean you are might be misunderstood. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

We must get the article right.^[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons 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.^[2] As of January 2010, a push to source all material about living persons is under way.

I hope you understand.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

Yes, I do- which is why I directed you towards the page. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 07:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that & make your article according to WP rules & regulation. --Falconkhe (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.These are the only suggestion in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.21 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconkhe, you got your reply to this exact comment already. As it was mentioned by myself, nasiryounus and MatthewVanitas-they can't be included since you haven't provided any reputable third party sources to support your claims about AlGohar or his organization. as this is a WP: BLP we can't include these claims about him without reputable sources. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have don't show respect to our demands, ready to face the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.21 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making intimidating/threatening comments. I recommend reading Wikipedia: Five Pillars and Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 08:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.This is the only option in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.21 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Vandalism

Right after the above user stated "You have don't show respect to our demands, ready to face the consequences", this happened. I have been reverting the edits and requested page protection for the article. The IP made the exact same comment as User: Falconkhe which leads me to believe that they are either the same person or somehow associated. Please stop with the vandalism, threats, and generally confrontational behavior. Please respect the fact that this is a biography of a living person. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 09:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus is a bastard and its true and I have done nothing wrong in doing that.--116.71.8.21 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your disruptive behavior and edits, and refrain from making POV comments, as this does nothing for the article. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus & MFI

They don't belong to gohar shahi, remove delebrately the name & picture of gohar shahi in this article and use Muhammad Younus (as his original name was this) instead of Younus AlGohar.--Stragewarior (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.This is the only option in my view.--Stragewarior (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, who gave you the right to demand anyway? I mean, this article isn't to make any party happy, it's here to support facts and not opinions, though there can be section which can conclude of your opinions as a whole (e.g. organization, following and/or movement) but then again, it has to be from a reputable sources, which again, you aren't providing from your many allegations and accusations against AlGohar, from IDs such as Falconkhe and now Stagewarior.

And, to your utter dull knowledge, both www.goharshahi.com and www.goharshahi.pk have similar matter, which, as it seems, www.goharshahi.pk belongs to your "organization" and '.com' to the other party. Now tell me, (even though it won't make much a difference) what difference does it make, if one of these is blocked and the other isn't, what do you want to prove?

Provide whatever you say with reputable sources, please. Or do not pass such ridiculous comments at all. -- NY7 ☆ 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is sad

I am not behind this, however, it was very teasing to know that Omi is talking and it seems that, he thinks I am behind this edit war but actually I am not. This edit war is really sad.--Falconkhe (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was simply pointing out that the IP's comments and Stragewarior's comments bore uncanny resemblance to your previous comments. They seemed to share the same opinion as you (compare your comment "I request you to not him AlGohar as HE & MFI doesn't belong to Gohar Shahi, call him Younas, which is his original name" with "The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar" by Stragewarior). Also, both Stragewarior and the IP that was blocked re-pasted your "demands/suggestions". This lead me to believe that either they were associated with you or were you. Or, they could just be a similarly opinionated person(s). If I am wrong, I'm terribly sorry for assuming. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 21:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to know that you are at least satisfy that I wasn't behind this Edit War. This is a fact that MFI is a selfmade cult, which was introduce by younas and younas writes name ALGOHAR just to dodge that he belongs to HH Gohar Shahi and the NAME & PICTURES of HH Gohar Shahi are used by MFI for its' ill-deeds. Again I am very sorry, if you are hurt by any mean. Thanks--Falconkhe (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous. Same writing style, yet again, from another ID.

Listen Falconkhe, nobody cares about what you're saying anymore. Because, I think everybody's asked you more than a dozen times to bring in reputable sources, but you insist to pile allegations upon allegations. -- NY7 ☆ 06:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous, listen Nasir, if you have no reliable sources then DELETE this article, if you don't have reliable source, it doesn't mean that WP will not ask about references. Its not a dust bin, its Wikipedia.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we all agree to not have lengthy discussions speculating who is and who is not associated with Gohar Shahi. Look Falconkhe- in the article it clearly states that AlGohar is considered by people in MFI to be the representative of Gohar Shahi. Therefore could you please stop trying to convince everyone that "mfi and younus don't belong to Gohar Shahi"? This isn't a place to convince people that one group is wrong and one is right (we just need the facts here, not POV articles) - however if you could provide a source saying "so and so doesn't consider MFI or AlGohar to be associated with Gohar Shahi" I think it could be included in the article. Meanwhile, I would like to request you to please leave your conspiracy theories out of this discussion (see Wikipedia:No original research) unless you're willing to help me out and provide the sources to back up your claims. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritualism

