Talk:Aga Khan IV

Dubious

This dubious tag was added in March 2012 without discussion. The reference is from and correctly attributed to the NY Times.

Please explain what exactly is considered dubious.

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Initial disagreement with dubious tag:

It is my opinion that the quote is correctly attributed to the NY Times, and that the disputed tag is inappropriate.

• The issue of tithes or dasond has two appropriate references.
• The amount of money that the Aga Khan gets from dasond is estimated by the NY Times and the estimate is properly attributed to the NY Times, and I recently added another reference.
• The number of followers of the Aga Khan is again an estimate properly attributed the the NY Times.

See WP:DISPUTED and note there was no discussion when the tag was added.

I believe I am justified in removing the disputed tags, but I will wait a few weeks to see if there is further discussion. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for the dubious tag on the NY times total dasond estimate from Rally eye follow: FordPrefect1979 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The part which is considered to be dubious is not the definition of dasond for which two appropriate references are provided. But it is with reference to the article written by G. Pascal Zachary in the NY Times in 2007. Though a newspaper article does qualify to be used as a reference in Wikipedia, the article in itself is dubious. The reasons for the same are as follows:

• What qualifications does the journalist/reporter possess to calculate the income obtained from dosond? If he does not have the prescribed qualifications, why didn't he quote any reliable source(s) to support his claim?

Response: A reporter from the NY Times business section published this estimate after an interview with the Aga Khan and with unnamed advisors. There is no evidence of complaint or disagreement from the Aga Khan or his people after after publication. The estimate, while not precise, is plausible and likely. See the example below. The Aga Khan and his advisors elect not to disclose the actual value. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• In the article Zachary says "Part of the Aga Khan's personal wealth, which his advisers say exceeds $1 billion ...". Which advisers is he talking about? Why are the names of the advisers not mentioned? It is a very vague statement. If he did not want to disclose the names of the advisers, he could have written that he has not disclosed the names to protect their identity.

Response: It is reasonable to expect a NY Times business section reporter to use anonymous sources, these sources are known to the journalists, often editors. Wikipedia authors are not expected to verify unnamed sources from the NY Times. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Response 2: I added a Forbes reference corroborating the Aga Khan's estimated fortune in the Personal finance section. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Calculation of the dasond is purely done by Zachary not his so called sources. He has cleverly used the word "may" before adding hundreds of millions of dollars. This entire estimation is based on conjectures, which he did not think fit to make a mention of. Firstly, out of the 15 million Ismaili population, how many of them are "earning population"? How many of the "earning population" pay dasond honestly? The Ismaili population live in many countries and hence how much do they earn and pay dasond in US dollars (with respect to the exchange rates then in July 2007) require complex calculations.

Response: This is addressed above. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the person who added this reference in this Wikipedia article vouch for the correctness of the above mentioned estimation? Everyday, millions (now that my estimate) of articles are written in thousands (another estimate) of newspapers around the world. If I or my friend is a journalist and gets through a paragraph writing about the alleged income of any living person, does it qualify to be treated as a genuine Wiki source? If the answer is yes, then does that at least qualify to be debated and discussed upon. And what about controversial articles?

Response: Wikipedia authors are not expected to verify calculations published in the NY Times business section. The estimate has been published in a paper of record and it is referenced and repeated on wikipedia. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, the paragraph at the end of which this dubious tag is inserted seems to be very childishly written. If the wiki editor wanted to make a point that the Aga Khan is a billionaire, then a simple statement, quoting a reliable source like Forbes, would had been sufficient. But instead, he has described what all things does he possess. I have read many wiki articles on billionaires, but no where is this section written in such an immature manner. This paragraph definitely requires rewriting and a reliable source like Forbes should be quoted.

Rally Eye 16:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Response and reasons to remove the dubious tag

Rally eye,

Thank you for listing your concerns. While I do not think the dubious tag is appropriate, we require a consensus before removing the tag.

Please respond to our discussions if you feel my answers are incomplete and if you feel the tag should remain. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned a reference from Forbes. If you have one please contribute.

I prefer to keep this discussion closely to the points on wikipedia policy WP:DUBIOUS.