The same IP is at it again. Be it spiritualism, be it Falconkhe, they're all the same. And they're handwriting clearly shouts that out. The new trend that this certain IP has found, is to change AlGohar's name to 'Muhammad Younuas', whereas it's already listen in the article that AlGohar's name at birth was 'Mohammad Younus', but later was changed. I don't see what the issue is, but this guy's really has some personal issues to sort out before making edits on Wikipedia, because editors like me, are really getting annoyed by such foolish behaviour.-- NY7 ☆ 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They all are the same, ONLY you are different, isn't it?--116.71.9.51 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing that you people are not ready to face the reality and reality is that you are liers.--Spiritualism (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this polite, shall we, and leave our prejudices at the door before we enter here? You may all take this as a general warning. Rodhull andemu 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned many times, these random IDs and IPs just don't quit their ever-threatening comments and sectarian issues. -- NY7 ☆ 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected again

The edit-war continues, and I have full-protected the article yet again. I suggest any editor unhappy with this either discuss here or initiate some sort of dispute resolution. This has been going on for far too long, and it's now become intolerable. Rodhull andemu 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned concerns by myself and other editors in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Hopefully this will help us work things out instead of having certain users blocked/punished for their behavior. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the protection history of this article shows a protracted dispute, with little prospect of a negotiated solution. Apart from repeated protections, when editors merely wait until the protection expires before reinstating their preferred versions, and nobody is seeking any dispute resolution, it is apparent that other sanctions aside, such as edit-warring, this article needs to go to WP:RFC, and if that does not produce results, arbitration, with appropriate sanctions. I would prefer it not to reach that level. (PS, sorry about the multiplicity of dependent subclauses) Rodhull andemu 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the report to Wikiquette might be a step towards dispute resolution, however RFC seems like a sensible solution. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to dodge people that he linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them. These are the only options in my view.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Falconkhe.--Truefighter (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your comments Omi, which were too accusatory. Well I have always mentioned facts and the fact is that you want to promot Younus and his organization and using wikipedia for this purpose. First of all his actual name is Muhammad Younus and not younus algoher. The second thing, which made you (Omi) emotional when I ask for reliable sources but always come up with self publish webs references, which are not accepted on wikipedia. I am asking for authentic and reliable information for readers of wikipedia. Did I do something wrong, its you who wants Edit War not me. You seems very rigid to promote your cause but wikipedia is not suitable place for you to do a thing like this.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I inclined to agree with Falconkhe.--Iamsaa (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you would as you judging by this baseless accusation, you are similarly opinionated. Now, Falcoknhe, I dont care whatever personal grudge you have against the subject or his organization, the fact remains that AlGohar is legally known as Younus AlGohar, and is referred to in both media interviews and on his personal website. It is mentioned already that AlGohars birth name was Mohammad Younus. I also explained many times why, in certain circumstances their own material was used as references (i.e for information not found in other sources as well as to support sentences such as "They claim to...")- in these circumstances the sources are to some extent acceptable. I have no desire to edit war with you, however my attempts to discuss the article civilly always ends in yourself or some seemingly random IP to turn it into a sectarian issue. I wonder what you mean by my "cause". I'm trying to make the articles relating to Gohar Shahi and his organizations more neutral, which is why I'm even attempting to work with editors such as yourself, who present a view on the organization that is quite different from the norm. It would be good if we could include other controversies relating to this subject, if only you could be a little more cooperative and less accusatory towards editors who actually want to expand the article so that it contains all the relevant and sourced information, and not show the world how great or terrible Younus AlGohar is. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Younus or Younus AlGohar?