I have placed my main response in context following your concerns. I will add a little more below:

• The NY Times has a policy for the use of anonymous sources. When they use anonymous sources, in this case identified as the Aga Khan's advisors, the the writers and editors consider the material newsworthy, the source appropriate, and anonymity appropriate.

Based on simple arithmetic, if millions of people are paying an eighth of their income, actually if hundreds of thousands of people are paying an eighth of their income, then stating the Aga Khan receives hundreds of millions from dasond annually is a plausible and likely estimate. For example, if one hundred thousand people earning ten thousand dollars a year pay an eighth of their income, then the total amount would be $125 million.

Additional comment on the paragraph

I will briefly respond to your additional comments.

The NY Times business section and Forbes are both equally valid sources. Please contribute additional [even contradictory] references.

The Aga Khan is not simply a billionaire. He is a religious and spiritual leader, he heads several philanthropic organizations, and the Aga Khan's luxurious lifestyle is legendary. In many cultures, it is noteworthy, and uncommon, for a spiritual leader to choose an extravagant billionaire lifestyle.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is with what is written by FordPrefect1979. When I get time, I will add additional references to show that the Aga Khan does indeed keep a portion of the tithes offered to him for his own personal use. This is something the previous Aga Khan openly admitted to (Aga Khan III) on multiple occasions, including in his book "The Memoirs of Aga Khan." The current Aga Khan may or may not have openly admitted to using a portion of the tithes for personal use. I'm not sure.

Alysomji (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I believe we are on our way to consensus. I reckon if we don't see any disagreement in the next bit we can consider there is consensus and remove the tag? FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Paying Zakat/Dashond/Tithe is an integral part not only of the Qur'an but also the Bible. Even then, nobody is forced to pay the same and is entirely voluntary. During the time of Prophet Muhammad, zakat was paid directly to him and as per the Ismaili belief, the Imam of time is the successor of the Prophet and hence dashond is paid to him. Though the entire amount remains under his control, he spends a majority for the welfare of his Jamat and even others. This paragraph in question, deliberately tries to show him is poor light. Hence, I have updated and completed the paragraph citing an interview which explains how and where is the amount used and spent, throw considerable light on the principles of Ismailism and the belief of Ismailis. Aga Khan is not only the Imam of the Ismailis but also a businessman. He does not have a rich and luxurious lifestyle because of the Dashond he receives. Hence this paragraph definitely requires rewriting.

Secondly, the amount calculated by FordPrefect1979 assumes all the Ismailis earn 10,000 USD annually. Do you know how much that is in Indian Rupee or Pakistan Rupee or Ugandan or Kenyan Shillings? Do you assume that all the people earn Rs. 5,00,000 in India. FordPrefect1979 may be living in Canada. Not all people earn that money. Secondly, the Dashond amount is totally voluntary, that too after the taxes are paid. Nobody forces them down their neck to pay the same. Even when, the government audits the money earned by its citizens, people find way to hide their money so that they have to pay minimum taxes. So what if the people are told to pay taxes of their own free will. How many will actually pay? Please calculate. Spurious references which are based on conjectures should go. I think that the dubious tag is appropriate. In fact, this paragraph requires a lot of discussion and rewriting.

Myshare (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Myshare, am I correct in assuming you're a Nizari Ismaili? Just wondering.

I appreciate your opinion, but, it comes across as rather non-neutral. Saying that Aga Khan does not live an extravagant lifestyle is something you will find difficulty proving, as he truly does live the life of a royal. The fact of the matter is, there is a big lack of transparency as to what is done with the money the Aga Khan collects, his own comments on the matter notwithstanding (which, by the way, contradict the comments of Aga Khan III on the matter). No one knows where all the money goes or how it's used, and this is obviously something the Aga Khan doesn't see anything wrong with. Some of it is used by him and some of it is used for human development and charitable efforts. This much is clear. But, nobody knows how much on either side, and it's all rather opaque. Even a small portion of the funds collected by the Aga Khan represents hundreds of millions of dollars each year that could be used for any number of exorbitant forms of living.