Other's comments have always baseless to you but your baseless articles, which are full of own websites reference carry weight in your opinion. The thing is that you are supporting a lie and you know the consequences, that's why you are doing so, otherwise actuall name of younas is Muhammad younas and not Younus Algohar, which you know very well.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Falconkhe, I am not "against" you, and I really could care less about your personal issues with the subject, despite what you may believe. However its in your best interests as an editor to act in whats best for the article and not to promote your strong opinion about this subject, especially when it really does nothing to improve the article itself. I've asked you countless times to provide usable references to support your claims (i.e AlGohar is a terrorist) so that they can be included in the article. This is Wikipedia policy, and the rules are a lot stricter for WP:BLP. Since AlGohar is still living, any unverified material about him on Wikipedia can actually affect him in real life. Also, about AlGohar's previous name- it is already mentioned in the article that Mohammad Younus is his birth name, and the name Muhammad Younas redirects to this article. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Omi, I have nothing against younus and his organization but you are the editor of article and you have no reliable sources to support your claims? His actuall name should be mention rather his alias names or pseudonym or the name he likes for himself. If you haven't reliable sources support this article, you should not have started this article but you started, which clearly shows your personal linkage with younas or you can be younas to promot himself, he can do anything from sending people behind the bars to reward them death as he did in India and Pakistan. Once again, I would ask either provide reliable resources (Not self published websites) or leave this article. Thanks--Falconkhe (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your comments here, where you claim that "Omi you are getting confused since you are a lier but you don't know one thing that a lie has to be reveal one day. MFI and Younas are the terrorist, this is the reason you have to flee from Pakistan and this is the only reason that you people are facing legal problem in all other countries whereever, you are taking shelters, the people of MFI have misused the law of UK and used it for taking legal shelters under the umbrella of asylyme, you have misguided British Government and provide false proof (like you are doing on wikipedia) to them. We are planning to use interpole to bring younas back to Pakistan and hopefully it will not take long time" shows a clear COI with the subject. You don't even know me, so please stop with the accusations. Look, he is most referred to as Younus AlGohar- even The Guardian here, Asian Pulse News' here, The Island Sri Lanka here, And the UNHCR here refer to him as such. Therefore, the article is called Younus AlGohar, however it is already mentioned that his birth name is Mohammad Younus. I don't see the problem here. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How poor? You got only three or four references to support the whole article. For your information and attention the policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons: unsourced material must be removed from those immediately.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided were those third party refs that refer to the subject as Younus AlGohar. Other sources include a report by Eric Averbury, here, where hes mentioned as Younus AlGohar in the Expo information, and even critical reports from the Daily Times Pakistan refers to him as "Younus Al-Gohar". And yes, you are right, the article could indeed use many more references, but this especially includes references for claims such as "AlGohar is terrorist". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view is that the article should be on his actual name rather his alias names or pseudonym. --Falconkhe (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems more sensible and relevant to his notability to have the article named as it is, and just include the fact that his birth name is Mohammad Younus for those who are confused about it. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be named Mohammad Younus or Younus AlGohar?

There is a dispute between primarily myself and another editor over whether the name of the article should be moved to Mohammad Younus, the subject's birth name. I support keeping the article as it is because the subject is referred to as Younus AlGohar in the references, in media, and also refers to himself as such. On his organization's website he is referred to as Younus AlGohar- therefore it seems like he is most known by this name. The other editor believes that the lesser known birth name should be used because the use of Younus AlGohar seems to somehow promote the subject. Comments from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article should be one real name and not on other names because its an encyclopedia and it should have articles on real names.--Spiritualism (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be more appropriate to have an article on original name.--Truefighter (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should be on real name.--Asikhi (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors please. Asikhi, from this edit it is clear that you also have a COI with this. We need people who have nothing to do with this subject or the organization to comment in the best interest of the article. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through this and I'm more than a bit confused. Where I come from, we refer to people by their chosen name if they change it, the idea being that a person has a right to change their name. For example, Muhammad Ali rather than Cassius Clay, or Malcom X rather than Malcom Little. On that basis I'd be inclined to leave the article named Younus AlGohar. But I sense I'm missing some of the cultural background on this issue. Clearly, the notion of using Mohammad Younus as the name of the article is somehow insulting to a number of editors. I confess, I know nothing at all about this person or his organization or backgroud, so I'm as uninvolved as one can be. Would it be possible for someone to explain why the use of Younus AlGohar is insulting (please, keeping in mind that I'm completely ignorant of the topic)? tia, Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the subject of this article, Younus AlGohar, claims to be the "representative" of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (a spiritualist), thus changing his name to Younus AlGohar, presumably to reflect that. There are basically two groups of people who follow Gohar Shahi- one group which believes AlGohar to be the representative of Gohar Shahi, and another who do not believe this. I think the person(s) who has issues with the article being named Younus AlGohar is from the latter group- and I think they consider it offensive because in the name Younus AlGohar, "Gohar" (as in Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi) is attributed, thus linking the subject to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. So, basically its a sectarian issue- at least, thats what it looks like to me. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up, thus far