Let's assume there are 1 million Nizari Ismailis who give $1K USD. That is $1B. 10% of that is $100M. So, here we are at $100M already, using extremely conservative assumptions. The Nizari Ismaili community is more well to do than not, and certainly more well to do than the average human beings in the countries Nizari Ismailis reside in. There are many, many extremely wealthy Nizari Ismailis throughout the world who give far, far more money each year than even the average Canadian makes in a year. Also, many give much more than 12.5% of their gross income. And, while Aga Khan says in that interview that giving tithes isn't mandatory, I'm pretty certain he has made a stern point on the importance of giving tithes in past farmans (epithets to the Nizari Ismaili community). In other words, most Nizari Ismailis will tell you that it is absolutely obligatory and not voluntary matter whatsoever.

For example, here is a clip of a farman from Aga Khan III on the matter: "My Spiritual Children ... all should not forget that Dasond is the first of all duties and without it there is no foundation, just as without Dua ... , there is no foundation for other prayers." Farman of Aga Khan III, Cannes, February 5, 1948.

From a Nizari Ismaili website: http://www.salmanspiritual.com/didar_prep_gems/index_04.html

The previous Aga Khan mentioned in an interview in an old Life Magazine interview that he keeps 'about 10%' of the tithes he receives for his personal use. Who knows if this is correct, but, this is the claim he made. When Aga Khan I was kicked out of Iran, I believe he had very little remaining wealth and used the tithes to help him build up a fortune again. This is just my speculation, but, I'm pretty sure when he came to India, he had limited funds. He even had to work for the British to get a pension - and that shows he was lacking money at the time. That is the only occasion I've ever heard of where Aga Khan had to actually work for someone else. Some years after he established himself in India, he curiously amassed a number of properties and investments - some or almost all of of which were built up, I personally believe, as a result of the tithes he collects (because even a small portion of the tithes would make one enormously wealthy rather quickly). This is because the pension he received from the British was rather limited, especially for a man of his tastes.

What isn't mentioned anywhere, and is unbeknownst to most, is that there is a lot more money collected in Nizari Ismaili Jamatkhanas then just the tithes. This is not published anywhere or information available to non-Nizari-Ismailis. There is the money paid for forgiveness and other conveyances to the Mukhi and Kamadia, there is money collected from the sale of food, there is money collected for membership in various period special gatherings ("majalises") that are closed to those who don't pay for membership in these gatherings, and there is money collected from some other things as well. Any trip to a jamatkhana requires one to give money, in fact. Every week, millions of dollars are collected just from the money paid for forgiveness and other conveyances to the Mukhi and Kamadia, alone, for example.

12.5% of the gross annual income of each Nizari Ismaili is only a portion of the money the Aga Khan collects. Yes, it is the bulk of the money. But, there is significant amount more that is collected than just this 12.5%. I think non-Nizari-Ismailis have no idea at all just how much money is collected. It may easily be dozens of billions, even. But, nobody knows for sure due to the lack of openness and transparency. It's really quite sad that there is no knowledge available on how such an extremely large amount of money is actually used.

Alysomji (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The introduction has become ridiculously lengthy. Rewriting is required. Myshare (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Myshare. Near the end of the intro, there is a lot of uncited and unverifiable information on the Aga Khan. That stuff probably needs to go. It is easy to see what I'm talking about just by looking at the "citation needed" tags in the intro.

Best, Alysomji (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added some citations that were pointed out by Alysomji. I will add more in the days to come. Others may also add the same.

As the introduction was too lengthy, I have trimmed it so as to include all the points that two lengthy paragraphs were unable to speak for themselves.

I also see no reason for the dubious tag issue raised by RallyEye. Since, FordPrefect1979, Alysomji and myself have no objections with the reference used, I hereby declare a consensus and delete the dubious tag. However if any of the above mentioned party or anybody else feel the dubious tag should have stayed, they are free to raise the same again.

Two lengthy paragraphs made little or no sense and it was a bit un-neutral and going out of context. It read more like a personal blog or a website and not like a wikipedia article.

I would also request wikipedians, especially Alysomji to use the platform and be as neutral as possible and avoid using inflammatory language. Be as precise as possible while writing, rewriting the paragraphs and use neutral language as far as possible.

I hope everyone agrees.

Myshare (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Style HRH and HH & Other

I do not know if the Aga Khan is a prince. However I believe that he was granted the style His Highness by HM Queen Elisabeth II and that of His Royal Highness by the Shah. The adkn.org website says that this occurred in 1957 and 1959 respectively. I do not know if this is personal or whether it is hereditary.

He was awarded KBE (Knight of the British Empire) and the title "His Highness" by the HM the Queen Elizabeth II.

The titles of prince and princess, which are claimed by children of the Aga Khan by virtue of their descent from Shah Fath Ali Shah of the Persian Qajar dynasty, were recognized as courtesy titles by the British government in 1938.[1] - from this website under Prince Aly Khan.

The style of H.R.H. is nonsense. To be 'Royal' you must be the head of state of a recognised country. The Aga Khan is the head of a religious sect. The style which is recognised in the United Kingdom and elsewhere is 'His Highness'. Therefore the intro should be modified accordingly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The style of HRH is not a nonsense. Aga Khan is the holder of the Title HRH. To be 'Royal' what necessary is to belong to a Royal family. And the thing which u said "Head of the State", i would like u to know that the Aga Khan, in every country of the World, holds the protocol of Head of the State. Enlarge the box where Rank, Name etc are written because in the end two boxes "religion and residence" are hidden. I would also like to put some new fresh & clear picture of Aga Khan on the top of the Article. Also put the flag of the Aga Khan in somewhere in article, and put the Crest of the Aga Khan in the Styles Bar.

---

Usually, royal titles are not hereditary. So, any claim that the royal titles given to previous Nizari Ismaili Imams are hereditary and apply to the current Nizari Ismaili Imam should be backup up with evidence. Please furnish such evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that royal titles given to previous Nizari Ismaili Imams also apply to the current Nizari Ismaili Imam.

Alysomji (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Silent Prince Of Islam

HH The Aga Khan is also known as the "Silent Prince Of Islam" because of his services to Muslim Ummah. Also a book titled "Dunya-e-Islam Ka Khamosh Shehzadah" ("Silent Prince Of Muslim World" title: Urdu) was written by Syed Jah Jafferi (a Shi'a writer) in which he presents HH The Aga Khan as the silent prince.

countries

It says in the countries visited west africa. that is a region in africa with many countries FIX IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) This appears corrected 2011-12-07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.116.113 (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed December 2011

There have been several attempted deletions of sourced content.

I added content about finances of the Aga Khan commenting that a fraction comes from tithes, as quoted in the NY Times.

Additionally, I have added the sections personal finance, yacht, "mazhar" of god, and Bahamas dredging controversy. I have also contributed to the marriages and early life section.

I have attempted to adhere very strictly to the NPOV, and BLP polices of wikipedia, and would be happy to have corrections, changes, and suggestions. I would appreciate if large chunks of material is not deleted without reason or reference, and I would also appreciate additional information, such as referenced additional sources of income for example, as this would help to add a more complete picture.

I am happy to discuss the content I have added. I have also requested citations for other claims and content presented in the article.

Kind Regards, 67.193.116.113 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In the talk page for 4dpeace, some concerns about some contributions are raised and given as reasons for deleting the contributions. I will attempt to address them.

There is concern with the use of the source Akbarally Meherally. I do quote his book and some evidence backing his published books on his website. Mr. Meherally is a published author, and he is a former Ismaili who is writing about the practice of his former religion, for which the Aga Khan is the head. I have tried to quote him carefully, cross reference his sources where possible. For example with regards to both "Dasond" and "Mazher of God", I have presented additional sources. This is keeping with WP:BLP. I have written no direct criticism.

I have removed the line about his "fondness for cars" and replaced with material from the 1965 SI article observing him driving his Italian made car at over 100 mph in France.

I wrote about his 100 million GPB yacht for two reasons. 1) it is in the news as there is a dredging controversy over the environmental impact for a channel for the yacht in the Bahamas, and 2) it speaks to the lifestyle of the Aga Khan IV, and I cited sources.

I added material about his finances that I found, including the quote from the NY Times about a part coming form tithes of his followers. This is fair, in keeping with WP:BLP, and the NY times is the paper of record. You mentioned that I lack knowledge and am missing the picture. Then I ask, please add it to complete the picture and source it, do not simply delete it.

4d peace, I can say that I have not personally deleted anything you have written.

With regards to this dispute, the article should be balanced, not heap unfounded praise or criticism on the Aga Khan IV, and it should adhere to WP:BLP. I would appreciate any help in working towards that.