I have no horse in this race; the future of this article is a matter of supreme indifference to me. However, I am pleased to see some discussion occurring. It is only in this way that any consensus can be reached, and continued fighting for the truth is not constructive to what we should be here for, which is to build a neutrally-worded encyclopedia. If this article goes to Arbitration, the results may not be as expected by any of the parties, and that is true however long the delay is while this article is protected. Winston Churchill famously said that "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war", and that is the position I take. I hope you will sort this out between yourselves without the requirement to escalate elsewhere. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I too hope this can be worked out among ourselves. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to me if someone who does feel strongly that the article's name should be changed, could outline briefly why simply documenting these concerns in the article itself is insufficient. Clearly, documenting any of the controversy surrounding this individual is a Good Thing in terms of wikipedia's mission. Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.-- NY7 ☆ 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat of request

I'd really like to hear from someone who objects to the current naming of the article--I have no interest in any particular outcome to this discussion, and am merely trying to understand the nature of the dispute. My hope is that if I can reach a better understanding of what is going on here, I may be able to be of some small help in achieving consensus. Nuujinn (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia and article should be on real name and not on ghost names.--Spiritualism (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a wider issue here. Regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritualism, I'm not sure quite what you mean by "ghost name". It seems that there's no dispute that Mohammad Younus is the subject's original name, and that this person has adopted the name Younus AlGohar and used that for the last two decades or so. My impression is that you and others regard this usage as somehow insulting in a religious or spiritual sense. Why is it not sufficient to discuss this issue in the article itself? Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far, as I've experienced, a few IDs from random generated IPs seem to come up and post comments and play havoc with these few articles all in the name of religion with their sectarian-based issues. E.g. Falconkhe and Spiritualism, both are different IDs but the comments passed by both IDs always seem to be too similar too many times to be just a coincidence.

This issue definitely needs a dispute content, as it is both long-running and unresolvable so far. But thanks for your insight, time and interest, it means a lot. -- NY7 ☆ 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and associated pages

Hi, regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no dispute whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". We believe that he went into Occultation on 25th November 2001. The only organization HE founded was Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and not MFI. Younus has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi, younus is using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi for his ill-deeds. Through,RAGS International, The Representative of Gohar Shahi & Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, younus and his companion are using Wikipedia for self promotion of his self-made teachings. So, my point of view is that Younus should stopped on this stage, he shouldn't allow to use wikipedia for his ill-deeds.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the dispute-page:

Ok, I'd just like to mention that I'm really glad that a dispute resolution has been raised. Falconkhe, there is clearly dispute regarding Shahi's death or "disappearance" on the internet. I advised you to correct Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as it was lacking information that was provided on the internet, and let me remind you Wikipedia is not about what you believe, its about what people think about and what information has been provided regarding a certain issue on the internet. You were told to bring about a reputable source that stated that Shahi had died, however, I found sources that said that Shahi had "disappeared" and has not died, and believers think this to be a fulfilment of a prophecy of the Mehdi. I just think that the information that is provided on the internet should all be on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, because Wikipedia shows all angles of a certain topic, and Faclonkhe, who claims to be a follower of Shahi, is obviously only providing bias and one-sided information, whereas two or three editors, including me are striving to bring this article to justice, and when I do so, I am accused (by Faclonkhe) to be "emotionally" attached to AlGohar, which I obviously am not. I personally think that this article should include everything regarding Him that is available on the net, it should be able to mention what people actually think about him as a whole. For example, the issue of his 'Mehdi-hood', that seems to be a great issue over him on the internet, and if you see the original context of this article (formed by Falconkhe) it doesn't seem to mention it at all, and just mentions 'Shahi denied such accusations'. This article has obviously not been doing justice to its potential, and I am just trying to bring this article to its best and to its utmost justifiable state. Thanks NY7 ☆ 19:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected yet again...

More edit warring? Stop. Discuss the issues here. Further disruption may result in blocks... — Scientizzle 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view this article should be transferred on his actual name.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think user Falconkhe is right here, I agree with whatever he has said.--Spiritualism (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that this article should be transferred on his birth name, we can mention in this article that he is also known as Younus Algohar.--Your Message (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Jimbo4-1] Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.

[Jimbo-2] Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

[1]

[2]