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did u wrote that he claims to be a, when the whole world knows, admit and says that he is a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad! U can google IT by yourself!

The 1983 saying of Aga Khan is also included in Wiki Quotes!

---

Not sure who made the above comment ("The 1983 saying...").

Aga Khan IV claims to be descendant of Prophet Muhammad. No evidence has ever been furnished to support this claim of his. It's not something that can be proven and is thereby questionable at best, unfortunately.

Alysomji (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Ismaili Imams have come down in an unbroken line in direct descent from Prophet Muhammad. Judge Russel upheld the direct descent claim of His Highness the Aga Khan III in a British High Court and endorsed his claim as the 48th legitimate successor to the Prophet as authentic. Whether, one believes it or not is his/her free choice. Myshare (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

MyShare, I stand by my statement there is no evidence to support that Aga Khan is a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. There is as much evidence to show that he is not a descendant of Prophet Muhammad as to to show that he is a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, in other words. Any study of the genealogy of Nizari Ismaili imams suggests there are sizeable gaps in the history of the chain of the imamate that are difficult to explain and suggest the Aga Khan may not at all be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (knowingly or unknowingly). See this story, for example: http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0910.html

If you have any evidence that Aga Khan is a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, other than simply statements that are not based on anything other than the verbal claim of Aga Khan himself, then please share. No evidence was presented with regard to Aga Khan's genealogy in the Haji Bibi case. Justice Russell had no interest in who Aga Khan descended from. The reason for that is probably because who Aga Khan descends from is difficult to prove and, also, because the Haji Bibi case had nothing to do with who Aga Khan was a descendant of. Furthermore, millions of people claim to be direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad, so Aga Khan's claim is far from unique.

Alysomji (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

Several registered editors have been removing large parts of this article without proper explanation or discussion, and the most recent one has now been blocked. Now an IP (registered in Pakistan) has been removing the same material. While I can appreciate that some people might wish to remove parts of this article, blanking without consensus and edit-warring over it is not the way to go about it - once any unexplained removals have been challenged and reverted, they must be discussed here on the Talk page first and only redone if there is a consensus. I have now protected the article against unregistered editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see above. I do have given valid reasons. Think about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.86.55 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to actually get a consensus before you can make your changes, especially once they have been contested -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my last edit which I undid. I made an error in trying to search the for various references. I meant to search the text for "mostmerciful", not place it in the description. I plan to work on some reference clarifications and submit a suggested improvement.

Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I implemented initial reference improvements, including better citing the book by Meherally. I made no substantial changes. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to references looks like a good thing to do :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I erased some lines about dasond which you said is the part of income of Aga Khan because I wanted u to know that it is not income of Aga Khan but a religious obligation which is performed by Ismaili Muslims in terms of Quranic Verses. Income of Aga Khan comes from many other sources i.e most important, AKFED etc.

Also removed the lines about his cars, because as u know the article was published in 1964. He don't drives cars neither he has fondness of cars! How come that he has fondness of cars and there is not a single picture or video of Aga Khan driving fast cars??

Most important thing is that the 'Most Merciful' website is not a reliable website and same to that Meherally! We should only consider neutral websites and views, not controversial. As far as the Concern of Mazhar of God is the issue, i also removed and added material which is correct and based on reality. But first of all you notice some lines I'm writing here: Imam is not Mazhar of God, but Mazhar of Reflection of God, i repeat Reflection of God! You are giving totally wrong information to viewers. He is not Mazhar of God but Mazhar of NOOR of God, and that which is said by inspecting a Hadith that i wrote in the content which you removed. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation. Hadith is very common and reference is also here http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/imamali7.asp

As far as the topic of reciting the Dua in which ismailis, this and that! Again i would like you to know that Ismailis in Dua Pray to Noor(Reflection) of Imam of the Time & not to a person. Since the Imam, according to the hadith, possesses Noor of God therefore their pray is to Noor of Imam which is Noor of God! Please understand & get the page free for readers !

(talk) 7:40, 27 December 2011 (GMT)

Hi. Firstly, the article is still free for readers - it is just semi-protected against editing in order to prevent what clearly looked like a POV-battle including the unexplained removal of sourced content. Now that you have explained what you wish to remove from the article, please wait for others to respond and wait for a consensus supporting you before you make your changes again. I don't know anything about the subject myself, so I can't help on the content decision - I can really only act in an admin capacity. But if nobody responds in a few days, we can ask for help/opinions at a relevant project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant to free the viewers to edit the page, now that there are valid reasons which are absolutely correct! And sure lets wait, as u said.

(talk) 9:20, 27 December 2011 (GMT)

OK, I understand what you mean. But yes, we have to wait for discussion and consensus now. And if that doesn't happen soon, I'll be happy to help look for other people who might assist -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Jan 4 modification 2012

I added a modification in hopes of working towards resolving the dispute. I added [[1]].

I did the following:

• Changed to the title to "divine nature", as "noor" and "mazhar" were disputed by 4dpeace above. Feel free to suggest another title. I think divine nature communicates more in English than Noor and Mazhar. Based on the references I looked up, Mazhar is stated in the Encyclopedia of Ismailism, and on an official report, whereas Meherally uses both Mazhar and Noor in his book.
• I removed reference citing Meherally' comments from his website as he was a source disputed by 4dpeace, but I left in a reference to Meherally's published book, as published books are valid references according to WP:BLP.
• I added several references showing some history of the "divine nature" of the Aga Khan in the, and additional corroborating other references. The one quote from H.S Morris deals with what he calls East African Khoja Ismaili's, whereas Asini deals with Khojas of Indo-Pakistan,.

Kind Regards,

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please add the latest honorary degree 'Doctor of the University', which the Aga Khan received for his service to humanity on 13 January, 2012, from University of Ottawa, Canada.

(talk) 2:36, 15 January 2012 (GMT)

Hi 4dpeace,

I believe you can edit the page if you are logged in. I am not an administrator however. I'm just a person editing. I reckon I'm the one that added some content you may not have initially liked. I did try to modify it to make it both neutral and I tried to follow wp:blp. I believe the concern was over the deletions.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Self published book A. M. Trust

Earlier on, I added citations from the book "Understanding Ismailism" by A. Meherally.

This book and author A. Meherally appears to be controversial. For example, 4dpeace complained about Meherally's work above. It has now been pointed out by Rallyeye that the book is self published. I double checked this, and I cannot find anything not written by A. Meherally published by A.M. Trust from Burnaby and I have to agree that the book appears self published.

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest honorary doctorate

Please add the latest honorary degree 'Doctor of the University', which the Aga Khan received for his service to humanity on 13 January, 2012, from University of Ottawa, Canada.

(talk) 5:30, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

DEVINE

In an excellent interview decades ago on " CBC Man Alive", HH Prince Karim Aga Khan commented on '"DIVINITY IN ISLAM"' . If only I can get help to obtain the video & it's transcript from The Canadian Broadcster's archive.. Someone - Please help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerir (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You can check your local library. Asani's article is available for free and provides an interesting overview of Khoja history. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm mistaken it is not available for free. You will have to check with your library or pay for access.FordPrefect1979 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

html comment regarding divorce

The following was contained in html comment tags under the article

Note that both articles mention the pending divorce (the first article notes a tabloid faked a part of a threatened settlement, but the actual pending divorce itself is true), and there is no article I have found that says the divorce is no longer pending and that they are already divorced, or that they have stopped divorce proceedings.

I removed it from the html and added it here FordPrefect1979 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Various Laudatory Unsourced Material

How long is the various unsourced material that continually lauds the Aga Khan going to stay there?

For example: "It is this commitment to man's dignity and relief of humanity that inspires the Ismā'īlī Imāmat's philanthropic institutions. Giving of one's competence, sharing one's time, material or intellectual ability with those among whom one lives, for the relief of hardship, pain or ignorance is a deeply ingrained tradition which shapes the social conscience of the Ismā'īlī Muslim community."

Such words seem highly promotional and non-neutral. They are also not cited.

Best, Alysomji (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to ultimately replace such passages with specifics. Specific verifiable examples of giving or helping would be nice. The principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR apply here and in my opinion the above passage is not verifiable or neutral in its current state. I would prefer to see specifics and statements of facts with references. However, it is my opinion that this page has improved over the last few months.

Kind Regards,

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)